09/06/2011 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Since there is an existing storm sewer pipe on the east and north sides of this property it fails to meet item number one of the required criteria included in the Easement Encroachment Agreement. Based on this, the property owners were informed by the City they would not be permitted to encroach into the drainage and utility easement with a fence on the east and north sides of their property. However, they would be allowed to encroach into the drainage and utility easement on the west side of their property. The Jansens responded by asking if there was anything else that could be done to facilitate installing the fence on their property line since they did not want to locate their fence outside of the easements and have fifteen feet of their property behind the fence. Staff then further evaluated the easement width to determine if it could be reduced. The easement width is related to the depth of the pipe located within the easement. The minimum width allowed is a direct 1:1 relationship with the depth. For example, if the pipe is five feet deep we would require five feet of easement on either side of the pipe. This is not only a City requirement but also an OSHA requirement for trench safety. After reviewing the as -built drawings for this location, the City determined that the storm sewer is ten feet deep. The pipe is not located on the property line, but is five feet into the Jansen's property. Therefore the City has ten feet of easement on the house side of the pipe and five feet of easement on the other side of the pipe. When the five feet of easement on the Jansen property is combined with the existing five foot easement on the adjacent property, it provides a total easement width of ten feet. The easement just meets the minimum requirements for having ten feet of easement on either side of the pipe due to the depth being ten feet. There is no room to reduce the amount of easement required. The Jansens have stated that the fence they are proposing to construct is temporary and that the fence panels can be quickly removed if the City requires access to the easement. The City's concern is that the posts supporting the fence would not be temporary. The posts would be cemented in place and would impair the City's ability to access the storm sewer pipe. In the past, the City has approved gates or temporary fence panels if a fence was crossing a storm sewer pipe at a perpendicular angle. However, on this property the fence is running parallel with the storm sewer on two sides of the lot and all of the posts would be in direct conflict with the storm sewer pipe. A similar request was presented to the City in this same neighborhood in 2002. The property at 6491 White Oak Road requested an encroachment agreement to construct a fence within the drainage and utility easement around their pool. It was determined that an existing drain tile pipe was located within the easement and the encroachment was denied. As you can see in the attached aerial photo, the property owners constructed their fence outside of the drainage and utility easement. Attached for the City Council's information are the following items: 1. Aerial photo of property 2. Fence Application 3. Easement Encroachment Agreement 4. Building Department Information Sheet for Fences, Walls and Earth Berms 5. Information submitted by homeowners 6. Existing fence example in the same neighborhood that was previously denied an Easement Encroachment Agreement