Laserfiche WebLink
Mrs. St. Claire commented that it continues to be a loop where they need to react and respond to <br /> things that change on the City's end. She expressed frustration with the process they have gone <br /> through the past 18 months. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove referenced direction from the Planning Commission that was given in <br /> April of 2020 for staff to begin work on vacating the easement, which did not happen and is where <br /> the frustration comes from. She noted that the residents follow through on what they needed to <br /> for the variance and home occupation permit, but the City never followed through on the vacation <br /> of the easement. <br /> City Engineer Westby stated that generally 60 foot is the minimum right-of-way or easement the <br /> City would want. He stated that perhaps there could be an option to vacate a strip of the easement <br /> or whether the property owner desires the entire easement vacated. <br /> Mr. St. Claire commented that it would not make sense to have a ten-foot strip, as that still creates <br /> a jam in the future. He commented that the property to the south does not intend to develop their <br /> property but does not want to lose the value of their property for the time it will be sold. He noted <br /> that the property to the south could still have buildable lots and maintain their value with the St. <br /> Claire portion of the easement vacated. He stated that someone could purchase the property that <br /> wants horses and then the property would not develop, but the value would still be realized at the <br /> time of sale. <br /> Mrs. St. Claire commented that there could still be buildable lots on the property to the south with <br /> the vacated easement on their property, noting that the road could go through the property to the <br /> south to access homes, if homes are eventually built. <br /> Chairperson Riley commented that his issue is that the City currently has something, and he would <br /> need to justify why the City would give away something it already has that could be needed in the <br /> future. <br /> Mr. St. Claire commented that he would respond that it is because of bad planning. He stated that <br /> his home was allowed to be constructed where it is and where the detached garage was allowed to <br /> be placed. He noted that the opinion of front and side yard changed from City staff in 2020. He <br /> stated that he should have never been required to go through the expense and time to obtain a <br /> variance to construct the pole building. He stated that even during the variance discussions he was <br /> told by City staff to vacate the easement and they chose to go through the variance process in order <br /> to avoid problems for other properties. <br /> Mrs. St. Claire stated that they had to go through the variance process because they were strong <br /> armed by City staff. She commented that they only live on the property, and they do not complete <br /> landscaping work on the property. <br /> Mr. St. Claire commented that this would fix something the City was wrong about and would be <br /> a situation in which the City could do the right thing. <br /> Public Works Committee/ October 19, 2021 <br /> Page 14 of 18 <br />