04/03/1974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1974 3. Draina a Requirements, Lot 24 Olive Tree Court Mr, and Mrs. L. TaMen—IT7-Mmers. tottheaValenti'screquestnforvCouncil's determinatione Council background on the odrapertaining drainage requirements on their lot. The original recommendation of Staff was for the construction of two catch basins to handle the runoff of water on the private road onto the public road. Mr. and Mrs. Valenti had petitioned Council on the basis that this was an undue hardship, and Council sub- sequently revised the requirement to building site approval to one catch basin after a field trip to the site. This revision was made with the understanding that the conditions would be reviewed after the heavy winter rains to determine whether any catch basins were required. Mr. and Mrs. Valenti were present this evening to ask Council's reconsideration of the requirement for drainage. Mr. L. Valenti, 687 Kiely Blvd., Santa Clara, explained to Council that the drainage problem was not caused by their property, and he and his wife did not feel they should be forced to solve the problem of drainage from cother osts withhbors otherpneighbors on thHe e private roaed that d werewilling feitithe Town's the decision was inequitable as it stood. Commissioner Donald Spencer, representing the Planning Commission concurred with the applicant and stated he felt their claim was legitimate. City Enghisineer Alex knowledge wassell onlysaid basedhat the on whatlot hadhad 'not happenedestudied regardingthis floodingeIna� previous years. Council requested legal opinion of City Attorney to the Town's responsibility in this matter. Councilwoman Miller stated that Staff had been directed to observe this property this winter, and that she felt at the time this matter came before Council previously that the drainage requirements imposed were inequitable, and had not voted in favor of such a requirement. Mr. Gillio, in response to questions by Council, listed several alternatives open to Council at this time to solve this problem: 1) Council could continue the requirement as imposed; 2) Council could waive the require- ments ishro could ffe neAssessment rict topay fordrainageimpements,ithneghbors on the road were not willing to solve the problem. Counch to solveithenHelgen probleo oandisaidtafeel morethat one equitableatch soluti nnwoulddbeetonassassess every homeowner whose property abuts the road. %, Councilman McReynolds moved, seconded by Councilman Nelgesson to continue the requ eirement for one catch basin on Lot byy 2 commissioner' Spencer's request speak4. er sion ensued, floor. followed -4-