CC WS PACKET 03102026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilmember Elnagdy asked if that rationale could be included to show that the height is not arbitrary. Mr. Sonterre stated that he did not want to get into the practice of providing rationale within the Code, as that would lengthen an already lengthy document. He noted that if there are violations, he does have verbal communication with those residents and/or provides educational information specific to the issue and property. Councilmember Elnagdy referenced subclause E and asked if language could be included that would require immediate removal in certain situations. Mr. Sonterre confirmed that could be included if desired. Councilmember Doolan stated that while she understands why that language may be desired, she had a plant that had to be removed to meet the less than 18-inch threshold and was happy to have the 90 days, as it was a lengthy project. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that while she can appreciate the ability to have those 90 days, there may be some situations when immediate action is needed. Mr. Sonterre explained that Councilmember Doolan’s home is not at an intersection and therefore does not present a public safety risk. He explained that while the language allows up to 90 days, the amount of time provided is related to the level of risk and type of violation. He stated that there are additional regulations within the right-of-way section. Mayor Webster used the scenario of a corner lot with a bus stop for kids, and the homeowner built a shelter. She believed that would have been someone with good intentions, but also something that would not be allowed within the right-of-way, as it would obstruct views. Councilmember Jenson referenced a corner home with a large pine tree, which requires vehicles to pull forward for a clearer view of the roadway. He asked if the branches could be trimmed up to improve the view for drivers, or whether the tree would need to be removed. Mr. Sonterre stated that they would request that the homeowner trim the tree on their own, but there would also be a right for the City to take action on vegetation obstructions within the right-of-way. He noted that incidents can be reported to public works. Councilmember Doolan asked for clarification on the grandfathered-in clause. Mr. Sonterre explained that this is not a change to the policy, but simply an attempt to explain the language in a clearer manner. Councilmember Doolan asked and received confirmation that there is no difference between uphill and downhill. Mr. Sonterre provided additional explanation on how the 18 inches is measured in those scenarios based on the slope of the road. Mr. Sonterre moved to the discussion on impervious surface, or lot coverage. He provided information on misconceptions that exist and noted that this update would add clarifying language to make the regulation easier to understand. Councilmember Elnagdy asked for information on violations, using the scenario where a permit is not pulled, and a deck is constructed. Mr. Sonterre stated that there are about 30 properties in violation, and there is currently nothing short of a court injunction to force the removal of impervious surface. He recognized that many times the violation occurs in the backyard, and the work is done on weekends. He provided additional information on the violations that can be imposed through administrative fines. Councilmember Elnagdy asked if language should be added, stating that the matter could progress to court. Mr. Sonterre stated that he would leave the decision of threatening language to administration. Councilmember Jenson asked if that is a problem they need to solve. He stated that if the right language is provided within the Code, he believed that most people want to comply. 4