SR 05:069A - Laserfiche WebLink

staff report contained a number of inaccuracies regarding his property; he noted that the pedestrian path in the north part of the property was already dedicated. He noted that the trail was required to be six feet wide, and he was displeased to find that it had to become a sidewalk. He noted that he delayed his project for a year-and-a-half in order to file an application to remove the path. He noted that 40 neighbors wanted to retain the path and that thc residents wBhcd for thc path to remain so their children could usc it as a bike path. He expressed concern at the apparent misplarming by the Planning Department staff. He believed that common sense should prevail in this matter and would like to remove the pedestrian path. Peter McDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, representing Mr. Bozorgzad, wished to discuss options for putting the pedestrian path in. Following up on Ms. Nerland's comments, he requested that the City make a formal acceptance of liability and maintenance for the sidewalk, which amounted to a community trail. He did not believe the sidewalk was a private property situation. He believed this particular location had an insurmountable liability problem and that it would be unconscionable to pass that liability and maintenance responsibilities to the bystander properties. He noted that the average slope was a 10-percent slope, which he believed would be unsafe for bicyclists and skateboarders. He also believed that a barrier would be dangerous. He requested that the pedestrian path be redesigned o protect the Bozorgzads' privacy. He noted that the developer was required to put in the pedestrian trail and added that he drafted Condition No. 23 to fix the trail in such a way to protect the Bozorgzads' privacy. He requested a three-foot movement of the trail into Lot 4, which would move the Bozorgzad property line three feet over; a six-foot wail would be included to keep people from looking directly into their living room. He stated that the developer has refused to draw that plan up unless Mr. Bozorgzad agreed to pay for moving the water line and the construction of the wall. Mr. McDonald asked that the developer be required to reimburse the Bozorgzads' for one-half of the cost of Sycamore Terrace. He detailed the history of this issue and noted that a 240-foot accommodation became an expensive imposition. He believed that Mr. Bozorgzad was entitled to a reimbursement agreement when he did the subdivision; staff had stated that Mr. Bach would not be developing for 20 years and that the reimbursement agreements were only good for 15 years. He noted that the development was taking place less than five years later and believed that it was time for Mr. Bozorgzad to be reimbursed for half the road. If that occurred, Mr. Bozorgzad would have no objection to moving the City water line, and he would be willing to pay for half of the pedestrian pathway. He noted that their draft Condition No. 77 detailed that proposal. He believed that State law mandates that Mr. Bozorgzad be reimbursed for half the road because it was done for the advantage of that property. Commissioner Fox inquired what kind of wording they would like if the City added acknowledgement of their liability and maintenance should the pedestrian path was retained in the plan. Ms. Nerland replied that it had already been dedicated. She suggested that if the property owners had questions about the instruments under which PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 2005 Page 14 of 22