CCMIN042881 - Laserfiche WebLink

229 REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER R~uest for Septic Tank Permit and Lot SRlit Application on Foothill Road - Ma~k Andersen Mr. Warnick presented his report (SR 81:134) dated April 22, 1981, regarding this matter. He stated that the County Sanitary Engineer had contacted him this morning requesting that this item be continued in order that he could investigate further whether there is sufficient area of appropriate soil on the 20,000 sq. ft. parcel for a backup leechfield for the existing residence. Mr. Steve Andersen, Attorney representing MarkAndersen, requested that this item not be continued. He assured Council that there is sufficient area for a backup leechfield, and stated that the approval could be conditioned for further investigation and recommendation on this one issue. Mr. Andersen reviewed the history of the property, and stated that his dad had met with members of staff since the last Council meeting in an attempt to resolve the concerns that were presented at that meeting. He stated that some neighbors now seem to have concerns that were not mentioned at the last Council meeting, which he felt were not legitimate con- cerns in connection with the proposed lot split and septic tank approval. He urged Council approval of these two applications. Mr. Ed McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, stated he felt this lot split should not be approved without adequate sewerage disposal as Council had required of the Boatright development and. Castlewood proposal; that when sewer lines are put in then proceed with this project. He stated he felt it would be a poor precedent to allow additional septic tanks. Mr. McGovern stated he was not opposed to the project but is opposed to any additional septic tanks. Mr. John Innes, 1586 Foothill Road, stated he is trying to protect the environ- ment of his property. He stated he had reviewed the staff report and he felt it did not answer the concerns raised at the City Council meeting of March 24, 1981, by Councilmembers and neighbors. He stated he felt there were still problems with drainage and that the solution proposed was only a patch Job, not a permanent solu- tion. He stated he had expected a further study relating to the soils condition. Mr. Innes stated he has no assurance that an interceptor bermwould take care of the existing surface run-off. He also had concerns about who would pay for the cost of this drainage system; that unlicensed contractors might be used; that there would be an invasion of his privacy by the lot split; and that there would be an increase in traffic. Mr. Innes requested that a fence be required to be installed, as a condition, to protect his privacy. In conclusion, Mr. Innes requested that Council require Mr. Andersen to have very specific answers to the questions raised by all parties concerned and that fiscal responsibilities must be determined and monies bonded before approvals are granted. Mr. Brian Seibel, Attorney, 62 W. Neal Street, representing the Johnson Estate, stated the Estate had concerns that the problems related to this proposal had not yet been resolved, and he felt the report from Jack Bras, Architect, were not specific enough as to what will be done to insure adequate drainage. He requested that the project not be allowed to proceed until all concerns have been properly addressed. Mr. Robert J. Reynolds, 1588 Foothill Road., stated he was not opposed to the development but was concerned about identifying existing problems before the development is approved. He stated he felt not enough detailed information had been received at this point for approval, and he requested Council to require this information before making a decision on this item. Mr. Reynolds stated that Mr. Bob Scott could not attend the meeting tonight but had sent a letter stating that 11. 4/28/81