CC_Minutes_2017_1106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,November 6, 2017 Page 4 Mr. Anderson stated that he and his wife were to be part of the Applewood prop- erty; and opined that the apparent creative and careful planning process involved along Cleveland Avenue between County Roads B and D had created an attractive thoroughfare. Mr. Anderson stated that he was proud to invite friends and rela- tives to visit, but heard the frequent observation from them, "How can the citizens of the Roseville community tolerate the existence of that "junkyard" over such a long period of time." Mr. Anderson opined that the property was a major eyesore, and its removal was proving a long process to implement; but that it needed to happen sooner rather than later. Mr. Anderson opined that another five-year delay would be profoundly disappointing to many of the residents in this immediate ar- ea. Response to Questions Specific to providing notice to area properties, Mayor Roe noted that this had been a challenge since this was not a land use application with its related process; but instead consideration by the City Council of the settlement of litigation against the city. Mayor Roe agreed that, in hindsight, the city perhaps should have considered pursuing the notice process, but unfortunately that had not been done prior to tonight's decision-making. Specific to future actions, if at the end of five years there was no compliance, Mayor Roe noted that this was what had been proposed prior to going into litiga- tion with the city proposing that the property owner apply for an IU, possibly with a maximum duration of five years, a path that was intended to be pursued prior to the property owner initiating litigation. Mayor Roe clarified that the settlement agreement had been negotiated by all parties in a back and forth process with the city trying to remain as vigorous as possible to apply and retain conditions that would have been addressed in an IU, with some remaining in the negotiated doc- ument, while others had not. Therefore, Mayor Roe advised that the agreement before the city was what was able to be negotiated with the party initiating litiga- tion against the city in an attempt to end the litigation while providing some sort of date-certain to end this process. Mayor Roe deferred to City Attorney Gaughan to address ramifications related to compliance during or at the end of the agree- ment period. City Attorney Gaughan summarized that certain conditions would be imposed as part of the agreement, including clean-up of junk and debris and an end to the haphazard or the disorganized layout of trailers on the site. Mr. Gaughan noted that this addressed a continuing major concern to the city related to life safety is- sues, where first responders were asked to respond to less than ideal situations, as had occurred 1-2 years ago by firefighters. Mr. Gaughan advised that city staff had diligently worked for over a year to gain compliance on this property in ad- dressing removal of junk and debris, and layout of property requiring an updated site drawing kept current with the number and location of trailers on site to avoid the junkyard perception. Mr. Gaughan advised that this had been the city's only recourse to-date as well as over the last four decades. Mr. Gaughan noted that