PCAgenda_07Oct23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would assume it is adjacent to the sidewalk. The city attorney responded that there could have been many reasons why this provision was originally added to the code. Allowance for snow removal might be one, but it is unknown at this date why the required setback was originally placed in the code. The provision has been part of the code for many years. It is something the City could reconsider but it is on the books at this time. Haudy Kazemi, 1879 Tatum, said he was also curious about the ordinance and thought perhaps it should be reconsidered. He felt the nature of the fence should be taken into consideration. Jo Behm, 1417 California, said she would like to see the right-of--way fence setback left in the code. She is concerned that granting a variance after the fact sets a bad precedent and said she saw no hardship in the case. Ron Shaw, 1447 California, asked how far the fence would have to be moved. The answer from staff was approximately 4 inches at one end and 8 at the other. Lynanne Warren repeated her concerns about a perceived deterioration of neighborhood quality. The applicant, Sandra Roth, 1423 California, spoke at considerable length. She addressed other fences in the city, also walls and hedges, and took her neighbors to task, individually and as a group, for their opposition to improvements and changes she is making on her • property and the other property she owns at 1410 Larpenteur. She insisted that she had not been informed of the requirements of the code and that staff had not told her she needed to stop building the fence. She said the fence only needed to be moved 2 to 4 inches and that she wasn't going to get rid of it, which is what she said the neighbors want. Jo Behm came to the podium again to answer certain statements made by the applicant. Then, as no one else came forward to speak, the Commissioner Rodich declared the hearing closed. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Commission discussion was opened. Commissioner Noble began by questioning the value of the existing ordinance. Commissioner Watkins also questioned the purpose of enforcing such a small margin. Mr. Salzberg said the amount of the error/violation does not matter. He also suggested reasons other than snow removal why the requirement might be in the code. For instance, it might be to allow access and foot traffic around extensive excavation in the boulevard and sidewalk area. Mr. Rodich expressed reservations about approving a variance sought as "forgiveness" rather than "permission." Several commissioners agreed with the essential findings: no uniqueness to the property and no hardship in requiring the letter of the code to be met. Ms. Jones agreed that she did not use the words "cease" or "stop" on her visit to the fence in progress, but she stated that she clearly told the applicant and contractor that the fence was illegal where it was sited and that it would have to be moved. She assumed most people would not interpret this as permission to go ahead. • Commissioner Lukermann moved, Commissioner Salzberg seconded, that the Commission recommend denial of the variance, adopting staff findings of fact. Discussion was called for. There was additional discussion, including the possibility of re-evaluating this ordinance as City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of August 28, 2007 -Page 2 of 3