Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13.2001 <br />//. UOt-2726 Erotas Building Corporation^ 450 Orono Orchard Rood—After-the- <br />Fact Variances—Resolution So. 4722—Continued <br />along Orono Orchard Rood and Dickenson Street. The fences were installed with several <br />dozen arborvitac along the fence to provide a vegetative buffer. The trees range in height <br />from 13* to 16* and provide a nearly complete screening for tlu fence. <br />The Planning Commission recommended approval based on the finding that the properly <br />was unique, being a comer lot with two 50’ setbacks, and the total si/e of the lot is 14.7 <br />acres. <br />Sansevere asked if staff were comfortable with the hardship of having two 50’ setbacks. <br />Weinberger replied they were as long as the fences remain fully screened. <br />Nygard stated he was uncomfortable with the application requesting on afler-the-fuct <br />variance. He felt Kevin Garnett had been informed of fencing requirements when he <br />previously come before the Council regarding his dogs. He stated that Council might set a <br />precedent that allows the construction of oscr-sized fences os long as one plants trees <br />along it. <br />Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission had found the property unique because it <br />was bordered by two roads and has a pond on it. The fence was nicely colored and <br />screened, and did not pose a safety issue to drivers or maintenance vehicles on the roads. <br />Gafiron stated that Mr. Gumett staled if he had to fence his property 50’ back from the <br />roads, he would not be able to use about 10% of his property, w hich built in a hardship. <br />He suggested a way to avoid having to demonstrate a hardship would be to require a <br />conditional use pemiit for fences and have performance standards. White stated Garnett <br />was being taxed on that 10% of his pniperty that he would not be able to use. <br />Barrett stated that the decision of w hether a hardship exists was based on Council fact­ <br />finding and was not a legal decision, so it would not be irrational to decide the lot size or <br />configuration is a hardship. <br />Mayor Pclcrson moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4722 granting <br />aRer-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code sWtion 10.03, Subdivision 15 to <br />permit a 6* fence to be constructed within the 50* front and 50* side yard adjacent to <br />the street setback where a fence height of 3 Vt is allowed. <br />Vote: Ayes 3, Nays I (Nygard).