My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-02-24_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-02-24_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2015 8:51:39 AM
Creation date
3/26/2015 8:51:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/24/2015
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
a property line, while a roadway easement may not have as many limitations for <br /> the private property owners as a right-of-way. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that platted rights-of-way were generally used for a public <br /> purpose(e.g. sidewalks), while easements typically had a specific use (e.g. utility <br /> or roadway) depending on how they were written, and sometimes prohibiting that <br /> area for another type of use. As an example, Mr. Schwartz advised that, the City <br /> may have a sanitary sewer easement, but it could not put in a water main in that <br /> area unless it acquired easement rights specifically for that purpose. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that any newly platted property included a drainage easement <br /> around the new property for drainage and utility purposes; however, a sidewalk <br /> would require additional rights being granted. <br /> Member Cihacek asked if the property owner was responsible for rights-of-way <br /> and easement maintenance. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that, legally, the City could not force a private property <br /> owner to mow a city-owned right-of-way if it was actually owned by the City. <br /> However, Mr. Schwarz noted that a property owner often did so to make their <br /> property look good; even though in rare circumstances, property owners have <br /> refused to do so, and the City did so. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that the <br /> City did minimal mowing in those situations for the purpose of reducing the <br /> height of the grass and/or weeds, and it would not be to standards for most front <br /> yards in Roseville. <br /> At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz responded that code language <br /> prohibited some and dictated what type of landscaping a property owner could <br /> install, such as not reducing or eliminating sight lines, or hampering snow <br /> plowing, etc. However, Rain gardens are frequently allowed, and the property <br /> owner may even be eligible for cost participation if it helps to reduce drainage and <br /> runoff on a roadway, with many such project costs reimbursed under best <br /> management practices (BMP's) with the Ramsey Conservation District and area <br /> watershed districts. <br /> Member Cihacek questioned if that affected a lot's permeability enough to allow <br /> expansion of a home or garage or changing requirements. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that, if you go over the 30% impervious surface cap, you had <br /> to mitigate that with extra BMP's in some way, with a rain garden being one of <br /> several options available, and the calculation based on the amount of additional <br /> impervious surface being added and dictating the size of the BMP required. <br /> However, Chair Stenlund noted that such a BMP could not be installed in a right- <br /> of-way as it could not have dual uses in one area. <br /> Page 14 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.