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
34 There was some discussion that fences in front yards be allowed at a height in excess of 4 feet. <br />35 If there is Council interest in allowing fences over 4 feet tall in front yards, staff would need <br />36 to understand the circumstances by which this would be allowed. For example, there was some <br />37 conversation about the percentage of the frontage that could have a fence in excess of 4 feet. <br />38 This is not something staff would recommend, nor is it something other cities do. Further, <br />39 many cities regulate fences in front yards at 3 ½ feet, so Roseville’s allowance of 4 feet is <br />40 already more lenient. The concern with tall fences in front yards would be the wall-effect <br />41 along roadway corridors. <br />42 Provisions for approving taller fences already exists in the Administrative Deviation process: <br />43 “A fence height deviation is an increase of the required fence height limit to allow for better <br />44 screening and/or noise reduction adjacent to highway rights-of-way, busy commercial areas, <br />45 or other unusual properties. A fence height deviation shall not allow fences in excess of 8 feet <br />46 in height.” In combination with the more formal Variance process, this already provides for <br />47 adjustment in the fence height limit (whether in a front yard or elsewhere), where appropriate. <br />48 There was some discussion about tall landscaping being allowed, so why couldn’t taller fences, <br />49 which serve similar purposes, be allowed. If this logic were to be used to allow taller fences <br />50 in front yards, then would it be okay to allow taller fences in side and rear yards too? Staff is <br />51 not sure the height of landscaping is a reasonable justification to support taller fences in front <br />52 yards. <br />53 Staff is looking for direction from Council on how to proceed, if code amendments are requested, and <br />54 when to enforce the fence height regulations at 2030 County Road B. Any amendments to Zoning <br />55 Code sections would require a public hearing at the Planning Commission before advancing to <br />56 Council. <br />57 P OLICY O BJECTIVE <br />58 The City Code sections relative to this topic exist for a variety of reasons, including: <br />59 Provide transitions between the public realm of the street to the private realm of the home. <br />60 Ensure enjoyment of property. <br />61 Ensure the health of residents of the City. <br />62 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS <br />63 Not applicable <br />64 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION <br />65 Discuss the information contained herein and provide direction to staff. <br />66 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION <br />67 Discuss the information contained herein and provide direction to staff. <br />Prepared by: Janice Gundlach, Community Development Director <br />Attachments: A: December 7, 2020 CC meeting minutes <br />B: Resolution No. 11768 (appeal denial) <br />C: Applicable City Code Sections and Definitions <br />Page 2 of 2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.