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 />rights. <br /> <br />Member Traynor said the issue is more related to attractiveness. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman prefers "natural" fences, landscaping which screens privacy fencing. She <br />prefers attractive landscape screens. <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked how does City impose an "attractiveness" standard on others. Fencing is <br />tied to the land not the occupants of the house. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke suggested epoxy coated fence and more decorative fencing or decorative wrought <br />iron fencing. Landscaping is a good alternative except it takes years to become full. Trees and <br />shrubs take time. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the pool fence requirements require a five foot non-climbable fence. <br />Approximately 5% of the properties adjacent to shore and wetland have fences to the water. <br />Member Mulder asked if a pool fence style should be regulated. <br /> <br />General discussion ensued. <br /> <br />Member Traynor suggested requiring fencing be screened with landscaping. Lakeshore property <br />owners bought the property for the valuable view (and access). <br /> <br />Member Mulder and Member Peper could accept a fence 20' to 30' setback from the ordinary high <br />water level (O.H.W.L.). <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch suggested an educational program regarding the impact of fencing on properties <br />(pro and con). <br /> <br />Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to recommend a <br />maximum 25% opacity, 42" height, earth-tone colored ~nce no closer than 25 feet to OHW, <br />and no unclad fence, applying to lakes and wetlands. Property owners may need to apply <br />for variances for any other alternative closer to the OHW. Pool ~ncing must meet the <br />requirements of State Building Code for height (and opacity/style as indicated above). <br /> <br />Ayes: Traynor, Bakeman, Mulder <br />Nays: Peper <br />Motion carried 3-1. <br /> <br />Prepared by: Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236); Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232) <br /> <br />Attachments: proposed ordinance amendments and graphics. <br />\\Victoria\CommDev\Planning Files\3350-3399\3362 _ Cityof RosevilJe_ Shoreland\RCA 081902.doc <br /> <br />PF3362 ReA - 081902 Page 5 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.