2021_0125_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: January 25, 2021 Item No.: 7.g Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description: Discussion Regarding City Code Regulations Pertaining to Screening & Fences 1 B ACKGROUND 2 At the December 7, 2020 City Council meeting (meeting minutes attached), the City Council discussed 3 an appeal of a staff decision regarding a fence. The appeal was ultimately denied (Resolution 4 attached), however the Council requested code enforcement surrounding the topic of the appeal be 5 stayed until the Council could engage in a discussion surrounding screening and fence regulations. 6 The content of this RCA serves to initiate this discussion and to provide direction to Community 7 Development staff. 8 Based on the December 7, 2020 City Council discussion, it would seem there were perceived conflicts 9 between what is a fence and what is a screen, including when a fence serves to provide screening. 10 Acknowledging the appeal of the staff decision was denied, meaning the two structures in question at 11 2030 County Road B were considered fences, staff is not entirely sure what the Council wishes to 12 discuss in terms of City Code regulations. Without fully understanding Council’s intentions, to initiate 13 discussion staff would suggest the following: 14 The definition of fence could be revised to acknowledge they could serve a purpose other than 15“enclosure” or “barrier” such as fordecorative purposes. 16 Section 402.13 (Placement of Containers) could be revised to clarify that when structures are 17 constructed to storereceptacles“out of public view” in street-facing yards, those structures 18 may not unnecessarily exceed a dimension and height needed to fully screen the receptacles. 19 Based on review of the minutes, staff would also note the following: 20 There was some discussion in terms of the definition of “screening” conflicting with the fence 21 height regulations. Specifically, the language in the screening definition that says screening 22 must “provide a visual separator and physical barrier not less than 4 feet nor more than 6 feet 23 in height”. Thus, if a fence is providing a screen then it must be at least 4’ in height. But, it 24 should benoted that reference refers to when said screening is required by code, not when one 25 decides to install a screen on their own. This could be clarified with revised language. 26 Regardless,staff would offer these are notconflictsbecause the definition includes the 27 statement of “unless otherwise provided for in this ordinance”. Because the ordinance provides 28 fence height limitationsand requirements for screening, those limitations would need to be 29 enforced. Further, when there are conflicting standards, it is customary to enforce the strictest. 30 Staff suggests clarifying language could be added to Chapter 1001 that states “if any section 31 of the Roseville Zoning Code/Ordinance conflicts with any other section, the section that 32 places the greater restrictions shall prevail and be in force and effect”. This is common 33 language in other city zoning codes. Page 1of 2