Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br />DPW /TP <br /> <br />Date: 08/07/02 <br />Item No: 6e <br />Agenda Section: <br />CONTINUED HEARING <br /> <br />Item Description: <br /> <br />Request by the Roseville City Council to consider amended language <br />pertaining to fence type and location for inclusion in the second <br />reading of an amending Section 1016 (Shoreland District (PF3362). <br /> <br />1.0 BACKGROUND: <br /> <br />1.1 On June 17,2002, the Roseville City Council held the first reading of an ordinance <br />amending Section 1016 of the Roseville City Code pertaining to fence requirements for <br />lots/parcel adjacent a lake or wetland. <br /> <br />1.2 During the Council's discussion on the proposed amendment, questions and comments <br />arose pertaining to fence type and further encroachment toward a lake or wetland. The <br />Council determined that the Planning Commission should hold a hearing to review and <br />discuss the merits of including language that allows fence type, maximum height, and <br />encroachment options. <br /> <br />1.3 On July 10, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the hearing regarding <br />amendments to Section 1016 of the Roseville City Code pertaining to fence regulations <br />for properties adjacent a wetland to August 7, 2002.. <br /> <br />1.4 Staff has determined that the proposed ordinance, without a change or modification <br />to separately regulate wetlands, is appropriate and in keeping with the initial <br />direction by the City Council on June 17, 2002. <br /> <br />2.0 STAFF COMMENTS: <br /> <br />2.1 Resident safety is the latest item that will need to be considered in this ordinance <br />amendment. Specifically, should language be included in the second reading of the <br />ordinance amendment to allow a non-obtrusive fence for protection of children and pets, <br />as well as placing the fence closer to a lake shore or wetland. (In ground pools are <br />considered a permitted portion of the landscape much like patios, but are restricted to a <br />20 foot minimum shoreline setback and must be fenced as per the building code for life <br />safety purposes.) <br /> <br />2.2 On July 10, 2002, the Commission reviewed and discussed certain language <br />modifications pertaining to the inclusion of fencing within the current 75 foot setback. <br />The Commission considered a 20 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHW) <br />and a fence (chain link or other) with only 25 percent opacity to a height of 42 inches. <br /> <br />PF3362 RPCA - 080702 Page 1 of 3 <br />