HomeMy WebLinkAbout#944 Resolution 1839A RESOLUTION DENYING
AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (C)
AS AMENDED JANUARY 28, 1985
FILE i944
WHEREAS, James H. Lear (hereinafter "th~ applicant") is
the owner of the property located at 3127 Casco Circle within the
City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as
follows:
Lot 2, B 1 ock 1, Co 1 or ado Springs (hereinafter "property");
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for an
after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03,
Subdivision 15 (C) as amended January 28, 1985 to permit a six
foot high privacy fence that runs parallel with the rear/street
lot line for a distance of forty feet located approximately two
feet off the right of way of Casco Circle where only a three and
a half foot high fence is allowed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Orono (hereinafter
"Council") has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission
and the City staff and the written and oral comments of the
applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the after-the-fact variance appli-
cation of James H. Lear based on one or more of the following
findings:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #944~
2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family
Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The applicant claims that the 6 foot high privacy fence
is needed to deter children from running into the street
"after a pet, a ball or while playing a game". In con-
sideration of the sloping topography within the rear yard of
the property, a 3 1/2 foot high fence would serve as a
deterrent.
Page 1 of 3 •
City of ORONO
4. The applicant claims a 6 foot high privacy fence is
needed to block the view of the "unkept" park across the
street from his property. The Casco Circle Park was deeded
to the City of Orono with specific direction that the park
be maintained in a natural state. The park exists today as
it did when the applicant purchased the property.
5. The applicant claims the fence provides to protection
for his home and surrounding improvements from vandalism. A
forty foot length fence along the street lot line does not
offer protection for a residence but may, in fact, serve to
hide vandals from the view of adjacent neighbors and the
police.
6. A forty foot length fence does not provide security.
The fence is an integral part of the landscaping plan and
ornamental in function and use.
7. The applicant has been advised that he may trim 2 1/2
feet off the height of the existing fence and maintain a
legal 3 1/2 foot high fence, two feet off the road right-of-
way but has refused to comply.
8. The applicant has been advised that he may move the
fence 30 feet from the street/rear lot line and maintain the
fence at the six foot height but he has refused to comply.
9. Per S~ction 10.07, Subdivision 6 of the Municipal Zoning
Code.
"It is unlawful for any person to hereafter erect or
structurally alter a structure until a building permit
shall have been issued indicating that the existing or
proposed structure and the use of the land comply with
this Zoning Chapter." -
The applicant's contractor failed to obtain the required
building permit and as a result was never advised of the
zoning standards for fence construction.
10. The plight of the applicant is due to circumstances
created by the applicant or agents of applicant.
11. If variances are granted to permit a new fence 6 feet
in height, two feet off the road right-of-way, such action
would establish a negative precedent in the review of
similar applications.
Page 2 of 3
City of ORQN,Q.~
I . :• 1 ~ ~• :1 ,; i:>
RESOLUT I ON OF THE CI TY1:0.UNCl.l:'" · .·.,/?, ,
N O. 1839 -~-'0·~ .' .. ·.";·_-,'.f;:
FURTHER MORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council hereby
denies the after-the-fact variance application of JamesH. Lear as
proposed subject to the condition that the applicant must remove
or make the necessary alterations to the existing privacy fence
in order to bring the structure into compliance with the zoing
code by September 30, 1985. Violation of or non-compliance with
this condition of denial shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of
, 1985.
Page 3 of 3