Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Howell stated that her concern would be that there is a broader problem that needs <br />to be solved rather than creating a situation that would replicate what has occurred with the <br />Seamans. She believed that the issues within the City side of the easement should be addressed <br />prior to attempting to address issues on the resident side. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that if the easement is vacated along those properties, and those <br />residents are notified, perhaps that would be an opportunity to educate the property owners about <br />the floodplain and its boundaries. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill confirmed the consensus of the majority of the Council that <br />the City should be responsible for the repayment of the grant, the $1,500 should be refunded to the <br />Seamans, education/enforcement should occur on the north side of the trail, and focus should be <br />given to vacating the southern portion of the easement and educating property owners about the <br />floodplain. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma commented that there are other properties along the corridor and was concerned <br />that refunding the entire amount would cause an issue of property owners not being treated fairly <br />as other properties would need to pay a permit fee for activity within the floodplain. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that the code has been inconsistently applied in the corridor <br />and this resident has been through a lot. She stated that she would not be opposed to the resident <br />paying the permit fee, if all other properties in that corridor that should have obtained a permit also <br />pay that fee to ensure everyone is treated the same. She asked who complained about the retaining <br />wall. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that complaints are anonymous, and staff <br />responded. He stated that not all violations are within the floodplain. He stated that perhaps the <br />solution could be to keep the $1,000 which would be the typical floodplain CUP cost and refund <br />the remaining $500. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell commented on the length of time that other violations have existed <br />without enforcement. She stated that it would be unreasonable to place enforcement and fines <br />upon the entire neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma stated that he would support vacating the southern portion of the easement but noted <br />that the retaining wall still would have required a permit and that process should remain fair. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill noted that staff could develop findings of fact as to what made <br />this situation unique so that it would not set precedent. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht agreed that there were extenuating circumstances in this instance and <br />therefore supported refunding the $1,500. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated that this will be thoroughly documented, the easement will be <br />vacated on the south side of the trail, and additional education and signage can occur on the <br />northern side of the easement. He stated that enforcement will be upheld going forward for <br />City Council Work Session / May 11, 2021 <br />Page 8 of 10 <br /> <br />