Laserfiche WebLink
that the only way to solve the problem was to put in a sewer system and <br /> would concur with the formation of a sewer assessment district. <br /> Gary Parich, PSE Associates, commented that he had twenty years of experience, <br /> referenced the different testings that had been done on the property, and <br /> noted that the County had done the septic system design. <br /> Mr. and Mrs. Lin, 27764 Edgerton Road, referenced their letter dated 6/19/91 <br /> which addressed the following issues: soils and slope stability, the site <br /> development plan and water drainage. They believed Mr. Shockley was <br /> doing just the minimum required and that more specific plans were <br /> needed. They also referenced the original site approval in 1973 which <br /> noted that no buildings should be constructed in this area and the <br /> drainage should be very carefully controlled. The present plans did not <br /> address their concerns. They noted that it had not rained for four or five <br /> years and there was still water on their property and there was moss. They <br /> were not against Mr Shockley developing the property but wanted it to be <br /> well done and did not want water coming onto their property. <br /> Tryon believed this was an inadequate drainage system for the house and <br /> would like to see a drainage system design with rock swale and <br /> underground pipe. Siegel suggested requiring conditions 3 and 10 prior to <br /> issuing a site development permit. He also asked why this house was <br /> being built to maximum allowable development. Johnson noted the <br /> neighbors concerns about raw sewage and water runoff and did not believe <br /> condition 10 should be added. <br /> Mr. Shockley, applicant, stated that the plans were in the preliminary stage and <br /> the working plans for the building permit would be more detailed and <br /> would address the technical questions. In response to Siegel's question <br /> regarding developent, he stated that he would have no objection to it <br /> being included in the title that the development was at its maximum. <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Johnson <br /> and passed by the following roll call vote to continue the public hearing <br /> on the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for a <br /> site development permit for a new residence and a swimming pool for <br /> Lands of Shockley to the July 17, 1991 Council meeting and to request the <br /> applicant to work with the City Engineer on the design for site drainage to <br /> meet the goal of reducing the rate of run off and volume of run off <br /> associated with the proposed development and on the resolution of the <br /> C sewage issue. <br /> ` June 19, 1991 <br /> 9 <br />