HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/11/2025 Item 4a, Hunter
Logan Hunter <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Public Comment - Planning Commission Item 4.a (6/11/2025)
Dear Chair Houghton & Commissioners,
I am taking a moment to comment on item 4.a with a couple of observations that should be relevant to your
review of this appeal.
First, the appellants own photographs, obviously taken from within their residence, clearly illustrate the lack of
privacy available to the Minnicks in their home and backyard, and demonstrate why this appeal should be
denied. The Minnick’s request for a fence height exception would allow for reasonable use of their backyard
while reconciling issues related to topography and privacy - the exact circumstances identified in the Zoning
Regulations as appropriate for a Director’s Action.
Second, as an exception to the standards in the zoning regulations, the matter before you is an exercise in
discretion. Staff approved the Minnick’s initial request for the West side of their property. On the East side, the
subject of this appeal, a modification to the initial request was granted as an apparent olive branch to balance
two competing interests - the Brandum’s concern for views and vegetation, and the Minnick’s concern for the
private and reasonable use of their property. Even so, in arriving at this compromise, staff seems to largely
discredit the Brandum’s concerns and validate the Minnick’s.
Figure 3 in the Staff Report illustrates that the exception as granted does not fully address the Minnick’s
privacy concerns. If the appellants concerns are not objectively valid, it is exceedingly reasonable for the
Minnicks to agree to a limited approval of the requested East boundary hedge exception, even if that
configuration remains unacceptable to their neighbors.
Please deny the Brandum’s appeal, and allow the Minnicks to enjoy their property as should be reasonably
expected by any resident in this City’s single-family neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Logan Hunter
1