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 21 <br />cilmember Willmus opined seemed to be a reasonable assumption; noting that had <br />not been part of the IU discussion and not considered at that time. While there <br />was some discussion as a possible utility easement during that IU discussion, <br />Councilmeinber Willmus stated that it had not been known to him that there was a <br />buried phone cable located there, which would have made a difference in his deci- <br />sion. <br />Councilmember McGehee noted that at the public hearing after appeal of staff's <br />administrative niling, that information had been brought forward, including verbal <br />and written testimony from the Vogel fence contractor, assuring that a 6.5' fence <br />could be installed on the property line. <br />Councilmember Laliberte referenced her original motion, noting that she re- <br />mained in support of a 6.5' high fence, installed 5' south of the property line, <br />which the Vogels were willing to do. Councilmember Laliberte noted that this <br />toolc into account the ceinent installation for wood post supports; and agreed that <br />the City Council owed it to the neighborhood to follow-through with the intent for <br />a buffer in this area. Short of dragging this out even further with an encroachment <br />easeinent, Councilmember Laliberte opined that 5' would accoininodate the posts <br />and encroachment areas, yet be as far north as the city could ask the Vogels to in- <br />stall the fence. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: McGehee and Laliberte. <br />Nays: Wilhnus, Etten and Roe. <br />Motion failed. <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 was not in order as it had been offered previ- <br />ously and failed due to lack of a second. <br />Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11312 (Attach- <br />ment G) entitled, "A Resolution Approving Limited Production and Pro- <br />cessing as a Conditional Use at 2830 Fairview Avenue;" subject to the follow- <br />ing conditions: <br />a. A solid opaque £��fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed <br />iinmediately north of the existing eastern parking lot's chain link fence to <br />scNeen the lot, as well as delivery, dock and refuse/recycling areas. <br />b. Additional lantlscaping shall be installed in and a�ound the beNrrc adjacent <br />to the front employee and customer pa�king lot to moNe fully screen head- <br />lights from view of the adjacent Nesidentially zoned p�^operties. <br />c. All requirecl screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.