Agenda - Council - 12/13/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

morning. One of the ti~ou~ts is that d~ere wilIieventually be need for a different building, however, that will be years down the road. The cu~ent need would be for a tempora~ classroom Itype facility that would provide them with more usable spaceJ Public Works Director Kapler explained the structure would be placed in-the Parking lot and would be strictly an administrative area. One option would be a trailer, and another option would be a garage type of building desig-ned so it could be placed in another location and used as a garage in' the fu~.tre.. The consensus of the Committee was to have staff proceed in gathering information regarding a trailer facility to be used ~ a mmporary sLmc~.~re to provide more space for the Public Works staff. Case #3: Consider Policy on Retaining Walls City Engineer Jankowski indicated it has been recently brought to the City's attention that several homes within the Highland at River Park subdivision have constructed retaining walls.within the drainage and utility easement placed over an area subject to ponding. This presents the possibiti~ that the City may become involved in complaints or litigation in the event that a high water event causes damage to the wail. However more significantly, the construction of the retaining wall usually includes filling behind the wall which results in a reduction in capacilty of the pond volume to hold the design storm event. At the present time no permits are required for the construction of a retaining wall unless it exceeds four feet in height. Additionally, even retaining walls greater than four feet in height can be constructed without a permit if tlxey are constructed in terraced lifts with each individual lift being less than four feet. City Engineer Jankowski advised the City. should consider some measures to protect the capacity of the storm water ponds that have been constructed to protect structures from flooding. It is suggested that the CiD' adopt a policy which specifically prohibits the construction of retaining walls within drainage and utili~ easements. Attached to this case is a draft policy which prohibits the construction of retaining walls within drainage and utility easements. Assistant Public Works Director Olson indicated another option would be tO require a permit for every retaining wait. He explained just because a retaining wall is put in, it does not mean it will - affect the volume of the pond, however, there could be a situation where people are' near the edge of the two foot gap they are ~ven, and enou~ retaining walls around the pond will cause a problem. Staff has determined there should be a requirement that retaining walls are not allowed in utility and drainage easements. Councilmember Cook questioned if there are any circumstances where the City. may not want to permit a retaining wall, other than in easements, and if it would make sense to require permits for retaining' walls. He noted there could be a situation wl~ere a retaining wall would stop drainage of the neighborhood that runs through someone's yard. Assistant Public Works Director Olson replied staff would be' open to this. There would have to be a. fee attached to the permit. Chairperson Zinnnerman asked if other cities require permits for retaining walls. -695- Public Worlds Committee/July 20, 2004 Page 5 o1'8