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, Apri111, 2016 <br />Page 20 <br />If the fence is to be replaced and installed directly along the property line, Coun- <br />cilmember Willmus asked how Councilmember McGehee intended to address <br />maintenance on the north side of the fence by Vogels if there is no 5' setbacic for <br />that maintenance to occur. <br />If installed on the property line, Councilmember McGehee presumed that neigh- <br />bors on the other side would inaintain it as part of their property. Councihnember <br />McGehee expressed her objection in principle to establishing a 5' "no man's <br />land" between fences or property lines, especially such a long expanse on uneven <br />topography, opining that at least the former chain link fence was all the saine <br />height. <br />If the fence was installed further south between the grove of Vogel-planted decid- <br />uous trees, Councilmember Willmus suggested aslced staff if the chain link fence <br />and line of evergreens in place from north to south on that east/west line would <br />suffice as a screen. <br />Ms. Collins opined that evergreen trees were tough on chain link fences, provid- <br />ing photographic evidence of the area in question. <br />Councilmember Willinus clarified that the intent of the fence was not to secure <br />yards for LDR properties to the north, but intended to provide a break or buffer <br />screen between. Therefore, with that intent in mind, Councilinember Willmus <br />questioned what the difference was in where the fence was installed, suggesting <br />that it made sense to locate the fence far enough south to allow the owner of the <br />fence to inaintain it on both sides. <br />Councilmember McGehee stated she didn't agree with Councilmember Willmus' <br />premise, noting that the fence originally installed by Aramark had served as a vis- <br />ual delineation between residential and commercial property owners and main- <br />tained by that business owner for forty years on one side and maintained on the <br />other by residential property owners, without issue during that time period. <br />Councilmember McGehee stated her belief that the demarcation between residen- <br />tial and business uses should be by way of an attractive, Cedar, opaque fence, <br />which she thought had been sufficiently clarified with the Board of Appeals and <br />Adjustments' assertion, and yet still hadn't happened. However, Councilmember <br />McGehee opined that instead what had happened was a complete destruction of <br />backyards as a result of this ongoing issue and lack of staff enforcement of a con- <br />dition asked for over a year ago. <br />Councilmember Willmus noted that one item discussed by the Planning Commis- <br />sion was placing the foundation and framing structure for a wooden versus metal <br />fence, and requirements for those posts to be cemented in. Whether or not that <br />created an issue and proximity concern with the underground cable, Coun- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.