2021_05-25_PWETCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

256 Mr. Culver indicated staff needed to present a couple of more segments before the 257 meeting is over for the Commission to give feedback on. 258 259 Mr. David Booms, 300 South McCarron's Boulevard, explained he wanted to talk 260 about Mr. Anderson's comments, specifically to access. The one photo he showed 261 was a stairway leading down to South McCarron's was taken from his property. 262 He indicated they are roughly 36 feet above the south McCarron's. He noted he 263 has lived in the area since 1995 and that road, the alley way has been used by the 264 residents routinely. The road is the most common way to get to their property. He 265 explained his pontoon is parked in the back along with having a shed in the back. 266 He stated they are also having some work done now with their roof as well as 267 working on the deck and all of the materials being used are being brought up the 268 back using the street pathway. He wanted to affirm that the residents do maintain 269 the back area 270 271 Member Cicha asked if putting a pathway in their limit access for the homeowners. 272 He wondered what would stop the residents from using the pathway. 273 274 Mr. Culver explained once this becomes a pathway then the primary user is the 275 pedestrian or person on a bicycle and from a safety perspective the City cannot have 276 that mix of traffic on a regular basis. If a person is using a pathway they are not 277 expecting a car to be on the pathway. The City does have some rules about that, 278 and the Parks Department actually does have some provisions for allowing 279 occasional access via a pathway to a rear portion of an adjacent property owners 280 property for maintenance purposes or something like that, but there are rules, and 281 the resident has to ask permission. This would not be an open access at that point 282 and not something the residents could use whenever they wanted or needed. He 283 indicated to provide some facts from the City side, this has been a use that has been 284 going on for decades however, it is a roadway right-of-way and is not a road. It is 285 not a built road; it is a private access currently on a public right-of-way. It does not 286 meet City standards. If anybody were to build an access to their property that they 287 were going to use on a regular basis where it results in rutting, as this clearly does, 288 and needs some sort of maintenance, then that has to be paved. That is clearly in 289 the City's Zoning Standards and Requirements. The City has made property 290 owners pay portions of rear access to their properties because they were using it too 291 often. That gets into erosion and general maintenance and environmental concerns 292 as well. 293 294 Mr. Culver explained he was not even aware that this use was going on. Certainly, 295 members of his staff knew, and he did not know who put that dead end sign up or 296 when it went up. The City, as a whole, knew that this access was being used in that 297 way for a long time. He did not know it was being used like that until there was 298 talk about the pathway. If the City is going to allow that continued use then really 299 the access needs to be upgraded to meet City standards. He indicated all of the 300 neighbors get along fine right now but there is also some concerns because there is 301 no actual legal access through the adjacent properties forthese people to gain access Page 7 of 9