CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April ll, 2016 Page 17 various examples in the coinmunity where similar shielding or screening between residential and commercial properties was done. Ms. Erickson opined that the residents had atteinpted to be transparent, even though characterized as snooping; and suggested if the Vogels didn't want them watching they shouldn't have muti- lated their trees or removed the existing fence. Ms. Erickson referenced an email from fonner Community Development Director Paul Bilotta to Ms. McCormick regarding a CU, timing of the rezoning issue be- fore resolution, and determinations for resolution from staff's perspective, which she also found untrue. Since not only commercial property owners, but also resi- dential property owners malce city and other jobs available in Roseville, Ms. Er- ickson opined that she didn't feel city staff was representing residents. Even though she now feels victimized, Ms. Erickson stated that residents had simply asked for a barrier fence between residential and commercial properties to protect them from a new business representing an unknown quantity. Ms. Ericicson noted that this is a test case for resident concerns with new development coming into their neighborhood and touching them where they lived. Ms. Erickson opined that the lack of enforcement by staff was part of their victimization, noting that the IU would be in effect for two years in June, but its conditions had yet to be met or enforced. � Ms. Erickson noted that this was where she lived and she had hoped to be in her property for the next twenty years, but now felt characterized as a snooping and meddling person. Additional Comment/Response from Vogel Ms. Vogel noted that the IU required them — the applicant — to install an opaque fence of 6' — 8' in height, not a continuous replacement of the existing fence. Ms. Vogel admitted that assumptions were initially made in defining the northern edge of the property on an exact line, and noted their full agreement with the conditions at that time. Ms. Vogel stated they had done their best to get the new fence in- stalled, and had not anticipated the uncertainties created in discovering the ease- ment. However, when offering a solution similar to the original screening solu- tion, Ms. Vogel noted that the residential neighbors had said that wasn't good enough; and if they had known at the time, she stated they would have left the old fence in place with no impacts to the existing trees. Ms. Vogel noted that the reason for removal of the existing fence in November of 2014 was to accommodate the locate by CenturyLink for the new fence installa- tion, scheduled for installation later that same week. However, as evidenced dur- ing the ensuing process, Ms. Vogel noted that the project had been put on hold due to questions and concerns with border conditions and differing survey and underground cable locates, creating additional confusion.