My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0827
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0827
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2012 8:48:05 AM
Creation date
9/11/2012 10:44:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/27/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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 27, 2012 <br /> Page 37 <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. <br /> Nays: None. <br /> Mr. Lloyd addressed snow removal regulations in City Code, Chapter 1011, <br /> with snow removal not prohibited, but minimized beyond any hours within the <br /> parameters of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. <br /> In response, Councilmember Pust opined that a condition needed to be added <br /> restricting it. <br /> McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, DENIAL of the request for a <br /> RECOMINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION, based on the findings that no suf- <br /> ficient drainage plan is available for an area with an existing major problem; <br /> and a current remedy is available to the business owner by simply using the <br /> back portion of property he already owns; and because the subdivision would <br /> create a land-locked residential lot. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that she was still under the impression that if the <br /> City Council did not grant the recombination, the existing problem could not be <br /> fixed; and recognizing that the neighbors have a problem, a motion to deny pro- <br /> vides for no option for neighbors. Therefore, Councilmember Pust opined that <br /> she was inclined to vote in opposition to the motion. <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated that she heard that the City could work with <br /> the property owner as plans move forward to secure the easements needed; but <br /> mitigation on how to fix the problem would not be available until next spring. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that, if she was the property owner, she would <br /> withdraw the subdivision request and sell the parcel; demolish the existing <br /> house and use the parcel for snow storage. Councilmember Pust questioned if <br /> this was a smart move on the City's part, when they could obtain a dedicated <br /> easement on a portion, and alleviate some of the drainage issues of adjacent <br /> parcels. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated that he continued to be hung up on the com- <br /> mercial use of this site; but was not opposed to revisiting the issue when more <br /> substantial drainage plans were in place. <br /> Councilmember Johnson sought an opinion from legal counsel on this matter. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would only point out if the Council's in- <br /> tent was to deny the application, that findings for that denial be based on the <br /> preference not to create a land-locked residential strip; and suggested that it also <br /> include a finding for denial based on it creating a lot with multiple zoning des- <br /> ignations signifying poor planning practices. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.