Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Commissioner McDermott asked if the sales agreement reflected the ROW. Johnstone stated <br />that the ROW was defined on the original Plat and the sales agreement references the sale of <br />property by Lot, Block and Subdivision with no reference to the ROW. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pritchard asked if the City had been responsible for any maintenance of the <br />easement. Johnstone clarified that the reference property is a ROW and not an easement. He <br />stated that there are many instances where the City does not maintain public right of ways, <br />particularly ones that do not have surface improvements. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deborski asked if the property is fenced. Johnstone confirmed that it has been <br />fenced. <br /> <br />Chairman Lipton asked for additional questions from the Commissioners. None heard. <br /> <br />Staff and Applicant Summary and Recommendation: <br />Chairman Lipton asked for Staff and Applicant Summary. <br /> <br />Johnstone had no additional comments. <br /> <br />Ms Ehrmann clarified to the Commissioners that the City has never maintained anything on the <br />property. She also requested that the Commission approve the family’s request to vacate the <br />ROW and put an end to the confusion of property ownership. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments: <br />Chairman Lipton closed the public hearing and requested Commission comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Loo stated that the question before the Commission this evening is “Did the City <br />vacate the property?” She continued with the following points: the tax information is not clear as <br />to what they have been paying taxes on; other gardens have been located in open space; the City <br />and Applicant should look for a compromise. She stated that she does support staff on their <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />Commissioner McDermott expressed empathy with the property owner and based on the <br />information provided he supports the applicant. <br /> <br />Chairman Lipton stated that is appears lots of mistakes by both the City and Applicant have been <br />made along the way and this should be resolved in a legal venue. He cannot support a total <br />vacation of the ROW. The City might need the land to provide access to the park but they also <br />need to be sensitive to the adjacent property owners. The best option is to move this forward to <br />Council. <br /> <br />Commissioner McAvinew stated that the issue before the commission is not a park access issue. <br />The decision of ownership is one that needs to be decided legally and not by the Planning <br />Commission. He supports Lipton and his recommendation of sending to Council. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />