Laserfiche WebLink
MINOTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19. 1985. PAGE <br />«950 ROVEGNO continued <br />Mr. Rovegno explained his purpose of the proceedinas with <br />Hennepin County which were brought up by Norma Godfrey He <br />then went on to explain his many reasons forerec^In^tSe <br />t VO ^^®spassing, litter & dumping, physical <br />oarkina^ assault, vandalism, road noise, speeders & illegal <br />parking, and screens him from zoning code violations Mr <br />there\o protect <br />thafVo Lo ® major thoroughfare. Mr. Rovegno statedthat he has tried to grow bushes but the salt kills them Mr <br />Aci;::!^?str?t'^^^^ the approv'arof \JeTon?JgCounty, Dept, of Transportation, <br />Hennepin County Board, and the decree of the <br />prudence in this matter. He also noted <br />erected this fence, he has not had any of the problems he previously stated. ^ <br />the issue before the Planning <br />Commission is to determine whether Code Section 10.03 <br />Subdivision 15 (C) applies only tr^ear yardrwhich abu^ a <br />major thoroughfare and not lakeshore front yards that abut a <br />major thoroughfare; and that his lot is subject to standards <br />lo??.^ lakeshore lot owners si^cethe lot IS divided by a public road. <br />Mr. Rovegno cited Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and then <br />two diagrams showing typical front & rear yards^of <br />lakeshore properties. Mr. Rovegno stated that he felt the <br />intent of this section of the code was to provide Pr^ <br />?iloJough1arl entrlngad by a majo^ <br />Regarding the viewing rights by neighboring lots. Mr <br />Rovegno stated that his lot is a conti|ucus riparTan iTt'. <br />Hf; "°«9no quesgoned why the City has taken action against <br />his fence when there are numbers of other fences, which he <br />submitted 11 photos of such fences. which he <br />For record, Phil Kaley, 1395 Brown Rd. S., was present for <br />is natter. There were no other comments from the public. <br />Mabusth advised the Planning <br />Commission of commission member Ke 1 I ev ' s opinion on t-hic <br />aSolT*^ denying the appeals application because lots like^the <br />applicant s are unusual and special requiring individual <br />review. This specific section of the o^Sinanle Ca^iever <br />designed to cover lakeshore lots divided by a Sr <br />iui p?oMe: of the obW^Ss <br />Commission member Sime stated that he felt staff has acted <br />correctly noting his agreement with the fence being a Public <br />Nuisance per Section 9.22 and he would deny the appeal