Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 21, 1984. PAGE 10 <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 />thorof are 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 />buileing permit. Mabusth stated that it is the timing <br />of the tinal 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 posit4nn on privacy <br />fences in lakeshore zones, she would tend to review <br />each case individually. <br />Callahan stated that the timing of 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 thorof are the right <br />to put a full -privacy, 6' fence. <br />Kelley stated that the 6' fence goes parr.' down <br />Eastlake Street so only part of the fence is � Dng 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 felt 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 />Maousth 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 />f enc:e would have to be to block the lights f rom cars at <br />night. Goetten asked Mr. Burton if the fence could be <br />replaced with landscaping. <br />