26 ATTACHMENTS (B) - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Fox, Narum, O'Connor, Olson, and Pearce. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Blank. The motion passed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Mr. Schlies agreed that Ms. Decker's proposal would be a good idea and that the City's assistance would be a good solution. Mr. Brozosky noted that he had not seen the language and believed that the two issues of an escrow account and the amount of time allowable to elapse between the deposit into the escrow account and commencement of work were being mixed together. He inquired what would happen if they received a bid, and several yeazs elapsed, resulting in an increase in process. He noted that the construction could stretch out to four or five years, resulting in increased costs. He believed that 400 feet would be insufficient and that it must be right to the water line. He was unsure whether the 125 percent would be sufficient and suggested that they would not be able to proceed with the first house until the rest of the money was deposited. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether he had an alternative to 125 percent, Mr. Brozosky suggested that 200 percent would be reasonable and that they would get their funds back as soon as they put the infrastructure and the meter in place. He suggested that be added to the conditions. He did not want this issue returning to the Planning Commission if there was not enough money. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox suggested an amendment to change 125 percent to 200 percent, and to change the timeline to within 60 days of the infrastructure being built. Ms. Decker believed that both parties had an interest in putting the line in as quickly as possible in that both parties would benefit; the Chrismans fulfill the conditions to move forward, and the Brozoskys are provided with an emergency water source, probably within the time that the primary subdivision infrastructure were to be constructed. She believed the suggestion of one year of final map recordation allowed the flexibility and did not tie down the Commission to requiring an estimate to be received within one year. Any unforeseen delay would allow them to return to the Planning Commission to request an extension. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, Februazy 27, 2008 Page 12 of 13