pf_03347 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Agenda for November 14,2001 Page 2 of3 hardship in the Hoff case. Lights do not shine onto the Hoff site because of the slope of the driveway. Mr. Hess asked for clarification of materials (wood and vinyl). (The Code does not speak to the issue.) Roger Hess, Jr., 1914 Wagner Place, asked if lights really do affect the Hoff house. Chair Rhody explained that he had driven the site and found that glare does impact and headlights may not. Mr. Hess said the fence does affect the locality; How is it not affecting the essential character? Thomas Paschke said the impact on adjacent properties, history of variance in the area that have unique characteristics; public health, safety, welfare do not impact the essential character. Kathleen Crea, 1901 Shady Beach Avenue, read into the record a letter (11/05/01). She stated the city inspector asked Mr. Hoff's workers to stop construction. The letter is attached to the minutes. She noted that 75% to 80% of the property owners are opposed and should have a say in this issue. Mr. Hess stated that none of the city staff findings apply (a,b and c of staff report). Linda Norcross, 1892 Wagner, stated that Robert Frost's poem on fences and neighbors actually opposed fences. She opposed the fence because it gave no more privacy and less community. Chair Rhody closed the hearing. Member Olson asked if the fence met the MN DNR regulations. Thomas Paschke stated the MN DNR does not have fence height regulations but that the City's Code of 6.5 feet does apply. Member Traynor said he visited the site and found that the auto glare did not reach the house. Thomas Paschke noted that visual glare could occur on portions of the house, not necessarily the windows. The topography created a privacy issue because of house vehicles tilting or sloping on the street or drives create headlight glare. Chair Rhody reminded the Planning Commission that the variance request is for the front yard only. Member Olson noted that the past variances have been for privacy from a busy street. Here there is no traffic, space between houses is available. Member Wilke agreed with this, noting that people within 350 feet have a concern and that hardships do not exist. Motion: Member Olson moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to deny a 2-1/2 foot variance to Section 1012.02B2 of the Roseville City Code to allow a fence 6-1/2 feet tall in the front yard on property located at 1897 Shady Beach Avenue based of the following findings: a. The property can be put to reasonable use under the official controls of the City. A 4-foot tall fence can provide the privacy desired by the applicant, without having a profound impact on the neighborhood. Landscape screening can be installed to augment the 4-foot tall fence. b. The property owner created the circumstance by his desire to construct a fence taller than allowed by Code. A 6-1/2 foot tall fence does not provide any more screening or blocking of potential headlight glare from Shady Beach Drive and the neighboring driveway than a 4-foot tall fence. c. The 6-1/2 foot tall fence does alter the essential character of this neighborhood. Ayes: 4, Wilke, Olson, Traynor, Cunningham Nays: 1, Rhody Attachments: 11/05/01 Kathleen Crea Letter; 11/05/01 Daniel Shiely packet; 11/14/01 Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association letter; Daniel Shiely rebuttal packet. Member Olson asked the Commission to review the fence requirements along shorelines and rational for four foot in front; 6.5 feet in rear. Mr. Schiely submitted (11/14/01) a request asking for a shoreline fence http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/pmOlll14.htm 04/17/2002