05-13-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

% >V:.v ‘* • r vv ,*a*^ <^» ■; V' ■ ..V 'tr f' ’ *•• •r i‘ ♦ hav«.to b« properly Addressed. • There.is no defined drsinsgeway at the rear or west side of the property« but it is a lower area that apprears to act as a saddle drsinsgewsy between the property to the north and the culvert to the sooth. - The watershed does not appear to be extreaely large (4.5 acres esleulsted by HPG on 3/2/87) per existing I inch per lit* topography. - Oevelopaent of the property will likely require scae fill. A grading plan should be required at the tiae a house is proposed, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading and fill •ust be done'SO that existing flows can be aalntained on the property and not iapede existing drainage patterns and rates. This appears to be feasible. The privately constructed and aalntained culvert at the driveway crossing serving the neighboring properties to the vest is in an undeveloped right-of-way. It is in poor condition suffering ■ojor erosion daaage at the south, or outlet, end. This driveway will not be used for access to applicant's property, but all run off fros their property will go through this culvert, hence the additional run-off created by a residence on the property will sake use of the culvert. The property would appear to receive sose benefit froa the existance of the culvert and driveway which serve to Unit further gullying of applicant's property. It would appear that the initial work to get this culvert back into shape will include additional fill around the outlet, perhaps a drop culvert structure at the outlet, sose 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 (rough estiaate by City Engineer). Who should pay these coats of the culvert upgrade? Staff suggests that the two property owners directly benefitting are ®c®®aycr at 4125 Oak Street and Roland and Roden at 4119 Oak dhreet. The applicant property owner 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 •PPilcant's property. Arguably other property owners upstreaxi of the culvert receive an indirect benefit froa it and arguably* the paepevky at 4111 oak street and other properties along Oak *kreet are contributing to the outlet end erosion preblea and *9n®a^^a^iy involved in cost sharing. Steff'notes •• this jras .to-be .a.-public store 'sewer project witb*'ell benefitted-property owners being assessed the attendent engineering; and^^legal.ecosts :.cottld easi 1 y tr iple "theTfsTiff eetiMked ^pr>jBeitag. .. tStaff;Fwould suggest ' that the A®*ksjief. and vMintenance '.of^the-;culvert should fall priaafllyrai*;'*-!;- pa^aftr .iownetse^^^^^ :could'!srgusbrf V ".^. -a^ak.e^s^iitthe »applicant.*’property'owner as well as* other I-* • .Pa«Paaky.«wners in the neighborhood who benefit by the cblvTrt: Cv?% :: being clocated .within ■ the drivwway, that serves-to halt-VioXly erosion. f. .•-.- ..c. - : >. •' r •.. . f •■X. •■if - •., i ' .. *w- >ea ---------------------------- ----------------- --------------------- b«*V. >