Agenda - Council - 09/13/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mayor Gamec suggested the Public Works Committee work with the Park and Street Department to draw up a diagram of the needs. Councihnember Cook indicated if the land will not be used at this time, it may be better for the City to own it and lease it out for a use that will not tie it up for the long tenn. Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman, second by Councilmember Cook, to ratify the recommendation of the Public Works Committee and approve the City taking control of the cun'ent property at the Public Works Campus out to Limonite Street. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Zimmennan, Cook, Elvig, Kurak, and Strommen. Voting No: None. Absent: CouncilmemberPearson. 3) Consider Policy on Retaining Walls Councilmember Zimmennan reported some residents are building retaining walls in areas needed for storm ponding, which will possibly lead to litigation fi'om the City. A policy is being presented that would prohibit the building of retaining walls in a drainage and utility easement. Assistant Public Works Director Olson explained if many people build a retaining wall in these easements in a subdivision, the amount of water elevation from a given storm would be a lot higher than originally plmmed for that subdivision. This policy is being-brought fo~wvard as a proactive means to discourage these retaining walls so there are not catastrophic events in the future. Councilmember Cook inquired if language could be included to reflect that the City Engineer could grant permission for a retaining wall in some instances. Assistant Public Works Director Olson replied the language could reflect that either the retaining walls would not be allowed or written permission could be received from the City. Mayor Ganxec questioned if the City restores retaining walls or fences that are located in an easement if the City needs to do work in that easement. Assistant Public Works Director Olson responded in the affirmative. City Attorney Goodrich advised if the City needs to use the right-of-way in the future, the City will not pay for that again becmtse the City already owns the easement. Essentially residents are putting the retaining walls in at their own risk, should the City have a need to use the entire easement. The City does not want to go ttn'ough the acquisition of a retaining walt that is already on property the City owns, and this is a slippery slope. Any retaining wails should be put in at the property owner's risk. -42- City Council/August t0, 2004 Page 18 of 27