Laserfiche WebLink
<br />morning. One of the thoughts is that there will eventually be need for a different building, <br />however, that will be years down the road. The current need would be for a temporary classroom <br />type facility that would provide them with more usable space. Public Works Director Kapler <br />explained the structure would be placed in the parking lot and would be strictly an administrative <br />area. One option would be a trailer, and another option would be a garage type of building <br />designed so it could be placed in another location and used as a garage in the future. The <br />consensus of the Committee was to have staff proceed in gathering information regarding a <br />trailer facility to be used as a temporary structure to provide more spaoe for the Public Works <br />staff. <br /> <br />Case #3: <br /> <br />Consider Policy on Retaining Walls <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski indicated it has been recently brought to the City's attention that <br />several homes within the Highland at River Park subdivision have constructed retaining walls <br />within the drainage and utility easement placed over an area subject to ponding. This presents . <br />the possibility that the City may become involved in complaints or litigation in the event that a <br />high water event causes damage to the wall. However more significantly, the construction of the <br />retaining wall usually includes filling behind the wall which results in a reduction in capacity of <br />the pond volume to hold the design storm event. At the present time no permits are required for <br />the construction of a retaining wall unless it exceeds four feet in height. Additionally, even <br />retaining walls greater than four feet in height can be constructed without a permit ifthey are <br />constructed in terraced lifts with each individual lift being less than four feet. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski advised the City should consider some measures to protect the capacity <br />of the storm water ponds that have been constructed to protect structures from flooding. It is <br />suggested that the City adopt a policy which specifically prohibits the construction of retaining <br />walls within drainage and utility easements. Attached to this case is a draft policy which <br />prohibits the construction of retaining walls within drainage and utility easements. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works DirectorOlson indicated another option would be to require a permit for <br />every retaining wall. He explained just because a retaining wall is put in, it does not mean it will <br />affect the volume ofthe pond, however, there could be a situation where people are near the edge <br />of the two foot gap they are given, and enough retaining walls around the pond will cause a <br />problem. Staff has determined there should be a requirement that retaining walls are not allowed <br />in utility and drainage easements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook questioned if there are any circumstances where the City may not want to <br />permit a retaining wall, other than in easements, and if it would make sense to require permits for <br />retaining walls. He noted there could be a situation where a retaining wall would stop drainage <br />of the neighborhood that runs through someone's yard. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson replied staff would be open to this. There would have to <br />be a fee attached to the permit. <br /> <br />Chairperson Zimmetman asked if other cities require pennits for retaining walls. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/July 20, 2004 <br />Page 5 of8 <br />