pm_011114 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Nays: 0 Motion carried. 6. a. Planning File 3347: A request by Brad Hoff for a variance to Section 1 012.02B2 of the Roseville City Code to allow a fence greater than 48 inches high in the front yard of property located at 1897 Shady Beach Avenue. Chair John Rhody opened the hearing and requested staff to provide a verbal summary of the project report dated November 14,2001. Thomas Paschke explained the request; the previous pre-existing non-conforming wood fence; the existing vinyl fence; and the City Code allowance of 48" tall in a front yard. He added that the existing fence is an estimated 65' from the property line to the front of the house. The City has no ordinance related to fences adjacent to shorelines. The City Code applies in this case. Thomas Paschke suggested the request is reasonable and could meet requirements for hardship. Staff recommended approval of the variance. Member Olson asked for details of the front property and fence height in that area. The applicant, Robert Hoff, answered questions. Member Cunningham asked if there was a concern about business hours within the garage. Is there a business in the garage? (no). Member Cunningham asked for details of the variance approved in 1990. Member Cunningham asked about details of window privacy hardships, along the front (east side) of the house. Member Olson asked for details of the old fence which was replaced. The post is not considered part of the height; the new fence rails are approximately six feet. The maintenance free single fence reduces need for access to neighbor's yard. Member Cunningham asked for details of the fence extension to the lakeshore from a point 40 feet to the shore. Why is there a need for fencing to the lake? (to protect investment). Roger Hess, 1913 Shady Beach Road, asked for clarification of front side of house (street side). Mr. Hess asked for details of the fence built today (11/14/01) on south side of property. Member Traynor asked Mr. Hess to clarify the length and position of the fence installed November 14th. Daniel Shiely, 1901 Shady Beach Avenue, asked the Commission to accept a new packet of information. He stated that he had new information regarding the previous 1990 variance. Mr. Shiely indicated that there are 14 of 16 property owners (80% of owners) and the Lake McCarron's Lake Association that object to variance. He stated the fence decreases property value and is a "taking without compensation." He asked that the zoning for the site be reviewed and all construction be stopped until the review is complete. Mr. Shiely provided additional information dated November 14, 2001, noting an inadvertent error in issuance of the permit. Mr. Schiely stated the Hoffs created a precedent for not meeting the Code. Member Cunningham asked for details of the 1990 variance, in which the council approved a garage setback. Mr. Shiely stated that the 1990 minor variance was not approved by three property owners (but it was approved by the City Council). Thomas Paschke explained the history of site leading up to the 11/14/01 hearing Frank Hess, 1907 Shady Beach, asked for clarification of the undue hardship. Plants cannot be used as a hardship in the Hoff case. Lights do not shine onto the Hoff site because of the slope of the driveway. Mr. Hess asked for clarification of materials (wood and vinyl). (The Code does not speak to the issue.) Roger Hess, Jr., 1914 Wagner Place, asked if lights really do affect the Hoff house. Chair Rhody explained that he had driven the site and found that glare does impact and headlights may not. Mr. Hess said the fence does affect the locality; How is it not affecting the essential character?