2000-11-01 Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was the responsibility of the City to tell him he was placing the fence in the wrong place prior to him getting this far along in the process because the City knew he was building the fence. Chairperson Hanson questioned as to how he arrived at starting the fence at thirteen (13) feet from the curb. Mr. Salazar indicated he used thirteen (13) feet because it is between twelve (12) and fourteen (14) feet. Commission Member DeVine spoke as a neighbor of the Salazars and indicated he is in favor of the fence. Mr. DeVine stated he had spoken to another neighbor who voiced her support of the fence. Mr. DeVine also stated he does not believe one (1) foot either way will make very much difference. Commission Member Kilian agreed one (1) foot is not a big difference. Mr. Kilian stated he would like it to be made clear, however, if the fence stays in the City right -of -way and the City needs to remove it for any reason it would be the responsibility of the Salazars to repair and replace it at their expense. Mr. Salazar expressed his willingness to agree to repair and replace the fence, at his cost, should the need arise if the City needs access to the right -of -way or if the fence is hit by the snowplow. Commission Member Brainard noted it is not the responsibility of the City to survey a property or determine for the property owner where the lot lines exist. He indicated the City can give guidance, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the property owner. Mr. Salazar said he believed he should be able to rely upon information received from the City. Commission Member DeVine stated he does not think it is right to call City Hall and get information as to where the fence should be placed and then have the City place a stop order on work because the information given out was incorrect and the fence is now in the City right -of -way. Mr. Palzer noted there was a three month time period between the telephone call and the start of the project. Mr. Salazar indicated he was waiting for an available contractor to begin the project. Mr. March explained to the Commission he had sent out a certified letter as follow -up to Mr. Salazar's appearance before the Council on the dog issue. In that letter it informed the Salazars that a variance may be required to build a fence. The certified letter was refused by the Salazars and returned by the post office as undeliverable. The letter was then delivered by the Centennial Lakes Police Department. At that time period, construction of the fence had already begun. Mr. March indicated that the City had tried to preempt the current situation by sending the letter and that by not accepting the letter; the Salazars have created the current situation. Mr. March stated he believed the fence would be an amenity to the property and would not detract from it. Mr. March stated that the current Ordinance #4 needs to more clearly define front yards pertaining to corner lots. Mr. March also stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission would be discussing this issue in the near future and at present the concern is the placement of the fence in the right -of -way. Motion by Commission Member DeVine, seconded by Commission Member Brainard to continue the public hearing to the October 11, 2000 City Council Meeting at 6:00 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Salazar presented to Mr. March letters of support for the fence from two (2) of his neighbors. Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 3. County Bank Page 4 of 13