06 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT that the emergency access problem had not been solved and suggested that the wall be torn down to allow the solution to be reached properly. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding whether the wall would be torn down if the Planning Commission denied the application, Mr. Iserson replied that effectively denying the application would mean the wall was not approved and would need to come down. Commissioner Fox believed that good fences made good neighbors and that property owners had the right to fence their property. Chair Blank noted that he agreed with Commissioner Fox's statement as long as the fence did not block other people's property. Commissioner Fox noted that the applicants had gone through City channels and supported retaining the wall. She believed the existing egress paths should be put back in place to comply with the former sets of conditions. She did not believe the Planning Commission could force an easement on a property owner if the owner did not want it. Chair Blank noted that this wall was not built in a collegial manner and that it went up on a Saturday; he also questioned some of the motives on both sides in this matter. Commissioner Pearce noted that she viewed this matter as if the wall had not been built. While she saw benefits to Mr. Pereira, there were also detriments to Hap's. She believed the parties could be made whole by applying a couple of easements to the wall through the gate. She believed that Mr. Pereira and his partners will not grant an easement and noted that the City cannot compel an easement. She asked Mr. Iserson whether it was the applicant's preference that the Planning Commission deny the major modification, thereby denying the wall, or that the Planning Commission approve the major modification, knowing that Mr. Pereira would not grant the necessary easements. Commissioner Fox suggested that the application be approved with only Conditions of Approval Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Mr. Iserson stated that staff s recommendation was that the conditions were reasonable and enforceable. If the application were to be approved with the conditions for the easements, the City would be able to pursue enforcement to compel the granting of those easements. Commissioner Olson inquired whether the City would have to sue the partnership in that case. Mr. Roush replied that there would be an administrative process, but if there were no compliance with the conditions, the City would have to file a lawsuit asking the court to either compel the property owner to grant the easements or to take down the wall. Chair Blank noted that the Pereiras stated that they would rather remove the wall than have an easement. The Planning Commission could vote to deny the application or approve it with the conditions detailed in the staff report; one of the parties could appeal to City Council. He believed it was possible that the matter would end up in court. He agreed with Commissioner DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-08 Page 9 of 13