09-12-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item #02 - PC Agenda - 08/15/2016 File #16-3848 [Total Pages 22] FILE # 16-3848 August 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 plan, which instead had a proposed a two-tier wall system located more than 5 feet from the lot line. Staff has reviewed the wall as constructed and observed its relationship to the driveway and neighboring property. The approved plan had the wall directly abutting the edge of the driveway, which is allowable by code but creates a less -than -perfect safety condition by creating an immediate drop-off that leaves no room for driver error. This is exacerbated by the minimal size of the driveway due to the site's hardcover limitations. While the wall was not constructed according to the approved plan, it serves the function of retaining earth to allow for a functional driveway while not being located at the very edge of the driveway. This would appear to be a safer situation than the approved plan. While the wall is very close to the west lot line, the adjacent affected neighbor to the immediate west has stated to the applicant that the retaining wall as constructed does not affect him and that it may serve to reduce drainage onto his property, which he views as positive. The wall is of placed boulder construction and needs minimal or no maintenance, so its location so close to the property boundary should not be a factor in future maintenance. If the wall does need reconstruction in the future, it is anticipated that work can be accomplished without access onto the neighboring property. A final item of concern is the wall location within a 5' dedicated drainage and utility easement. The City does not generally look favorably on construction of improvements within those easements, which are created within all new plats and are typically 5 feet in width on either side of interior lot boundaries. In the event that a utility company or the City needs to use the easement for drainage or utility purposes, any private improvements within the easement are at risk. In the applicants' situation, the likelihood of the City or a utility company needing access via the easement is minimal at best. Based on the above review, staff is recommending that the wall be allowed to remain in place as constructed, subject to execution of an Encroachment Agreement. The Agreement will be filed in the chain of title and will place this and future owners on notice that if the City and/or utility companies need to access the easement area in the future, the encroaching wall may be disturbed or destroyed in the process and the owner will not be compensated for any damage to the wall, nor will the City be obligated to replace it. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Conditional use permit approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: (1) The proposed use is consistent with the Community Management Plan (CMP). The proposed use is accessory residential in nature and such use is consistent with the CMP guiding for this residential neighborhood. (2) The proposed use is compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by Article V, Division 3 of the City Code. Construction of a retaining wall less than S feet from a lot line requires a conditional use permit per Article V, Division 3, hence this application. (3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management. The proposed use will be adequately served by existing services and facilities. (4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system. This criteria is