Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS OF THB PLAMIIIH6 C»MlSSlGH STIHG HBU> HOVBlfBBR 16, !§•? <br />II > I•1107 LEHIS/TRBTTBL COMTIW <br />Gaffron explained the City Engineer's recommendation to <br />upgrade the culvert to solve the additional drainage <br />from the building site. The question is who should pay <br />for the cost to upgrade the culvert? Staff feels that <br />the two property owners that would directly benefit from <br />the culvert upgrade are Homineyer at 4125 Oak Street and <br />Roland/Roden at 4119 Oak Street, noting that applicant <br />receives an indirect benefit by the existence of the <br />culvert. <br />Ken Roland, 4119 Oak Street, stated he was concerned <br />that the lot area variance would be granted and the <br />property would be sold with new owner requesting <br />additional variances to build the house. <br />Bellows explained that the variance is in effect for one <br />year and runs with the property, not the owner. <br />Additional variance requests would have to be reviewed <br />and approved by the City. <br />Ann Hommeyer, 4125 Oak Street, stated it was her <br />understanding that if the variance is granted and the <br />culvert is upgraded they would have to share in the cost <br />of the upgrade, however, they have had no problem with <br />the culvert as it exists with maintenance. <br />Hanson felt the drainage may involve legal issues that <br />should be addressed by the City Attorney. <br />Taylor noted that staff recommendation states that <br />"Improvements to the property may not change the <br />drainage pattern in the neighborhood. Applicants shall <br />share in the costs and shall share in the responsibility <br />for improvements to the drainageway and culvert <br />underneath the driveway serving the two properties to <br />the west." He felt, based on comments made, that the <br />parties affected by this application are in now in a <br />position to deal with staff recomnendation. <br />Brown felt that the issue of who pays for the culvert <br />upgrade cost is beyond the Planning Commission's scope. <br />Taylor suggested tying the condition of no change in <br />drainage and/or resolve of drainage prior to issuance of <br />building permit. <br />Mabusth stated that tying this condition to the issuance <br />of a building permit is acceptable. <br />There were no other comments from the public and the <br />public hearing was closed.