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 19 <br />If the Vogels were to install the fence today, based on the three optional locations <br />shown on the area map (Attachment D.1), Councilmember McGehee asked where <br />she would locate the fence, and how the Vogels intended to maintain the opposite <br />side of the fence if it had been located right on the property line. <br />Ms. Vogel responded that the intent was to install the fence 5' south of the abut- <br />ting property line to facilitate that maintenance for lawn care, mulch or snow stor- <br />age, even though it would prove more expensive, time-consuining and difficult to <br />do, it was still part of the requirements of Vogel to meet conditions. <br />City Council Deliberation <br />Laliberte moved that the applicant install a 6.5' opaque fence 5' south of the <br />north property line as originally proposed; and that the installation be com- <br />pleted by July 29, 2016. <br />Mayor Roe ruled the motion failed for lack of a second. <br />McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, that the applicant installs a 6.5 Cedar <br />fence, not Pine, and that the opaque fence be placed on the property line <br />where the previous chain link fence stood. <br />City Attorney Gaughan clarified that if this motion passes, placing a condition on <br />a subsequent CU motion, it was recognized that this motion may still fail if a sub- <br />sequent CU motion fails. <br />Councilineinber McGehee opined that the City Council had an obligation to malce <br />the residential neighbors whole again. From the standpoint of the request, and in <br />good faith, Councilmember McGehee noted that the original agreement had been <br />without any intended burden on the business owner. When the Vogel's fence <br />contractor appeared before the City Council previously, Councilmember McGe- <br />hee noted that she had specifically asked the cost for the fence as stipulated in her <br />motion, and been told the cost would be $16,000, not the $40,000 to $45,000 for <br />an 8' fence due to additional engineering requirements of a taller fence. Coun- <br />cilmember McGehee opined that it had never been the City Council's direction to <br />install an 8' fence, since the process was considering a 6.5' fence throughout. <br />Councilmember McGehee stated that her lack of support for Pine was due to con- <br />cerns that it wouldn't last; and since the fence has to be maintained, it would be <br />better served with Cedar. Because this has been promised and the existing fence <br />already removed and not yet replaced, Councilmember McGehee opined that the <br />cost to replace it wasn't comparable to the legal costs, in fighting its installation <br />over the last two years. At the minimum, Councilmember McGehee reiterated the <br />City Council's obligation for the benefit of residents and businesses, and stated <br />that she didn't think this represented an unbearable expense or inconvenience and <br />verified the Board of Appeals and Adjustments' previous denial of the appeal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.