01/02/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE #1~i Request for a Conditional Use permit for Grading, r ~Mlnlng and Excavating; Case of Geoffrey Brlcl~ell Mr. JankOwski explained the request Is for a conditional use permit to mine &nd~excavate on property adjacent to the 153rd street project [o 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 te a~fence on the western portion of the property. Another concern, was 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 will remain. The slopes have bee~ medlfled to t2 percent over the majority of the site, though same 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 o)er~the graded area and grass seeded In the spring of 1991. The petitioner Is also proposing to plant a row of pines along the western ~nd northern borders. Mr. Jank~wskl recommended approval of the conditional use permit with theichange on Page 44 of the Agenda Packet, Item 2 of the permit, [hat It reflect the 17 percent grades tn one area. MOTION ~y DeLuca, Seconded by Peterson, to adopt the Findings of Fact. MOtlon carried unanimously. MOTION ~ DeLuca, Seconded by Peterson, to approve the condltlodial use permit to Geoffrey Brlctwell for excavating and exporting materials wlth the change to Item 2. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #2: Dennis LIekvo]l C]alm for Damages Attorney iGoodrlch reviewed the background of Mr. Llekvo]]'s claim that durl!ng the pro3ect to Improve lS3rd Avenue in 197S and 1976, the CltY'!s ~ontractor damaged his septic system. At that time the Clty revl~ewed the construction and did not find any evidence there was damage to the septic system. Some time passed, and Mr. Llekvoll'~ system fal]ed, and he said it was because of the damage he alle~{d lin i976. He now wants the City to make payment to him for his damages. Attorney Goodrich went on to say that he and the Staff have again reviewed ~he flies and again determined that the City Isn't liable. Hr. Llekv!oll wants to present hts case to the City Council, though he noted Ithe statute of limitations of six years has expired. The house was built in 1963 before there was a septic system code; and CITY COUNCIL/DECEMBER 11, 1990 Page 5 of 17