CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April ll, 2016 Page 19 If the Vogels were to install the fence today, based on the three optional locations shown on the area map (Attachment D.1), Councilmember McGehee asked where she would locate the fence, and how the Vogels intended to maintain the opposite side of the fence if it had been located right on the property line. Ms. Vogel responded that the intent was to install the fence 5' south of the abut- ting property line to facilitate that maintenance for lawn care, mulch or snow stor- age, even though it would prove more expensive, time-consuining and difficult to do, it was still part of the requirements of Vogel to meet conditions. City Council Deliberation Laliberte moved that the applicant install a 6.5' opaque fence 5' south of the north property line as originally proposed; and that the installation be com- pleted by July 29, 2016. Mayor Roe ruled the motion failed for lack of a second. McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, that the applicant installs a 6.5 Cedar fence, not Pine, and that the opaque fence be placed on the property line where the previous chain link fence stood. City Attorney Gaughan clarified that if this motion passes, placing a condition on a subsequent CU motion, it was recognized that this motion may still fail if a sub- sequent CU motion fails. Councilineinber McGehee opined that the City Council had an obligation to malce the residential neighbors whole again. From the standpoint of the request, and in good faith, Councilmember McGehee noted that the original agreement had been without any intended burden on the business owner. When the Vogel's fence contractor appeared before the City Council previously, Councilmember McGe- hee noted that she had specifically asked the cost for the fence as stipulated in her motion, and been told the cost would be $16,000, not the $40,000 to $45,000 for an 8' fence due to additional engineering requirements of a taller fence. Coun- cilmember McGehee opined that it had never been the City Council's direction to install an 8' fence, since the process was considering a 6.5' fence throughout. Councilmember McGehee stated that her lack of support for Pine was due to con- cerns that it wouldn't last; and since the fence has to be maintained, it would be better served with Cedar. Because this has been promised and the existing fence already removed and not yet replaced, Councilmember McGehee opined that the cost to replace it wasn't comparable to the legal costs, in fighting its installation over the last two years. At the minimum, Councilmember McGehee reiterated the City Council's obligation for the benefit of residents and businesses, and stated that she didn't think this represented an unbearable expense or inconvenience and verified the Board of Appeals and Adjustments' previous denial of the appeal.