pf07-025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 2 of 4 required Variance Board approval was for an 8-foot-tall fence that could extend to the western end of the existing privacy fence." As you can tell by visiting the property, the last 8' post that was installed does in fact extend beyond the current fence by about 18" to 22". In my opinion, this does not comply with the application that was submitted to the Variance Board. My second complaint is that the extension of the 4' fence was not discussed when we were first approached by the request to install an 8' fence. Again, I have no problem with the Hornbaker's installing an 8' fence as long as it remained within the existing fence line already installed. Now I have to deal with a 4' fence that will obstruct vision as we back out of our driveway onto Lydia. Not only does this create a concern for me and the safety of our children, but I was under the impression this does in fact violate City Code on two fronts. First, I do not believe you are allowed to install a fence that goes beyond the front of your property. In this case, the Hornbaker's fence does extend beyond their front property. I understand part of the variance was to allow the 8' fence to extend beyond the front of the property, but again, only up to the existing fence. Second, I do not believe you are allowed to install a fence all the way up to your property line and the city's property line. I believe there is a specific distance to where you can install your fence up to before it encroaches on the city's property. I thought it was 12-15 feet from the city property line. In the case of the Hornbaker's, they have installed their fence all the way to the point of their property line and the city's property line. I've had several conversations with Rick Talbot concerning this fence prior to installation. At no point, was there a conversation about installing a 4' fence that extended beyond the existing fence. Plus, when my wife talked with someone from your office about this prior to the Variance Board hearing, your office confirmed that the plans did not include a fence that extended beyond the existing fence. He also said that our concerns about extending any type of fence would be heard and discussed at the meeting, and therefore, our attendance at the meeting was not necessary. I'm confused with the series of events that have occurred. IYs a shame that Rick is out of the office this week. I did place a call into him on Monday and have requested that he contact me immediately when he returns. Any information you can shed on these two points prior to my meeting with Rick would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Russ From: Brenda Heath [mailto:bheath@mppoa.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:00 PM To: Bryan Lloyd Cc: Russ Heath Subject: Re: Fence Concerns Thank you for your quick reply. I appreciate your attention in this. Brenda Heath On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:08:15 -0500 "Bryan Lloyd" <bryan.11oyd@ci.roseville.mn.us> wrote: > Mrs. Heath, > > The Hornbakers' application that required Variance Board >approval was > for an 8-foot-tall fence that could extend to the >western end of the > existing privacy fence. I just went to the property and >found that the > 8-foot-tall portion of the fence appears comply with the >intent of the > conditions of the variance approval. The section of new >fence that > extends beyond the western end of the existing privacy >fence that > screens the basketball court on your property appears >that it will be 4 > feet in height and extend to the western property line; >this is > permitted by the City Code and does not require permits 7/25/2007 • �