Laserfiche WebLink
Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that the property owner mentioned some potential <br />violations, which staff determined not all were violations. He stated that images were later <br />provided by the property owners which he can share. <br />Councilmember Howell stated that she walked along the trail today and there are some obvious <br />code violations. She stated that if you look at the pictures provided from the property owner, if <br />there is significant soil loss and erosion, the retaining wall provided a benefit. She stated that she <br />would have a problem singling out one property owner and not applying that evenly to all the <br />properties. She stated that because there seems to be significant problems with this case, she would <br />not support going after all the residents in that strip for code violations and would rather attempt <br />to resolve the issue internally. She stated that trees continue to die along that corridor and there is <br />a problem. She stated that she is disappointed that these residents were treated in this manner. She <br />stated that she asked that this item be pulled from the regular agenda and moved to the worksession <br />agenda and was disappointed that it was instead made a general case. <br />Councilmember Specht commented that he is happy that this is coming to an end. He stated that <br />he has also walked the trail and supports the resolution that would resolve the problem along the <br />corridor. He stated that it would be a good gesture to refund the $1,500 to the Seamans because <br />of the complexity of the case and length of time to resolve. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff agreed that this needs to be resolved along the corridor as there is <br />confusion as to where the easement exists. He agrees that it would make sense to vacate the <br />southern portion of the easement along the entire corridor. He believed this would be a better use <br />of time than attempting to issue code violations along the corridor. He stated that he does agree <br />that the Seamans should be allowed to finish their project. He asked if there is a fee associated for <br />a CUP that is typically charged and whether the $1,500 could be reduced to that amount. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that if someone wanted to place fill within a <br />floodplain the City is required to follow a CUP process and reviewed the associated costs. He <br />stated that the property owner has suggested $500 be held from that $1,500 by the City. He noted <br />that $1,000 is a typical cost for a CUP. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the easement were already vacated, would the floodplain <br />CUP still have a cost of approximately $1,000. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill confirmed that he would believe the cost to be about the same <br />regardless of the easement issue. He stated that if additional fill were proposed for the floodplain, <br />the cost would be much higher. <br />Mayor Kuzma commented that his concern is that this moved so far along and believed there <br />should have been a better handle on it. He stated that he does support attempting to solve the issue <br />for the corridor. He suggested retaining $1,000 and refunding $500. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill provided additional details on the challenges in this area of <br />the development and how the fee title occurred. <br />City Council Work Session / May 11, 2021 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />