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 staffs <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 />