pm_020807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Mulder commended residents for thoughtful comments. Questions have been helpful. The Planning Commission tries to find the balance between developer and needs of the City and neighborhood. He expressed concern about design of massive roof structure, hoping to make it more human scale and encouraged more architectural design diversity in the neighborhood. Should use landscape to create diversity and work with neighbors before final approvals. Vote on motion: Ayes: 4, Mulder, Bakeman, Peper, Traynor Nays: 0 Motion carried. e. Planning File 3362: Request by the City Council to consider modifications (additional language) to an Ordinance amending Chapter 1016, of the City Code, relating to fence provisions in shoreland and wetland districts. Acting Chair Mulder opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary of the project report dated August 7, 2002. On June 17,2002, the Roseville City Council held the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 1016 of the Roseville City Code pertaining to fence requirements for lots/parcel adjacent a lake or wetland. During the Council's discussion on the proposed amendment, questions and comments arose pertaining to fence type and further encroachment toward a lake or wetland. The Council determined that the Planning Commission should hold a hearing to review and discuss the merits of including language that allows fence type, maximum height, and encroachment options. On July 10, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the hearing regarding amendments to Section 1016 of the Roseville City Code pertaining to fence regulations for properties adjacent a wetland to August 7, 2002. Member Mulder explained his concern about the extremes of "no" fences vs. instances where fences could be unlimited. Is there a difference between lakes and wetlands for fencing? Member Bakeman explained that fences can delineate property lines; natural shrubbery could do the same thing, especially on lakeshores where the resources, the water and shore, belong to the public. Member Mulder asked if the State shoreland ordinance refers to fences. (No, just structures). Member Bakeman noted another use for shrubbery is the environmental enhancement. Privacy fences keep people and vision out of shoreline, and contradicts shoreland policy. Regarding safety, fences are only one solution - another is a pet or canine invisible fence. For children or disabled adults, fences should be near the building where the care is provided. This would be a safety fence ten feet into the setback area. Could a temporary fence be used? A fence should be a structure. Pool fences are required as per the State Building Code, but could be transparent. No other fences should be allowed other than near deck, safety, and pool fences. Thomas Paschke explained the 75 foot setback for fences. He showed examples of fences and concern for reduced opaque fencing. Owners should be able to keep unwanted people or animals from entering the lot. There should be some property rights for fencing. Landscaping can be used for privacy. Member Peper explained the need for fence placement consistency. Member Bakeman asked if dogs must be on leash or under control and therefore would not need a fence. Member Mulder noted that McCarron's Lake County Park has a property fence to the shoreline to stop trespassing in shoreland lawns. There is a difference between privacy of sight line on the shoreline and privacy in their home. What is the balance between public share in water resource vs. property owner's privacy rights? Member Traynor said the issue is more related to attractiveness. Member Bakeman prefers "natural" fences, even landscaping which screens privacy fencing, preferring attractive landscape screens.