11-16-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

havG to bfc properly addressed. - There is no defined drainageway at ti.e rear or west side of the property, but it is a lower area that apprears to act as a saddle drainagev;ay between the property to the north and the culvert to the south. - The watershed does not appear to be extremely large (4.5 acres calculated by MPG on 3/2/87) per existing 1 inch per 100' topography. - Development of the property will likely require some fill. A grading plan should be required at the time a house is proposed, for review and approval by the City r,ngineer. Grading and fill must be done so that existing flo'.s can be maintained on the property and not impede existing drainage patterns and rates. This appears to be feasible. The privately constructed and maintained culvert ac the drivev;ay crossing serving the neighboring properties to the west is in an undeveloped right-of-way. It is in poor condition suffering major erosion damage at the south, or outlet, end. This driveway will not be used for access to applicant's property, but all run off from their property will go through this culvert, hence the additional run-off created by a residence on the property will make use of the culvert. The property would appear to receive some benefit from the existance of the culvert and driveway which serve to limit further gullying of applicant's property. It woul^i appear that the initial work to get this culvert back into shape v;ill include additional fill around the outlet, perhaps a drop culvert structure at the outlet, some rip-rapping around the inlet and outlet ends and excavation of a slightly larger storage area at the inlet end and construction of a baffle weir. The probable cost of such work is in the neighborhood of $5,000 (rough estimate by City nnginecr). V7ho should pay these costs of the culvert upgrade? Staff suggests that the two property owners directly benefitting are Hommeyer at 4125 Oak Street and Roland and Roden at 4119 Oak Street. The applicant property own'^r receives an indirect benefit by the existence of the culvert, and a portion of the necessary repairs and upgrade would have to occur on the applicant's property. Arguably other property owners upstream of the culvert receive an indirect benefit from it and arguably the Siegel property at 4111 Oak Street and other properties along Oak Street are contributing to the outlet end erosion problem and could also be conceivably involved in cost sharing. Staff notes that if this was to be a public storm sewer project with all benefitted property owners being assessed the attendont engineering and legal costs could easily triple the $5,000 estimated price tag. Staff would suggest that the costs of upgrade and maintenance of the culvert should fall primarily on the two property owners who benefit directly and could arguably be shared by the applicant property owner as v;e 1 1 as other property owners in the neighborhood who benefit by the culvert being located within the driveway, that serves to halt gully erosion.