Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Lemke stated in his view the City is asking for trouble if they have an ordinance that is difficult to <br /> enforce. Lemke stated if the ordinance makes a lot of people upset, he is not sure the City should pursue <br /> it. <br /> Landgraver asked if Commissioner Lemke is suggesting grandfathering the trees or whether he is against <br /> the ordinance. <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Landgraver noted some citizens have asked the City to do something about this and that the City Council <br /> directed Staff to take a look at it. Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission has a concern <br /> about whether it should be grandfathered or not. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if existing nuisance conditions are grandfathered, this is a waste of time, but at the same <br /> time it is a difficult position to put the City in because there are many residents who are then stuck duking <br /> it out on their own. Schoenzeit commented he is not sure whether the City is throwing a weight or a lift <br /> raft at these situations, but that grandfathering would gut the ordinance. <br /> Lemke and McGrann indicated they disagree with that. <br /> Schoenzeit stated simply because the material changes and is not a fence,the abuse can go wild. In <br /> addition, a fence would stay in the same position but a living wall would grow and expand. Schoenzeit <br /> Page 26 of 29 <br />