11-25-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 10. The City has staked a line parallel to the shoreline out of the required visibility distance from the intersection and asked the applicant to relocate the 200'+/- of fence at t;.e legal 3 1/2 feet height but the applicant declined. 11. The Flar;ning Commission asked the applicant to reduce the length of the �00'+/- fence and to specify the boundaries or limits of the lakeshore area that required privacy screening. The applicant refused to -educe the length of the fence. 12. In an agreement dated December 1P, 1984 between the Hennepin Crjunty Board and the applicant a section entitled General advises thin following: "Any new construction on any of the above easement areas shall conform to any applicable laws, regulations and ordinances including the obligation to submit construction plans to the City of Orono for its approval." The applicant claims that he received confirmation from the 7..onina Administrator that he could legally erect a privacy fence along the County road within the lakeshore portion of his property. It is standard procedure for the Orono staff to sight all privacy fence -iocations placed alonq County roadways even though permits may not be required because of the safety factor. 13. The plight of the applicant is due to circcrostances created by them applicant. 14. To approve variajives for a privacy fence at the present location and at the proposed height would establish a negative precedent in thc> review of similar applications. 15. The Applicant claims the fence provides protection for his lakeshore property from vandalism. The five foot high privacy fence mav, in fact, Nerve 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