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 22 <br />d. All wor�k associated with limited pr�oduction and process be contained i�- <br />cloo�s <br />Councilmember Willmus stated this allowed for a significant transition between <br />the residential and commercial properties while screening residential properties <br />from lights and tied this fence to the building where the chain link fence was on <br />the western edge, but not extending to the eastern property edge by stopping at the <br />eastern edge of the existing chain link fence. <br />City Attorney Gaughan suggested that the makers of the inotion include Diagram <br />D.1 as part of their motion serving as an illustrious diagram. <br />Councilmember Etten expressed his frustration, opining this was the wrong an- <br />swer to how the city wanted to take care of its neighbors, and apologized for that. <br />However, Councilmeinber Etten also expressed his belief that the city had a legal <br />responsibility to adhere to its own CU and noted that code stipulated screening the <br />parking area, and this is the best way to address that under current code provi- <br />sions, and thus the reason for his decision. <br />Councilmember Laliberte stated she had heard language read froin city staff to the <br />residential neighbors, stating IU provisions would prevail, causing a contribution <br />to the interpretation by Councilmember Etten. <br />Councilmember Willmus clarified that it was his understanding in the context of <br />that staff statement as offered, that this was prior to the rezoning of this property; <br />and now a completely different application and process was in place, as addressed <br />by City Attorney Gaughan when asked by Councilmember Etten earlier tonight <br />specific to whether or not the IU carried forward and should be considered as part <br />of this application process. <br />Councilmember McGehee expressed her disagreement with that interpretation, re- <br />iterating what she felt was the city's obligation to its residents, and not attempting <br />to revise those promises made ahnost two years ago, reinforced by a public hear- <br />ing process, resulting in leaving those neighbors much worse than before. Coun- <br />cilmember McGehee opined that it was the city's obligation to maintain the con- <br />dition of the IU as part of the conditions of the CU, which could be legally ac- <br />complished based on the city's right to ensure any significant negative impacts to <br />surrounding properties were properly addressed. Councilmember McGehee fur- <br />ther opined that these negative impacts were a result of previous city action; and <br />stated the need for the city to enforce that obligation and set a precedence by af- <br />firming and reaffirming that the city would not abandon them two years later. <br />In speaking to the proposed CU motion, Mayor Roe recognized that it essentially <br />responded to code requirements for buffering and screening. Mayor Roe also ex- <br />pressed his understanding of the past history, IU approval and actions since then. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.