My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-05-09 CC
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
2007-05-09 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2007 11:39:43 AM
Creation date
6/6/2007 11:39:38 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />May 9, 2007 <br />Discussion ensued. <br /> <br />VIII. NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br /> <br />1.Partial Release of Easement/Encroachment Agreement – 7323 Deer Pass Drive. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson explained that in the past, Council did not want to give <br />encroachment agreements for adding on to the primary structure. He stated that instead, <br />Council preferred to release the easement if the engineer determined it was not needed. <br />He stated the property owners at 7323 Deer Pass Drive did make a deposit to cover the <br />engineer’s review. City Administrator Larson explained that the City Engineer <br />concluded there was more easement than the City needed and releasing the easement <br />would not hurt the City. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson explained that the City Attorney recommends the vacation of a <br />portion of the drainage/utility easement on the property and to hold a public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Broussard questioned whether the encroachment could be granted <br />without releasing the easement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser stated that the property owner has built a fence on the easement and <br />from a practical stand point, it is best to vacate the property and hold a public hearing to <br />release the easement. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson clarified that the entire easement would not be vacated; only <br />the portion on which the owner would build a structure. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson commented that the property owner would like an interim <br />encroachment agreement so he could begin constructing a deck. He explained to the <br />Council how this would benefit the property owner. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson displayed an aerial photo of the property. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued. <br /> <br />City Engineer Statz recommended the fence be removed and the shed relocated. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Broussard, seconded by Council Member Lee, to offer <br />the property owner an interim encroachment agreement to construct the proposed <br />deck, the property owner is to move the fence and shed into an area specified by the <br />City Engineer and cover all associated costs and that a public hearing be scheduled <br />for June 13, 2007, to consider vacating part of the easement. All in favor. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.