My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0125_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0125_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 1:40:37 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 1:40:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/25/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
292
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
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: January 25, 2021 <br />Item No.: 7.g <br />Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval <br />Item Description: Discussion Regarding City Code Regulations Pertaining to Screening & Fences <br />1 B ACKGROUND <br />2 At the December 7, 2020 City Council meeting (meeting minutes attached), the City Council discussed <br />3 an appeal of a staff decision regarding a fence. The appeal was ultimately denied (Resolution <br />4 attached), however the Council requested code enforcement surrounding the topic of the appeal be <br />5 stayed until the Council could engage in a discussion surrounding screening and fence regulations. <br />6 The content of this RCA serves to initiate this discussion and to provide direction to Community <br />7 Development staff. <br />8 Based on the December 7, 2020 City Council discussion, it would seem there were perceived conflicts <br />9 between what is a fence and what is a screen, including when a fence serves to provide screening. <br />10 Acknowledging the appeal of the staff decision was denied, meaning the two structures in question at <br />11 2030 County Road B were considered fences, staff is not entirely sure what the Council wishes to <br />12 discuss in terms of City Code regulations. Without fully understanding Council’s intentions, to initiate <br />13 discussion staff would suggest the following: <br />14 The definition of fence could be revised to acknowledge they could serve a purpose other than <br />15“enclosure” or “barrier” such as fordecorative purposes. <br />16 Section 402.13 (Placement of Containers) could be revised to clarify that when structures are <br />17 constructed to storereceptacles“out of public view” in street-facing yards, those structures <br />18 may not unnecessarily exceed a dimension and height needed to fully screen the receptacles. <br />19 Based on review of the minutes, staff would also note the following: <br />20 There was some discussion in terms of the definition of “screening” conflicting with the fence <br />21 height regulations. Specifically, the language in the screening definition that says screening <br />22 must “provide a visual separator and physical barrier not less than 4 feet nor more than 6 feet <br />23 in height”. Thus, if a fence is providing a screen then it must be at least 4’ in height. But, it <br />24 should benoted that reference refers to when said screening is required by code, not when one <br />25 decides to install a screen on their own. This could be clarified with revised language. <br />26 Regardless,staff would offer these are notconflictsbecause the definition includes the <br />27 statement of “unless otherwise provided for in this ordinance”. Because the ordinance provides <br />28 fence height limitationsand requirements for screening, those limitations would need to be <br />29 enforced. Further, when there are conflicting standards, it is customary to enforce the strictest. <br />30 Staff suggests clarifying language could be added to Chapter 1001 that states “if any section <br />31 of the Roseville Zoning Code/Ordinance conflicts with any other section, the section that <br />32 places the greater restrictions shall prevail and be in force and effect”. This is common <br />33 language in other city zoning codes. <br />Page 1of 2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.