10-21-1985 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of he nd ng MINUTES or THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGOsT 19, 1985. PAGE 6 #950 ROVEGNO continued is‘’whethe^r tp\ssu”bef ore th^Planni^ clii^sHonIS whether the amended ordinance dealt specificallv with lots that abut lakeshore and reared major th“roughfaL^or streets or did it deal with any kind of lakeshore yard that is in^iercepted by a major thoroughfare. Y^ra mat is Per Commission member Taylor's reauest 7oninr» Administrator Mabusth gave examples of Orono properties that fit closeJ^y to her interpretation of the ordinance: lots along Shadywood, the corner lot on Oxford Rd. McDonald mentioned the Pillsbury property is a good example. Administrator Mabusth contends that the problems is not dealing with the non-encroachment of yard requirements, but lakeshore setback requirements. equirements. Chairman Callahan noted that the Planning Commission has before them (this evening) another proposed amendment to the for them to consider. Callahan inquired wh-ther th^is hearing would be a waste of time if they were to approve the amendment. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the proposed amendment dealt only with fences 3-1/2 feet above the ground. expressed to staff that he would be willing administratively to relocate the fence, but as It stands the ordinance clearly permits the fence. Art Tourangeau, 2060 Spates Ave., stated that he felt the fence would create a hazard during the winter with snow build-up against the fence and the narrowness of the road when one wants to turn on Spates Ave, Lyle and Norma Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, were present for this matter. Norma Godfrey felt that the fence depreciates the value of their property, two sections of the fence have already been removed because of graffiti, the fence is dangerous, it is distracting to motorist,and blocks the view of the lake. Ms. Godfrey stated that she also believes this fence has been planned for some time and cited dates of filings and notices proving so. Ms. Godfrey also noted that taxpayers' monies have been spent on the court proceedings involved with Mr. Rovegno's threatened litigation with the County over the used right-of-way of County Rd. 15 and the out of court settlement granting Rovegno the right to erect a fence within the easement for road maintenance, and would like to see the fence removed. Chairman Callahan stated that the comments from the public are well taken, but the Planning Commission' s purpose at this point, is to decide whether Mr. Rovegno had the right to erect tne fence without a permit as the ordinance stands today.