Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 22, 1984. PAGE 3 <br />4872 BRECKENRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. <br />1. Paymrr.! of a $225 sewer unit charge with building <br />permit application. <br />2. Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 84 and <br />51 as shown on plat. <br />3. Designation and dedication of 20' drainage <br />easements along east and south property lines. <br />4. Payment of park fee for newly created lot at $200. <br />5. Access to new lot must be approved by Hennepin <br />County Highway Department --access permit must be <br />submitted with building permit application. <br />Motion, Ayes (7), Nays (0). <br />PENCE ORDINANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />9:50 - 9:51 PM Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the affidavit of <br />publication. No one was present in the audience for <br />this public hearing. Mabusth stated that Council has <br />requested that the fence ordinance be revised. <br />Mabusth stated that Council wanted grade changes with <br />height-Eombina tions addressed along major thorough- <br />fares and to determine if privacy fences constructed <br />per accessory standards require filling limitations. <br />Sime suggested that no fence should be allowed to go <br />beyond the front line of the house down to the lake. <br />Sime stated that the fence should be constructed at <br />existing grade before development occurs. <br />Rovegno stated that grading and fence construction <br />limits should be considered in with total height so that <br />the fences, trees, shrubs, or berms can be constructed <br />or installed, but that the combination of both could not <br />..�exceed the height of 6' above the crown of the road, so <br />that the net change in the combination of fill and fence <br />is no more than 6' above the crown of the road. <br />Kelley stated that the fence should be constructed at <br />existing grade and that no alteration in the grade <br />should be made. Kelley stated that the fence should <br />be constructed at the grade before development started <br />but a fence no higher than 6' at existing grade. <br />Callahan suggested not calling the fence an accessory <br />structure and then you wouldn't have this problem. <br />Callahan stated that it should be part of the code and <br />list performance standards for fences rather than fall <br />under the category of an accessory structure. <br />Sims volunteered to check with other communities and <br />cities to see how they categorise fences and what thei <br />fence ordinances are and to obtain copies or such <br />ordinances. <br />