CC_Minutes_2015_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 24,2015 Page 30 manding that the applicant go to the expense of$30,000 to $40,000 installing a fence over a utility easement that may later be removed or destroyed if and when access is required. Mr. Wall stated his intent to perform further due diligence and research in searching the title for the origin or potential existence of other ease- ments on this property before an application is submitted to the City's Building Department for installation of the fence. Mr. Wall referenced meetings of himself, Mr. Bilotta and Mr. Paschke, and the fence contractor that they thought responded to neighborhood concerns and locat- ed the fence 20' back in addition to plantings to shield the parking lot from neigh- bor's decks to the north and provided for a visual extension of their backyards as well, and further softening the area. Mr. Wall clarified that it is not the intent of the Vogel's to obstruct anything, simply to realistically address neighborhood concerns while complying with the City's IU conditions and meeting require- ments of the utility easements on their property. Mr. Wall admitted that, when the IU was applied for and subsequently granted, the existing of the utility easements had been an unknown. When they became available, Councilmember Willmus requested a copy from Mr. Wall of the actual easements and also for the actual language; opining that there were fences installed in easements all over the community. Mr. Wall responded that he would comply with that request; however, he suggest- ed Councilmember Willmus consult with the City Attorney on whether or not the City Council could require a fence to be installed on an easement whether or not Xcel Energy was insistent regarding its location or not. Councilmember Willmus further opined that the actual language of the easement could make a difference in what would be placed within that easement. Mr. Wall advised that the easement language would be included in the fence per- mit application when the process evolved to that point. Once the easements were defined, Mr. Wall noted that the project could proceed without further delay avoiding further disruption from a small pocket of the neighborhood to the north of the Vogel parcel. With Mr. Wall's request that the City Council take immediate action to vote up or down the Vogel's permit application for the fence installation, Mayor Roe clari- fied that this was a staff action based on the City Council's direction, at least un- der normal circumstances. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Wall advised that the Vogel's were willing to go back 20' from the existing fence for installation of the new fence, which was of no consequence to the applicant.