Laserfiche WebLink
CASE # <br /> <br />REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS <br />By: Public Works Staff <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 and discussed the following <br />five cases: <br /> <br />CITIZEN INPUT <br /> <br />Nollo <br /> <br />CASE #1 Update on 5518 - 5520 144th Court Drainage Issues <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />During the summer of 2004 staff was contacted by Rebecca Moser, 5520 144th Court, <br />regarding drainage problems in the back yard. Staff made several site visits and became <br />aware of the problems at 5518 144th Court during one of the visits. These lots are in the <br />Ponds Subdivision. The tree preservation ordinance was enacted as this project was <br />nearing final approval. The selection of trees to be preserved was made in the field as the <br />grading preparations were made. The elevations around the trees were not checked by the <br />project engineer to verify impacts to the grading plans <br /> <br />These houses were subsequently constructed per the approved grading plan. The same <br />builder constructed both houses. The trees on 5520 144th Court were above the proposed <br />grades and were protected by boulder retaining walls constructed by the developer. The <br />trees on 5518 144th Court were below the proposed grades and were not enclosed by any <br />slr[lclLlrcs. <br /> <br />Staff explained the resident of Lot 8 contacted the City regarding installing a fence along <br />the common lot line. A small block retaining wall was constructed along the property line <br />so that the fence could be installed. Visual observation indicates that fences were <br />constructed on Lots 6 and 7 and fill may have been placed in the drainage and utility <br />casement to facilitate construction of the fences. A Certificate of Grading was submitted <br />for 1 ,ot 23 after the house was constructed. The certificate was filed with the building <br />permit. Staff reviewed the Certificate of Grading after the Mosers contacted the City. The <br />certificate of grading did not match the approved grading plan. Staff wrote two letters to <br />the builder requesting a plan for remediation of the problem. The developer and their <br />enginecr were copied on both letters. Meetings were held at City hall with the builder, the <br />Mosers and the Pughs. The builder was given a deadline in the second letter, after which <br />the City would undertake the work and charge the work against the developer's escrow <br />fees held by the City. The Pughs wanted to retain the trees on their lot, and felt that if the <br />drainage fi'om the west was cut offthe water would soak into the ground quickly and not <br /> <br /> <br />