11-12-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC" NO. 10. The City has staked a li. ;arallel to the shoreline out of the required visi' city distance from the intersection and asked the applicant to relocate the 200'4/- of fence at the legal 3 1/2 feet height but the applicant declined. 11. The Planning Commission asked the applicant to reduce the length of the 200'+/- fence and to specify the boundaries or limits of the lakeshore area that required privacy screening. '"he applicant refused to reduce the length of the fence. 12. In an agreement g"llated December 18, 1984 between the Hennepin County Board ine. the applicant a section entitled General advises the following: "Any new construction on any of the above easement areas shall confor 1 to any applicable laws, regulations and or.dina.ic:�s including the obligation. to submit constructi.o.-i plans to the City of rl-..no for its approval." The applicant claims th. Zoning Administrator tha fence along -che Cour ty i his prop( Tt is sta t, sight 4' i privacy fc roadways even thou(lh per the safety factor. he received confirmation from the tie could legally erect a privacy ,ad within the lakeshore portion of dard procedure for the Orono staff ice locations placed along County its may not be required because of. 1.3. The plig.,c of the applicant is due to circumstances created by the applicant. 14. To approve variances for a privacy fence at the present location and at the proposed height would establish a negative precedent in the review of similar applications. 15. The applicant claims the fence provides protection for his lakeshore property from vandalism. The five foot high privacy fence may, in fact, serve to hide vandals from the view of adjacent neighbors and the police. 16. The privacy sought by the applicant can be achieved with a reasonable use of fencing or natural plantings. Page 4 of 7