My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 07/16/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Public Works Committee
>
2010 - 2019
>
2013
>
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 07/16/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 10:34:48 AM
Creation date
7/17/2013 1:37:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
07/16/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Public Works Committee 5. 2. <br />Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 <br />By: Bruce Westby, Engineering/Public <br />Works <br />Title: <br />Consider Partial Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easement at 15069 Helium Street NW <br />Background: <br />As was discussed at the June 18th Public Works Committee, the property owners at 15069 Helium Street NW <br />requested to be allowed to construct a modular block retaining wall along their south side lot line within the public <br />drainage and utility (D&U) easement as they believe their side yard has been settling over time, resulting in a steep <br />side slope that is difficult to maintain and reducing support for their home's foundation walls. The property owners <br />therefore feel that the settling of the side yard is putting their home in danger and believe a retaining wall is <br />necessary to protect their homes foundation. <br />As was also discussed with the Public Works Committee, City staff met with the property owners on their property <br />to review and discuss the issue this spring. Upon visiting the property it was apparent, as can be seen in the attached <br />pictures, that the property owners had already purchased and placed dozens of retaining wall blocks on the ground's <br />surface along the bottom of the side slope along their south lot line. Staff also observed that their sod was in poor <br />condition and had never fully taken root and was therefore allowing water to run into the seams and between the <br />partially -dead sod mat and underlying soil. Therefore, whenever it rains the underlying soils become saturated and <br />the dead and/or dying sod mats simply slide on top of the underlying soils. Staff therefore believes this issue could <br />have simply been resolved by removing the dead and decaying sod and establishing new turf, either seed or sod, <br />and watering it adequately until it becomes firmly rooted, which would be aided by the fact that the property owner <br />plans to install an underground irrigation system this summer. <br />When visiting the site staff also informed the property owners that the city does not allow retaining walls to be <br />constructed within D&U easements as the walls can limit a neighbor's use of their property due to altering drainage <br />patterns, grades and elevations. D&U easements also allow private properties to be served by private and public <br />utilities, but when a retaining wall is constructed over existing utilities it can impact the ability of the utilities to <br />quickly and cost-effectively access and/or maintain their facilities. Plus, if a new utility needs to be installed where <br />a retaining wall exists within the easement, installation costs are often higher and the increased costs are then <br />passed on to all users of that utility. <br />Following discussion of this case on June 18th, the Public Works Committee directed staff to research costs related <br />to vacating 5-feet of the existing 10-foot D&U easement, thereby still providing a standard 5-foot D&U easement <br />along the property line. Staff was also directed to discuss with the property owner which course of action, i.e. <br />constructing a wall outside the D&U easement versus constructing a wall 5-feet off the property line and paying a <br />small fee for the vacated easement area, would be preferable to them. Staff was then to bring all relevant <br />information back to a subsequent Public Works Committee meeting for further discussion. <br />Notification: <br />No notification is required as a result of this case. <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.