Consider Partial Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easement at 15069 Helium Street NW

As was discussed at the June 18th Public Works Committee, the property owners at 15069 Helium Street NW requested to be allowed to construct a modular block retaining wall along their south side lot line within the public drainage and utility (D&U) easement as they believe their side yard has been settling over time, resulting in a steep side slope that is difficult to maintain and reducing support for their home’s foundation walls. The property owners therefore feel that the settling of the side yard is putting their home in danger and believe a retaining wall is necessary to protect their homes foundation.

As was also discussed with the Public Works Committee, City staff met with the property owners on their property to review and discuss the issue this spring. Upon visiting the property it was apparent, as can be seen in the attached pictures, that the property owners had already purchased and placed dozens of retaining wall blocks on the ground’s surface along the bottom of the side slope along their south lot line. Staff also observed that their sod was in poor condition and had never fully taken root and was therefore allowing water to run into the seams and between the partially-dead sod mat and underlying soil. Therefore, whenever it rains the underlying soils become saturated and the dead and/or dying sod mats simply slide on top of the underlying soils. Staff therefore believes this issue could have simply been resolved by removing the dead and decaying sod and establishing new turf, either seed or sod, and watering it adequately until it becomes firmly rooted, which would be aided by the fact that the property owner plans to install an underground irrigation system this summer.

When visiting the site staff also informed the property owners that the city does not allow retaining walls to be constructed within D&U easements as the walls can limit a neighbor’s use of their property due to altering drainage patterns, grades and elevations. D&U easements also allow private properties to be served by private and public utilities, but when a retaining wall is constructed over existing utilities it can impact the ability of the utilities to quickly and cost-effectively access and/or maintain their facilities. Plus, if a new utility needs to be installed where a retaining wall exists within the easement, installation costs are often higher and the increased costs are then passed on to all users of that utility.

Following discussion of this case on June 18th, the Public Works Committee directed staff to research costs related to vacating 5-feet of the existing 10-foot D&U easement, thereby still providing a standard 5-foot D&U easement along the property line. Staff was also directed to discuss with the property owner which course of action, i.e. constructing a wall outside the D&U easement versus constructing a wall 5-feet off the property line and paying a small fee for the vacated easement area, would be preferable to them. Staff was then to bring all relevant information back to a subsequent Public Works Committee meeting for further discussion.

No notification is required as a result of this case.

Though staff had informed the property owners that a case would be presented to the Public Works Committee on June 18th, the property owners did not attend. Staff therefore sent an email to the property owners summarizing the direction of the Public Works Committee but a response was never received. Staff therefore visited the property a couple of weeks later, only to find that a retaining wall had already been constructed roughly 5-feet off the property line. The exact distance between the wall and property line has not been confirmed, nor has the wall been inspected as to its adequacy of construction. The property owners therefore never received formal approval from the City to construct the retaining wall within the existing public D&U easement.

When staff first met with the property owners they were clearly notified that staff does not have the authority to relax or waive allowable uses within city easements so a case would need to be presented to the Public Works Committee on June 18th to seek their recommendation. Again, the property owners were invited to attend the meeting to present their concerns and request in person. Then, based on the recommendations of the Public Works Committee, the request could be forwarded to the City Council on June 25th, along with the recommendation of the Public Works Committee.

Staff has identified the following alternative actions as related to this item:
1. Direct staff to meet the property owners on site to review the wall as constructed to confirm that it was constructed adequately and is located at least 5-feet off the property line. If staff finds that the wall was constructed adequately and is located at least 5-feet off the property line, direct staff to take no further action, in which event the city will retain a 10-feet D&U easement along the south property line.
2. Direct staff to meet the property owners on site to review the wall as constructed to confirm that it was constructed adequately, to measure the area of encroachment within the drainage and utility easement, and to discuss payment for the associated D&U easement using a price per square foot as approved by the Public Works Committee. If the property owners accept the proposed cost for purchasing the associated easement area, direct staff to request that the City Council authorize vacating the associated easement area and to accept payment from the property owners for the vacated easement.
3. Direct staff to work with the property owner to remove the wall as constructed. Then, following removal of the wall, either restore the side slope and turf or install a retaining wall outside the 10-foot D&U easement and grade and restore turf in the D&U easement area per staff’s direction.
4. Take no further action.

No funds are anticipated to be expended in relation to this item. If alternative action 2 is approved, the associated funds will be collected.

Staff recommends that alternative action #1 be approved by the Public Works Committee since the wall has already been constructed. No matter which action is approved, staff intends to provide a letter to the property owner summarizing the chain of events and the responsibilities associated with the actions taken.

The Public Works Committee is asked to approve alternative action #1 for reasons stated herein.