10-08-2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONb CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, September 24,2001 •(1^) #01-2706 RICHARD AND JANE STARK, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE RENEWAL - RESOLITION NO. 4693 Fliat moved, Saesevere sceoaded, to approve aad adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4693, a Rcaolatioa f raatiao reaewal of variaaces to allow tbe rranxlelias aad espaasioa of the exbtiai: mldeiKe located at 815 Parteawood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Navs 0. (#6) #01-2708 MICHAEL AND JEANIE MCCLELLAND, 2170 MrSNETONKA AVENUE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4694 Michael and Jeanie McCIellofid, Applicants, were present. Weinberger staled the Applicants ore requesting variances to permit a six-foot fence to be located in a defined side-street yard where no fences over 3.5 feet arc allowed. There was an existing six-foot fence located along the propertv line for a number of years, with the fence having been replaced last >car. It was determined the fence was replaced without the property owners obtaining a variance. The City had notified the property owners the fence could not be replaced in the existing location because the fence was nonconfonning due to the six-foot height in a street vard. Weinberger stated Minnetonka Avenue in this area is only developed halfway through the lot, with no further intent on the part of the Cit> to ever extend Minnetonka Avenue. The City*s Municipal Code permits fences as a non-encroachment w ithin required vard areas; how ever the height of a fence cannot exceed 3.5 feet if kKated in a street yard. The Applicants' property is defined as a comer lot with two street yards. Properties located in the RR-IB Zoning District have a required setback of 50 feet to the property lines. A six-foot fence could be constructed but only if constructed 50 feet from the property line. The Planning Commission recommended approv al of the v ariance by a vote of 5 to 2. It was the minority opinion of the Planning Commission that no apparent hardship was found to allow a six-foot fence to be located in the side street setback. The recommendation is subject to the conditions that the fence shall be reconstructed with the finished side facing outward or to the south of llie property line and the fence shall be constructed entirely on the property. The Applicants arc in agreement with Utosc requirements. The property owner to the north is in agreement with the fence. Staff recommends approv al of the application based on the fact that the property is a comer lot with one street frontage located adjacent to a no-developed street tiiat is not planned to be further developed or improv ed llie side yard adjacent to the street functions as an interior side lot line. The inlcnl of the Ordinance is to not allow fences over 3.5 feet to be located in a functional street yard. McClelland had nothing to add to StafTs report. Sansevea* inquired what hardship the Planning Commission determined existed. Sandy Smith, Planning Commission, indicated the minority of the Planning Commission did not feel that a hardship existed based on the topography of the land. Smith stated in her view the location of the lot would support a six foot fence. PAGE 15