Laserfiche WebLink
City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 2342 <br />here is no unique hardship to the land that would require a <br />6 foot high fence. <br />B) A 34 foot fence with plantings can provide the necessary <br />protection for children if both are installed with specific care <br />in placement of plantings to insure there is no negative impact <br />on required sight distance. <br />C) The Planning Commission felt the turnaround should be <br />installed as required. <br />4. On November 9, 1987 and November 23, 1987, the Orono Council <br />considered the application and noted the following findings: <br />A) The existing six foot high fence creates a visua'/safety <br />hazard for users of public roaJ and for children who exit the <br />property. <br />B) Adequate sight distance is essential if a turnaround is not <br />installed on the property. A 3 1/2 foot fence with plantings at <br />limited height in designated areas can accomplish applicants <br />goals for protection of children and privacy in limited yard <br />area. <br />C) To allow a 3 1/2 foot fence along the street lot line of the <br />property, located within the lakeshore protected area. would be <br />consistent with pAst actions of the City Council based on valid, <br />similar findings noted in this review. <br />D) Economic considerations are not valid reasons to grant <br />variances per Section 10.08 Subdivision 3A(4) of the Municipal <br />Code. <br />E) Sections of the 6 foot privacy fence have been .:nstalled <br />within the road right-of-way of Fagerness Point Road. <br />F) The 6 foot privacy fence has been installed within 75 feet of <br />the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. <br />G) Approving a 6 foot high privacy fence to provide privacy has <br />not been a valid reason for the granting of variances in light of <br />recent denials. The approval of this privacy fence would <br />establish a negative precedent in the consideration of similar <br />applications in the future. <br />5. The City Council has considered this application including the <br />findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by <br />City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed <br />variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />