My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2024_0603
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2024
>
CC_Minutes_2024_0603
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2024 1:19:31 PM
Creation date
7/9/2024 1:19:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/3/2024
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 3, 2024 <br /> Page 8 <br /> Mayor Roe asked if it was worth clarifying what the Council might take action on <br /> in terms of whether the City only needs access three hundred feet from Victoria St. <br /> for sewer. The City would take an easement over that and not maintain an easement <br /> over the entire length for the City's purposes. <br /> Mr. Freihammer explained the City needs to maintain the easement for all of the <br /> utilities. He referenced the power poles over the other easements that he is aware <br /> of. The City could potentially reduce the width of the easement, that could be an <br /> option but that would need to be looked at as a separate action at this point. <br /> Mr. Freihammer continued to answer resident questions regarding property stakes, <br /> tree upkeep, vehicle access, and what would change for utility access. <br /> Council Discussion <br /> Mayor Roe asked if the Council was ready to decide on this item,noting the Council <br /> could make a motion to adopt the resolution, table this issue, make a motion not to <br /> vacate, or another motion. <br /> Councilmember Etten asked if this area was different from the properties just to the <br /> east of Grotto, being that it does have some storm sewer and other City access <br /> pieces there versus the utility poles. <br /> Mr. Freihammer explained this is different from the neighborhood directly to the <br /> east but there are other areas in the city where there are drainage and utility <br /> easements in the backyards and also sanitary or storm sewer. It is not extremely <br /> common but there are numerous examples throughout the city where City staff are <br /> going through to maintain a storm sewer in a backyard or other scenarios. <br /> Mayor Roe thought the difference between a right-of-way and an easement in this <br /> case is fairly small except for who owns the underlying property. The easement is <br /> being maintained for access purposes. Right now,as an unimproved right-of-way, <br /> the City does not authorize general public drive-through access because the alley <br /> has not been improved. <br /> Mr. Freihammer indicated that is correct. <br /> Mayor Roe thought the only difference is that there is one owner the entire length <br /> of this, which is the City, and the City does not allow access, versus individual <br /> property owners who would then own the property and have to provide permission <br /> for access to the general public as opposed to permitted utility access. He thought <br /> that was the biggest technical difference between the two. <br /> Mr. Freihammer agreed and reviewed what the City recognizes as right-of-way <br /> versus easements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.