12-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

removed based on the history of this site. After the applicant had left the building, the Council voted 5-0 to reconsider, and directed staff to attempt to obtain an easement for the snow storage area from the applicant. If the applicant was unwilling to grant an easement, he should appear before the Council on December 13,2004 for further discussion of the application. The item was then tabled on a vote of 5-0. Staff Recommendation The only outstanding stipulation of the staff recommendation noted in the Council Memo dated 11- 16-04 is item 3 regarding the amount of hardcover that should be permitted in the area that is used for snow storage. In response to the last meetings tabling on this matter, the applicant was approached by staff regarding dedication of an easement for snow storage over the gravel area extending beyond the platted right-of-way. The applicant stated that he is not interested in a formal easement agreement due to the legal burden that would be placed on his property. He has however, ofTered a 10 year agreement between himself and the City to permit snow storage. In exchange for and included within this agreement, the applicant would like the City to pave the area and replace the existing timber wall with a material that would withstand the action of plowing snow. Mr. Walsh has indicated the language of the draft agreement attached as Exhibit C is acceptable. Staff has the following concerns regarding this draft and the basic problems with an agreement, rather than a permanent easement: 1. The possible “giving up” of the 10’ existing beyond the paved roadway, regardless of the location of the platted right-of-way. City Code, Sections 18-1 (definition of “public road ”) and 82-2 (definition of “property line”), states that “where the traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of-way shall not be less than ten feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surfaec.” This piece of Code exists to accommodate snow storage in situations exactly as this. Staff is concerned that the mere establishment of a temporary agreement to allow snow storage over an area that the City Code considers by definition as part of the right-of-way, would weaken the City’s position that the first 10’ past the pavement is in fact City right-of-way. Further, the agreement gives a false perception of what is actually needed for snow storage, since the entire area covered under the agreement really isn’t needed for the purposes of storing snow. 2. During the November 22'"* Council meeting the applicant stated that the area is also used for guest parking along Rest Point Circle and also as a staging area when construction projects are occurring. However, the applicant was not comfortable including public use under the terms of the proposed 10-year agreement. This informal agreement for public use may be in Jeopardy should the property change hands witliin the 10-ycar time frame of the agreement. 3. Although the agreement applies to the heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the owners (#3, pg. 1), there is a potential that future owners will be unaware of the agreement at the time of purchase and then not want to abide by the terms of the agreement. 4. Following expiration of tliis agreement the City would have to again undergo a process similiir to this, however, not have any variance application as a means for resolving the