11-25-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Allowance of a 3 112 foot fence - I- ,.ju may recal 1 and iE noted in te _a_ttached memo the Council was requested to give staff direction as to whether it felt it inte .ded to allow a 3 112 foot fence be allowed in the 0-75 foot zone. It was the direct'on o staff at that poin'. that the Council had inten, d to allow such and subsequent to that staff drafted fo. the Planning Commission's consideration at their August meeting language to spi:c1fical ly allow such fences _n the 0-75 together with allowing lock boxes fcr lake shore properties seperated by i horoughfare. Thes,, together with several other amendments were tabled for lack of tir..a at the August Planning Commission meeting. Part of them were considered at the September and October meetings and again tabled at the November meeting because of a lack of time. F r i o r to the June interpretation given by Council staff felt that they had direction regarding the allowance of 3 112 foot high fences within the 0-75 based on the previously considered Holzer application. In response to the City Council's request at their last meeting City Attorney Kathleen Blatz has reviewed our current ordinance and it is her initial opinion, to be followed up by a written opinion Monday night, that as the ordinance's currently exist a 3 112 foot fence is not permitted within the 0- 75. Aj_plica' le Fees - As was noted at the last Council meeting the applicant has paid $25.00 for process when the appropriate few for an after the fact variance is a bouble fee for a total �, $300.00. The reason Mr. Rovegno was allowed to submit ar. application accompanied only by a $25.00 fee was a decision on rr.y part in an effort. tc get Nr. Rovegno to even su')mit his application rather than going through the process of ticket issuance and prosecution. :his was initially allowed as staff' had already done much of the work in preparation rega fling this case and that staff would do little more preparation and presentation of the issue to both Planning Commission and City Council. While realizing that it was both inappropriate in the general case and specifically inappropriate in this occasion to offer a reduced fee in an effort to r-esolve the matter, it is my recommenlation that Mr. Rovegno no - - charged the full $300.00. I do eel that T have made a deal wiL.i ;* that I would recommend Council accept. To be assured however, t will not undertake such action without prior Council approval in the future. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT - At CouncII's request staff has included a condition that a d harmie33 agreement be given by the api: .' ant as a p )rlition to granting the variance. The appl ir,ent ttas ind. ,uteri that he wi i 1 not, enter into such an agreement anri sinze part of the finding in the resolution is the Council does not feel that there is any publi- health. safety or welfare concerns that such a hold harmless agreement is unnecessary on his part. While they, may not acceording to our r-rdinan-Ps and tables be specj.fi- safety and sight distance protlems there may however be other public safety probl=-ms which we as 3tdff nave n( anticipate at this point.. ATTACHED r UMENTS - The fol lowing documents are attached f'..)r 1