Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 6, 1994 (60)1 4 A a 4 CITY OF LODI A COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 4 4 t AGENDA TITLE: Possible Motion to Reconsider/Reconsideration of Appeal of John Donati. 1217 Edgewood Drive, to Build Shimming Pool Deck/Patio Over a Public Utility Easement and Request to Enter Into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Lodi MEETING DATE: August 3,1994 PREPARED BY: City Clerk RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and appropriate action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As Council will recall, at its meeting of July 20, 1994, Mr. John Donati, 1217 Edgewood Drive, Lodi, spoke under Comments by the public and asked the City Council to reconsider his appeal in which he requested to build swimming pool deck/patio over a Public Utility Easement and to enter into a Holo Harmless Agreement with the City of Lodi. According to the City Attorney, should the City Council wish to reconsider this matter, a motion to reconsider will first need to be brought up by a Council Member of the prevailing side. Following a successful vote on the motion, the City Council may then discuss the reconsideration of Mr. Donati's appeal. Attached please find copy of information that was presented to the City Council by Mr. Donati at the last meeting. FUNDING: None required. JMP Attachment APPROVED THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager wcveIed owe, cc • July 20. 1994 City Council of Lodi c/o Lodi City Clerk 221 West Pine Stmt Lodi, CA 93240 Re: Appeal of John Donati, 1217 Edgewood Drive, Requesting to Build a Deck/Patio Over a Public Utility Easement and to Enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Lodi. On Wednesday. July 6,1994 the members of the City Council denied my appeal, 3-1. to encroach 3' into an 8' P.U.E. with a 4" concrete and brick deck. A number of items were stated by City employees during the public hearing that I could not respond to as they were not in my, nor the Council's, scope of knowledge. Upon further discussions with the City Attorney, Building Dept. and Public Works. I Ibel your decision, through no fault of your own. was based upon miamtormation and a lack of knowledge of similar requests. Because I feel your decision was reached without an accurate picture being presented by the Council's advisors, I am requesting that you reconsider your prior decision and allow yourselves to reach an informed decision based on actual, specific facts and examples by granting me a re -hearing Attached are items I fed were misrepresented and not presented by your advisors which are very important in reaching an informed decision. The information presented is in ; i from City of Lodi eft., ,...., w .4 obtained by me in less than an hours time; Information that is easily and readily available if your ask for it or if you know to ask for it It presents three cases very similar, if not more extreme, to mine in which encroachment permits were approved, usually without any fuss. In closing, let me reiterate that my only goal is still the same, to upgrade my family's home by building a pool and surrounding decking, not rewrite ordinances or endanger the public's welfare. I am aware that your initial decision is "final" and that I do have recourse through the courts. Instead of taking a non- productive, negative path, I ask that you grant my request so you have a chance to make a fair, equitable and informed Thank you, John D. Donati 1217 Edgewood Drive Lodi, CA 95240 (209)333-74.66 attachments The pupae of this section is b present aconite information that was spectilated on during the July 6, 1994 public hearing. moa enclosed jos been given to me by City - , ' . j. (FACT), as sell the it nation that was stated at the hearing. by wham and to the best of my recollection. I will alio add my thoughts on each issue (COMMENT). 1. WATER MAIN PLACEMENT FACT: The placemen of the Water Main line in the P.U.E. is 1' from southern property line. Its depth is 3'. The line was marked by City employees on July 15, 1994 at owner's request FACT: The Water Main line will be 4' from the edge of the decking RONSKCO: The Water Main line is 3'-4' nom property line and 1' foot from the decking About 3' clearance minimum is required to dig down to the line. COMMENT: 4' is more than reasonable clearance for standard digging purposes. 2. WATER METER PLACEMENT FACT: The water line into the house rues parallel to the east property line. It is covered with dirt and ground cover. The line was marked by Clty employees on July 15, 1994 at owner's request. RONSKO: The meter might have to be placed in the dock area, or possibly even in the pool itself COMMENT: I have no idea why he brought up this non -issue, possibly trying to broaden the issue at band with more unknown, unsubstantiated remarks. Setting of a water meter will not be a concern and is not an issue. 3. A HARD<SHIP MUST BE SHOWN FACT: The Lodi City Municipal Code section that my building permit is being reviewed wider is Chapter 15.44 as mentioned in the Mar. 4,1994 letter to me and the Council Communication letter prepared by Public Works Director, Jack Rorniw for the City Council, dated July 6, 1994. McNATT: When asked by the Council during the public hearing if a "hardship" had to be shown in the appeal process, City Attorney Bob McNdt stated, "Yes" and want on to explain bow for equality in future decisions this decision needed to have special talons ... FACT: Nowhere in Chapter 15.44 does it state that a "hardship" must be potent. It does state that an encroachment permit is required (15.44.030.B) and the appal process is directly to the City Council (15.44.100). FACT: MI 3 Council members who voted against my initial appeal stated they "did not see a hardship and thus had to vote 'No'". FACT: On July 18, 1994, when asked his reference source for " hardship", Mr. McNutt stated it was Municipal Code 17.72 and faxed me a copy for reference. COMMENT: Code 17.22 refers to the "Zoning C.... ,1, .\., , . , " and "Zoning Appeals". Nowhere in this code does it mention -easements' or "encroachment permits". Code 17.22 also states its appeal process goes through the Planning Commission first,•tben City Council. Code 17.22 has nothing to do with my situation and items mentioned in its mkt should r not be inferred into Code 15.44. Thus, 3 of the Council members voted epimer my appeal. specifically on requirements that were not pertinent to my permit review on advise from their staff. 4. MY REQUEST IS UNIQUE FACT: &Igg 3 encroachment requests were granted during January and February 1994. alone. - Maurice Ray. 1201 Edgewood Dr.— spa, pool house, non -moveable shed. ... on 8' P.U.E. - Anthony Alegre, 1630 Edgewood Dr. — steps at rear of house on 5' P.U.E. - Seventh Day Adventist, 730 S. Fairmont Ave. — 6+' tali block wall with f% , . , , .0 , on A' P.U.E. 1 • RONSKO: Stated be add only remember 1 request in his 15 years that was similar to mine. Also, if the teuncil O.K.'d my appeal "they might as weft change the code so !orate requests won't have to go through fhb prrioess". COMMENT: In less than I hour 1 found two permits that seemed to be given over the counter and Mr. Ray's that went through the Council. If 1 found them so fuland easy,. how come Mr. Roarko doesn't seem to know their plenitude. Maybe he has only seen 1 in 13 years because mat are O.K.'d over the counter and are not required to go through my long ordeal. Aho, it seems as though 2 of these requests were given after week bad either scatted or even compkted. There is the appearance that even though people bleak the law by building without permits, they are allowed to kap their violation because it would cost too much to correct it Yet when t request a similar or more minor encroachment, up fromt adhering to code, I get different consideration. S. ALLOWABLE COVERAGC FACT: In the Public Works Department's "Owner's Certificate" (see attachment 1) that all lots are -subject to and code 15.44 that I am being reviewed under, it states„ "No building or strttctara shall be constructed nes shall anything be planted within the easement which would interfere with the use or operation of public militia in the easement." There are no specifics given in either document as to limitations of what is allowable or not. RONSKO: Says that be allows up to a standard 4" concrete slab and plants that don't grow into the pipes. COMMENT: I am being reviewed on a standard for which there isn't anything in writing. Since there are no specifics, the code is left open to i , w r , , 3* but whose interpretation? Mr. Ronsko allows 4", his people allow for more aver ibe counter, as does the City Council. Also, my project does not "interfere with the nee or operation of public utilities" any more so than previous permits that have been approved. I expect 10 be given the same conciliation that others before me were given. 2 The fedlow section has 3 eaniples of projects similar in nature to mine where encroachment permits were approved. EXAMPLE 01 MAURICE RAY. 2201 EDGEWOOD DR SITUATION: Hunt in -ground spa, massive pool house, storage shed, ... in 8' P.U.E., without permits. Actually built over City wales main, rendering the water main and the water service ' . , . . i ere. This was declared a public nuisance and dangerous. He was ordered to abate these structures. For more detailed information please refer to City file regarding this issue. OUTCOME: Appeal ynanimonsly approved by the Council on Feb. 16,1994. The Council found that he was substantial damaged (monetarily) and stated, "the granting of the permit will not be materially detrimental to the public interest, safety, health and welihre a injurious to other r a r .. t ." COMMENT': 1. I wish I could afford his lawyer. 2. I live next door to Mr. Ray. While his encroachments do not bother me, it is apparent that I am not being treated fairly, nor equitably. He has "structures". His pool house is 8 -foot+ tall with a 6"X12" top beam, enclosed walls, full bath (plumbing). I am looking to build up loam soil 18", put on a 4" concrete slab with decorative brick. Mine is not a structure. 3. He encroached massively, even on top of the water main rendering it inaccessible. I am , . y . ; ,g to encroach only 3' and 1 will still be 4' from the City water main. There is no way Mr. Roosko can complain about my situation when you compare it to what has been approved here. 4. His in -ground spa is in the P.U.E.. I consciously put my spa outside the P.U.E. in order not to break the code. It will be 2' away. S. Without making major changes, Mr. Ray has agreed to hold the City harmless, as I too have agreed ail along, but on a much, much smaller project. 6. All of his af. .1 work was done withom permits, a direct violation cilia law, yet because it might cost him S20,000+ to comply, the Council allowed him the encroachment permits. I am requesting up front, without breaking the law, a mach smaller encroachment and should not expect any lean conciliation than was shown Mr. Ray. 7. If the Council has found "the granting of the permit will not be materially , ".ti, . w 1 to the public interest, safety, health and welfare or injurious to other ,, .0 . " for Mr. Ray, there is no equitable way they can find less for my appeal. EXAMPLE S2 ANTHONY ALEGRE.1639 EDGEWOOD DR, 1 SITUATION: The steps a the rear of the house encroached in a 3' P.U.E. The , , .. on was started on Dec. 8, 1993, but the ., .. permit wasn't approved until Feb. 3, 1994. It is my understanding the permit was obtained after the encroachment was discovered. OUTCOME: With no back up documentation. it appears the encroachment permit was approved over the counter on Feb. 3, 1994. It also appears as though Mr. Alegre agreed to a "Hold Harmless" with the City. See enactment 2 3 COMMENT: 1. Similar to Mr. Ray, it appeard this permit was•issued after the fact, not up front as I am trying to 2.myAtyiinitial hearing, Mr. Rotoloo teem to have a major concern with the act that my deck was going to have sups, yet his department approved a permit for Mr. Alegre for specifically that, stain. ,The stairs mast be higher that 4", because Mr. Roasko allows up to 4" concrete stab without a permit. 3. Mr. Alegre put in stairs in a P.U.E., I am requesting to put stairs in a P.U.E.. I am expecting no less conciliation than what was shown Mr. Alegre. EXAMPLE 103 SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTCHURCH: 730 S. FAIRMONT 6VEE SITUATION: The Church built a 6' tap block wall in the s' P.U.E. It is on the north and.east pari of their property and is appx. 750' long. Being a very solid wall, it appears to have a sturdy foundation. OUTCOME: With no backup 11 . , n, it appears the'encroacbment permit was approved over the counter on Jan. 24, 1994. It also appears as though the Church agreed to a "Hold Harmless" agreement with the City. See attachment 3. COMMENT: 1 1. It appears the Church requested the permit prior to starting their project. 2. During my hearing Mr. Ronsko eogmssed concern that my 1a" loam filled deck would be tougher than usual to demolish should "there be a fire and the City water main were to break at the same time." This structure was approved and is much taller and more heavily constructed than my project. 3. As with the other 2 examples. I am expecting no less conciliation than what was shown here to the Church. 4 t ._ - • - . _ ,._....., __...,r.,. i Atu»i Silr .1. 1 CITY OF LODI - MAP CERTIFICATES PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Or. MW Ch.'', <12/871 :,.a...... No Oats ONNERS' WWICAT= 1)a certify that we are the only parties having record title interest in the lands subdivided awl Amnon this map and w cooseat to the preparation end recordation of this map. (Ne offer to dedicate for public use all streets and public utility easements (PUBS) shorn on this map. The PUC dedication gins tbo City, owners of pd►ltc utilities, and owners of Cable TV franchises the right to access, construct, maintain, lnspsct, repair, replace, remove, and operate their facilities in the PULs. No buildings or structures shall be constructed nor shall anything be planted within tbs. easement *blab would interfere with the use or operation of public utilities in the easement. (date) Naas) RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE Piled this day of , 19 , at m. in (Book of Napa (! Plats, Volume _, page ) (Book ._._ of Parcel Naps, at page ) at the request of Signed By County Recorder Deputy No?!S. (Use where applicable) 1. Lot except areas covered by buildings or structures shown cm the approved building permit plans and subsequent revisioos thereto is hereby offered as a public utility easement. "Subseguont revisions" to the plans shall be approved by the affected utilities and any necessary utility relocations will be made at the expense of the developer/owner. 2. Requirements of the Lodi Municipal Code for the dedication of rights-of-way and easements, payment of fees and installation of off-site street improvements and utilities have not been set at this time and must be met prior to development or issuamp of a building permit or when requested by the City (on Parcels ). Revision *Dor. 1 Apr red Syl:m.L +.sees, . arts asrecter ONS nC.t. *7105 1 STD PLAN 605B, CITY • LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' 221 W. PINE ST. 333.8708 CALL BOX 3006 LODI. CAUFORNIA 95241.1910 J O fNCRA*r11MCNT "4"RTlrt(#m RST f ENCROACHMENT PERMIT /Permit Address 1630 Fdgpwnnd flrivo [ e Ni 419-70-4Q) Applicant's Name Anthony J. Alegre (Owner/Contractor) Address Starting Date 19108/93 Completion Date situs. Licensee No. Phone J 1 Owner/Contractor Address Phone Pursuant le tha provision 01 the t.odl Munklpsi Code, the undersigned applies bar permission to exeavNe, construct, sadly, Otherwise engem* oa City Street RtgM*a-way or Easement by pertormIng the billowing work NOTIFY USA (800) 642.2444 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. The work consists of portion of residential structure (steps at • rear of house) encroaching ilithin a c-fnnt public Utility Easement. Encroachment.is as shown on approved Building Dept. plans. the City holds no responsibility for damage to structure due to use or rignt-or-way maintenance on existing uttitttes or instail- etion of new public farilitiae Encroaching sturcture is to be maintained by Owner. • �ved or demolished, this encroachment permit becomes void and reconstruction of any st.r u6Lur c small haL,kkc 6 bloc r ch..vh Jcd Erydh:rriC.YrY Wed; Owner agrees: to notify any future owner of this requirement. Permit void If work not started within 6 months of permit date. (Space For Sketch) O Licensed Contractor required for this work. O Certificate of Insurance in the owner's name which names the City of Lodi as an Additional Named Insured for Com. prehensive General and Automobile insurance In the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit la required Pie toy undersigned o a`0h0does tea Loa Munkclpel Cods. pto ermitter, is specifically awand save the waire of geeeLodi .1�1Y0 reharmless lating g to relocation «nm removal cm:: with the preateions of Sect. future construction requires such relocation. t the wont for which this - , t permit Ins baso loom! bur not been oompbtsd by the ply a Lodi shall haus the right to complete the wort, and to f11}q Cause ofI�14on t soup tr)I City's expenses In completing the wok and for W other costs and 4004 inwith the provisions of Sec. 12.04 fly. 4 M Dats_aL /�� Signed _ ( .. , , , /Required Improvement Security Certificate of Insurance Comp. Gen. Policy No. Automotive Policy No. Referred to Mel Grandi Inspected Completed Reviewed Exp. Exp. Date Date Date Oat., This permit is granted subpot to all provisions ob Chapter 12.01 of the Lodi\ Municipal Code and to at genial provisions and apptsabls special prom. Mons as shown on the mew side. Permit Approved: CITY OF LODI By: D Public Above Ground Date �o Public Underground fl Private, so ae nmNMiuhw or reboerse by ownw► as worked D Other Permit No. 9�19,1n Sao What.-In.Otttt0, VOW". FAN NMt•I.n„m.. MI /MOW* rnabne CITY O GDI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT = 221 W. PINE ST. 3333.6706 CALL BOX 3006 1.001, CALIFORNIA 65241.1010 f fT Arrocrt��ir 3 \ ENCROACHMENT PERMIT permit address 734 SOUTH FAI RMONT AVENUE A llKl Seventh Day, Adventists Northern Calimf, Addss Conference Assn (O1/24/94 94523 Starting Date Completion Date License No. Phone Owner/Contractor Address Phone Pursuant to the provision of IM Lodi Municipal Code. the undersigned MOW lot pa.alalon te."esv.ss. ebnseuet. maw othsrwtse «roreesb an City street Right -of -Wiry or Easement by performing the following work NOTIFY USA (80t4 6422444488HOURS OF BLOCK OFRi AOANY N Y EXCAVATION. HIN • The work consists of INSTALLATION THE 8 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (8'PUE) ON THE NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES OF THE ABOVE SITE; INSTALLATION . (Letter of authorization from "Northern California Conference Assoc. of The Cityholds no responsiblility for damage to structure due toventn-Day Adventists" use—of—riga .f ..a,, 1.i�ra.�t;;i��y .J c,.141.1ny MLli•tties or attached.) installation of new public facilities. Owner agrees to relocate at his expense encroaching structure, if by Lily. EI1..r.,at.111rry 3L.ut.Lurc IA Lu Le maintained by owner. Owner agrees to notify any future owner of this requirement. Permit void if work not started within 6 months of permit date. (Space For Sketch) O Licensed Contractor required for this work. O Certificate of insurance In the owner's name which names the City of Lodi as an Additional Named Insured for Com. prehensive General and Automobile Insurance In the amount of $1.000.000 combined single (knit I$ required. The undersigned does Mosby awes b indemnify and sive the City of Lodi free and harmless from any liability. la w11h the provision* of see. 12.04.01000 the Lodi Municipal Code. Pennines Is specifically aware of Sec. 12.042110 thereof relating to the rei.caeonot removal of Mild_tot_____ If Moe construction requires such relocation. tf the wont fa which this encroachment forma has bean issued hes not been completed M1n* � w of Lodi shall have the right to complete the work Cane to file a Cof ActIon tomato the care *venom In 000000,0MIs work and far Ismer oohs and tees in aocordenoe with the provisions of Sec. 12.01.j*,tJhs Lodi Municipal Code. O Date kg► 17. 1443 Signedleo Required Improvement Security Certificate of Insurance Comp. Ger.. Policy No. Exp. Automotive Policy No. Van, Referred to GARY MURDOCK (333-68361 ate Inspected Date Completed • Date " s7 Reviewed Data s+fo . soo wnn..1.,.o.cto. r.iro••.FH. P$nk.P,nwtt.. This permit le (ranted subset to M1 provisions of chapter 12.04 of the Lodi \ Municipal Code and to MI gNMrM p.o.lelern end soMeseMs modal pro* stuns as sitcom on the reverse aide. Permit Approved: CITY OF LOD L By: O Public Above Ground O Public Underground ami Private. w as mralnalmef e. reaesas by mime/ ea mrwrf•e ❑ Other Permit No. 7 Dat•-//f4iii ...... Moro gshavAri IanE....DG6.v)01)D 012._ wArEk. P E •