CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 11, 2016 Page 24 corporated into the motion. After further debate, Mayor Roe further clarified that language from the August 24, 2015 action and January 25, 2016 language includ- ed reference to "meander" and remained consistent with the intent of his motion. Froin his perspective based on the language recommended by staff, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the applicant's position is that the easement precludes the fence being installed 10' from the property line due to that easement. However, Mr. Gaughan opined that this language didn't serve to clear up that language; and his office's position on the easement having never seen any such document and without any ability to review the supposed easement agreement for confirmation, and also beyond the 1968 conveyance referencing an easement, it assumes the easement to be non-conclusive. Therefore, Mr. Gaughan advised that there is no city presumption that the fence can't be installed on the easement; nonetheless that language as addressed by Ms. Collins in the RCA, clears up the applicant's contention if the city chooses to handle it. Mr. Gaughan noted that the city had and is still asking the applicant for such a document, but never having received the actual document to-date even with reference to it by the 1968 conveyance document, it cannot speak for the document itself. Mayor Roe sought clarification if City Attorney Gaughan was suggesting adding language that was clearer than the administrative ruling as to the actual location of the fence. City Attorney noted that there was a proposed deadline for installation of, July 29, 2016, unless the applicant provides the actual easement agreement document. Mayor Roe further clarified that the fence has to be installed by that date whether or not the docuinent is provided, leaving the only question the location of the in- stallation. City Attorney Gaughan responded that the City has had two years attempting to interpret language; but clarified that the approved and confinned language re- mains that the fence is to be installed at the northernmost property line unless an easement precludes that location. Mr. Gaughan stated it was his opinion that the applicant continues to state they can't install the fence at that location because there's an easement there and it won't allow fence installation; while others con- tinue to there is no easement. Mr. Gaughan suggested that this body may want to simply be more definitive on where the fence is going to be installed; and provide staff with that clarification; and if an encroachment agreement can be submitted for review, consideration can be given to deviating 2' or where needed. From his personal perspective, Mr. Gaughan opined that more clarity was needed to direct staff accordingly in order for them to enforce the location for installation. Mayor Roe questioned if revision to the language that "unless an easement or en- croachment agreement is submitted" would suffice without making it too broad.