Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Plarming Camnission Minutes <br />Wednesday, September 3, 1980 <br /> <br />The September 3, 1980, regular meeting of the Roseville Planning Carmission was <br />called to order by Chainnan V. Johnson at 7:30 P.M. <br /> <br />Mercbers present: Dressler, G. Johnson, Mastel, Rukavina and V. Johnson. CUshing <br />arrived at 7:35 P.M. <br /> <br />Members absent: Sim:>ns <br /> <br />Staff present: Council liaison Al Kehr, HCMard Dahlgren, Bob ~an, Charles <br />Honchell and Steve North <br /> <br />Approval of Minutes <br /> <br />Mr. Rukavina roved and Mr. G. Jolmson seconded, that the minutes of the regular <br />meeting of August 6, 1980, be approved. Roll Call, Ayes: Dressler, G. Johnson, <br />Rukavina and V. Johnson. Nays: None. Abstention: Mastel, because he was absent <br />fran the meeting. <br /> <br />Planning File 1268 - Mark Johnson request for variance to retain a 6 foot high <br />fence located on the property line adjacent to County Road <br />D at 3116 Mildred Drive. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />.Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the applicant recently constructed a 6 foot high <br />stockade fence on the side yard property line adjacent to County Road D without <br />cbtaining a perroit. The zoning code would permit a fence no higher than 3-1/2 feet. <br />The Minor Variance Board considered the request and recamnended denial. 'Ihe Board <br />had noted that the fence could be roved back to the required 30 foot setback line <br />for the 6 foot high fence, or left in its present location and reduced to the 3-1/2 <br />foot maximum. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren stated that all of the affected neighbors have indicated they are not <br />opposed to the variance. He also ccmnented that the fence does not obstruct <br />vision for traffic at the intersection of Mildred Drive and County Road D. <br /> <br />Mr. Mark Jolmson comnented that there are many other instances of similar fences <br />in Roseville. He stated that the prirna1:y reason for having the 6 foot fence is <br />because they have two dogs. In response to an in:;Iuiry fran the Planning Canmission, <br />Mr. Johnson responded that the fence on the south property line was 48 inches high. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. Joe Pekus, property owner contiguous to the south of Mr. Johnson I s property, <br />indicated that he felt the stockade fence was an irrprovement to the property and <br />screened the traffic on County Road D. He approved of the fence. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the basic reason of the 30 foot setback for 6 foot <br />fence is to keep the spacious character of the residential area. <br />