The Development Review Committee reviewed the Golden Gem Estates construction site plan and related retaining‑wall details on June 18 and confirmed most previous comments had been addressed, while staff and the applicant negotiated a final easement width for wall tiebacks.

Jeff (applicant representative) and others reviewed a segmental block retaining wall where tiebacks extend behind the wall into an open space tract and approach rear lot accessory setbacks. The city’s review comment suggested a 10‑foot easement behind the wall for tiebacks; the applicant said tiebacks measured roughly 5 to 6 feet and proposed instead a smaller easement so the easement would not encroach into the 5‑foot accessory setback on rear lots.

The applicant asked whether a 9.5‑foot easement shown on the plat would be acceptable because it would be longer than the measured tiebacks but would keep the easement outside the accessory setback. “If I give you 9 and a half feet on that easement, which is still gonna be 2 and a half to 3 feet longer than the tiebacks on that wall… then I can just show that easement on the plat,” the applicant said.

Planning and engineering staff indicated that submitted structural details for the wall had been provided and that historically design and structural files are uploaded and signed by the structural engineer as separate documents rather than aggregated in the primary construction site plan submission.

Why it matters: the precise easement width affects what future property owners can build behind the lots and ensures the city and property owners retain access to maintain the retaining wall.

Next steps: the applicant will include the structural details in the submission index and the plat will note the easement. Staff said the remaining comments are expected to be resolved prior to final plat recording and that approvals will be issued after the outstanding administrative and plat comments are addressed. No formal vote was taken at DRC.