Minutes - Public Works Committee - 07/19/2005

Home

These houses were subsequently constructed per the approved grading plan. The same builder constructed both 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. Civil Engineer II Linton explained the resident of Lot 8 contacted the City regarding installing a fence along the common lot line. A small block retaining wall was constructed along the property line so that the fence could be installed. Visual observation indicates that fences were constructed on Lots 6 and 7 and fill may have been placed in the drainage and utility easement to facilitate construction of the fences. He explained a Certificate of Grading was submitted for Lot 23 after the house was constructed. The certificate was filed with the building permit. 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. The builder was given a deadline in the second letter, after which the City would undertake the work and charge the work against the developer's escrow fees held by the City. The Pughs wanted to retain the trees on their lot, and felt that if the drainage from the west was cut off the water would soak into the ground quickly and not cause a problem. The elevation at the base of the trees was the same elevation as the storm sewer outlet between Lots 4 and 5 so installation of a pipe was not possible. The initial plan of action was to create a swale across Lot 23 to channel most of the water to the west. This was subsequently modified to installing drain tile across Lot 23 as the swale would have been outside the drainage and utility easement and was viewed as a trip hazard by the residents. The plan was amended to remove two trees on Lot 24 just before construction, one of the trees was an oak, one was not. The oak was exhibiting signs of oak wilt and would need to be removed in the future. The trees were so close that removing one would damage the other so both were removed. Civil Engineer II Linton explained 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 $1,500.00, which was the quote received by the City for the work. He advised included in the Committee's packet is the letter received this spring from Jay and Cindy Pugh, 5518 144th Court. The developer, Royal Oaks Realty, and the builder, Shade Tree Construction, did not issue formal replies to the letters sent last fall. He explained that the hole left by the removal of the trees is within the drainage and utility easement, and reviewed the following options: 1. Provide several loads of topsoil for the Pughs to use to fill the hole. They would be responsible for moving and placing the material and establishing the sod. This would address the deep hole problem, there could still be ponding on the lot after rain events. Public Works Committee/July 19, 2005 Page 2 of 11