12/03/2013AP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

connected if properties within 2,500' of the main line were allowed to connect. Finally,the second and third pages of the attachment show the limited 12'h Street right-of-way(30' width)west of parcel A and show that service lines for properties on the south side of 12`h Street would be located in the road right- of-way on the north side of 12'h Street(the south side of the road is water control district right-of-way in which utility service lines would not be permitted) and would cross the sub-lateral canal. In the area along 12th Street depicted in attachment 6, the multiple private service lines that would be needed to connect parcels 3 -11 to the 66th Avenue main line would compete for space with the actual+20' wide roadway and with each other within the limited 30 foot 12`h Street right-of-way. In fact,the attachment illustrates that multiple lines probably cannot fit into such a limited space. Based on its analysis, staff concluded that establishing a 500 foot maximum distance between the main line and the nearest point of a connecting property will not result in significant right-of-way conflicts, since there will be only one county-owned utility line in the right-of-way for that 500 foot distance. For 1,000 foot or 2,500 foot maximums, however, the result would be significant conflicts from multiple private service lines with long parallel runs sharing the same limited right-of-way space with road and driveway improvements. Therefore,staff supports establishing a 500 foot maximum distance between a main line and the nearest portion of a connecting property. Consistent with the Board's discussion and the amended motion passed at the July 16, 2013 meeting, the proposed amendment includes a provision that all costs associated with a connection are borne by the benefitting property owner. That criterion ensures proper funding for the connection and fairness with respect to existing system users. Even that provision, however,will be difficult to implement in some cases. That is illustrated in the scenario described below. As shown in attachments 6A, 613, and 6C, lots B and D directly abut the 66th Avenue main line and could be directly connected to the mainline without any line extension. In that example,parcels A and C are within 500' of the main line and could connect to the county system. That connection,however, would require a water line extension several hundred feet west of the 66th Avenue main line. Although the extended line would be installed in the right-of-way adjacent to parcels B and D,the owners of those parcels would not be required to financially participate in a line extension project if those owners had already connected to the main line directly from their properties. In that case, the owners of parcels B and D would not benefit from the extension and,therefore,would not be obligated to share in the cost of a line extension assessment project. Consequently, the owners of parcels A and C would be charged the cost of extending the water line along the frontage of parcels B and D. • PZC Recommendation The PZC considered staff's proposed amendment, scenarios evaluated by staff as depicted in attachments 6A, 6B,and 6C, and scenarios where the owner of a remote connecting property obtains a private easement or"slivers"of private property from intervening parcels in order to access and connect to a main line. After discussion,PZC members concluded that extending the county-owned system 500' out from a main line was not efficient. Furthermore, PZC members concluded that extensive private service line runs could lead to maintenance problems and even water pressure and water quality issues for the customer. In the end, the PZC recommended that the Board adopt a revised amendment, allowing connection only for properties immediately adjacent (contiguous) to a main line (see attachment#7). F:\Community Development\Comprehensive Plan Text AmendmentsUuly 2013,PW policy 5.7 and SS policy 5.8\Staff reports\BCC staff report Final PH(12-3-13).doc 8 168