Laserfiche WebLink
to ask him why 798 Aspen Way has a <br />fence very similar, knowing that was <br />a dead end road for a number years, <br />what the circumstances are there, <br />and what can be done about it. <br /> <br />Franklin: <br /> <br />I pulled the file for 798 Aspen Way <br />and noted that the property fence <br />permit was issued in 1983. I didn't <br />see a site plan attached to the <br />fence permit, so I would have no way <br />of knowing what was communicated <br />between the applicant and the <br />Building Official. No final <br />inspection slip was in the file for <br />that fence. It's unclear whether it <br />passed or if an inspection was <br />called. It's in the right-of-way. <br />The right-of-way is 60 ft. in that <br />particular area and it changes to 70 <br />ft. on the west side of the Public <br />Service Company easement. There is <br />a little less right-of-way to work <br />with. <br /> <br />Lathrop: <br /> <br />The street width is the same? <br /> <br />Phare: <br /> <br />Franklin: <br /> <br />Lathrop: <br /> <br />It's reasonably close. <br /> <br />Now, we are requiring a site plan. <br /> <br />I think it would be a long time <br />before the City would need that <br />additional right-of-way. However, <br />not being an advocate of <br />encroachment of City property, there <br />may be some merit to looking at why <br />we do need a full 8 ft. there. If, <br />in fact, it is 8 ft. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />Collector streets typically require <br />more signage than residential <br />streets. In examining the property, <br />there is a "No Parking" sign that <br />looks like it is going to be <br />directly abutting the fence post. <br />There are other signs in the area <br />for schools that wouldn't fit given <br />the existing arrangement that's <br />going up there, with the fence being <br />so close to the sidewalk. I think <br />before we start granting things like <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />