Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes — October 11, 2007 <br />Page 2 <br />Bailly did not agree with the requirement of the ordinance that allowed equipment to be stored in <br />a driveway no closer than ten feet from the curb. She said a provision should be added that <br />would allow it from Memorial Day to Labor Day and be setback 30 feet from the curb at all <br />other times of the year. She also said the setback from the side yard could get very tight if both <br />garages were next to each other. <br />McRoberts said the ordinance was very generous and he asked why lakeshore properties were <br />exempt. <br />Bailly, who was on the committee, responded they received a lot of opposition from lakeshore <br />property owners, and many of those living on the lake had many recreational items. <br />McRoberts pointed out that most lakeshore lots were less than one acre, and he thought it was a <br />gross inconsistency. <br />Bear pointed out that residents living on the lake generally had docks and lifts that were stored <br />on the property and have less room for storage of recreational vehicles. <br />McRoberts suggested specifying where certain lakeshore equipment could be stored. <br />Kleissler thought it was generous to allow storage of vehicles in the front yards, and she asked if <br />anyone spoke to the fire department regarding the one -foot side yard setback. She said she liked <br />the brochure. <br />Bailly said the Committee had not spoken to the fire department on the setback. They were <br />trying to allow the storage of vehicles on the side of garages where the garages were setback 10 <br />feet from the side lot line. <br />Moore said the ordinance looked okay, but he liked Bailly's recommendation regarding the <br />setback. <br />Schumann questioned the appearance of the neighborhoods. <br />Bear said the City received some complaints about vehicles in front yards and parked on streets. <br />He said he felt the vast majority of residents should be able to comply with the draft ordinance. <br />Schumann asked if any of the subcommittee members in the audience wanted to speak. <br />Dan Milbrandt, 13951 Fountain Avenue North, questioned the one foot setback when homes had <br />two foot overhangs. He was not in favor of the ordinance and could not understand why lake <br />lots were exempt. He agreed big vehicles should be stored on the side of the house and not be on <br />the grass. He said he had 3/4 of an acre and it doesn't affect him much but does affect his <br />neighbors. He said people live in Hugo because there are fewer restrictions. <br />Don Rieck, 19891 Flay Avenue North, said he has lived in Hugo for 30 years and he was on the <br />Committee. He said he owns a 32 -foot travel trailer and knew he would have to find a place to <br />park it when he moved from a five acre lot into a townhome. He said he felt the ordinance was <br />