My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2024_0408
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2024
>
CC_Minutes_2024_0408
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2024 1:22:02 PM
Creation date
5/7/2024 1:22:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/8/2024
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, April 8, 2024 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Mr. Pate explained there are twenty wires, separated about three inches apart up <br /> to about three and a half feet and then it goes to eight inches apart all the way to <br /> the top. <br /> Member Groff explained he grew up on a farm, knows what electric fences are, <br /> and there is a shock involved. He thought the fence issue was important because <br /> that is how the City's Zoning Code reads and this is a fence, in his opinion. <br /> Chair Roe indicated one thing Mr. Pate explained is that the device initializes a <br /> call as an alarm. He wondered if there were other technologies available that do <br /> not involve this approach but would initiate similar alarms such as motion sensors <br /> or those types of technologies. <br /> Mr. Pate indicated his business does not have motion sensors and the company <br /> does not provide other types of security devices. His account list is basically every <br /> major trucking company in America such as UPS, Fed Ex, Fed Ex truck, all of the <br /> major automobile repair centers, and Caliber. He noted that all of the major <br /> equipment companies in the US use this device because it works and saves the <br /> police a lot of money by not having to answer calls and write reports or do drive- <br /> bys. He noted these businesses should have the ability to prevent crime on their <br /> property. <br /> Chair Roe asked if there was any, from the point of view of installation,relative <br /> to the existing perimeter fence and will this be a certain distance from that fence, <br /> or can it be farther away than what is being proposed. <br /> Mr. Pate stated that is a good question. He explained the standard is to be 100 to <br /> 200 millimeters away, which is somewhere between four to eight inches. This <br /> should not be too far away from the perimeter fence because it then creates what <br /> is called a zone of entrapment where someone could basically sit in there, <br /> manipulate the device, and break in anyway. If the two are close together, it <br /> works as a team so to speak and makes it very difficult to get inside the space. <br /> The gates are even tighter than that because most gates run on electricity and are <br /> chain driven gates so they need to be even tighter, around three inches in between. <br /> Public Comment <br /> Chair Roe offered an opportunity for public comment with no one coming forward. <br /> Etten moved, Groff seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 12064 entitled, <br /> "Resolution of Decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Concerning the <br /> Appeal by Amarok Ultimate Perimeter Security and Caliber Collision of 1914 <br /> County Road C of the Variance Board's Denial of a Fence Variance." <br /> Board Member Discussion <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.