Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: 09/23/02 <br />Item No: X. C <br />�epartment Approval: Ci Man ger A proval: Agenda Section: <br />DPWITP ����,Q,�,� �=�� O RD I N AN C E S <br />Item Description: Request by the Roseville City Council to consider amended language <br />pertaining to fence type and location for inclusion in the second <br />reading of an amending Section 1016 (Shoreland District (PF3362). <br />REQUEST: Hold second reading on shoreland and wetland fence setback <br />ordinance, review comments from Planning Commission, decide upon appropriate <br />ordinance version. <br />1.0 BACKGROUND: <br />1.1 On 7une 17, 2002, the Roseville City Council held the first reading of an ordinance <br />amending Section 1016 of the Roseville City Code pertaining to fence requirements for <br />lots/parcel adjacent a lake or wetland. (Staff had recommended that the proposed setback <br />ordinance is appropriate and in keeping with the initial direction by the City Council.) <br />1.2 During the Council's discussion on the proposed amendment, questions and comments <br />arose pertaining to safety and containment fencing types and further encroachment toward <br />a lake or wetland. The Council determined that the Planning Commission should hold a <br />hearing to review and discuss the merits of including language that allows fence type, <br />opacity, maximum height, and encroachment options. <br />On July 10, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the hearing regarding amendments <br />to Section 1016 of the Roseville City Code pertaining to fence regulations for properties <br />adjacent a wetland to August 7, 2002. <br />On August 7�', the Planning Commission agreed (3-1) that a safety or containment <br />fencing was appropriate. Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to <br />recommend a maximum 25% opacity, 42" height, earth-tone colored fence no closer than 25 <br />feet to OHW, and no unclad fence, applying to lakes and wetlands. Property owners may <br />need to apply for variances for any other alternative closer to the OHW. Pool fencing must <br />meet the requirements of State Building Code for height (and the opacity/style as indicated <br />above). <br />2. 0 STAFF COMIV�NTS: <br />2.1 Council requested further input on "fencing for resident safety or containinen�' in this <br />ordinance amendment. Specifically, should language be included in the second reading <br />of the ordinance amendment to allow a non-obtrusive fence for protection of children and <br />pets, as well as placing the fence closer to a lake shore or wetland than the required 75 <br />feet. <br />PF3362 RCA — 092302 Page 1 of5 <br />