11/19/1975 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

-2- NOVEMBER 19, 1975 The motion was seconded by Mr. Sheeran. Motion carried. The next item of business was a continuation of the variance request from Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Luger to erect a six foot stockade fence on their side lot line. This had been approved by the P&Z and the Council on October 15, 1975 and October 28, 1975 respectively. (Refer to page 2, paragraphs 6-10; page 3, paragph 1 of P&Z Minutes and Page 6, paragraph 10 & 11 of the Council Minutes for background) However, since the approval by the Council on October 28, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Francis L. Timmers who reside at 1541 LaMotte Drive, wrote a letter to the Minnesota State Department of Human Rights complaining that they had not been consulted about this fence and that is was in excess of what City Ordinance states. (Ordinance 56, Section 4.18 A -I) Mr. Luger was asked about the stat placement of this fence and stated that theywere 2x4 slats with approximately 3/4" between the slats. The fence is constructed so you cannot tell which side is the "poor" side of the fence. Mr. Luger stated they wanted this fence as an artistic backdrop for their rock garden. Mr. Sheeran said the type of fence was fine but felt that it was the height <f the fence that was causing the problems. Mr. Marier asked if the Lugers would be willing to either drop the first two section to the 3g feet as stated in the Ordinance or remove them alto- gether? Mr. Luger said either would be acceptable to them. Mr. Marier also asked Mr. Luger if he had attached his fence to the +.itility pole that is seen in the pictures he presented? Mr. Luger said yes he had but he didn't feel that it was causing any problems. Mr. Marier told Mr. Luger that he was in violation of the law which states that no-one can attach anything to a utility pole. Mr. Luger said he would take care of that right away. Mr. Timmers stated they had no objection to the fence execpt for the first two sections that bloced their vision when entering or leaving their driveway. Mr. Luger said he would rather remove the two sections than drop to 31.1. Mr. Hili said that 3#' actually is no good because it imparied visibility of a driver and that he felt the rock garden should be removed or moved in farther off the road and it is a hazard to snow plowing. After much discussion, Mr. Kelting moved to recommend to the Council that the height of the first two sections or remove them entirely. . Motion carried with Mr. Gourley and Mr. Motion seconded by Mr. 441-H- voting No. i