My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03362
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3300
>
pf_03362
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 1:56:04 PM
Creation date
5/19/2005 3:27:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3362
Planning Files - Type
Zoning Text Amendment
Project Name
Shoreland Fence Ordinance
Applicant
City of Roseville
Status
Approved
Date Final City Council Action
9/23/2002
Date Final Planning Commission Action
8/19/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Excerpt from Aueust 7. 2002 Plan nine Commission Meetine Draft Minutes <br /> <br />e. Planninl! File 3362: Request by the City Council to consider rmdifications (additional <br />language) to an Ordinance amending Chapter 1016, of the City Code, relating to fence <br />provisions in shoreland and wetland districts. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Mulder opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a <br />summary of the project report dated August 7,2002. <br /> <br />On June 17, 2002, the Roseville City Council held the first reading of an ordinance amending <br />Section 1016 of the Roseville City Code pertaining to fence requirements for lots/parcel adjacent a <br />lake or wetland. <br /> <br />During the Council's discussion on the proposed amendment, questions and comments arose <br />pertaining to fence type and further encroachment toward a lake or wetland. The Council <br />determined that the Planning Commission should hold a hearing to review and discuss the merits <br />of including language that allows fence type, maximum height, and encroachment options. <br /> <br />On July 10, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the hearing regarding amendments to <br />Section 1016 of the Roseville City Code pertaining to fence regulations for properties adjacent a <br />wetland to August 7,2002. <br /> <br />Member Mulder explained his concern about the extremes of "no" fences vs. instances where <br />fences could be unlimited. Is there a difference between lakes and wetlands for fencing. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman explained that fences can delineate property lines; natural shrubbery could do <br />the same thing, especially on lakeshores where the resource, water and shore, belongs to the <br />public. <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if the State shoreland ordinance refers to fences (no, just structures). <br /> <br />Member Bakeman noted another use for shrubbery is the environmental enhancement. Privacy <br />fences keep people and vision out of shoreline, contradicts shoreland policy. Regarding safety, <br />fences are only one solution - pet or canine invisible fences; for children or disabled adults, fences <br />should be near the building where the care is provided; this would be a safety fence ten feet into <br />the setback area. Could a temporary fence be used? A fence should be a structure. Pool fences are <br />required as per the State Building Code, but could be transparent. No other fences should be <br />allowed other than near deck safety and pool fences. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the 75 foot setback for fences. He showed examples offences and <br />concern for reduced opaque fencing. Owners should be able to keep unwanted people or animals <br />from entering the lot. There should be some rights for fencing. Landscaping can be used for <br />pnvacy. <br /> <br />Member Peper explained the need for fence placement inconsistency. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman asked if dogs must be on leash or under control. <br /> <br />Member Mulder noted that McCarron's Lake County Park has property fence to the shoreline to <br />stop trespassing in shoreland lawns. Privacy of sight line on the shoreline vs. privacy in their <br />home. What is the balance between public share in water resource vs. property owner's privacy <br /> <br />PF3362 ReA - 081902 Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.