2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 20 Chair Boguszewski noted that Condition 1.B means there may still be the Vogel fence 964 and residential neighbor fences, and dictates the location of and distance between 965 properties. 966 Ms. Vogel responded that their firm or family would be responsible for maintaining that 967 area, and asked how that could be accomplished. 968 Member Daire asked if CenturyLink’s communication cable was buried within 1’ of the 969 old fence line. 970 Ms. Vogel responded that it depends on which time they marked it, noting they had been 971 out multiple times with the intent by the Vogels to verify and confirm the actual cable 972 location. Ms. Vogel advised that on one of those occasions, the location was marked 5’ 973 north of the property line; while another time when marked by request of the neighbors, 974 the line was marked on the north side of the fence with CenturyLink stating that the 975 reason for the difference was that the fence was giving false reads. While undergoing 976 less flattering accusations by neighbors, Ms. Vogel advised that she had no proof of that 977 other than her awareness that CenturyLink had marked the area of their underground 978 cable three different times, resulting in three different markings and locations provided. 979 Member Daire questioned if placing the fence would require it to be south of the existing 980 fence line by at least 2’. 981 Ms. Vogel responded that it depends on where the cable runs, but that was their 982 understanding from CenturyLink, but reiterating that the cable appeared to meander. 983 Member Daire With concurrence by Ms. Vogel, presumed that the cable laid within that 984 easement allowed trenching for the overhead power line would match that line to have 985 avoided hitting the fence that was in place at that time. Therefore, Member Daire noted 986 the Vogel’s rationale that by respecting that distance from the underground 987 communications cable at this time as well, and building the fence south, even if the cable 988 meanders it would allow sufficient flexibility to avoid hitting the cable. Under that scenario, 989 Member Daire noted that this meant the Vogels were giving abutting residential 990 properties 2’ of the property they now owned. 991 Member Daire further noted that, while the residential property owners would not be 992 required or even desire to install their own fence to respect the Vogel property line, if they 993 were to do so, it would make it difficult for the Vogels to honor their responsibility in 994 maintaining that 2’ area between those fence installations, as well as making it difficult for 995 the neighbors to maintain their 2’ of the total 4’ area. Member Daire opined that this 996 created an untenable situation or at least one extraordinarily difficult to deal with. With the 997 removal of the chain link fence and installation of the current orange snow fence, Member 998 Daire opined that it indicates to him at some point, something should be installed to 999 delineate residential properties from the Vogel property. 1000 Mr. Crain stated, with all due respect, that what the best case scenario may have been 1001 may already left the coop; and now the Vogels were attempting to find the best solution 1002 within city code guidelines to allow his clients to complete their company’s move to 1003 Roseville. 1004 Member Daire clarified that his intent with the above-referenced statement was his 1005 attempt to state what he perceived to be the dilemma. 1006 Chair Boguszewski opined that the intent seemed to be that Condition 1.A was an 1007 adjustment of the original IU conditions allowing for fence placement as noted to avoid 1008 this dilemma, and pretending Condition 1.C didn’t exist. 1009 Member Daire agreed, however, he opined that it has implications for practical use of the 1010 space up to the fence from the north; to which Chair Boguszewski agreed. Member Daire 1011 asked if having the fence installed well within the Vogel property would make mowing the 1012 area north by residents able to obtain that 2’ of property by adverse detainer. Member 1013