09-27-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

oT o\\CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 4. A 6* fence was constructed in 2000 to replace a 6’ fence that had existed on the property line. The City had notified the property owners the fence could not be replaced in the existing location because the fence was non- conforming due to the 6 foot height in a street yard. B.Fences are not permitted to encroach into the public right-of-way. The variance application does not include a request to locate the fence off the property. C.The Municipal Code permits fences as a non-encroachment within required yard areas, however the height of a lence ca.nnot exceed 3 */: feet if located in a street yard. The applicants’ property is defined as a comer lot with two street \ards. Properties in the RR-IB zoning district have a required setback of 50 feet to the property lines. A 6 foot fence could be constructed but only it constructed 50 feet from the property line. The fence is located adjacent to a street that is partially undeveloped. The Minnetonka Avenue right-of-way separates the applicants’ lot from an adjacent lot to the south. There are no plans by the City of Orono to extend or fiirther develop Minnetonka Avenue. The City Council has made the following findings to support a hardship to permit replacement of a 6' fence along the south property line: A.The fence is replacing a fence that had been located along the property line for many years. The fence received damage when a tree had fallen and destroyed several panels of the preexisting fence. B.The fence is Ic :ated adjacent to a street that is panially undeveloped and not open to vehicle traffic. The Mirmetorika Avenue right-of-way separates the applicants’ lot from an adjacent lot to the south and the right-of-way functions the same as an interior lot line. Page 2 of 5 liMI