Laserfiche WebLink
mMUTBS OF THE PlAMNlliG COmUSSIOH MBBTIIiG OF MAY 21, 1984.PAGE 10 <br />that <br />the <br />other <br />tated <br />this <br />r Rose <br />etten <br />i Area <br />tural <br />s such <br />eople <br />/ed in <br />tie bay <br />ienied <br />Road. <br />t 9:20 <br />inning <br />ide if <br />:ly. <br />idards <br />St the <br />tinent <br />L that <br />( of a <br />of the <br />It the <br />appear <br />:ary to <br />Ad€uns <br />verall <br />City's <br />stated <br />;e that <br />:ied in <br />ind has <br />Lng the <br />yet an <br />iss the <br />ire the <br />hat he <br />j grade <br />stated <br />plans. <br />#832 HARRIET HEHL Rovegno stated that if the owner had used the existing <br />grade and constructed the fence, the fence would not <br />have served its purpose. Rovegno stated that the <br />ordinance allows residents who live on a major <br />thorofare to have a 6' high fence. Rovegno asked what <br />is existing grade. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that staff would <br />interpret existing grade to be the grade established <br />with final site grade elevations approved with <br />building permit. Mabusth stated that it is the timing <br />of the final grading and the requirement to construct <br />the fence that has raised the issue of intent. <br />Mabusth added that although the ordinances clearly <br />permits the construction of the privacy fence along a <br />major thorofare irregardless of grade changes in <br />consideration of the Council's position on privacy <br />fences in lakeshore zones, she would tend to review <br />each case individually. <br />Callahan stated that the timing o^ the berming is not <br />important. Callahan stated that the grade^ as it <br />existed in the beginning is the grade at which the <br />fence should have been put. <br />Rovegno stated that the intent of the ordinance is to <br />allow someone who lives on a major thorofare the right <br />to put a full-privacy, 6' fence. <br />Kelley stated that the 6' fence goes partly down <br />Eastlake Street so only part of the fence is along a <br />major thorofare. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised the fence along <br />that lot line assumed the setback for an accessory <br />structure at 10' from the lot line. <br />Chairperson Goetten stated that she felc that staff <br />did interpret the ordinances correctly. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked if residents along <br />a major thorofare have lake view protection rights. <br />Mabusth stated that the ordinances address view rights <br />on lakeshore properties that abutt lakeshore with <br />placement of principal structures. <br />One neighbor noted that Mr. Burton is one individual <br />but that the fence affects the whole neighborhood. <br />Chairperson Goetten asked does a person have an <br />inherent right to historically view a lake when lots <br />become developed. Goetten asked if staff or Hennepin <br />County could do some type of study to see how high the <br />fence would have to be to block the lights from cars at <br />night. Goetten asked Mr. Burton if the fence could be <br />replaced with landscaping. <br />^1