11-25-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

18. Applicant has for a number of years been involved in City Government serving as an involved citizen, a planning commissioner and a chairman of the planning commission. Consistently and repeatedly Applicant's findings on Code interpretations have been upheld by both the City Council and in the courts. Applicant has been reappointed a third time as a Planning Commissioner, presumat)ly based on his expertise and efforts. 19. Based upon staff's advice of the intent, meaning, interpretation and iinplications of the changes C-.Noposed and subsequently enacted to Code Section 10.03 15(C), Applicant voted in favor of the changes proposed thereto. Absent the advice of staff Applicant would not have: A. Voted as a Planning Commissioner for the Cade Amendment, d. Entered into agreement with Hennepin County resolving Hennepin County District Court Case No. MC84-4503N, and C. Erected the fence. 20. Construction of fences do not require a building permit in the City of Orono. 21. If applicable, as Applicant maintains staff advised, subject fence meets the intent and language of Code Section 10.03 15(C) since: A. The fence is less than 6 feet in height, and B. The fence is along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot, and C. The lot fronts (as defined in the Code and by the Minnesota Courts) on a major thoroughfare, and o. The total height of the fence does not exceed 6 feet above the height of crown of the road. Thus meeting the performance standards of the section. the application, suggested by staff, i.e. this section applies to non - intersected Lakeshore lots, makes no sense. If the purpose of the sec- tion were to protect "front door" sides of houses on major thoroughfares it would not be limited to lake fii•onting lots. Applicant believes intent of t::ic section was specifically written for inter- sected lots which, absent fence have no lakeshore privacy. 22. Recau-,ti of the need to protect Applicant and his property from unrea u- nable interference with his property rights and to resolve this matter, City Administrator, subject to this application being submitted, pro- mised Applicant to submit, with his and staff's approval and recommen- dation a Code amendment allowing a fence generally as described in this application which after approval thereof would not require the grant of variance,at the August Planning Commission meeting. In addition, City Administrator promised to recommend approval of this "variance/inter- pretation" application. Planning Commission has failed to act on Code Amen dru nt. City Administrator and staff have not made agreed upon recommendation.