Laserfiche WebLink
<br />was the responsibility of the City to tell him he was placing the fence in the wrong place prior to him <br />getting this far along in the process because the City knew he was building the fence. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson questioned as to how he arrived at starting the fence at thirteen (13) feet from the <br />curb. Mr. Salazar indicated he used thirteen (13) feet because it is between twelve (12) and fourteen <br />(14) feet. <br /> <br />Commission Member DeVine spoke as a neighbor of the Salazars and indicated he is in favor of the <br />fence. Mr. DeVine stated he had spoken to another neighbor who voiced her support of the fence. Mr. <br />DeVine also stated he does not believe one (1) foot either way will make very much difference. <br /> <br />Commission Member Kilian agreed one (1) foot is not a big difference. Mr. Kilian stated he would like <br />it to be made clear, however, if the fence stays in the City right-of-way and the City needs to remove it <br />for any reason it would be the responsibility of the Salazars to repair and replace it at their expense. Mr. <br />Salazar expressed his willingness to agree to repair and replace the fence, at his cost, should the need <br />arise if the City needs access to the right-of-way or if the fence is hit by the snowplow. <br /> <br />Commission Member Brainard noted it is not the responsibility of the City to survey a property or <br />determine for the property owner where the lot lines exist. He indicated the City can give guidance, but <br />it is ultimately the responsibility of the property owner. Mr. Salazar said he believed he should be able <br />to rely upon information received from the City. <br /> <br />Commission Member De Vine stated he does not think it is right to call City Hall and get information as <br />to where the fence should be placed and then have the City place a stop order on work because the <br />information given out was incorrect and the fence is now in the City right-of-way. Mr. Palzer noted <br />there was a three month time period between the telephone call and the start of the project. Mr. Salazar <br />indicated he was waiting for an available contractor to begin the project. <br /> <br />Mr. March explained to the Commission he had sent out a certified letter as follow-up to Mr. Salazar's <br />appearance before the Council on the dog issue. In that letter it informed the Salazars that a variance <br />may be required to build a fence. The certified letter was refused by the Salazars and returned by the <br />post office as undeliverable. The letter was then delivered by the Centennial Lakes Police Department. <br />At that time period, construction of the fence had already begun. Mr. March indicated that the City had <br />tried to preempt the current situation by sending the letter and that by not accepting the letter; the <br />Salazars have created the current situation. <br /> <br />Mr. March stated he believed the fence would be an amenity to the property and would not detract from <br />it. Mr. March stated that the current Ordinance #4 needs to more clearly define front yards pertaining to <br />comer lots. Mr. March also stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission would be discussing this <br />issue in the near future and at present the concern is the placement of the fence in the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member Brainard to continue <br />the public hearin2 to the October 11.2000 City Council Meetine at 6:00 p.m. All in favor. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Salazar presented to Mr. March letters of support for the fence from two (2) of his neighbors. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. <br /> <br />3. County Bank <br /> <br />Page 4 of 13 <br />