Variance Board Resolution_129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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 versus a taller fence or a chain-link fence 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 Koch & Sons Trucking site, including materials within the cross -dock facility, semi -tractors, and semi -trailers, 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. Planning Division staff has determined that the requested variance to secure the site would not alter the essential character of the locality. 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 §ioii.o8 (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 fence is constructed as it is being proposed on the illustration submitted with the Variance application. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Variance Board Member Kimble and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Gitzen, Kimble, and Chair Daire; and none voted against; WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.