My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0411
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2016 3:50:46 PM
Creation date
4/26/2016 9:47:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/11/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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, Apri111, 2016 <br />Page 25 <br />Councilmember Wilhnus asked City Attorney Gaughan about the information <br />provided by the applicant's title company and definition of what a proscriptive <br />easement is. <br />City Attorney Gaughan clarified that a"proscriptive easement" defines what a <br />property owner can or cannot do; and advised it was typically recorded. Mr. <br />Gaughan advised that it is the opinion of the Vogel's title company that there is an <br />easement at that location on the property; and clarified that the city, nor the City <br />Attorney's office, is arguing that there is a 10' utility easement, but only that nei- <br />ther the title company or city has yet to see it. <br />Councilmember McGehee suggested langl.iage stating, "...unless a proscriptive <br />easeinent is submitted prohibiting a fence in that area..." that it be installed on the <br />property line. <br />City Attorney Gaughan clarified that his only point was if the city never received <br />a definitive answer as to whether or not an easement agreement existed, should <br />the city come up with a definitive answer conditioning its own condition, noting <br />that it had done so before unsuccessfully. <br />Councilmember Laliberte pointed out that the city talking about a 10' easement; <br />with a statement available from the applicant that they're willing to move the <br />fence location south up to 5'. While recognizing that no one wants to create a"no <br />man's land," Councilmember Laliberte noted this would put the fiill burden for <br />maintenance on the owner for both sides of the fence, especially since residential <br />property owners are saying they're not looking for a wall between the properties, <br />simply a buffer; and this would still accomplish that intent. <br />City Manager Trudgeon concurred with the City Attorney specifically that this <br />proposed motion left a lot of discrepancy; and by having a clear definition how- <br />ever the City Council chooses to word it, on behalf of staff he would appreciation <br />further refining the inotion, noting the considerable amount of time and energy al- <br />ready having been spent by staff.For clarification, Mayor Roe restated the motion, <br />as ainended, was in accordance with the language of the August 24, 2015 action. <br />Discussion ensued along the same lines; with City Attorney Gaughan suggesting <br />that the city define how many feet off the property line they wanted the fence in- <br />stalled, or if they wanted it to stay right on the property line. <br />Councilmember McGehee suggested leaving out the language about the easement <br />agreement completely and making it clear the fence was to be installed on the <br />northernmost property line. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.