pf_03383 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.4 For the past two years the Community Development Department has been involved in issues concerning Mr. Hoffs fence. Such as, the fence deterioration from adjacent property watering and its location within the Shoreland District. It is not the Conununity Development Department's responsibility to detennine whether Mr. Hoffs fence has deteriorated from yard watering. The City Code allows a 6-1/2 foot fence to be installed in the side and rear yards of single-family properties throughout Roseville. Further, the Code does not address lakeshore property, nor obstructions created from fences installed along a property line that extends to the shoreline. Such issues of whether a fence is installed within the shore land district should be to the discretion of a property owner, hopefully with the input of neighbors. 4.5 Should the fence along the side yard still be an issue for the adjacent property owners, the staff suggests that the three parties go through mediation to try to remedy their concerns/issues. The City offers a mediation program (Dispute Resolution, Inc.), which could be established for the three parties through the City Manager's Office. 5.0 POLICY & FISCAL IMPLICATION 5.1 The Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage maintaining and improving residential properties and infrastructure, as well as reconstruction and rebuilding of residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout the community. 5.2 There are no additional fiscal implications and no public infrastructure improvements or extensions necessary. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 6.1 The Community Development staff has determined that hardship was present and that the variance request was reasonable, recommending approval of the 2-1/2 foot variance to Section 1012.02B2 of the Roseville City Code for property located at 1897 Shady Beach A venue, based on the privacy hardships issues described in Section 3 and 4 stated above. 7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 7.1 On November 14,2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding Mr. Hoffs variance request. At this hearing a number of adjacent property owners were present to speak in opposition to the variance request. 7.2 The specifics of the opposition centered on their opinion that there is no need for a six foot tall fence in the front yard of the Hoff property because headlight glare does not affect the home. Further, it was their contention that the request did alter the essential character of the locality. 7.3 The residents also took exception to the type offence (white vinyl) and that fact that it was installed to the shoreline of Land McCarrons. They also were concerned about the most recent section for fence currently being installed. PF3347 ReA I 1260 I Page 4 of 5