My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-09-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
11-09-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2015 2:38:29 PM
Creation date
12/1/2015 2:32:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
352
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 19, 2015 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 13 of 17 <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if Commissioner Lemke is suggesting grandfathering the trees or whether he is against <br />the ordinance. <br /> <br />Lemke stated he is suggesting grandfathering the trees. Lemke noted that then raises the question of how <br />the City would know the trees are grandfathered. Lemke stated he is not sure how the City would <br />regulate that. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he has no problem moving forward with being more restrictive on living walls but that in <br />his view the retroactive piece is going to be difficult to determine. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the rights and rules for fences are very clear and that they should have applied from day <br />one. Schoenzeit stated someone should not be allowed to organically abuse someone’s property like this. <br />Schoenzeit stated even though the trees are beautiful, once the trees take off, they truly can be a nuisance <br />to the neighbors. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the question is who is able to call in about a nuisance. Schoenzeit stated in his view the <br />person complaining about the nuisance should be affected by the nuisance rather than living out of state <br />or out of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit noted Prior Lake requires the person calling in the complaint <br />undergoes the same sort of review on his property that he is complaining about. Schoenzeit stated it <br />should go both ways, which is different from what the City currently does. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he is not sure whether there is anything in the draft ordinance that says somebody’s view <br />has to actually be blocked in order for it to be considered a nuisance. Gaffron noted there are situations <br />where someone could have three trees in a row up by their house and they are technically violating the <br />average fence setback ordinance but not blocking lake views at all. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the question becomes from what part of the house are those views protected and is <br />someone allowed to have a 180 degree view from the side of the house. Gaffron asked whether it would <br />be considered a legitimate blockage if the side views are blocked. Gaffron stated there are so many <br />loopholes that could be found and that the whole idea of limiting vegetation is difficult to deal with. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.