CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, Apri111, 2016 Page 25 Councilmember Wilhnus asked City Attorney Gaughan about the information provided by the applicant's title company and definition of what a proscriptive easement is. City Attorney Gaughan clarified that a"proscriptive easement" defines what a property owner can or cannot do; and advised it was typically recorded. Mr. Gaughan advised that it is the opinion of the Vogel's title company that there is an easement at that location on the property; and clarified that the city, nor the City Attorney's office, is arguing that there is a 10' utility easement, but only that nei- ther the title company or city has yet to see it. Councilmember McGehee suggested langl.iage stating, "...unless a proscriptive easeinent is submitted prohibiting a fence in that area..." that it be installed on the property line. City Attorney Gaughan clarified that his only point was if the city never received a definitive answer as to whether or not an easement agreement existed, should the city come up with a definitive answer conditioning its own condition, noting that it had done so before unsuccessfully. Councilmember Laliberte pointed out that the city talking about a 10' easement; with a statement available from the applicant that they're willing to move the fence location south up to 5'. While recognizing that no one wants to create a"no man's land," Councilmember Laliberte noted this would put the fiill burden for maintenance on the owner for both sides of the fence, especially since residential property owners are saying they're not looking for a wall between the properties, simply a buffer; and this would still accomplish that intent. City Manager Trudgeon concurred with the City Attorney specifically that this proposed motion left a lot of discrepancy; and by having a clear definition how- ever the City Council chooses to word it, on behalf of staff he would appreciation further refining the inotion, noting the considerable amount of time and energy al- ready having been spent by staff.For clarification, Mayor Roe restated the motion, as ainended, was in accordance with the language of the August 24, 2015 action. Discussion ensued along the same lines; with City Attorney Gaughan suggesting that the city define how many feet off the property line they wanted the fence in- stalled, or if they wanted it to stay right on the property line. Councilmember McGehee suggested leaving out the language about the easement agreement completely and making it clear the fence was to be installed on the northernmost property line.