Agenda - Public Works Committee - 07/16/2013

Home

Chairperson Backous agreed the culvert needs to be extended because the crosswalk goes towards the ditch and pedestrians cannot get to the safety sign on the other side to access the light. He advocated for approaching Anoka County to fund the flashing lights. Motion by Chairperson Backous, seconded by Councilmember Kuzma, to recommend that the City Council direct staff to work with Anoka County to extend the pavement and culvert on the west side of Armstrong Boulevard to provide a paved surface for pedestrians to use and pay for flashing lights, and to place an educational article in the Ramsey Resident reminding drivers of the need to yield for pedestrians. Further discussion: Patrick Surma, 161st Avenue, thanked staff for placing additional pedestrian signs and Chairperson Backous for visiting the site to see the issue. He stated he thinks the traffic is traveling faster than 55 mph and that drivers have exhibited they do not care. Mr. Surma stated his fear that there will be a fatality if something is not done and described accidents that had already occurred. He presented pedestrian fatality statistics and stated he does not want to ever again see a child die. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Backous, Councilmembers Kuzma and Riley. Voting No: None. 5.03: Consider Request to Construct Retaining Wall in Drainage & Utility Easement City Engineer Westby reviewed the staff report and presented the request of property owners at 15069 Helium Street NW to construct a modular block retaining wall along their east side lot line within the public drainage and utility easement. The residents believe their side yard has settled over time, resulting in a steeper side slope that is more difficult to maintain and provides less support for their home' s foundation walls. City Engineer Westby described the current conditions that have resulted in soil erosion and ordinance prohibitions against constructing permanent structures (i.e., retaining walls) within such easements. He stated staff recommends the property owner's request be denied and to establish new turf on the site that will take root to prevent erosion. It was noted similar requests in the past have always been denied. Councilmember Riley asked if it is the case that the resident thinks the retaining wall is on their property line; however, it is actually in a City easement where building a retaining wall is prohibited. City Engineer Westby stated staff offered another option to relocate the retaining wall closer to the home, within five feet, and at the property line so it does not infringe on the City's right-of- way. However, in that location the retaining wall would need to be taller. He stated there are currently no utilities in this easement but the property to the east includes a stormwater holding basin and it could develop. If that occurred, private utilities could be installed through this easement Chairperson Backous asked about the option of selling a five-foot easement strip to the property owner so the retaining wall would not have to be so high. Public Works Committee / June 18, 2013 Page 5 of 13