Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Access Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies request for secondary vehicle access to Highland Glen parking lot
Summary
After extended debate about precedent, public use and city maintenance, Highland City Council denied a request from a property owner to permit regular vehicular access through a city parking lot to private property. The applicant offered conditions — a bond, hold-harmless language and limited use — but council voted to deny the requested access.
Highland City Council on Jan. 7 denied a request from resident and property owner Corey Friese for secondary vehicular access across a city parking lot to reach a detached garage and storage pad behind his Ridgeway property.
Staff presented the request as an unusual case without a clear controlling code: the parking lot (a trailhead parking area that was originally constructed by the county) is city property, used by trail users and the public. Rob Patterson, planning staff, said the lot was not designed as a driveway or right-of-way and that authorizing private vehicular access could create maintenance, liability and future-access conflicts for the city. Patterson recommended denial unless council directed staff to craft a broader policy to handle similar requests uniformly.
Corey Friese told council his request is modest: he wants to open a gate in the fence to move a trailer into a gravel pad a few times per year for winter storage, not regular car traffic. Friese offered multiple constraints he would accept: (1) a license/agreement allowing limited, revocable access only when the city parking area was not otherwise obstructed; (2) a small damage bond (he proposed $1,000) to cover curb damage; (3) an agreement that the gate would swing inward and not impede the parking lot; and (4) a signed hold-harmless agreement accepting that the city might place materials in the lot or restrict access on short notice.
Council debate focused on precedent and enforcement. Several council members said they were sympathetic to an individual resident’s need but worried that approving access here without an overarching written policy would create a precedent inviting other homeowners to seek similar privileges and could impair public use of the parking lot. Others noted that a similar arrangement exists near the community center (a previously negotiated access agreement) and argued the city could condition an approval on a recorded license or agreement that would be binding on a future owner and would explicitly allow the city to revoke access. Staff confirmed a license agreement could be drafted and recorded against the property to restrict future claims of right.
Councilmember Doug moved to deny the request; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll call vote 3–2. The council record shows the city is willing to explore a citywide policy for such access requests, but the Friese application, as presented, was denied.
