08-14-1979 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. � ' � Page 5 � � ' � 5. A1 Olson has said that the Holzeze ould have a fence in the ' place this fencc/vall is in up to �2' hlgh without vaziance and vithin 75' of the laY.eshore; Glen Cook has said that the proposed dreinage system is a ueeful component to the fence/wall thc iiolzcrs r+ant to hav� and vill appzopziate�y carry off excess etorm vatez (i.e. that which does not soaY, into the ' grass); 6. No precedent vould be set by allo�+ing the Holzers to have this fence/vall in this location because: , a. The vall is simply a fence like other fences in the neighborhood and can be on the property line and within 75' of the lake (i['s not a structure); or b. Even if one finds it is different fzom n fence, it is still not a precedent setting because: i. it is vithin the �2' height limit; and 11. it's on an extremely steep hill nnd designed to prohibit demonstzated earth slippage in tne area, and to prevent storm vater run-off damage (both to neighbors and vis-a-vis earth slides) and therefore necessity calls for this fence on these grounds and the steepness of the hill, the nearness of the hill to Lake Minnetonka, and the absence of space are unique properties of this site found on few other sites. 7. The risk of real damaae to the Holzers' lot and even to the ; house is very great because of the foregoing factors and supports i the necessity for the fenee/vall. I Finally, the Holzers offer to do the following to compromise the matter: 1. From the front edge o� the Smerling bathroom inland and the Dovney side from drop off point inland, the vall will be as is but �.rith no pillars: 2. From the edge of the Smer�ing bathroom lakeward, the vall will come dovn t�+o blocks in height all across the front and around to the Dovney side. 3. The �+all vill be filled on both sides. � �. On Ghe outside of the wall on the Smerlanaenseehed e ofearbor i and on the lakeside, 9 bathroom forvard, vill be planted to conceal vitae 36' tall, 40" on centezs, the vall fzom the Smerlings' property and fzom Lake Minnetonka. 5. The drainage system as originally planned �+ill be installed subject to a Hinnehaha Watershed District permit for the ; - catch basins. 6. The 3andscape plan would be subject to City staff approval. 7. The drainage plan vould be subjec[ to Glen Cook's app=oval and to a ri_C.W.D. permit. 8. The Holzers would agreerovallto6�+orkeis�obta�nedtby AUgust 21, ' November 1, 1979 if app 1979 from the City. Ouz interpretation of the Code is that: 1. 5531.433 and 31.�34 allow fences up to 42' tall. ( 2. No setback from the propezty line is necessary, though the i fence is set back 2' on the Smerling side_ � 3, p� fYn�c�Sisandt75'Stou250 ehazdcovez3zules don'thapplyre the i 4. No fill has been brought onto the site, but if it is �+e i concede that531.700 requires a permit. No dirt has been dumped over the embankment intentionally; all dirt is needed on the uphill side. we don't agree that 531.830 prohibits the fill around this fence. � Nevertheless the Holzers vish to cooperate vith the City and compromise and settle the outstanding matters and so offez to apply for and get tne permits and vaziances necessary to complete the work as outlined above. The Holzers believe this,Whole matter has been blown out of Proportion. The fence is 99t beneficial to them; both neighbors for earis �in9a9e and zun-off control reasons; the City because the property made more valuable and secure; and Lake Hinne�on�akeecertainhthe Lake landowner is �+illing to spend a lot of money