Laserfiche WebLink
'* '.T ■' <br />- ::*5. <br />-■* ■ • * <br />.•—•f <br />- •«• - <br />*■ •." . <br /><’ ■* »- t <br />t** I <br />n -V <br />'v' <br />•4 <br />!•- <br />> <br />I <br />» ».* , .#• <br />'.I <br />t- ' <br />have ..to' be properly addressed. <br />- Therevis no defined drainageway at the rear or west side of the <br />property^ but it is a lower area that appcears to act as a saddle <br />drainageway between the property to the north and the culvert to <br />the south. . <br />- The watershed does not appear to be extremely large (4.5 acres <br />calculated by HPG on 3/2/87) per existing 1 inch per 100 ’ <br />topography. <br />- Development of the property will likely require some fill. A <br />grading plan should be required at the time a house is proposed, <br />for review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading and fill <br />must be done so that existing flows can be maintained on the <br />property and not impede existing drainage patterns and rates. <br />This appears to be feasible. <br />The privately constructed and maintained culvert at the driveway <br />crossing serving the neighboring properties to the west is in an <br />undeveloped right-of-way. It is In poor condition suffering <br />major erosion damage at the south, or outlet, end. This driveway <br />will not be used for access to applicant's property, but all run­ <br />off from their property will go through this culvert, hence the i <br />additional run-off created by a residence on the property will <br />make use of the culvert. The property would appear to receive <br />some benefit from the existance of the culvert and driveway which <br />serve to limit further gullying of applicant's property. <br />It would appear that the Initial work to get this culvert back <br />into shape will include additional fill around the outlet, <br />perhaps a drop culvert structure at the outlet, some rip-rapping <br />around the inlet and outlet ends and excavation of a slightly <br />larger storage area at the inlet end and construction of a baffle <br />weir. The probable coot of such work is in the neighborhood of <br />$5,000 (rough estimate by City Engineer). <br />Who should pay these costs of the culvert upgrade? Staff <br />suggests that the two property owners directly benefitting are <br />Hoameyer at 4125 Oak Street and Roland and Roden at 4119.Oak <br />Street. The applicant property owner receives an indirect <br />benefit by the existence of the culvert, and a portion of the <br />necessary repairs and.upgrade would have to occur on the <br />applicant's property. Arguably other property owners upstream of-- <br />the culvert receive an indirect benefit from it and arguably* the <br />Siegel property at 4111 Oak Stt'-set and other properties along Oak <br />Street are contributing to the outlet end erosion problem and <br />could also be conceivably-ihvolv e<3 • in cost sharing.^^ Staff'notes <br />that if this .was to be a public storm "sewer project with'all <br />benef itted _;property owners being assessed the^ att^ni^jitj^f^^-'^^^^ <br />..eng ineer ing" and...legal-.ecoots - could easi 1 y ' tr iple the $5,'000 <br />;e.stimated pr'ice ?tag. -Staff rwould suggest "that the .cpstsjpf,^,^'- <br />;upgrade and vmaintenance ofthe.culvert should -fall-primarily <br />.“Vv ' •• the two property owners rlwho^benefit directly 'and ^could/targuably..^^^>^^^^^ <br />V.-'»‘he 'shared - by...the *applicant •property "owner "as wel 1 as" <br />lJl- . ..p*^op*fty.owners in the neighbor hoed who benefit by the culwe!tt;,r;5v^ <br />being located Iwithin the driveway, that serves to halt-gully <br />' -erosion. " ■ . - ■ .. .I-• • <br />‘ -r <br />,• vr , <br />jr <br />•4- <br />\ri.V <br />-■r <br />TTl*"* ' I' <br />*.... <br />** • ^ •**** r V.' <br />•r: