Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,June 17,2024 <br /> Page 7 <br /> their homes but that would look bad. She thought Roseville made a mistake and <br /> felt bad for the homeowner but the fence spoils the entire ambience of the lake. <br /> Ms. Mary Beth Hess, Shady Beach Avenue,Roseville <br /> Ms. Hess explained the fence and visibility by it are very dangerous. She indicated <br /> the fence is impacting the entire area with views. <br /> With no one else coming forward to speak, Mayor Roe closed the public comment <br /> at approximately 7:34 p.m. <br /> Mayor Roe and Ms. Tierney responded to community questions posed during the <br /> public comment section. <br /> Mayor Roe offered Mr. Lemmons and Mr. Carrara the opportunity to come back to <br /> the table to address public comments. <br /> Mr. Lemmons indicated that Mr. Carrara has already removed part of this fence <br /> because of the liability and safety issues. He referenced City Code Section <br /> 10.11.06, visibility triangles, noting this meets those requirements. Regarding the <br /> height of the fence,he referenced City Code Section 10.11.08a, clause 4. He stated <br /> this fence was designed and does meet the requirements, and the fact that maybe <br /> one spot does not is irrelevant because it is the average height, not a single spot. <br /> Mr. Carrera understood the neighborhood concerns and that there was a mistake by <br /> City Staff.He noted that a lot of times,it does not get this far and is remedied before <br /> it gets to this point. He did want to point out that he approached some members of <br /> City Staff to try to remedy it before and their response was "Sometimes the City <br /> makes mistakes, and you have to take a fence down. We will see you in court." <br /> Mr. Lemmons indicated he disagreed with the City Attorney because there is no <br /> unconditional right on the part of the City to revoke a permit. <br /> Mr. Carrera stated he understands that this happened, the neighbors did not want it <br /> to happen, a normal due process was being followed, and the Enclave made some <br /> good points. Behind him, when he moved there, some members of the current <br /> Council approved setbacks, variances, and rights-of-way to let that development <br /> move forward and happen in the first place. He was asking for the same treatment. <br /> He indicated he has had numerous items stolen from his property as well as people <br /> passed out on his property where the police have been called. There are issues of <br /> safety and security and that been increasing. He would like to have the same <br /> considerations that the development received behind him. <br /> Council Discussion <br />