Council pauses action on shared-access easement tied to settlement after public objections

Council received a staff briefing on item A25-185 in the city manager’s report and held detailed questions from councilors and residents about a proposed amended and restated driveway easement.

City staff explained the easement would expand the recorded easement footprint to meet fire access and drive requirements; staff emphasized the city would not be a signatory but would be named as a beneficiary to ensure emergency access if the terminus parcel is developed. Staff noted a December 2024 settlement between property owners related to the parcel and said the proposed easement followed from that settlement’s paragraph on easement modification.

Dan Crum, who said he represents property owners of the 30-acre tract, told council that property owners had not signed the draft amendment, that the draft contained inaccuracies compared with the settlement and that owners’ attorneys advised them not to sign the amendment. Crum said that approval by council before landowners’ agreement could “be used to coerce us to support that said easement” and asked council to delay action.

Legal counsel and staff told council they had been led to believe the landowners had approved the easement but that, since signatures were not in place, there was nothing for the city to adopt. Counsel said tabling until landowners reach agreement is a reasonable approach; council discussed procedural options and clarified that tabling would place the legislative item on indefinite hold until council chooses to bring it back.

Outcome

Council did not adopt A25-185 and staff recommended tabling the item until landowners reach agreement and the fire department signs off on required access improvements. If council chooses to vote down the matter in April, staff said the proponents would need to resubmit new legislation with updated exhibits.

Votes at a glance

- A25-185: No final vote; staff and legal counsel recommended tabling until landowner agreement.