Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Narum noted that Condition No. 23 referred to the water line going for <br />400 feet from the meter. She inquired how the figure of 400 feet was reached. <br />Ms. Decker replied that the condition read "approximately 400 feet," which was the <br />distance that staff believed would reach the Brosozky residence or a hookup location <br />determined to be closest to the house. <br />Commissioner Narum noted that the City Council Minutes referred to priority being <br />given to the Brosozkys in the event that the well dropped to ten gallons per minute or <br />less. She requested further clarification of that issue. Ms. Decker replied that gallonage <br />had not been revisited by staff, and staff hesitated to define what a failed water supply <br />from a well may be. She noted that there had been extensive discussion and concern by <br />Council about how to address this issue. Staff believed that since the well was shared, <br />there was concern that over time, there maybe some loss or reduction in water <br />availability. At that time, the Chrismans would be connected to City water in order to <br />have a water source. However, the Brosozkys are dependent on the well only and would <br />not be hooked up to City water. The intent was to provide a mechanism by which they <br />would be assured of having water since the well would be used by the Chrismans for their <br />own agricultural and livestock uses. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether, if the Planning Commission determined that <br />the Chrismans' rights to the existing well should be abandoned, they would be able to <br />drill another well and whether City approval would be required. Ms. Decker replied that <br />they would be allowed to drill another well and that a number of engineering <br />requirements must be met; a number of costs would also be incurred. She noted that <br />water must be found and that it was not assured that water would be located ten feet <br />away. The water must be used for nonpotable uses such as landscaping and livestock and <br />not for domestic use. She did not know whether significant City fees would be incurred. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether it would take more <br />than two or three weeks to drill a well, Ms. Decker replied that it would take more than <br />three weeks and that extensive investigation was involved in the process. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that Condition No. 16 was redundant; Ms. Decker agreed <br />and added that it could be struck. <br />Acting Chair Pearce noted that the road that served as the grading and hauling route was <br />made of a newer permeable surface and inquired how effective patching the road would <br />be in the event a truck damaged it. <br />Mr. Jost replied that repairs were performed with the open-graded asphalt or with <br />conventional pavement. He noted that repairing the new surface with conventional <br />pavement material in small areas had been effective. <br />Commissioner Fox noted that the original approval stated that the grading would be <br />located across the street because of a concurrent prof ect. Since that was not the case at <br />this time, there were 148,000 cubic yards of dirt to be hauled. She inquired about the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 5 of 26 <br />