My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0411
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2016 3:50:46 PM
Creation date
4/26/2016 9:47:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/11/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, April ll, 2016 <br />Page 16 <br />meeting and warehousing space, Ms. McCormick opined they had been doing so <br />illegally to-date until rezoning was approved in January of 2016. <br />Ms. McCormick noted residents continued to come before the City Council seek- <br />ing enforcement of the conditions for IU approval, with further clarification of <br />those conditions in August of 2015, still not resulting in action or enforcement <br />while the Vogels were allowed to continue occupying the space. <br />Specific to the easement, Ms. McCormick stated her disagreement with the Vogel <br />attorney opinion, and addressed her interpretation of the CenturyLink easement <br />and hand digging requirements around their underground cable. Ms. McCormick <br />advised that she too had researched Ramsey County records, and referenced a <br />1978 housing subdivision and replat, she found no utility easement along the <br />south property line for residential properties; but most important to her was a <br />copy of the legal description provided for the Vogel property and no mention of <br />an easeinent (Commitment LT File No. 503870). <br />However, Ms. McCormick opined that was a moot point if the Vogels wanted to <br />replace the fence and be the good neighbor they claim to want to be; and install <br />the fence in the same location it was before. Ms. McCormick opined that interests <br />of all parties were more in line than apart; and assured all that the residential <br />neighbors had no objection to the Vogel's business, but simply sought protection <br />for their own properties. Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council enforce <br />what the Vogels had proinised to do and what was right. <br />While an extensive record had already been submitted for the public record previ- <br />ously, Ms. McCormick advised that she would submit additional handouts as ref- <br />erenced tonight, including a list of eleven conditions requested by the neighbor- <br />hood for this CUP if approved. Given the City Council's repeated interest in <br />community engageinent, Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council act to pro- <br />tect these residential property owners as was previously expressly promised. Al- <br />so, for a City Council apparently concerned with setting precedents, Ms. McCor- <br />mick expressed her interest and concern in how their action tonight would take <br />that into consideration. <br />Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive <br />As a neighbor directly abutting the Vogel property, Ms. Erickson stated that she <br />hardly knew where to begin her comments other than to put a human face to to- <br />night's legal jargon. Ms. Erickson spoke to the recent and lengthy Planning <br />Commission without allowing any additional public comment; and stated that the <br />process seemed to be a sham leaving residents without recourse. <br />Ms. Erickson opined that this was a red herring form the beginning, since the <br />fence had been installed for years and now there was suddenly a problem with its <br />location. Ms. Erickson opined that she found that to be not true; and provided <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.