Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/10/1991

Home

CASE #1 ~ Request for & Conditional Use permit for Grading, Mining and Excavating; Case of Geoffrey Brlciwell Mr. Jan~Owskl explained the request Is for a conditional use permit to mine and,excavate on property adjacent to the 153rd street project to remove material for the construction of that project. The Plan~lng Commission has held a hearing and recommends approval. There were some concerns raised regarding the preservation of mature oaks along the eastern border of the site and about possible damage to a fence on the western portion of. the property. Another concern Vas the proposed slopes on the original application were nearly 3~to-1, and Staff had requested the slopes not to exceed 12 percent, The petitioner has resubmitted a revised grading plan which Indicates the stand of mature oaks wl]l remain. The slopes have been modified to 12 percent over the majority of the site, though some approach 17 percent In one area. Given the topography of the land, Mr. Jankowskl did not have a problem with the resubmitted grading plan. There are also some notes added to the revised grading plan which Indicates 12 Inches of topsoil will be placed over=the graded area and grass seeded In the sprlng of 1991. The petitioner is also proposing to plant a row of pines along the western and northern borders. Mr. Jankowskl recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the ch&nge on Page 44 of the Agenda Packet, Item 2 of the permit, that it reflect the 17 percent grades in one area. MOTION by DeLuca, Seconded by Peterson, to adopt the Findings of Fact. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by DeLuca, Seconded by Peterson, to approve the conditional use permit to Geoffrey Brictwe]] for excavating and exporting materials with the change to Item 2. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #2: Dennis Liekvoll Claim for Damages Attorney Goodrich reviewed the background of Mr. Liekvoll's claim that during the project to improve 153rd Avenue in 1975 and 1976, the City's contractor damaged his septic system. At that time the City reviewed the construction and did not find any evidence there was damage to the septic system. Some time passed, and Mr. Liekvol]='s system failed, and he said it was because of the ~amage he alleged in 1976. He now wants the City to make payment to him for his damages. Attorney Goodrich went on to say that he an~ the Staff have again reviewed the flies an~ again determined that the City isn't liable. Mr. L]ekvo]l wants to present his case to the City Council, though he noted the statute of limitations of six years has expired. The house was built in 196~ before there was a septic system code: an~ CITY COUNCIL/DECEMBER 11, 1990 Page 5 of 17