My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-24-2001 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
09-24-2001 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2012 2:26:34 PM
Creation date
3/7/2012 2:26:34 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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, September 24, 2001 <br />• ( #01 -2708 Michael and Jeanie McClelland, Continued) <br />White stated the hardship needs to be able to be defended by the City, with other issues outside of <br />topography being considered as a hardship. <br />Moorse stated if a visual blight is cited, the specific hardship could be identified in the resolution. <br />Gaffron stated all these pieces together create a hardship rather than one particular item. <br />White moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4694, a Resolution <br />granting variances to permit a six foot privacy fence to be constructed within the 50 foot side yard <br />adjacent to the street setback where a 3.5 foot fence is permitted for the property located at <br />2170 Minnetonka Avenue, with the understanding the "finished" side of the fence will face <br />outward. <br />Nygard stated in his view the Council is treading on dangerous ground by considering a visual hardship. <br />Nygard stated the biggest hardship in his view is the side street yard situation. Nygard stated while a <br />three -foot fence is allowed in a side street yard, a six foot 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 allowed a six -foot fence within a side yard. <br />Gaffron stated he is not entirely convinced that visual issue is not a hardship given the circumstances. <br />. White stated in his view this is a unique situation given the location of the property. <br />r� <br />�I <br />Smith stated it was a concern of the Planning Commission that considering visual 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 temporary period of time. Flint stated technically there is not a developed street <br />in this area, so that the side street yard is functioning as a side yard. <br />Nygard stated the focus of the discussion is that the fence did exist, and that the side street yard is <br />functioning as a side yard rather than focusing on a visual blight. <br />VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />*( #7) #01 -2709 RICHARD R. SHULL, 2285 FRENCH LAKE ROAD — VARIANCES — <br />RESOLUTION NO. 4695 <br />Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4695, a <br />Resolution granting variances to permit the construction of a two -stall garage to the east end of <br />the residence and a new entryway over existing steps for the property located at <br />2285 French Lake Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />PAGE 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.