Laserfiche WebLink
. '{cs y�' <br /> ' � . <br /> =� �� . <br /> r ' x'� <br /> �`:� <br /> �832 Hehl <br /> ' <br /> Paqe 3 <br /> Current Statns of 1►ence Strnctuse <br /> ".�` Z have been advised by both the applicant and Mr. Bcrto� that <br /> discussions have continued between them in a hope to reach a compromise <br /> but to no avail. A aixteen foot section (SectionA-B) has been removed <br /> ' in an attempt by Burton to provide Hehl with a view of the lake. <br /> f ,Sect ion 8 throuqh C of the frnce oriqinally ran to mid yard of the fourth <br /> house in on Eastlake Street. The fence has been removed along the � <br /> fourth houaea' reaz yard and at the third house reaz yard, a section of <br /> the fence has been trinuned down ta a 3.S feet Aeight. <br /> Reviev of appeal Petition <br /> Mrs. Hehl has filed a petition claiwinq that thv subject fence blocks <br /> her view of Lake Minne.onka (No. 12 o�p„plat a�ap, Exhibit D) resultinq in <br /> a diminution of property v� "`�� t, 1y�s included with her <br /> application several pie'7t� ' "', t�� it existed before the <br /> Stielow and I.AD plats. gi��'�'" , " <br /> a 1 ��. , ��►q Commission review, the <br /> pp icant has submit.t�d a �opd�aph. '_- �' �appinq of the Burton ynrd <br /> alonq County Road 84 desic�na'tit�r1rv�Cfor�s aE ditch and at yard level <br /> confirminq the 2' to 4'�'rise. <br /> I have reviewed the ordinances with Mrs. Nehl and ahe concurs that the <br /> fence conforms in its placement but not at the present heiqht along the <br /> section that runs along County Road B4 where the qrade was raised 3' to <br /> �' . She notes 3pecifically Section 10.03 Subd 15fd) "fences not to <br /> exceed a height of six feet above grade." The applicant claims she <br /> would have no problem Nith the fence if it were placed at the exi8tinq <br /> qrd�ie. <br /> Once again, this sFction is not ap�+licable in this instance. �' <br /> Review of Cradinq i Pillinq � <br /> The f i na 1 qrad i nq wou 1�; i � <br /> . ppcar to have exceeded what was shown in the <br /> qr�ic2inq plan. Fillinq and qrading was continucd further wegt along <br /> the north side in lin� with the second lot on Eastlake street (Lot 22 on � <br /> enclosed plit map). Th.� final qrading was approved by the inspeCtion r; <br /> scafi nr rh� tin,�1 Si t� inspection. This is a typical occurrence at a ` <br /> fin,�l inspection. Scaff's job is toassure thet chanqea in elevations � <br /> on a prop�rty will nor cr�nte drainage problems for neighborinq ! <br /> proprr•ti�s. Th�City F.nqinFer confirms in his report dated Auquat 22, ;; <br /> 19H4 that qrac?inq along the fence line will not create any drainaqe <br /> problems alonq County Road 84 {See Exhibit R). Gradinq or chtfnqes ia <br /> elevations is not the issue in this r��iew. The fence as a non- ��, <br /> encroachment (A-B) --thc ordinancea clearly daesn•t refer to chanqea �'`` <br /> in qradr. The Ccnce as �n accessary structure (B-C)--qradinq did not � `': <br /> affect drain�ge t.o neiqhborinq properties nor did the fetfCe e11d <br /> additional 9raciF exce�d 30 fret in hright. T�Se timing o[ the fene�► ;F <br /> construction and th� tinil qr.�dinq h�s creaied the hard feelinq and � _r <br /> misund�rstan�linq. # <br /> . ,_ <br /> The 6oird of App�als was aks�d to m�ik� a r�±consideraf.ion on the <br /> followinq issu�s: (rcvicw Exhibit O) �:`�:' <br /> '.; <br /> :::y{;;; <br /> •, <br /> ,.,_ ,. .. <br /> T. .� •,_ , � <br /> � . ,. . . .. . . , . .,, , � , . �.,., .. ,. , <br />