CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 11, 2016 Page 12 define an actual easement agreement in place for them or the underground Centu- ryLink cables. Ms. Collins noted that the existing chain link fence along the property line had been removed by Vogels in November of 2015 in anticipation of installing the new fence until coming across the purported easement agreement. Ms. Collins reviewed staff's recommendations for conditional approval (page 5 of the RCA) of the request as detailed in the staff report and those conditions differ- ing from the Planning Commission's recommendation, some based on further in- conclusive research by staff on an easement agreement. Referencing Attachment B, Page 2, Councilmember Etten asked City Attorney Gaughan whether or not the city was to not look at the previous Interim Use (IU) and consider if the Conditional Use (CU) request had come independent of the IU to be viewed on its own merits and under the city's CU requirements for all appli- cations. City Attorney Gaughan responded that yes, it was the City Council's obligation to view each application on its own merits within provision of the code, in this in- stance a requested CU, not an IU. Mr. Gaughan advised that the obligation was to apply the city's CU requirements to this CU application, and while there may be information and facts surrounding the IU that the City Council might like to bring into this current CU application, as a general principle, this application was spe- cific to the CU portion of city code. Councilmember McGehee asked City Attorney Gaughan if the City Council had the ability to address any potential negative impacts with this CU application. City Attorney Gaughan responded that it did, specific to how CU is defined under local code and after due consideration in determining whether or not any such po- tential negative impacts can be determined under the parameters of the CU code. Applicant Representatives Sonnie Vogel, CEO and Owner; Attorney Zachary Crain, Roseville resident and Legal Counsel for Vogel Mechanical Ms. Vogel offered to answer any questions of the City Council. Councilmember Laliberte asked for Ms. Vogel's comments related to the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. Ms. Vogel stated that she would like to object to earlier recommendations and findings reported by staff regarding their inability to find an easement agreement, noting that their company had forward that communication, recognizing a dis- crepancy between their former attorney and a specialist from the land title compa- ny and information submitted earlier. In terms of the former IU application, Ms. Vogel clarified that their company had never sought an IU and were simply seek-