Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City ofRoseville - Planning Commission Agenda for November 14,2001 <br /> <br />Page 1 of3 <br /> <br />6. a. Planning File 3347: A request by Brad Hoff for a variance to Section 1 012.02B2 of the Roseville City <br />Code to allow a fence greater than 48 inches high in the front yard of property located at 1897 Shady <br />Beach Avenue. <br /> <br />Chair John Rhody opened the hearing and requested staff to provide a verbal summary of the project <br />report dated November 14, 2001. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the request; the previous pre-existing non-conforming wood fence; the existing <br />vinyl fence; and the City Code allowance of 48" tall in a front yard. He added that the existing fence is an <br />estimated 65' from the property line to the front of the house. The City has no ordinance related to fences <br />adjacent to shorelines. The City Code applies in this case. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke suggested the request is reasonable and could meet requirements for hardship. Staff <br />recommended approval of the variance. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked for details of the front property and fence height in that area. <br /> <br />The applicant, Robert Hoff, answered questions. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked if there was a concern about business hours within the garage. Is there a <br />business in the garage? (no). Member Cunningham asked for details of the variance approved in 1990. <br />Member Cunningham asked about details of window privacy hardships, along the front (east side) of the <br />house. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked for details of the old fence which was replaced. The post is not considered part of the <br />height; the new fence rails are approximately six feet. The maintenance free single fence reduces need for <br />access to neighbor's yard. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked for details of the fence extension to the lakeshore from a point 40 feet to the <br />shore. Why is there a need for fencing to the lake? (to protect investment). <br /> <br />Roger Hess, 1913 Shady Beach Road, asked for clarification of front side of house (street side). Mr. Hess <br />asked for details of the fence built today (11/14/01) on south side of property. <br /> <br />Member Traynor asked Mr. Hess to clarify the length and position of the fence installed November 14th. <br /> <br />Daniel Shiely, 1901 Shady Beach Avenue, asked the Commission to accept a new packet of information. <br />He stated that he had new information regarding the previous 1990 variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Shiely indicated that there are 14 of 16 property owners (80% of owners) and the Lake McCarron's <br />Lake Association that object to variance. He stated the fence decreases property value and is a "taking <br />without compensation." He asked that the zoning for the site be reviewed and all construction be stopped <br />until the review is complete. <br /> <br />Mr. Shiely provided additional information dated November 14, 2001, noting an inadvertent error in <br />issuance of the permit. Mr. Schiely stated the Hoffs created a precedent for not meeting the Code. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked for details of the 1990 variance, in which the council approved a garage <br />setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Shiely stated that the 1990 minor variance was not approved by three property owners (but it was <br />approved by the City Council). <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the history of site leading up to the 11/14/01 hearing <br /> <br />Frank Hess, 1907 Shady Beach, asked for clarification of the undue hardship. Plants cannot be used as a <br /> <br />http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/pmOlll14.htm <br /> <br />04/1 7/2002 <br />