SR 05:069A - Laserfiche WebLink

they were dedicated, they should discuss them with the City Attorney's Office rather than resolve them in this forum. Mr. McDonald wished to ensure that the private property owners were protected from a lawsuit should there be a claim. Ms. Nerland indicated that she was not inclined to have that discussion at this forum and that the easement was already dedicated with terms that were discussed and negotiated. She encouraged the parties to discuss the issue with the City Attorney's office at the appropriate time and place. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether these proposed modifications would apply if the recommendation were to delete the path, Mr. McDonald replied that they would not. Mr. McDonald expressed concern about the developer's apparent unwillingness to protect the Bozorgzads' privacy. Commissioner Fox inquired whether the Bozorgzads would agree to drop Condition No. 77 if the pedestrian path was removed. Ms. Nerland noted that there was a recorded agreement between the Bachs and the Bozorgzads regarding how the payment for the road would be handled and believed that this was a private matter. If no reimbursement from Greenbriar occurred, she suggested that the parties sue under the agreement, rather than look to the Planning Commission to be the judge in a private matter. She strongly discouraged the Planning Commission from making a decision in that matter. Commissioner Roberts noted that City Council may need to deal with this issue. Esther Seegers, 6080 Sycamore Terrace, applicant, expressed her concern about the current path and noted that she would like to extend the path past the Bozorgzads' house. She noted that she supported public pathways in general but that this particular path was difficult to patrol. She noted that the visibility of the path made it difficult to see her children when they use the path. She expressed concern about the maintenance of the path and had never seen anyone looking after the plants or the path's cleanliness. Mary and Ann Greene, 386 Sycamore Road, noted that they had never requested that the Bozorgzads' driveway be affected. Ann Greene expressed concern that the hillside section of the proposed development had already slid, revealing a pre-existing horse fence along their property line. She believed that the steep grade made a retaining wall necessary, in addition to the V-ditch, to prevent soil runoff. She was also concerned about the fencing required to separate their animals from the other backyards and noted that the wood fencing was not sufficiently durable; she preferred chain-link fencing and a retaining wall where necessary for a long-term solution. She and her sister were also concerned about the height and size of the proposed new homes and hoped that their privacy rights would be considered. She suggested that one-story homes with 28-foot property line setbacks would be possible mitigations. She was also concerned that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 2005 Page 15 of 22