Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />Department Approval: ~1l..' ~ /J l3t <br />~) :/~. . fJ~ <br /> <br />Ite Description: Presentation and Request by City of Roseville to Amending Section <br />1016 (Shoreland District) by adding fence regulations (P.F. 3362) <br /> <br />Date: 06/17/02 <br />Item No: VII. A. <br />Agenda Section: <br />ORDINANCES <br /> <br />1.0 REQUESTED ACTION: <br /> <br />1.1 The City has had a number of instances where fencing along shore lands has come into <br />question. Specifically, the issue of "why" fences are allowed along shore land lots from <br />the principle structure to the shore has been asked. <br /> <br />1.2 In the most recent case, the Hoff Fence Variance case, the City Council interpreted the <br />City Code to state that no fencing shall be allowed shoreward of the principle structure <br />and attached deck. The Council asked the staff to prepare an amendment and to establish <br />a hearing date with the Planning Commission (June 5, 2002) <br /> <br />PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY: <br /> <br />. Application submitted on: Does not apply <br />. No 60 day requirement <br />. Staff Review: Approval- June 5, 2002 <br />· Planning Commission: Hearing/Recommended Approval (3-2) - June 5, 2002 <br />· City Council: Action Anticipated - June 17,2002 <br /> <br />2.0 STAFF and PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />2.1 The Community Development Staff recommended approval of language that clearly <br />establishes a fence setback from the shore of a lake or wetland lot to be the same as the <br />principle structure. Such a setback will be 75 feet adjacent to a lake and 50 feet adjacent <br />to a wetland. Language will allow for privacy fencing of an attached deck since the deck <br />is considered a portion of the principle structure. <br /> <br />2.2 The Planning Commission, after holding the required hearing on June 5, 2002, <br />recommended approval (3-2) of the proposed ordinance. (DRAFT MINUTES ARE <br />ATTACHED) <br /> <br />2.3 The dissenting votes (Duncan and Mulder) expressed concern that if a variance was <br />requested from this new ordinance, it would be difficult to find a hardship, even if the <br />owner merely wanted to contain dogs or keep children safely from the water's edge. <br />Duncan felt fencing was a property owner's right; Mulder suggested an exception to the <br /> <br />PF3362 ReA - 061702 Page 1 of 2 <br />