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 18 <br />Ms. Vogel noted that when the neighbors appeared before the City Council in <br />Augiist of 2015 saying that all obstacles had been reinoved, they actually had not <br />been. <br />In March of 2015, Ms. Vogel reported that their business began renovation of the <br />building, and moved into it in June of 2015, clarifying that they had not even been <br />there for a year due to zoning and other issues as well, but not two years as sug- <br />gested. <br />Ms. Vogel asked what was so bad about looking at an einpty parlcing lot; and fur- <br />ther asked what the screening was protecting residential properties from. Ms. <br />Vogel noted that their business had also been affected during this process; and <br />recognized the personal piece, with their business being responsible for twenty or <br />more of their employees' families. <br />Mr. Crain stated that he had issues with the Planning Commission's use of the <br />word "cedar" since that was a technical issue. Mr. Crain stated his concurrence in <br />designating a"wood" fence, but asked that it be cedar or like quality rather than <br />causing the Vogels to return for approval if another material was found more ap- <br />propriate and cost effective. <br />Ms. Vogel noted that the original condition of approval only designated "opaque." <br />Mr. Crain opined that, no matter the action tonight, it wouldn't resolve hurt feel- <br />ings; and in his perception of the City Council and atteinpting to balance things, <br />opined that it was important for them to be leaders and state what they cared <br />about. Mr. Crain asked if tonight's decision would inhibit small business froin <br />being successful in Roseville or not. Mr. Crain noted that even with installing the <br />new fence 20' beyond where residential property owners wanted it located was in <br />support of staff's reading of city code coinpliance. <br />At the request of Councilmember Laliberte as to their intended location for the <br />new fence installation once the old one had come down, Ms. Vogel responded <br />that after the existing fence had come down, multiple readings were done by Cen- <br />turyLink further confusion new fence installation based on the inconsistencies of <br />those readings and potential location of underground cable. Ms. Vogel noted that <br />one reading had the cable on the residential neighbors side, another further south <br />on the Vogel property, and yet another directly under the previous fence location. <br />Being told by CenturyLink cable locators that the fence and trees were affecting <br />those readings, Ms. Vogel noted that they had attempted to resolve those discrep- <br />ancies by removing the old fence and having trees trimmed as well as to facilitate <br />installation of the new fence, even though then told later that wouldn't have been <br />necessary. However, Ms. Vogel noted that this served to create a different situa- <br />tion in placing footings for an 8' fence versus those needed for a shorter fence at <br />6.5' due to load bearing on those footings for the fence based on height. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.