pm_020605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. i. Planning File 3362: Request by City of Roseville for consideration of proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 1016, of the City Code, relating to shoreland and fence provisions. Chairman Duncan opened the hearing and requested Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provide a summary of the project report dated June 5, 2002. The City has had a number of instances where fencing along shore lands has come into question. Specifically, the issue of "why" fences are allowed along shore land lots from the principle structure to the shore has been asked. In the most recent case, the City Council interpreted the City Code to state that no fencing shall be allowed shoreward of the principle structure and attached deck. The Council asked the staff to prepare an amendment and to establish a hearing date with the Planning Commission (June 5, 2002) Member Mulder asked for "hardship" definition for a fence. It will be a case-by-case basis for this use, example being dog fencing and day care/safety fencing. Could a 4' high chain link fence be permitted? Chair Duncan explained that the right to install a privacy fence should be a private right. Member Cunningham said the fence would constrict a public resource. Member Peper noted that in some developments fences are restricted to height and color of cyclone fences. Member Backman asked if such fences currently exist in Roseville. Thomas Paschke asked if an existing fence could be repaired (Yes). Thomas Paschke asked if individual property owner notification should be done. Member Mulder asked if other cities have attempted to create an "appropriate" fence. He is not comfortable with the current proposal. He encouraged staff to come back with another option - a shorter chain link fence. Member Cunningham asked for numbers of housing units that are closer than 75 feet to the shoreline. Member Bakeman stated that the option should be landscaping within 75 feet, not fencing. Member Peper found that consistency in fencing along property lines was important. Member Mulder asked if the ordinance could provide some options for those property owners who need fencing. Member Bakeman said the option is landscaping, and allow the shoreline to look natural. A cyclone fence is offensive. Member Cunningham said a hardship solution is a leash, kennel, and invisible fence. There being no further comment Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Motion by Member Bakeman, seconded by Member Cunningham, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amendment. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2, Mulder, Duncan Motion carried. Member Duncan and Member Mulder indicated there needs to be some latitude for property owners who have children or pets to have some transparent fence. j. Planning File 3389: Request by the City of Roseville to amend Section 703.05 (Benches in Public Right-of- Way) of the Roseville City Code by clarifying language pertaining to benches and adding regulations for bus shelters.