My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-17-2001 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
09-17-2001 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 2:23:58 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 2:23:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,September 17,2001 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> • <br /> (#01-2708 Michael and Jeanie McClelland,Continued) <br /> Avenue where the snow can be stored. Weinberger stated to his knowledge there has not been an issue <br /> with snow storage in this area since the fence has existed for a number of years. <br /> Roth stated he would be agreeable to a six-foot fence if it is located off the property line. <br /> Hawn reiterated the issue before the Planning Commission tonight is whether to grant a variance for a <br /> six-foot fence. <br /> Frank indicated the fence has always been six feet in height. <br /> Lindquist inquired whether a hardship existed for the six-foot fence. <br /> McClelland stated if he is required to have a 50-foot setback,he would be left with half his yard. <br /> Hawn stated the hardship needs to be imposed by the land justifying the need for a higher fence. <br /> McClelland indicated the property to the south is unsightful. <br /> Lindquist stated in order for the Planning Commission to grant a variance, a hardship must be <br /> demonstrated which is inherent to the land. <br /> McClelland stated the property to the south is being used for scrap iron storage,with the house <br /> currently being unsided. McClelland stated he would prefer not to have to look at that. <br /> Hawn stated unfortunately that hardship is not imposed by the land. <br /> Fritzler agreed that there does not appear to be a hardship. <br /> Rahn noted the fence had existed for a number of years prior to being removed and that residents are <br /> allowed to replace structures that are existing. Rahn noted the fence does not abut an adjoining <br /> property. <br /> Hawn stated since this is considered a corner lot,they are essentially dealing with two front yards. <br /> Hawn commented in her view due to the undeveloped nature of Minnetonka Avenue, she would <br /> consider this to be a side yard rather than a front yard. <br /> Weinberger stated Staff looked for unusual property conditions on this lot and determined that it is a <br /> corner lot. One of the criteria for a hardship is that the lot does not have the same characteristics or <br /> is unique in some fashion to the other lots in the area. Weinberger stated the intent of the ordinance is <br /> to maintain a consistent fence height for fences on corner lots. Weinberger stated the uniqueness of <br /> this lot is that there are only two lots along Minnetonka Avenue,with no improvements being planned <br /> for this street. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether there are any utility lines within the right-of-way along the undeveloped <br /> portion of Minnetonka Avenue. Mabusth commented that perhaps this right-of-way was intended to <br /> be for storage of snow. <br /> PAGE 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.