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 />1 Extract of Draft Minutes, Planninl! Commission Meetinl!, June 5, 2002: <br />2 <br />3 i. Planninl! File 3362: Request by City of Roseville for consideration of <br />4 proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 1016, of the City Code, relating <br />5 to shoreland and fence provisions. <br />6 <br />7 Chairman Duncan opened the hearing and requested Community Development <br />8 Director Dennis Welsch provide a summary of the project report dated June 5, <br />9 2002. <br />10 <br />11 The City has had a number of instances where fencing along shore lands has <br />12 come into question. Specifically, the issue of "why" fences are allowed along <br />13 shore land lots from the principle structure to the shore has been asked. <br />14 <br />15 In the most recent case, the City Council interpreted the City Code to state that <br />16 no fencing shall be allowed shoreward of the principle structure and attached <br />17 deck. The Council asked the staff to prepare an amendment and to establish a <br />18 hearing date with the Planning Commission (June 5, 2002) <br />19 <br />20 Member Mulder asked for "hardship" definition for a fence. It will be a case-by- <br />21 case basis for this use, example being dog fencing and day care/safety fencing. <br />22 Could a 4' high chain link fence be permitted? <br />23 <br />24 Chair Duncan explained that the right to install a privacy fence should be a <br />25 private right. <br />26 <br />27 Member Cunningham said the fence would constrict a public resource. <br />28 <br />29 Member Peper noted that in some developments fences are restricted to height <br />30 and color of cyclone fences. <br />31 <br />32 Member Beckman asked if such fences currently exist in Roseville. <br />33 <br />34 Thomas Paschke asked ifan existing fence could be repaired (Yes). Thomas <br />35 Paschke asked if individual property owner notification should be done. <br />36 <br />37 Member Mulder asked if other cities have attempted to create an "appropriate" <br />38 fence. He is not comfortable with the current proposal. He encouraged staff to <br />39 come back with another option - a shorter chain link fence. <br />40 <br />41 Member Cunningham asked for numbers of housing units that are closer than 75 <br />42 feet to the shoreline. <br />43 <br />44 Member Bakeman stated that the option should be landscaping within 75 feet, <br />45 not fencing. <br />46 <br />47 Member Peper found that consistency in fencing along property lines was <br />48 important. <br />49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.