The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 4694 f . � . ��_ • / � O� • O O ��b� - CITY of ORONO � � �� Gti' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��SHp4� NO. � s � � A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES � TO MiTNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 FILE NO. #01-2708 WHEREAS, Michael McClelland and Jeanie McClelland, (hereinafter "the � applicants") are owners of the property located at 2170 Minnetonka Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and is legally described as follows: Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 8, Monterey on Minnetonka, except the North 12 feet of said Lots 4, 5, and 6, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and - WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with � Minnesota Statutes and the CiTy of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 17, 2001, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and " WHEREAS, the applicants applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 to permit a 6' privacy fence to be constructed within the 50' side yard adjacent to the street setback where a 3 '/2' fence is permitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: � FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #01-2708. 2. The property is located in the RR-1B (2 acre) One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. � " 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 17, 2001 and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 2 for a variance based upon the following findings and hardships: � Page 1 of 5 , • � �� 0� • O O ��b. - CITY of ORONO � � �� ,'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��SH�4� NO. � � � � A. A 6' fence was constructed in 2000 to replace a 6' fence that had existed on the property line. The City had notified the property owners the fence could not be replaced in the existing location because the fence was non- conforming due to the 6 foot height in a street yard. B. Fences are not permitted to encroach into the public right-of-way. The variance application does not include a request to locate the fence off the � property. C. The Municipal Code permits fences as a non-encroachment within required yard areas, however the height of a fence cannot exceed 3 '/2 feet if located in a street yard. D. The applicants' property is defined as a corner lot with two street yards. Properties in the RR-1B zoning district have a required setback of 50 feet to the property lines. A 6 foot fence could be constructed but only if , , constructed 50 feet from the property line. E. The fence is located adjacent to a street that is partially undeveloped. The Minnetonka Avenue right-of-way separates the applicants' lot from an adjacent lot to the south. . F. There are no plans by the City of Orono to extend or further develop Minnetonka Avenue. 4. The City Council has made the following findings to support a hardship to permit replacement of a 6' fence along the south property line: A. The fence is replacing a fence that had been lacated along the property - line for many years. The fence received damage when a tree had fallen and destroyed several panels of the preexisting fence. B. The fence is located adjacent to a street that is partially undeveloped and not open to vehicle traffic. The Minnetonka Avenue right-of-way separates the applicants' lot from an adjacent lot to the south and the right-of-way functions the same as an interior lot line. � � � Page 2 of 5 � ' i�� !.� 0,�. � O O ��b. - CITY of ORONO � ti �� G'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��`9IfESg� NO. ,� s � � . � C. The total width of the Minnetonka Avenue right-of-way is 40'. The fence will be located no closer than 40' to the property located to the south of the subject lot. D. A portion of the preexisting fence is still located on the property. E. The lot is unique by the fact it is one of only a few lots in the Crystal � Bay neighborhood that is located on a corner lot with one of the two streets being undeveloped and the City of Orono does not use the street ' for public utility purposes. In addition the City does not intend to open Minnetonka Avenue to extend the road. Minnetonka Avenue can not be extended because the French Creek lots are platted without the provision to extend the right of way in the future. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that , granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments . by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 to permit a 6' privacy fence to be constructed within the 50' side yard adjacent to the street setback where a 3 %' fence is permitted, subject to the following conditions: 1. No portion of the fence shall encroach into the Minnetonka Avenue right-of-way. � . Page 3 of 5 � . . . �� . �� o 0 ��b. - CITY of ORONO � � � �� G�' � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��sxo4� rvo. � 6 9 4 2. The fence shall be constructed with the finished side of the fence (the finished side is the �side of the fence without structural supports) towards the right-of- way. � 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance � will expire on that date (September 24, 2002). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and � assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of September, 2001. ' ATTEST: ---..._ , �� - __.. Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor . � � � � Property Owner (s) • Page 4 of 5 %�_ /� O� � O O ��b. - CITY of ORONO � ti � �'�' � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��SH.�4� NO. � �ig � STATE OF MINNESOTA ) � ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instnunent was acknowledged before me on this 24`'' day of September, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instniment was executed on behalf of the City. RACHEL DODGE � P�prrARy pUgLFC_Mf�iPfE^OTA �"�'�01""'�D"�°S'�'31'� Notary Public S A OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) • On this ��day of (�4FOh�� , 2001 before me a Notary Public withir�,an�d for �rt�rr�� said county, personally appeared I/Vl iC{'�Gt.e , � �C �C ( 1� t1c1�� known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. � � RACHEL DODGE ��`�� N��RY pl1BUC-MINNE�OTA �� r;."��`�' My Comrrtlssion Ezpires Jan.31,20Q5 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ��day of�-F-O�ef, 20 D1 before me a Notary Public within an� for said county, personally appeared -�� i P �'��C��e /��/'a�l, �kno�vn`�O me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. �c��.e� lOc��-�--� , Notary Public • Page 5 of 5