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