26 ATTACHMENTS (B) - Laserfiche WebLink

Option Two In an effort to address the Brozoskys' concerns, since the last Planning Commission meeting, staff has been working with Mr. Brozosky and the applicant to create an alternative solution to this issue of providing an alternative temporary water supply and well use. Staff evaluated the issues related to the previous approval. Staff considered the history of the development which created the original condition and if those circumstances were held in abeyance, and the City were to consider how installation of meters and temporary services could be constructed for the benefit of a development overall, the City would typically construct new improvements such as waterlines and meters within access and rights-of-way convenient to the City and City staff for meter reading, maintenance and repair. Thus, an alternative to the existing condition would be to provide a permanent meter at the northeast corner of the Chrisman property within the public right-of-way, and to require the Chrismans to finance the construction of a temporary water line along the easterly property boundary on the Brozosky property at such time that the Brozoskys would like it to be installed. The provision for a temporary water service would be to meet the intent of the original concern held by the previous City Council regarding water service to the Brozosky residence in the event the well failed. There are various ways to manage the installation of the temporary water line along the westerly Brozosky boundary; 1) the Brozoskys could undertake to retain a contractor of their choice to install the line at the expense of the Chrismans, 2) the Chrismans could retain a contractor to install the water line at their expense, or 3) the Chrismans could deposit funds based on an engineers estimate to the City in order to ensure the construction of that line and help coordinate a contractor that will meet the necessary qualifications for such work. Should the cost of the work exceed the estimate, the Chrismans would be required to pay the difference. The waterline would need to be constructed within a reasonable date certain, such as within 1 year of the filing of the final map, for example. For vineyards and other agricultural uses on those properties within the Vineyard District (of which the Chrisman property is not one), the use of well water for irrigation purposes is a requirement under the Specific Plan. It is, however, certainly discretionary to require well water to be used for irrigation purposes for properties, such as the Chrismans, that are not within the Vineyard District. In addition, the domestic water line that will serve the Chrismans' development is not properly sized for agricultural purposes. The Planning Commission may choose the alternative design on the water line (i.e., Option Two) which allows the Chrismans to retain their right to use the well water for irrigation and related agricultural (animal husbandry, for example) purposes. It requires the Chrismans to pay for the installation of water service for the benefit of the Brozosky property. Further, this option would not unreasonably impede future development of additional lots on the Brozosky property. This is staffs recommendation. Case No. PUD-OS-02M 17 Planning Commission