Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: Ob117/02 <br />Item No: �1� A• <br />De�artment Approval: ,�_ n .� � Agenda Section: <br />Iterh Description: Presentation and Request by City of Roseville to Amene� SecNon <br />1016 (Shoreland District) by adding fence regulations (P.F. 3362) <br />1.0 REQUESTED ACTION: <br />1.1 The City has had a number of instances where fencing along shore lands has come into <br />question. Specifically, the issue of "why" fences are allowed along shore land lots from <br />the principle structure to the shore has been asked. <br />1.2 In the most recent case, the Hoff Fence Variance case, the City Council interpreted the <br />City Code to state that no fencing sha11 be allowed shoreward of the principle structure <br />and attached deck The Council asked the staff to prepare an amendment and to establish <br />a hearing date with the Planning Commission (7une 5, 2002) <br />PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY: <br />. Application submitted on: Does not apply <br />. No 60 day requirement <br />. Staff Review: Approval — June 5, 2002 <br />. Planning Commission: Hearing/Recommended Approval (3-2) — June 5, 2002 <br />. City Council: Action Anticipated � 7une 17, 2002 <br />2.0 STAFF and PLANNING COMIVIISSION RECOMIVIENDATION <br />2.1 The Community Development Staff recommended approval of language that clearly <br />establishes a fence setback from the shore of a lake or wetland lot to be the same as the <br />principle structure. Such a setback will be 75 feet adjacent to a lake and 50 feet adjacent <br />to a wetland. Language will a11ow for privacy fencing of an attached deck since the deck <br />is considered a portion of the principle structure. <br />2.2 The Planning Commission, after holding the required hearing on June 5, 2002, <br />recommended approval (3-2) of the proposed ordinance. (DRAFT MIl�]UTES ARE <br />ATTACHED) <br />2.3 The dissenting votes (Duncan and Mulder) expressed concern that if a variance was <br />requested from this new ordinance, it would be difficult to find a hardship, even if the <br />owner merely wanted to contain dogs or keep children safely from the water's edge. <br />Duncan felt fencing was a property owner's right; Mulder suggested an exception to the <br />PF3362 RCA — 061702 Page 1 of 2 <br />