CC_Minutes_2015_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 24,2015 Page 31 Regarding Councilmember McGehee's request about maintenance of that area, Mr. Wall advised that it was Vogel property so they needed to maintain it. How- ever, Mr. Wall noted that at issue was the neighbor's objection to a greenway al- lowing dog walkers or lawn mowing; opining that was an unrealistic objection and part of living in an urban environment. Mr. Wall offered the Vogel's willing- ness to apply for a building permit to install a fence to comply with the easements or back 20' staff, however, recommended by staff. From his point of view, Mr. Wall opined that the option of 20' back provided the neighbors with the best al- ternative. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Wall advised there was no rea- son to extend the fence along the entire northern property line when the original intent and request of the neighborhood was to screen the parking area. However, when the actual permit application is submitted, Mr. Wall advised that they would rely on staff's discretion as to their approval or denial based on the City Council's direction regarding the utility easement issue. At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Wall advised that he anticipated a timeframe to confirm the easements and their specific language would be approx- imately two weeks. Based on the land record in the process survey recently com- pleted by the Vogel's, Mr. Wall advised that it shows that some neighbors on the north may actually be encroaching with a fence post of structure (shed) on the Vogel parcel. Once the land title information has been provided, Mr. Wall ad- vised that more refined information would be available to clarify the situation. Mr. Wall noted that the easement shows up on a prior deed but not on the Vogel deed they received when purchasing the property. Mr. Wall reiterated that the applicant had no intention of installing a fence on top of a utility easement pro- tecting underground power lines. Mr. Wall noted that the easement was intended for the protection of the neighbors and for their benefit. Lisa McCormick, Terrace Drive North Neighborhood Representative (le- galrepresentative) In response to Mr. Wall's comments, Ms. McCormick sought to clarify a few facts regarding the initial Vogel IU request before the Planning Commission in June of 2014; and addressing some misrepresentations or minor inaccuracies she found in staff's RCA. Ms. McCormick stated that the original request was not just to screen the parking lot, but as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes, the neighbor's request was for a barrier between the commercial and res- idential uses, not simply to screen the parking lot. With parallel conversations at that time about the potential rezoning of this area for community mixed use (CMU), Ms. McCormick noted neighborhood concerns for potential increased density or intensity of adjacent uses, thus prompting this additional barrier; and subsequent responses by the Planning Commission and City Council with relevant conditions applied.