CC_Minutes_2015_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 24,2015 Page 29 Subsequent to that submittal, Mr. Paschke noted that that option was rejected by the neighborhood and on August 12, they submitted their own alternative plan (Attachment E) with their belief that the Vogel's can install the fence on the prop- erty line without severing underground cable or violating Xcel's overhead ease- ment. Mr. Paschke advised that staff had requested both parties or their legal counsel to be present at tonight's meeting; and is seeking clarity from the City Council re- garding their IU condition of June 23, 2014 and direction for staff to work with the Vogel's on a provision that meets this confirmed requirement to finally re- solve this situation. Councilmember McGehee had several questions of staff, with staff responding accordingly and addressing plan submittal timing and site plans displayed and their creators; comparisons of submittals from the applicant and the neighbor- hood, and staff's rendition for a potential resolution of their interpretation of the City Council's intent with their condition; fence locations and heights as well as their beginning and end; and the status of and intent for the existing fence in dis- repair and poorly maintained as currently evidenced. Further clarification was requested by Mayor Roe and Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte specific to clarifying the location of the property; what is left of the existing fence; actual location and width of the easement area as it relates to the property lines and existing fence; intent of the applicant to retain the existing fence and install a secondary wooden fence at a height of 6' in front and 8' for the remainder to the other end of the Vogel property; and defining changes between the City Council's June of 2014 condition applied by the City Council and the sit- uation today that would prohibit the Vogel's from complying and locating the fence in that location, with staff confirming there was nothing preventing that compliance to his knowledge. Further discussion ensued regarding unconfirmed requirements of Xcel Energy and CenturyLink easements for overground and/or underground utilities that would preclude installation of a fence; or whether hardships could be addressed for future access by hand digging versus machine excavation as necessary; and the intent of Vogel for maintenance of the existing fence. Applicant Representative, Dan Wall, Esq. As legal counsel for Vogel Mechanical, Mr. Wall provided written comments to staff earlier today via e-mail dated August 24, 2015, and presented as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof. As outlined in his written comments, Mr. Wall noted his client was unaware of the existence of easements already in place; but questioned the City Council de-