My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0226
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0226
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:45:10 AM
Creation date
3/16/2007 9:16:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/26/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
<br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Minutes of <br />Monday, February 26, 2007 <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />veyor was only certifying the general boundaries and location of any build- <br />ings, visible encroachments and easements. <br /> <br />Mr. McDaniel proceeded to review his research and his interpretation during <br />his purchase of the property in November of 1996 and what was represented <br />to him by the developer and builders at that time. <br /> <br />Considerable discussion ensued regarding various interpretations; existing <br />encroachments; and limitations on the lot. <br /> <br />Mr. McDaniel provided additional information via bench handout providing <br />a mitigation program to improve wetland areas that he was willing to volun- <br />tarily undertake by addressing bank stabilization, increasing vegetation of <br />the area, and increasing overall functional benefits in that area. <br /> <br />Mr. McDaniel respectfully requested that the City Council approve the vari- <br />ance request, along with his mitigation plan. <br /> <br />Diane Kruger, 523 Owasso Hills Drive <br />Ms. Kruger noted that she had purchased her lot six months before Mr. <br />McDaniel, and was under the same impression and received the same repre- <br />sentations regarding the wetland delineation; and only later found out about <br />the limitations for any home additions, after the original two ponds (Outlot <br />A) were overgrown. Ms. Kruger alleged that the problem in the growth of <br />the wetland was due to lack of maintenance, but was unclear who was the <br />responsible party for that lack of maintenance - the City or the developer. <br />Ms. Kruger noted that she had conversations with the developer, as well as <br />City staff in the past, and had volunteered to provide maintenance of the <br />pond on her own and at her own expense, but was unable to receive permis- <br />sion to do so. <br /> <br />Further discussion included wetland boundary changes over time; imple- <br />mentation of the Wetland Act requiring municipalities and/or individuals to <br />maintain wetlands; and changing laws, with protections for legal non- <br />conformity over the years of changes. <br /> <br />Ihlan moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10481 entitled, <br />"A Resolution Denving a Variance to Roseville City Code, ~1016.16 and in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.