09-24-2001 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONb CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, September 24, 2001 • *( #5) #01 -2706 RICHARD AND JANE STARK, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD — VARIANCE RENEWAL — RESOLUTION NO. 4693 0 Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4693, a Resolution granting renewal of variances to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located at 815 Partenwood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #6) #01 -2708 MICHAEL AND JEANIE MCCLELLAND, 2170 MINNETONKA AVENUE — VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 4694 Michael and Jeanie McClelland, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit a six -foot fence to be located in a defined side - street yard where no fences over 3.5 feet are allowed. There was an existing six -foot fence located along the property line for a number of years, with the fence having been replaced last year. 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 nonconforming due to the six -foot height in a street yard. Weinberger stated Minnetonka Avenue in this area is only developed halfway through the lot, with no further intent on the part of the City to ever extend Minnetonka Avenue. The City's Municipal Code permits fences as a non - encroachment within required yard areas; however the height of a fence cannot exceed 3.5 feet if located in a street yard. The Applicants' property is defined as a corner lot with two street yards. Properties located in the RR -113 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 approval of the variance 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 the property line and the fence shall be constructed entirely on the property. The Applicants are in agreement with those requirements. The property owner to the north is in agreement with the fence. Staff recommends approval of the application based on the fact that the property is a corner lot with one street frontage located adjacent to a no- developed street that is not planned to be further developed or improved. The side yard adjacent to the street functions as an interior side lot line. The intent 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 Staff's report. Sansevere 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