My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6214
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6200
>
res_6214
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:08:58 AM
Creation date
4/23/2005 5:18:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6214
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />five minutes after four today, but from what I have gathered, <br />I think Plan B would be better than Plan A. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN HESS: In our Alternate A it says 24 lots. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: If it said 24 in "A" that's incorrect. <br /> <br />MR. HARLEN D. JEPPESEN, 2203 N. Victoria: Could I have <br />Plan A on there again please. I don't know why--or I would <br />propose they could put the road through Lot 7 and that new <br />existing lot that was just approved that you're going to be <br />talking about in a minute--can you see 7 up there straight off <br />Victoria. Actually they could pick up the sewer from--and also <br />the water and stuff that does go through that easement along- <br />side my property and go r~ght up (inaudible). We're not going <br />to be selling Lotsl3, l2, and II so actually you don't have <br />that many lots. You only have about l7 lots. <br /> <br />MAYOR LINEBARGER: Would you respond to cuttirg across l7. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: The area just west of your property--l4 <br />and 15 and to a smaller degree 16--it's difficult to say where <br />that road would end up. Those would be landlocked and there'd <br />be no way--we're not saying this is how the land will develop <br />as to lots. Each lot owner would have to weigh the values as <br />he sees it when he requests his platting and lot splits, but <br />to go through Lot 7 would (inaudible) to yours landlocked with <br />no way to get through there, plus the fact that the existing <br />utilities are there and that would not tie up additional land <br />because you would have utilities at the back and we would also <br />have to be bringing laterals through lots and along lot lines <br />to get to the other side of that property if you have it on <br />Lot 7. <br /> <br />MR. JEPPESEN: l4 and l5 and l6 have been landlocked for <br />many years and they're no concern of mine, but I would suggest <br />or would like to sie the road up closer that way and alongside <br />my property. 1 <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: This particular pair of arrangements is the <br />result of - I couldn't begin to tell you how many hours - of <br />trying to find the best way to open up this land because many <br />lot owners do want to utilize this land. Howard Dahlgren, <br />our planner, has worked with this considerably in trying to get <br />land development and various land owners have been contacted <br />and, like you, to get your opinion in an attempt to fit all the <br />pieces together the best we could, and this was also referred <br />to the Planning Commission where they made their recommendation <br />as well as to the best way to utilize the land there for every- <br />one. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.