Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#16-3848 <br /> August 11,2016 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> plan,which instead had a proposed a two-tier wall system located more than 5 feet from the <br /> lot line. <br /> Staff has reviewed the wall as constructed and observed its relationship to the driveway and <br /> neighboring property. The approved plan had the wall directly abutting the edge of the <br /> driveway, which is allowable by code but creates a less-than-perfect safety condition by <br /> creating an immediate drop-off that leaves no room for driver error. This is exacerbated by <br /> the minimal size of the driveway due to the site's hardcover limitations. While the wall was <br /> not constructed according to the approved plan, it serves the function of retaining earth to <br /> allow for a functional driveway while not being located at the very edge of the driveway. <br /> This would appear to be a safer situation than the approved plan. <br /> While the wall is very close to the west lot line, the adjacent affected neighbor to the <br /> immediate west has stated to the applicant that the retaining wall as constructed does not <br /> affect him and that it may serve to reduce drainage onto his property, which he views as <br /> positive. <br /> The wall is of placed boulder construction and needs minimal or no maintenance, so its <br /> location so close to the property boundary should not be a factor in future maintenance. If <br /> the wall does need reconstruction in the future, it is anticipated that work can be <br /> accomplished without access onto the neighboring property. <br /> A final item of concern is the wall location within a 5' dedicated drainage and utility <br /> easement. The City does not generally look favorably on construction of improvements <br /> within those easements, which are created within all new plats and are typically 5 feet in <br /> width on either side of interior lot boundaries. In the event that a utility company or the <br /> City needs to use the easement for drainage or utility purposes, any private improvements <br /> within the easement are at risk. In the applicants' situation, the likelihood of the City or a <br /> utility company needing access via the easement is minimal at best. <br /> Based on the above review, staff is recommending that the wall be allowed to remain in <br /> place as constructed, subject to execution of an Encroachment Agreement. The Agreement <br /> will be filed in the chain of title and will place this and future owners on notice that if the <br /> City and/or utility companies need to access the easement area in the future,the encroaching <br /> wall may be disturbed or destroyed in the process and the owner will not be compensated <br /> for any damage to the wall, nor will the City be obligated to replace it. <br /> Conditional Use Permit Analysis <br /> Conditional use permit approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: <br /> (1) The proposed use is consistent with the Community Management Plan (CMP). The <br /> proposed use is accessory residential irr nature and such use is consistent with the CMP <br /> guiding fo�•this residential neighborhood. <br /> (2) The proposed use is compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed <br /> on specific uses as required by Article V, Division 3 of the City Code. Construction of a <br /> retaining wall less than 5 feet from a lot line requires a conditional use permit per Article <br /> V, Division 3, hence tlii�s application, <br /> (3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads and s <br /> , , t0�lWatel' 111ana e�1 <br /> ent, T <br /> u�ew�ll , , e r0 <br /> be � � <br /> ad <br /> e Uq <br /> C <br /> I <br /> � �� <br /> , I �� <br />