Laserfiche WebLink
-6- <br /> He agreed .with .Mr. Morris that slatting the fence was not necessary and <br /> had no interest in whether or not side fences were provided on the <br /> Morris property. Councilman- Enrooth indicated he believes as long as <br /> • Mr. Lee, who has to look at the fence , doesn' t -see the need for slats , <br /> an opaque fence at this stage- of development for the PUD is probably <br /> not necessary, especially. since this type of fencing has not proved <br /> very durable in the past. There was Council agreement, however, that <br /> the two side fences should be provided by Mr. Morris . <br /> Mr. Lee disagreed with. Mr. Morris that the fence could be installed <br /> sooner than two weeks , and, since the City would lose the Letter of <br /> Credit proceeds -if it is not revoked before May 1st, the Mayor indi- <br /> cated he believed the document should. be revoked April 30th and the <br /> cash retained to put in the improvementsif they are not provided in <br /> a satisfactory manner. within a reasonable time by Mr. ' Morris, with the <br /> remainder returned to Gordon Hedlund when the improvements are in. <br /> Mr. Soth asked .Mr. Morris whether he had a monetary interest in the <br /> Letter of Credit proceeds and the shop owner indicated he did not. <br /> The Attorney then told the Council he believes the proposed fence <br /> would be keeping with the PUD, since . the original requirement had been <br /> for a chain link fence. Mr. Berg said Sid Johnson had indicated to <br /> him that he proposes to landscape his property- adjoining Mr. Morris ' <br /> as soon as possible so he can put the townhouses up for sale. <br /> Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Marks to direct <br /> staff to draw on the Letter of Credit #1091 for $3 ,200 held at the <br /> • First State Bank of New Brighton 'before its expiration date , May 1 , 1982 . <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Motion by Councilman- Marks and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to <br /> indicate Council agreement that the chain link fencing to be installed <br /> between the Craig & Company property at 3909 _Silver Lake Road and Lee <br /> property to the east on Penrod Lane and- on the sides not be required <br /> to be slatted. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Mr. Morris admitted he had not kept his agreement to have his place <br /> of business lit only during working hours but said he will have a <br /> timing system installed in two weeks . <br /> Mrs . Makowske .reported,.the Commission recommends the proposed fence <br /> ordinance should be changed to require fences be constructed at least <br /> six inches behind the property line because it is often difficult to <br /> tell exactly where the lot line is without an expensive survey. <br /> Mr. Hamer indicated the reason he .did not -include this requirement in <br /> the ordinance was because there is often a maintenance problem where <br /> fences are built away from the lot line and said some .of the fences in <br /> the City are set back as much as four feet. The City inspection when <br /> a (license or building permit) is granted will assure the fence is <br /> constructed on the owner' s property. Mr. Childs told Mrs . Makowske <br /> • the City has the equipment for identifying buried stakes . <br /> Mr. Hamer said he believes requiring neighbor agreements for fences <br /> is not realistic, since some neighbors are unable to discuss this <br />