My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-08-2001 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2001
>
10-08-2001 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 3:23:01 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 3:21:16 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
337
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY. Scptcmbrr 24,2001 <br />mUllGS MkluMi MHi Jeamit McCklUad, Coatiascd) <br />White slated the har *Uiip needs to be able to be defended by the City, uith other issues outside of <br />topography bcin^ considered as a hardship. <br />Moorse stated if a visual bliglU is cited, the specific hardship could be identified in the resolution. <br />Gaffron stated all these pieces together create a hardship ratlier than one particular item. <br />White moved, Petenon seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO, 4694, a Resolution <br />granting variances to permit a lii foot privacy fence to be constructed within the 50 foot side yard <br />adjacent to the street setback where a 3.5 fool fence b permitted for the property' located at <br />2170 Minnetonka Avenue, with the understanding the ^Hnbhed** side of the fence will face <br />outward. <br />Nygard stated in his s kw the Council is treading on dangerous ganind by considering a \ isual hardship. <br />Nygard stated the biggest hardship in his view is the side street yard situation. Nygard stated while a <br />thm-foot fence is allowed in a side street yard, a six fool fence is allowed in a side yard. <br />Mayor Peterson stated this fence has existed for the past 20 years, with the visual impact not being <br />included in the resolution. Peterson stated people are allow^ a six-foot fence within a side yard. <br />Gaffron stated he is not entirely convinced dial v isual issue is not a hardship gi\en the circumstances. <br />White stated in his view this is a unique situation given the location of the property. <br />Smith stated it was a concern of the Planning Commission that considering v isual blight could be setting <br />a precedent. <br />Flint stated he does not have a problem with the application, noting the Applicant only intended to <br />remove the fence for a lemporao period of time. Flint stated technically there is not a dev elop^ street <br />in this area, so that the side street yard is functioning as a side yard. <br />Ny gard stated the focus of the discussion is that the fence did exist, and that the side street y ard is <br />functioning as a side yard rather than focusing on a visual blight. <br />VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />•(^7) lfOl-2709 RICHARD R. SHULL, 2285 FRENCH LAKE ROAD - VARIANCES - <br />RESOLUTION NO. 4695 <br />Flint moved, Sanievcre irconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4695, a <br />Reiolutlon granting variances to permit the construction of a tw o-slall garage to the cast end of <br />the residence and n new entryway over exbtiag steps for the property located at <br />2285 French Lake Road. VOTE: Aycs5,Naya0. <br />PAGE 17
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.