Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> <br />Item Description: <br /> <br />Date: 07/10/02 <br />Item No: 6f <br />Agenda Section: <br />PUBLIC HEARING <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 (PF #3362). <br /> <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 />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, whether language is included in the second reading of the <br />ordinance amendment that would allow a non-obtrusive fence for protection of children <br />and pets, and for surrounding pools, as well as closer to a lake shore or wetland. <br /> <br />2.2 The Community Development Department is interested in additional language that <br />affords property owners adjacent to a lake or wetland options so that variances can be <br />minimized or avoided. <br /> <br />2.3 After the June 17, 2002 City Council meeting, the Community Development Staff <br />reviewed the comments presented by the Council and the Commission regarding fence <br />type, height, and location. Given the fact that there is no standard among metropolitan <br />cities, nor one offered by the Department of Natural Resources, the Community <br />Development Staff felt there was validity in allowing a fence, 42 inch in height, of either <br />chain link (epoxy or vinyl coated) or a picket fence or similar (specific spacing between <br />boards), to a point no closer than 30 feet from a lakes ordinary high watermark or the <br />established bluff line, whichever is greater, and 10 feet from a delineated wetland <br />boundary . <br /> <br />PF3 3 62 RPCA - 071002 Page 1 of 2 <br />