01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan said if the Council upheld the appeal, he confirmed with Mr. Iserson the work would be removed and he was not sure if this would take longer than finishing what is already built. He questioned the Kings Canyon Court project and confirmed it was a different property owner but that Mr. Smith assisted in the project which took a long time and was permitted. Councilmember McGovern questioned if Mr. Smith applied for permits to the two additions, and Mr. Iserson said he has submitted plans but nothing can be done with them until approved by the Council. Mayor Hosterman acknowledged the neighbor's concerns, believed 6-7 years is too long; however, Mr. Smith tried to accomplish the work on his own and it sounds like it took a lot longer than he thought it would take. She was not in favor of asking him to remove improvements, wished he would have obtained permits ahead of time, agreed the additions are beautiful, is confident staff has conditioned expediting the construction process and she is hopeful that the neighbors most affected will eventually be pleased with the outcome. She encouraged the owner to expedite the process per the City's requirements and discussed a similar situation in her neighborhood and its impact to residents. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she is sympathetic to the neighbors, recognized construction does take longer than necessary, acknowledged the neighbors want an end to the construction process, did not believe the remedy was to tear down the addition, wished all parties could have addressed the situation in a neighborly fashion and that some repair of the neighborhood relationship occurs in the future. Councilmember Thorne said he is bothered by the progress and completion of the work, believes the remedy is for the City to take an administration action and levy a substantial fine due to Mr. Smith not first obtaining permits, said he did not want to require removal of work and if timelines are not met he would support having the work removed. Councilmember Sullivan questioned the process to levy a fine. City Attorney Roush suggested that the Council could direct staff to begin the administrative process separate from the appeal, hold a hearing, the hearing officer will take into consideration the matter and determine the levy of a fine. He said it would not lengthen the process, but run concurrently with the time commitment of the work being completed. Councilmember Sullivan said if the Smith's miss the 6-month deadline, he requested removing the structures and/or also imposing another fine. He agreed the timeline was excessive, is most bothered by the fact that the homeowner knew he needed permits, did not obtain them and did the work anyway, and removing the structures would most likely cause more impact to the neighbors. He also voiced concern with the City's code enforcement processes. Councilmember McGovern said laws are made and at times they are not imposed so people know they can get away with things and she felt this was an example. She believed that if the neighbors had seen the plans for additions they would have contacted the City and she did not want people building without permits in the City. Mr. Smith knew he blatantly disregarded the law, she believed he should be penalized, should remove the non-permitted work and go through the permitting process. However, if the Council allows him to continue the work she suggested he not be allowed to build on Saturdays. City Attorney Roush said if there are complaints received during the Saturday construction hours the Planning Director can modify or revoke the Saturday hours. The 6-month timeframe took into account complaints and can be revoked. If the 60-day requirement to obtain permits City Council Minutes 7 March 4, 2008