CC_Minutes_2024_0617 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June 17, 2024 Page 9 Councilmember Etten appreciated all of the comments from the neighbors. He also appreciated Mr. Carrera and his attorney being at the meeting and understood the frustration with the process. He noted it was his understanding from the information before the Council that the plan submitted with the application is the one shown with the red line showing it extends about half of the property and is on the other side of the arborvitae line. The other plan that has been referenced by Mr. Carrera and his attorney was something that was approached but not part of the formal application so the City could not act on that or use that as consideration. For him, it was incredibly clear that the City made a mistake and impacted the community in a variety of ways but most importantly, thinking about the rights-of- way issues, the City needs to consider for this legal action. Councilmember Schroeder thanked the public for being at the meeting and providing their viewpoints from both sides. She thought they were here to make a very narrow decision and it seemed clear from the facts of it being in the rights-of- way particularly, that is not acceptable, is a safety issue, and staff did not find any support to not denying this. Councilmember Strahan echoed all of the comments and added that it is important for the City,if there is precedent where the City has made similar decisions in other places within the City, follow what was within their right to do so. Also, considering the City Attorney's comment about continuance and facts to support acceptance of the appeal. She felt strongly that it was important the Council deny this appeal. Mayor Roe indicated he was also in support of the resolution denying the appeal. He thought one thing to note was that a process has already begun to remedy some of the issues that came up as a part of this,in terms of vacation of the easement. He thought it seemed reasonable that the entire easement was not needed for public purposes. As it stands right now, the property line of the property owner is within a very few feet of the front of their home. Certainly not something that complies with the City's current zoning code,setback requirements,and other things like that so there is a very unique situation where it appears it could be worked through. His other perspective, as noted before, is that the materials approved as a part of the initial approval process do indicate a different location than where the fence was built,just relative to the actual pathway itself, and it does appear the line is on the north side of the plantings. If that was the basis for the City's decision to approve, that may have entered into some of the consideration as opposed to what was built. However, it is clear that what was built was not what was applied for and there are other issues associated with not being on the owner's property. Mayor Roe indicated, as to the concern of security for that property,it is completely understandable and perhaps lends itself to making sure there is fencing on the sides of the property to help reduce the ability to sneak around for those issues. Perhaps, for that matter,if a fence is located farther off the road and the pathway there might