PC 071316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Ritter: And well water for only the landscaping? Hagen: Only for Lot 3. Houston: When I checked with Zone 7 their big emphasis was, we don't want you in the water business so you can't be exporting this property. In the big picture, it's a big piece of property at 1.5 acres and taking care of fruit trees and any other agriculture that might be on the property might make it more pleasant. It's not going to have a tremendous impact on the aquifer, but you can imagine like at the recycling center, people could drive up and take out 250 gallons per and go to their homes off of that well, yeah, that would be a problem. So Zone 7's feeling was as long as you don't export it off of the property, then we're good. While I got your attention, one thing— Condition 45 —it has to do with retaining trees and we want to keep every tree we can. The only thing we'd like to add is, where feasible, we'll make every effort. If you have a curb that's in a tree, we can't save that one, but we want to make every effort to save every tree but we want to put where feasible or make best effort. Thank you. Chair Ritter: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Nagler: On Guy's comment. I'm fine with qualifying the language just because it's probably going to happen and obviously there's an interest in maintaining as many trees as possible. First let me start by saying, I think you guys have done a great job responding from the workshop. I think this is an example of how workshops are a valuable part of the Commission's work and that we could actually end up with a better project if the applicant is responsive to what the Commission is saying and I think you've done that in this instance and I think that's a great compliment to you and it makes for a better project. And it seems like the outstanding issue is this well which is kind of interesting that it comes up again, but it does seem to be the outstanding issue. And to echo Commissioner Balch's comments, honestly I'm of a mixed mind because of fairness, the well ought to be capped; that just by happenstance this piece of property historically had a well on it and therefore there is access to water which is a rare commodity these days and probably will be for quite some time and I'm not sure just out of fairness whether this well ought to be maintainable. On the other hand, it's going to have almost no impact on the rest of the community in fact, and if out of it the property is better maintained, then it is a benefit and the flipside is true; you're lucky to have it. So I'm of a mixed mind honestly that you could leave it. Commissioner Allen: So I want to ditto my Commissioners all the way and really to commend Mr. Houston and his team. This is a great example as you all said of listening to our feedback and coming back with a project that addressed every single issue and more. Thank you. It makes our job really easy. It's a great job and a role model. In terms of the well, I'm also divided a little bit. I guess I think more of capping it because I place a slightly higher value on equity, and if we're not issuing new well permits these days and we're telling other people to eventually cap wells then I think we need to be fair and consistent and we may be having more projects like this in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 9 of 38