Laserfiche WebLink
��r <br /> j:�zk>; <br /> �1832 Hehl _ . .,..,.:�.::,r <br /> Paqe 4 <br /> ` 1• Does the location of the fence conforw to a21 standarda <br /> a�," of the pertinent ordinances. <br /> Z• Does the height of the fence conform to all sta�dArds of <br /> the pertinent ordinanCes. <br /> 3. Has there been illeqal fillinq or signs of a delibcrate <br /> intent to viola:e the ordinancea of the Citp. <br /> The Boazd voted 4 to 2 makinq the fo2lowing findinq: <br /> To recoaunend to Council that the location of the fence confora�s to all � <br /> standarda of the pertinant ordtnances; that the heiqht ot the fence <br /> conforma to al l standerd���t��:ordinances j and that there has not been ,� <br /> illeqal fillinq or aiqns of a deliberate intent to violate the <br /> ordinaeces of the Cityj and tha statt'di,d interpret the code ro <br /> Motion. Ayes l�). , .; � P perly. <br /> k R�,.. �. <br /> The minor3ty opfn� ��, interit of the ordinances were <br /> violated. I would barv�, - q� ; � p�zt; Clearly the intent of the <br /> authors of the above.zet�erj��s� o������nce n�ade a distinction between � <br /> the type of privacy fencl� lorated along a county road and a rear side lot <br /> line. Aa Planninq Commiasion noted in the minutea of thsir meetinq, <br /> if a fence was constructed at the level of the ditch area, the fence <br /> would have aerved no purpose--fencea along major thorofarea if they <br /> are to provide privacy may require fil l that ia why the ordinance didn't <br /> refer to existing grade as the ordinance apecifically does aith side <br /> and rear yard privacy fences. � <br /> � � <br /> Aa for the other side of the qucstion of intent--review those minutes. �L' � <br /> Thia ataff is fully aware of Council's posftion and reluctance on the <br /> iaaue of privacy fences on lakeshore propertiee. Council is aaare of f <br /> what the ordinance� allow. The ordinances permit privacy fences juat <br /> like the one located at 405 Oxford and on surroundin ' <br /> Sutbbs Bay neiqhborhod--just Iook around. This staff willicontinue ;; <br /> to deny the �rection of similar fences untt l challenged by a reeident <br /> who asks for a copy of our ordinances. This is not a comfortable # <br /> po�ition. , <br /> �• <br /> Counci 1 11ct i on � � � : <br /> To conceptcally dN�y thc p�tition of Harriet Hehl concurring with the � ' � <br /> Planning Commissto�: recommcndations and direct att�ff to draft a <br /> resolution for action at your next meetin � , <br /> to schedule a public herrinq at the Plenninq Commisaton to consider <br /> � <br /> proposed amendm�nts of the fence ordinance and at Council's dfrective ` i: <br /> to address the f ilowi; q pofnts: <br /> p� <br /> 1• Privacy ; ��r�-es as �ccessory structurrt--Iimit to � <br /> sp�ci f i c ! i �;����1 footage or r.rc�udr. them f rom acceaaory <br /> structures to be qoverned by fence ordinaeces only. <br /> 2. If privary fences are to be allowed along County toada <br /> any �hat'r qu re q eater qr de rhanges muat ��et and <br /> hv th� ci rv. PP= �ved <br /> 3. r'Lc'� �tr- <br /> AL 9:30 AM on Friday, Auqust 24, 19A4, Art Burton aubmitt�d a <br /> paper which is attached for your re!view to the becit of p°�itton <br /> Your packet. <br /> . .: _ <br /> , �. .. , „; . <br /> . �„ , r -. , ti.,. ,,., .�.<�- ;.. a <br /> . ,� . , �n::,' i,. .: .,•. .t` ,� +, <br /> Y ..., :..... <br />