My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 09/23/2021
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2021
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 09/23/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 10:48:04 AM
Creation date
11/4/2021 9:26:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/23/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Motion by Commissioner Peters, seconded by Commissioner VanScoy, to approve the consent <br />agenda as presented. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners Peters, VanScoy, Anderson, <br />Dunaway, Gengler, and Walker. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMISSION BUSINESS <br />6.01: Public Hearing: Consider Request for a Variance to Fence Height for 15337 Nowthen <br />Blvd NW (Project 21-133); Case of Kristina Myhers <br />Public Hearing <br />Chairperson Bauer called the public hearing to order at 7:02 p.m. <br />Presentation <br />Planning Technician McCann presented the staff report stating that staff recommends adopting <br />Resolution #21-253 granting a variance to fence height requirements for the front yard on the <br />subject property. <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked if this would be a variance to the height for the fence and whether <br />the gate required a variance. <br />Planning Technician McCann clarified that the gate is permitted, and the variance would only <br />apply to the requested height of the fence. <br />Commissioner VanScoy commented that a variance does not set precedent and therefore wondered <br />why other previous fence variances were referenced. <br />Chairperson Bauer commented that he believed that reference was made to show that it would not <br />alter the character of the neighborhood as there is a similar fence in the neighborhood. <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that staff is not saying the variance has to be granted <br />because the neighbor has one but was simply stating that the fence would not alter the character of <br />the neighborhood. She displayed the driveway as shown on Google maps and noted that it appears <br />to be a road and therefore the property owners have a lot of vehicles coming down their driveway. <br />Citizen Input <br />Kristina Myhers, applicant, stated that they would like the fence for the safety and security of their <br />home and to reduce the noise from the roadway. She stated that since the land use sign was placed <br />in their yard, they have had 27 vehicles go through that circle of their driveway. She stated that <br />they typically have three to five vehicles per week coming down their driveway. She stated that <br />the fence would also help to keep wildlife out of their yard and keep their children safe. <br />Planning Commission/ September 23, 2021 <br />Page 2 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.