01-16-1990 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE il467-BOMMBYBR CONTINUED fence would give them privacy from that loading platform. He said that the remaining portion of fence will give them privacy from the persons riding up on the tram. Kelley asked whether plantings could be used to serve the same purpose. Mr. Hommeyer replied that he did not think there was enough sunlight in that area to grow vegetation. He said if the property to the north put in plantings there would be enough sunlight. Kelley asked whether the neighbor to the north (Mr. Morse) was present this evening. Mabusth informed Kelley that he was not. Mrs. Byrne Peter indicated that she had been the neighbor to the north at the time that the Hommeyer's home was built. She said there was a lot of emotion and anger involved when that home was built. She presented pictures showing the building site and indicated that it was due to "miscommunications" that the cut in the land and the deck were allowed. Mrs. Hommeyer said that she and her husband and the City had been sued over that matter 9 years ago and the lawsuit was withdrawn. She said that the cut that was made at that time is not an issue now. Mrs. Hommeyer said that the deck has withstood a 100 year storm and was constructed in sucii a way to be as unobtrusive as possible. Mrs. Hommeyer added that the neighbor to the south, who is the most affected by the deck, has been in support of their efforts. Mabusth clarified that the cuts being referred to were the major cuts taken in certain setback areas. She said at the time they were done, there were no rules or regulations giving the building inspector any guidelines as to what was unusual grading. Since that time, the codes have been amended to provide direction regarding allowed excavation with building permits for residential construction. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend approve’ of the application for an after-the-fact variance for the deck and retaining walls, the hardship being the undo damage that would be caused if they are re.moved, and to recommend approval of the current request for a setback variance for the fence. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Cohen, Nay, Motion passed. Cohen indicated that he voted nay because he felt that the size of the deck should have been reduced and he questioned the privacy issue. Kelley concurred.