My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0609
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0609
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2014 10:26:48 AM
Creation date
6/25/2014 10:21:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/9/2014
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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,June 9,2014 <br /> Page 8 <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that it would make the entire block look more <br /> attractive with additional green space, further opining that, from her review of the <br /> property, this parcel may be pushing the 15% limit. <br /> McGehee moved to direct staff to look into the impervious surface situation as it <br /> is now. <br /> Mayor Roe ruled the motion failed for lack of a second. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte asked if it was the applicant's intent to apply for the <br /> new stormwater credit; and suggested if so, pro-active measures could be suggest- <br /> ed to the applicant as part of the negotiations to receive any credits. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon responded that he was unsure if that extensive of a conversation <br /> had occurred at this time. <br /> Councilmember Willmus noted that this easement was originally taken for a par- <br /> ticular purpose, later determined not to be needed; and questioned if there was any <br /> standing to retain it at this point. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Bartholdi responded that it had been <br /> determined that there was no longer a need for it and it no longer served of a ben- <br /> efit to the City. <br /> Specific to the possible conditioning of the vacation, City Attorney Bartholdi clar- <br /> ified that a vacation was black and white, and no conditions could be applied to a <br /> vacation of easement. Mr. Bartholdi noted that the only question was whether or <br /> not retaining the easement going forward was of benefit to the City as originally <br /> taken and intended. Mr. Bartholdi advised that the vote for vacation was simply <br /> yes or no, and once vacated, the applicant could consider options for the property <br /> at their discretion,but not as a compliance measure required by the City. <br /> Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11152 (Attach- <br /> ment E) entitled, "A Resolution Vacating a Portion of Unused Right-of-Way at <br /> 2501-2699 Patton Road (PF14-009)." <br /> Mayor Roe noted that, based on the aerial photo and map included in the RCA, <br /> there were design limitations that may actually leave some green space there due <br /> to stormwater ponding. However, Mayor Roe agreed with the City Attorney's <br /> advice regarding any conditioning of this vacation. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. <br /> Nays: None. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.