2016-11-02_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C taller than the current Code requirement (four to six feet in height) generally satisfies the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code. However, the Code does not establish any specific requirements/allowances for security fencing, nor the allowance for fencing to be taller in a front yard. Therefore, a Variance is necessary to deviate from the Code requirement. Planning staff also believes that the proposal to install a decorative six foot tall fence of a similar material and design to the fence standard approved on other properties in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area (Community Mixed Use District) is also consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. c.The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division concludes that it is a reasonable request to seek security fencing in the front yard to distract unwanted guests from trespassing and to seek such fencing at an increase of two feet, from four to six feet in height. d.There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner. There is nothing unique about a property owner desiring to install a security fence to protect their investment from intruders. That said the Planning Division staff does find that certain aspects of the Calyxt site, including the greenhouses and test plats, are unique enough to warrant security fencing that is not Code compliant in the front yard and which is unique enough to justify the approval of the requested variance. e.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Strict compliance with the Design Standards contained. WHEREAS, §1009.04 (Variances) of the City Code also explains that the purpose of a variance is “to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the zoning;” and WHEREAS, the Planning Division has concluded the proposal satisfies the “practical difficulty” clause and compare favorably with all of the above requirements essential for approving variances. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Variance Board, to approve the requested variance to §1011.08 (Fences in All Districts)of the City Code, based on the above findings, the proposed fence plan, and the testimony offered at the public hearing, subject to the following condition: 1.The temporary epoxy-coated chain-link fence being replaced with the same decorative fencing should building permit for the office building not be submitted or issues within 18 months from installation. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Variance Board Member ______and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: ________; and _____ voted against; WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.