The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/03/2013 09 Retaining Wall Standards; Reconsideration of RegulatonsBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 17 For Meeting of: 9/3/2013 ITEM TITLE: Reconsideration of Standards Regulating Retaining Walls. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Director SUMMARY EXPLANATION: At the August 6, 2013 City Council meeting, the Council moved to adopt standards regulating retaining wall materials. The Council considered three options for regulating retaining walls (in addition to the status quo) and ultimately selected Option 3. Steve & Alice Campbell, owners of property abutting a wall that prompted the regulations, spoke in favor of Option 3 at the hearing. However, upon further consideration and follow -up discussion with staff, the Campbell's are concerned that the Option 3 standards will not achieve the results they assumed when they spoke in favor of that option. They have therefore submitted a letter (attached) requesting Council's further consideration of this issue to ensure that what ever code language is adopted will provide the protection they seek. The Council may therefore reconsider its August 6, 2013 motion approving Option 3 and let it stand as is, or approve a modified version of Option 3 that addresses the concerns now raised. Specifically, the Council could include additional language under Option 3 that prohibits products having the same visual qualities as smooth faced ecology blocks and also blocks with the exposed interlocks and re -bar lift hoops that characterize the wall behind the Campbell's residence. A more full explanation of this issue including photos that distinguish between appealing and unappealing materials allowed under Option 3 is included in the attached memorandum to the City Council. The memorandum also includes suggested modifications to Option 3 that may more fully achieve Council objectives. Resolution: Ordinance: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: NA Amount: Funding Source /Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: RECOMMENDATION: Improve the Built Environment City Manager Staff recommends that the City Council either confirm its August 6, 2013 motion approving Option 3 regarding retaining wall standards, or rescind its motion and select Options 1 or 2. ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo to Council re: Retaining Wall Standards Reconsideration Upload Date Type 0 Letter from Campbell's re: Regue t for 812612013 Backup Material Reconsideration MEMORANDUM September 3, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendments to YMC 15.09 & 15.02.020, related to retaining wall standards At its August 6, 2013 meeting, the City Council considered alternative means of regulating materials pertaining to retaining walls. The Council heard testimony from residents affected by a retaining wall made of smooth -faced ecology blocks located behind properties south of Skyline Way. Steve & Alice Campbell testified to Council that said wall resulted in decreased values to their properties, in part because of its poor visual quality. It was this wall that prompted staff to draft zoning regulations addressing retaining wall design. Affected property owners encouraged both the Planning Commission and the City Council to adopt regulations ensuring that other property owners would not be similarly harmed by insensitive wall designs. The City Council considered three options for regulating retaining wall materials. The Campbell's spoke in favor of Option 3 at the hearing, believing that it would ensure that walls similar to the one behind their property, as illustrated below, could not be built again. The Council then moved to accept Option 3 and directed staff to come back with an ordinance adopting it. In its current form, Option 3 allows any material that is specifically manufactured for and customarily use on retaining walls, regardless of its design. On the positive side, this will disallow materials that were manufactured for different purposes, like the wall pictured here made of old tires: Wall made of discarded tires Another plus of Option 3 is that it will allow some products that many people will find appealing for retaining walls, including the Ultra -block product pictured below that includes an embossed pattern for visual interest. Wall made of Ultra -block with embossed pattern This might also include some ecology blocks that have similarly embossed patterns, as pictured here: OWN L-AM, �- f Examples of Ecology Block designs, including embossed patterns. However, smooth -faced ecology blocks like those used on the walls behind the Campbell's home (pictured below) would also meet this criterion, and staff would be compelled to approve the material if a structural engineer certified that the wall would support the lateral load it was intended to support. 2 Wall behind properties South of Skyline Way made of smooth -faced ecology blocks After hearing the Campbell's testimony, staff was concerned that Option 3 would not provide the results that both the Campbell's and the Council seemed to expect. Staff therefore contacted the Campbell's and met with them on -site to discuss their understanding of what Option 3 allowed. They confirmed that they understood Option 3 would ensure that a wall with the appearance of the wall behind their home could not be built again, and that they wanted this assurance when they spoke in favor of Option 3. As illustrated above, Option 3 will clearly provide a level of protection not afforded under current codes. However, it will not ensure that degree of protection the Campbell's otherwise assumed when they spoke in favor of it at the hearing. If the Council intended a higher degree of protection, it can reconsider its August 5 decision and approve a modified version of Option 3. If the Council wishes to ensure that materials that characterize the wall behind the Campbell's could not be built again, the following modified version of Option 3 would achieve that: 15.09.210 — Special Requirements for Retaining Walls. Retaining walls may be made of any material commonly used for this purpose, such as block, timber, stone or concrete, except that the following materials are prohibited: 1. Smooth -faced ecology blocks, or ecology blocks of any design that do not include a top cap manufactured for said blocks to cover the interlock tongues and iron picking eyes (lift- hoops). 2. Materials not manufactured for or customarily used on, retaining walls. If the Council believes that Option 3 as presented at the August 6, 2013 meeting is the best option, it need do nothing. Its action at the August 6, 2013 meeting to adopt Option 3 will stand and staff will prepare an ordinance for Council's final action to adopt it. If the Council finds that the modified version of Option 3 suggested above better achieves Council objectives, it may make a motion to rescind its August 6, 2013 motion and instead move to adopt the modified version (which should maintain the definition of "retaining wall" as originally proposed). Distributed t� Meeting ' August 19, 2013 Yakima City Council Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, At the August 6'h City Council meeting, we shared with you a photo of the retaining wall behind our homes and urged you to adopt regulations that would ensure that such walls could not be built again in the city of Yakima. Our concern was two -fold: (1), that the wall was structurally unsound and, (2) the aesthetics of the wall adversely affected our property value. At the city council meeting we expressed our support for Option 3, believing it would provide the protection we sought. Subsequent to the meeting, however, Steve Osguthorpe, community development director, contacted us to confirm our understanding of Option 3 provisions. He stated that the Option 3 language may not provide the aesthetic protection we hoped for because it would allow any wall material that was manufactured for and customarily used on retaining walls, even if it had the same visual and structural qualities as the wall behind our homes. Upon further review, we are concerned he may be correct. We therefore ask the council to review again the language under option 3 before final adoption by ordinance to determine if it provides the protection we seek. Whatever material is allowed to be used and however the wall is allowed to be constructed, it should not be allowed to devalue adjoining properties. We therefore ask that the Council review again the language under Option 3 before final adoption by ordinance to determine if it provides the protection we seek. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �C,,,f6U4 Steve and Alice Campbell