Variance Board Resolution_126 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

not establish any specific requirements/allowances for security fencing, nor the allo�vance for fencing to be taller in a fror�t yard. Therefore, a Variance is necessary to de��ate from the Cade requirement. Planning staff also believes that the proposal to install a decorative six foot tall fence of a simalar material and design to the fence standard approved on other properties in the T�tizn L.�kes Redeve�opment Area (Community Mixed Use District) is also cansistent with the intent of the zoning ardinance. c. The proposal puts the subject pr•operty to use in a reasonable mar�r�er. Planning Di�-ision concludes that it is a reasonable reque�t to seek security %ncing in the front yard to distract unwanted guests from trespassing and to seek such fencing at at� increas� of tv�°o feet, fram four ta six feet in height. d. There are unique circumstances to the property whi�h w�re not �reated by the landawner. There is nothing unique about a gropertyr o�vvner desiring to install a s�curity fence to protect their in�Testment from intruders. That said the Planning Division staff does find that certain aspects of the Calyxt site, including the gr�enhauses and test plats, are unique enough to warrant securi�• fencing that is not Code compliant in the front yard and ��hi�h is unique enough to justify the approval of the requested variance. e, The varfance, i.f granted, will nQt alter the essQntial character of the l�cality. Str�ct compliance ��ith th� Design St�nd�rds contained. WHEREAS, §ioo9.o4 (Variances) of the City Code also explains that the purgose of a��ariance is "to permit adjustrII-ient to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties apglying to a parcel of land c�r building that prevent the property from being used to the e�ent i�tended by the zoning;" and WHEREA,S, the Planning Division has concluded the proposal satisfies the "practieal di�ct�lty" claus� and compare favarably vr�ith all af th� above requirements essential for appro��ing ��ariances. NOW THEREFORE BE T'�' �SOLVED, b}T the Roseville Variance Board, ta approve the requested �°aria�ce to §ioii.o8 (Fences in All Distriets) of the City Code, based on the abave findings, the proposed fence plan, and the testimony offered at the publ�c l�eari�g, subject to the follc�rti�ing c�ndition: i. The tempc�rary epoxy-coated chain-link fence being replaced ��vifh the sarr�e decorati��e fen�ing should building p�rmit for the office building not be submitted or issues ��thin i8 months from installation. '�he motian far the adoption of the fore�oing resalution was duly seconded by Variance Board 1Vlember Gitzen and upan vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Murphy, Daire, and Gitzen; and none vot�d against; WHERELIPON said resolution µ�as declared c�uly passed and adQpted.