My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0816
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0816
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2010 2:29:14 PM
Creation date
9/14/2010 2:28:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/16/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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, August 16, 2010 <br />Page 5 <br />Ms. Redman expressed her appreciation in working with current City staff on this <br />issue; and questioned whether it was prudent to note somewhere in the document <br />that the reason for this screening requirement was based on the topography of ad- <br />jacent residential properties creating special circumstances beyond City Code <br />provisions. <br />Mr. Ring opined that a good solution among residential property owners and Mr. <br />Albrecht had been achieved, and expressed his appreciation for the City becoming <br />engaged in finding a resolution for all parties. Mr. Ring expressed his hope that <br />the City would continue to monitor the situation and take immediate action if <br />conditions of the Interim Use were not met. <br />Ms. Redman reiterated her appreciation and attention of staff in pursuit of work- <br />ing through this process. <br />Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included Mr. Trudgeon and City At- <br />torney Bartholdi concurring that City Code addressed the zoning, noncompliance, <br />permit and screening requirements and mention of screening due to special cir- <br />cumstances such as topography was not necessary; staff's assurance that they <br />would research the correct height of the screening, whether 15' or 20' with the ex- <br />isting privacy fence setback at 15'; and clarification by staff that a timeline was <br />included in the revised resolution (formerly Attachment J to the RCA, and noted <br />that there was a .built in process in City Code for any noncompliance with condi- <br />tions, but that they were not usually included in the resolution itself. <br />Mr. Albrecht was present in the audience, but expressed no comments. <br />Further discussion included November 1, 2010 as the deadline for planting trees <br />as well as completing the fence height extension consisting of the lattice work on <br />top of the existing eight foot (8') fence in place since this summer; and additional <br />language revisions as indicated in the following motion. <br />Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Revised Resolution No. 10835 en- <br />titled, "A Resolution Approving Outdoor Storage of Irrigation Equipment and <br />Materials at 1450 County Road C as an Interim Use in Accordance with Roseville <br />City Code, Section 1013.09 (PF10-014);" modified and corrected as follows: <br />^ Condition f delete reference to " 20 foot" buffer zone and revise as <br />"...within the existing buffer zone... " <br />^ Condition g: correct date in second sentence to read "...August l7, <br />2015... "rather than May 3l, 201 S. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.