Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Encroachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff propose encroachment license framework with tiered fees and 12-month remediation for deep incursions
Summary
Staff presented a draft encroachment policy proposing three distance tiers (0–5 ft, 5–20 ft, >20 ft), permitted uses, revocable licenses and sample annual fees of $400–$1,000; council directed further public outreach and implementation planning.
City staff on June 25 presented a draft policy to manage private uses that extend onto city-owned non‑right-of-way property, proposing a three-tier approach, sample licensing fees and a structured compliance timeline.
Richard (staff) said the policy would allow limited landscaping and mowing close to property lines while restricting fences and permanent structures farther into city land. "We're proposing a revocable license" for encroachments, he said, and described three categories: up to 5 feet (permitted landscaping and limited fencing), more than 5 up to 20 feet (landscaping allowed but fences and permanent structures restricted), and anything beyond 20 feet (generally not permitted with a compliance schedule).
The presentation included hypothetical examples—townhome rows with contiguous encroachments, long mowing strips, fire‑pit installations and fences—that staff used to show how the policy and proposed fees might apply. Staff floated sample annual license fees: $400 for non‑enclosed uses within the smallest band and $1,000 for deeper or enclosed encroachments; council members questioned whether proposed fees covered staff processing time and whether amounts would be legally defensible.
Council members raised practical questions about title recording, transfer implications and pools or decks that may approach public land; city legal counsel said a license generally would not appear on a title opinion unless recorded, and that sale/transfer approaches used by other cities include public hearings and priority offers to adjoining owners.
Staff recommended additional community outreach, an implementation plan and review by the Parks, Recreation and Public Art Board before formal adoption; they tentatively expect to return this fall after drafting implementation procedures and fee justification.
Richard said the city would also consider removal and restoration authority if owners refused to comply and would work with legal staff to finalize enforcement details. Council members asked that staff keep flexibility for case-by-case review and consider whether sale of small parcels may be appropriate in rare circumstances.
Next steps: staff will refine the draft, prepare an implementation strategy addressing title/transfer and enforcement steps, bring the policy to the Parks board for review, and return to council for formal adoption later this year.
