My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1992_0526_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1992
>
1992_0526_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2011 4:05:29 PM
Creation date
10/28/2011 3:51:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
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
WO Uva.. Al <br />r� <br />me rodaway xrs <br />C n- r -.ereu <br />. r-.njLn <br />-Lne <br />riL rill. -v -way <br />aL <br />a <br />w.LUL.11 <br />vUry.Ln9 <br />1X709 <br />to 24 feet <br />It is <br />not possible <br />to construct <br />a <br />roadway <br />that <br />conforms <br />to the standards within <br />this right-of-way <br />without <br />sin <br />igni <br />a n <br />damage to landscaping <br />including <br />several <br />mature <br />maple <br />trees, <br />a mature <br />hedge, and boulevard <br />s'hrubbe <br />In <br />the' negotiations <br />with <br />property <br />owners, they have <br />necessary easeents.I <br />'indicated <br />an <br />extreme <br />reluctance <br />to <br />grant <br />the city <br />the <br />It appears that <br />the alternatives <br />available <br />time <br />would <br />be <br />the <br />following: <br />1. Abandon this, <br />section <br />of the <br />prod <br />lect and <br />attempt <br />to negotiate <br />with <br />the property <br />owners <br />to reach <br />a reasonable <br />compensation <br />or <br />accommodation <br />of <br />the required <br />28 foot road <br />within <br />a <br />slightly <br />,expanded, ri <br />t_of <br />-way (construction <br />would <br />be <br />delayed <br />until <br />1993) <br />Proceed with <br />the <br />prof ect <br />and <br />aciquire the' <br />necessary <br />right-of-way <br />through an <br />eminent, <br />Boman <br />(condemnation) <br />proceedings <br />Amend the' <br />standard <br />to allow <br />a <br />roadway width <br />of <br />less <br />than <br />feet <br />for this unique, <br />11 <br />circumstance. <br />In reviewing the <br />thr+e+s <br />alternatives, <br />we feel <br />that <br />the <br />third <br />appears to <br />be the most practical.. <br />In this <br />case, <br />the right <br />-o <br />_way <br />�.c�t <br />�s <br />�. �.mal <br />t 30 feet li Al,so, <br />significant <br />l.andscap <br />n'g features <br />exist <br />that <br />would <br />have to, be destroyed <br />.1 <br />Given these <br />two conditions, <br />we <br />believe <br />a <br />policy <br />amendment '.s appropriate <br />that <br />w+oul,d <br />allow a <br />width <br />of <br />less <br />than <br />28 <br />feet. <br />Currently, as the <br />policy <br />notes,' <br />at <br />.a foot <br />width <br />parking <br />is allowed <br />n both sioldes.1 <br />For width <br />of 28 <br />to <br />31 feet, <br />parking <br />is <br />allowed <br />on <br />one <br />s "Idea 'The parking <br />restr�.ct <br />ion <br />on <br />roadways, less <br />than <br />feet <br />can <br />be <br />walvpd and na r <br />i ncy a l l <br />oa► d on <br />bath <br />s idpaa if <br />several <br />cored <br />it <br />i <br />nn S a <br />rp- imp-t. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.