Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Howell asked if there are pictures of the code violations submitted from the <br />property owner. <br /> <br />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 /> <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, “For the record though, I would say because there seems to be significant <br />problems with this, just with what’s been going on and the complication of the case, I do not <br />support going after all the residents along that strip for code violations. I think it’s just more <br />complicated than that, and so I’d like to see the city maybe take step back and see how we can <br />resolve it internally rather than going after everybody else for code violations.” She stated that <br />trees continue to die along that corridor and there is a problem. She stated that she is <br />disappointed that these residents were treated in this manner. She stated, “For the record, I did <br />ask that 5.1 specifically be pulled and put on the work session agenda, I was very disappointed <br />and frustrated that it was turned into a general case. We had to ask for it to be specifically this <br />case, we need to have a discussion around this, we don’t want this to be happening over and over <br />again to residents in the community.” <br /> <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the easement were already vacated, would the floodplain <br />CUP still have a cost of approximately $1,000. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / May 11, 2021 <br />Page 6 of 10 <br /> <br />