Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2005

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 the 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 approved 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 at City Hall with the builder, 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 developer's escrow fees held by the City. Assistant Public Works Director Olson stated staff solicited quotations and arranged for a contractor to install the drain tile and remove the two trees. The contractor was successful in installing the 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 $i,500..00, which was the quote received by the City for the work. The Pughs had the trees removed for less that the $1,500.00 and the City paid that bill; lhe hole left by the removal of the trees is within the drainage and utility easement. The City received a letter from 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 lbr the Pughs to use to fill the hole. The primary discussion at the time was that there is generally not a water standing issue during the summer months, and it soaks into the ground relativcly rapidly. The second alternative was to fill the hole as a City project and work within rbc drainage and utility easement. The cost of this would be $5,000 to $15,000. The third alternative 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 regrading of their back yard. Mr. Pugh indicated he had .concerns that he was not being treated as fairly as the resident to the east; however the motion stood. / Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to ratify the recommcndation of the Public Works Committee in Case No. 1 and to provide up to $1,000 of ,soil to Jay and Cindy Pugh, 5518 144th. Court, for regrading of their back yard. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Elvig, Cook, Jeffrey, Olson, Pearson, and Strommen. Voting No: None. Further discussion: Councihnember Elvig noted one of the other concerns was that a neighbor behind thc Pughs put in a retaining wall and fence, which also helps keep the drainage to the Pughs back yard. The City has an ordinance in place that should be reviewed when residents are applying 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 This case was presented at the July 26, 2005 City Council meeting. 3) Consider Options for Improving Elmcrest Park Road Councihnember Elvig explained there has been some concerns from residents regarding the dust on the temporary road along Quicksilver Street. The options considered were for calcium chlori de at a cost of $1,650, sealcoating at a cost of $4,100, and wear lift bituminous coarse at a cost of' $15,200. The recommendation of the Public Works Committee was that the Ehncrest City Council / August 9, 2005 Page 22 of 25 P83