Laserfiche WebLink
<br />become an issue. He noted the resident showed up and presented his case, and there is no <br />distinctive proof that he is wrong. He noted he is not in favor of denying the encroachment <br />agreement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated, in her time with the City Council and Planning Commission, <br />there have been numerous similar cases and it has been necessary to be proactive in terms of <br />development and planning. She added she agrees with Councilmember Heineman, and the City is <br />now approaching these types of issues to mitigate at the front end. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked whether there is any chance the drainage easement would ever <br />be used, due to the presence of the wetland. She asked whether the purpose of the easement is to <br />protect the wetland from new development. <br /> <br />City Engineer Westby stated the easement in this case is a drainage easement protecting the <br />wetland area. He added he is not aware of plans to run utilities through that corridor. He noted <br />any borings that would need to be done would not disturb the wetland, and the applicant’s footings <br />would not be in the way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked whether it would be appropriate to vacate the easement for the <br />drainage portion, as the footings would not impede drainage. <br /> <br />City Engineer Westby stated easements are typically set at the edge of a known wetland or a 100- <br />year flood high water level area. He added he would not recommend vacating an easement without <br />further analysis. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht stated good points were made by both the applicant and City Staff <br />regarding the wetland delineation and the size and constraints of the property. He added the City <br />Council can act with common sense and flexibility. He noted he supports the encroachment <br />agreement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht stated he would like to make a motion approving the easement <br />encroachment agreement for 16206 Sapphire Street, for the deck as currently built. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked whether the City Council can review the Planning <br />Commission’s recent evaluation of a similar case in this vicinity. He added it would be helpful to <br />re-evaluate the entire easement and its boundaries, as it seems larger than the natural line of where <br />the properties are. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated City Staff can do that. She added, however, the other case <br />reviewed by the Planning Commission was related to a side yard property line which is a different <br />issue. She added a buffer is recommended to protect a wetland, and the City has seen an overall <br />reduction in the size of natural wetlands. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell stated the City recently worked with a resident on encroachments on a <br />property in Oak Terrace Estates. She added she is happy to work with this applicant as well. <br /> <br />City Council / July 27, 2021 <br />Page 14 of 25 <br /> <br /> <br />