04-13-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a request for an encroachment agreement for an existing retaining wall within an unimproved alley right-of-way. 2. Background/ Summary. The applicant proposes to keep two stone retaining walls and other improvements that encroach into the platted right of way adjacent to their home. One of the walls encroaches approximately 12 feet into the 20 foot wide right of way. Please refer to the owners’ narrative for background. It appears after the home project was complete they began to experience erosion and hired a contractor to install a retaining wall which extends from their property 12.5 feet into the right-of-way. Adam Edwards, City Engineer, has provided comments which are attached as Exhibit B. Per City Code, 78-1405(6) Retaining walls may be located in all required yards (i.e. within the setback) when it is not located within a drainage, utility, or other easement, except upon approval in writing for an encroachment agreement; creates no impacts to drainage direction, rate or volume for adjacent properties; and is two feet in height or less above existing grade. The owners were granted variances to build their home in 2012 which included a side-street setback variance to permit construction 7.6 foot setback where a 35-foot setback (the Code at that time) was required. The lot is narrow (51’ at the OHWL and 47’ at the 75’ setback) and according to current Codes is permitted the side setback exception for narrow lots which would permit a 7.5 foot setback on the alley side of the property. This property was the subject of a vacation (#LA19-000087) request last fall. It was not supported by the Planning Commission, and ultimately withdrawn by the applicant prior to Council action. 3. Staff Recommendation. City Engineer Edwards’ comments are summarized below and include recommendations regarding each of the encroachments he has identified. a. Retaining wall within the right-of-way (Encroachment A): The encroachment is structural in nature and has blocked the drainage way pushing runoff to the west. The encroachment may deter other users of the easement. [Edwards] does not recommend this encroachment be allowed to remain. If the Council agrees to allow this encroachment to remain and encroachment agreement should be required. b. Wall & Pavers (Encroachment B): This encroachment does not appear to have a negative impact to the Lake access. This encroachment could remain until such time as the city improves the lake access or drainage way. If the council agrees to allow this encroachment to remain and encroachment agreement should be required. c. Landscaping Mulch & Pavers (Encroachment C): This encroachment is not structural and could be considered landscaping. It does not appear to have a negative impact to the Lake access. This encroachment could remain until such time as the city improves the lake access or drainage way and based on current city practices, would not require an encroachment agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Item No.: 17 Date: April 13, 2020 Item Description: Scott and Melissa Musgjerd, 4156 Highwood Road, Encroachment Agreement Request Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report