Laserfiche WebLink
property owners will object or want the City to pay for it. Chairperson Backous asked if this <br />agreement would be attached to the title so a new property owner would be aware in case the <br />property is sold. Development Services Manager Gladhill stated that could be required, noting in <br />this case it is magnified because it involves a pipe in the ground. He stated if that is the <br />direction, then the cost for the document recording would be the requirement of the property <br />owner, noting it can cost $50 to $100 to record such a document with the title. In addition, it <br />would be necessary for the City to provide an agreement template. Councilmember Riley asked <br />if there are other easements where fences are not allowed to be constructed. Development <br />Services Manager Gladhill stated there would be some easements in which the City would not <br />allow a fence encroachment so staff would have to determine what is in each easement and make <br />a recommendation whether it should be considered for this option. That will be part of staff' s <br />standard review. City Engineer Westby stated the City currently allows property owners to <br />construct fences in easements but it is not allowed on the line or on top of infrastructure so the <br />pipe is not damaged. Development Services Manager Gladhill stated this is more about the large <br />stormwater pipe at the rear of the property. <br />Motion by Chairperson Backous, seconded by Councilmember Kuzma, to recommend that the <br />City Council change the City policy allowing fences to be extended across property lines, <br />contingent on the draft (building) fence permit language being reviewed and approved by the <br />City Attorney and subsequently added to all (building) fence permits issued in the future, and to <br />add a requirement for a written agreement between the property owners that is recorded, at the <br />property owner's expense, for easements that include infrastructure. <br />Further discussion: Public Works Superintendent Riemer stated he does not object to allowing <br />this option. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Backous, Councilmembers Kuzma and Riley. Voting <br />No: None. <br />5.02: Consider Partial Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easement at 15069 Helium Street <br />NW <br />City Engineer Westby reviewed the staff report and stated staff, as directed by the Public Works <br />Committee, again contacted the property owner to discuss options. Because the property owners <br />were not responsive, staff visited the site and found the property owner had constructed a <br />retaining wall roughly five feet off the property line; however, the property owners never <br />received formal approval from the City to construct the retaining wall within the existing <br />easement. City Engineer Westby presented four options for the Public Works Committee' s <br />consideration as detailed in the staff report. Staff recommends Option 1, direct staff to meet with <br />the property owners on site to review the wall as constructed to confirm that it was constructed <br />adequately and is located at least five feet off the property line. If staff finds that the wall was <br />constructed adequately and is located at least five feet off the property line, direct staff to take no <br />further action, in which event the City will retain a ten -foot drainage and utility easement along <br />the south property line. <br />Chairperson Backous asked if a permit is required to construct a retaining wall. <br />Public Works Committee / July 16, 2013 <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />