2012-07-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

"Definition" section as well. Further language addressed private driveways; roadway new construction (page 2, line 9) and those costs (e.g. Applewood Point and Josephine Woods); reconstruction projects for R-1 and R-2 zoning designations, and calling out street widths based on whether or not a roadway was an MSA street, but providing an equitable method to determine actual costs to property owners (page 2, lines 22 —28) and including those terms in the definition section. Ms. Bloom noted that the sanitary sewer language was a new section not previously discussed by the PWETC, and based on her and Mr. Schwartz' review and finding it to be inconsistent as previously written; and carried over similarly in the water section as well (page 2, line 31 and page 3, lines 12-32). At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom reviewed new sanitary sewer and/or water main connections for a minimal number of properties not yet connected to City water. Chair Vanderwall suggested that it be made clearer what"new construction" consists of, with Ms. Bloom suggesting "new connections." Ms. Bloom also reviewed upsizing needs for larger capacity mains and how those would be assessed (page 2, line 36), above and beyond typical capacity versus actual need and examples of such situations. Ms. Bloom advised that she would also further define storm sewer construction (page 3, line 9) as well as water main cost responsibilities. An example of upsizing needed to prevent or correct neighborhood flooding (e.g. Woodland Hills) but not assessed to property owners above what was typical was further reviewed by staff. Member Stenlund noted (page 2, lines 36-45) areas where upsizing downstream sections to facilitate business or residential needs; and suggested this be addressed more clearly to address the function of what needed to be addressed; and how to approach commercial properties where capacity doesn't exist and connection to a residential system. Ms. Bloom and Mr. Schwartz expanded on that situation (e.g. new building on Ameritech Site) for this new development property where an undersized main was already in place, and assessing 10)%. Ms. Bloom concurred with Member Stenlund that further definition and clarity was needed to make that determination. Member Stenlund suggested separating that section for fairness factors; and Ms. Bloom advised that staff would consider it further. Page 10 of 16