2004-06-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE : RELOCATION OF SEWER EASEMENTS FOR TEN CENTER PROJECT Ms. Renee Knake, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the developer of an office retail building obtained City approval to close the alley and will be relocating the sewer line. She said a portion of the building will be over the lines and City staff feel there will be adequate access to the lines for repair. The public hearing was opened, but as there were no speakers, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Caravati asked if there will be a safety sleeve, and Ms. Mueller said yes. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Ms. Knake said that if the lines need to be expanded in the future, the City and property owner will negotiate at that time who bears the expense. Responding to a question from Mr. Lynch, Ms. Knake said she has been told by staff that there will be adequate access to the line. Ms. Richards made a motion to approve the ordinance relocating the sewer easements for the Ten Center, Mr. Lynch seconded the motion, and the ordinance was carried over to the next me eting for consideration. Mr. Caravati said he is leery of saying we "shall negotiate" 20 years from now. He said it is a valuable asset and he wants to protect the City in case of future expansion. He suggested adding that the "property owner shall bea r the cost of any restoration burden." Ms. Richards said she would accept that as a friendly amendment, but noted that the property owner will also need to agree. Ms. Kelley noted that the deed is not being approved by Council and suggested this be don e in two separate motions. Mr. Caravati said he does not want citizens to be penalized if there is an expansion. Mr. Lynch asked about the size of the lines. th Mr. Neal Deputy, 134 10 Street, applicant, said that there is now a 30" line and it is bei ng upgraded to a 36" line inside a 60" sleeve. He said it could be upsized to 58" without any disruption. He said the sewer line can be doubled. He said he has met with the neighbors about the project, and noted that it is a by - right development. He sa id he does not think it unreasonable that the City bear the cost or allow negotiation. Mr. Caravati asked Mr. Deputy if he envisions a hardship by what he suggested, and Mr. Deputy said no, but he does not know about future owners and partners. Mr. Car avati made a motion to add on page 4 "the owner will sustain all costs of restoration of the property if there is future expansion." Mr. Schilling seconded the motion, but noted that he is not sure it is necessary given what the applicant has said. Mr. Cox noted that the lines can be doubled in the future. He said he does not want to penalize the owner for a hypothetical reason, and he cannot support the language. He said we need the spirit of negotiation. Mr. Lynch said agreeing to share the cost m akes more sense.