Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2020

Home

th Ben Pearson, 7371 168 Circle, thanked the Commission for taking the time to consider this request. He stated that he used to do professional landscaping and built retaining walls. He stated that the wall built by the applicant is a fine example of a professionally built wall and is a great addition to the neighborhood. He stated that it is his understanding that the only reason this is before the Commission is a result of a complaint. He noted that he is unsure that is the case and instead feels that this is an instance of they can do on their own property. He commented that he does not believe the statement that the property value takes into account the encumbrance. He stated that his lot is smaller but is still valued the same as larger lots without the easement, while those properties owners get a lot more use of their lot. He stated that there are three massive oak trees on his property that have oak wilt and will die and impact other trees on the property. He stated that the property owner has a right to remove trees within the easement if there is an issue with safety. He stated that he has already removed two trees on his property in the easement because they were dead, and it was a hazard. He stated that he never would have purchased this property if he knew that this would be the case. Chairperson Bauer commented that it is the responsibility of the City to enforce code violations. He stated that he does not have the background information about a complaint and noted that typically the City does not proactively look for violations. Mr. Pearson commented that this is a small retaining wall that will not alter the floodplain. th Kendall Pane, 7336 168 Circle NW, stated that she wrote a letter of support. She echoed the comments of Mr. Pearson that a mountain has been made out of a molehill. She felt that the property owners pay taxes based on their lot size. She stated that even if a portion of the property is wetland, it still adds value to the property even if it is unusable. She stated that the applicant is paying taxes on the property and the wall does not encroach on the path. She supported the idea of the City adjusting the easement to match the path as there is a lot of confusion as to property rights. She stated that the wall has been built and did not see a benefit in making the property owners take the wall down. She asked the City to find a way to move forward that does not require the applicants to remove the wall. Ms. Schulwalter stated that if the property owners are not going to be able to do anything with their land, she would like the money for that land and the City own it outright rather than have that easement. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Peters, to close the public hearing. A roll call vote was performed: Commissioner Woestehoff aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Peters aye Commissioner VanScoy aye Commissioner Gengler aye Chairperson Bauer aye Planning Commission/ November 5, 2020 Page 14 of 19