CC_Minutes_2015_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 24,2015 Page 32 Ms. McCormick noted that the Vogel's signed the IU agreement, as conditions, and between then and now sufficient time should have been available for them to research this situation. As referenced by the Vogel's legal counsel, Ms. McCor- mick noted a misquote specific to apparent neighbor objections about lawn mow- ing or dog walking in the easement area, clarifying that the author of that e-mail was Community Development Director Bilotta, not the neighbors or their repre- sentatives. Ms. McCormick noted the increasing animosity between the neighbors and Vo- gel's throughout this process, which seemed to indicate a tall fence may be a good, ultimate solution and prove most beneficial for the neighborhood. Ms. McCormick noted concerns of the neighbors with the opening behind their lawns; but clarified that any fence or fence posts or other structures did not belong to the neighboring properties, but had been place — and never maintained — by former Vogel parcel and building owner Aramark. With the Vogel's indicating the exist- ing fence could or would be removed, Ms. McCormick advised that this prompted the neighbor's rejection based on potential trespass issues and in response to Vo- gel concerns about neighbors potentially encroaching onto their property. Ms. McCormick noted the fence is shown on the property line, and in her personal ob- servation of the site, she found stakes indicating that the existing fence had actual- ly been constructed on neighbor properties. Ms. McCormick opined that the point about easements was being missed, since a fence currently exists, the Vogel parcel would benefit from that fence since Xcel had installed a new transformer feeding off those underground utility lines within the easement area to facilitate their business needs. Ms. McCormick noted there had been no interruption from any parties while Xcel Energy was digging the trench to construct those transformers. While appreciating easement concerns, Ms. McCormick noted that the applicant had not provided any documentation to support their concerns. In her work with an Xcel designer for another municipal client, Ms. McCormick asked for an Xcel contact who confirmed for her that this utility easement was only 10' in width; and referred her to materials online (e.g. Xcel Energy guidelines, general policies and procedures, tree maintenance near power lines supported by diagrams, dis- tances for plantings, and brochure outlining plantings for safety near electrical service distribution versus transmission lines), as displayed for the City Council and public audience, indicating another inaccuracy alluded to in the RCA. Since the existing fence has been in existence for at least thirty years, Ms. McCormick stated that she would like to see proof that they can't comply with the condition as applied. However, Ms. McCormick noted that it was up to the City Council to decide if Vogel was required to abide by those conditions before oper- ations; further noting the expiration of provisional occupancy as of August 15, 2015, yet without compliance.