Minutes - Council - 08/09/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

houses. The trees on 5520 144th Court were above the proposed grades and were protected by boulder retaining walls constructed by the developer. The trees on 5518 144th Court were below thc proposed grades and were not enclosed by any structures. Staff reviewed the certificate of grading after the Mosers contacted the City. The certificate of grading did not match the ~pprovcd grading plan. Staff wrote two letters to the builder requesting a plan for remediation of the problem. The developer and their engineer were copied on both letters. Meetings were held ~l (;ity I tall with the bnilder, the Mosers and the Pughs (5518 144th Court). The builder was given a deadline, after which the City would undertake the work and charge the work against the clcvelopcr's escrow fees held by the City. z\ssistant Public Works Director Olson stated staff solicited quotations and arranged for a contractor to install thc drain tile and remove the two trees. The contractor was successful in installing thc drain tile; however, the Pughs would not allow access to their lot to remove the trees. Staff met with them and the decision was made that they could hire their own tree removal service and would be reimbursed up to $1,500.00, which was the quote received by the City for the world. The Pughs had the trees removed for less that the $1,500.00 and the City paid that bill; ~[ac hole left by thc removal of the trees is within the drainage and utility easement. The City received a letter fi'om the Pughs this spring to correct the drainage issue in their yard. The Public Works Committee discussed a number of alternatives; one was to provide several loads of topsoil /'or ibc Pughs to use to fill the hole. The primary discussion at the time was that there is ~encralty not a water standing issue during the summer months, and it soaks into the ground relatively rapidly. The second alternative was to fill the hole as a City project and work within thc drainage and utility easement. The cost of this would be $5,000 to $15,000. The third ~ltcrnative would be to conduct a private project without City involvement. The recommendation of the Public Works Committee was that the City provide up to $1,000 of soil to the Pughs for rcgrading of their back yard. Mr. Pugh indicated he had concerns that he was not being treated as l~irly as the resident to the east; however the motion stood. Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to ratify the recommendation of the Public Works Committee in Case No. 1 and to provide up to $1,000 of soil to Jay and Cindy Pugh, 5518 144t}~ Court, for regrading of their back yard. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Elvig, Cook, Jeffrey, Olson, t'carson, and Strommen. Voting No: None. t:urthcr discussion: Councilmember Elvig noted one of the other concerns was that a neighbor behind the Pughs put in a retaining wall and fence, which also helps keep the drainage to the l'ughs b~ck yard. The City has an ordinance in place that should be reviewed when residents are ~tpplying to put in retaining walls to be certain that they are not in drainage areas. 2) Update on TH 47 Improvements Project Schedule and Business Notification '[his catse was presented at the July 26, 2005 City Council meeting. 3) Consider Options for Improving Elmcrest Park Road ('ouncilmember Elvig explained there has been some concerns from residents regarding the dust on thc temporary road along Quicksilver Street. The options considered were for calcium chloride at a cost of $1,650, sealcoating at a cost of $4,100, and wear lift bituminous coarse at a cost el' $15,200. The recommendation of the Public Works Committee was that the Elmcrest City Council / August 9, 2005 Page 22 of 25