My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-14-1982 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
07-14-1982 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/7/2014 9:23:28 AM
Creation date
5/21/2013 10:43:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />Planning <br />Commission <br />July 1, 1982 <br />Johanson The Planner stated that this structure would have to be included <br />Variance in the shoreline ordinance. The Planner felt that a screen house <br />(Cont.) was probably less obtrusive than a boathouse. <br />Mr. DeLonais commented that a lot of boathouses and screen houses <br />might be objectionable. DeLonais commented that the number should <br />be held down. <br />Mr. Johanson stated that he was putting up a nice structure and did <br />not see where anyone would object. <br />Mr. Ducharme commented that he felt if the Council and Commission <br />dealt with this under a variance procedure, the City would have a <br />little better control around the lake. <br />Mr. French asked why the City should amend the ordinance to permit <br />these structures. French asked if it could be handled under a conditional <br />use permit so that the City could retain control. <br />The Planner stated that a conditional use permit would be the closest <br />thing the City could come to to considering each building on its own <br />merits. <br />Mr. DeLonais stated that the City wants control over what goes in around <br />the lake. Mr. French agreed that the City must maintain control. <br />French commented that the City permit a nice structure, but if the <br />structure does not meet City code, the City should be able to remove <br />it. <br />Mrs. Johanson commented that sometimes the cost of the structure is less <br />than the cost of the variance fees. <br />Mr. French stated that he was not in favor of a variance being required <br />for this structure or in the ordinance being amended to permit such <br />structures. Mr. French commented that he felt the best way to handle <br />these situations was to take each one on its own merits. <br />Mr. Menge commented that people should be allowed to get a little <br />enjoyment out of their property. <br />Mr. LeMay stated that a person should just be able to come in to the City <br />and inform them of what they want without having to go through a lot of <br />permits and variances. <br />Mr. Johanson informed the Commission that the structure cost him about <br />$200 in materials and about $285 in permit fees, variances fees and the <br />cost of a certificate of title. <br />The Planner stated that under the conditional use procedure in certain <br />instances when the procedures are lessen, the fee would be considerably <br />less. The Planner asked if the Commission had any objection to these <br />Page —2— <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.