Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,June 17, 2024 <br /> Page 3 <br /> addressed the issue of the appellants'materials,which argued the City was without <br /> authority if an applicant were to apply for a permit to obstruct the right-of-way,that <br /> the City would be without authority to deny that permit. However,that is incorrect. <br /> That interpretation ignores Section 707.16 of the City Code, which allows the <br /> director to determine that a denial of a permit application is necessary to protect the <br /> public health, safety, or welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and <br /> its current use. <br /> Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer made a presentation to the City Council. <br /> Mayor Roe asked if the original determination by staff had anything to do with the <br /> removal of the fence and replacing the split rail fence,or if it was strictly to remove <br /> the fence. <br /> Mr. Freihammer indicated it was to remove the fence. <br /> Mayor Roe asked, in terms of the topography of the area and not having anything <br /> along the pathway, are any safety concerns if the fence is removed. <br /> Mr. Freihammer explained staff would have to review it, but he did not think there <br /> was a specific hazard. He noted the majority of McCarron's pathway has a fence, <br /> which was generally done as a streetscape and a way to create a little sense of <br /> privacy when the fence was constructed in the late nineties. <br /> Councilmember Etten wondered if one of the conditions should be that the fence <br /> east of the driveway is located on another person's property, or in this case, the <br /> HOA's property. <br /> Mayor Roe thought it would not necessarily be a condition for the fence not to be <br /> on somebody else's property but could be listed as a reason why this should be <br /> denied if that is the decision of the Council. <br /> City Attorney Tierney explained the Council could add that to the basis to deny the <br /> appeal of the revocation. <br /> Mr. Chad Lemmons, representing Mr. Carrara, responded to the City Council <br /> regarding the denial. He indicated Mr. Carrara did everything he could to work <br /> with City Staff and the City's Ordinances. <br /> Mr. Eric Carrara, the applicant, addressed the City Council and requested this <br /> appeal be granted. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that staff had indicated in their report that the diagram of the <br /> fence submitted with the application materials was of the fence not running the <br />