PC 071107 - Laserfiche WebLink

from Airway Boulevard. He suggested that the Commission condition the shielding of those lights. Mr. Brozosky noted that there are three shared wells in the area that were installed before the properties were annexed and City water was available. The Berlogars had a shared well with the Reznicks, and this shared-well relationship and the easements were released with the development of their properties. The other shared well is between the Sariches and the Robertses, and although the well worked fine when installed, there are water quantity problems today. Mr. Brozosky expressed concern about the shared well and stated that he would like to sever the relationship with the neighbors with regard to the use of the well in order to increase the harmony between the neighbors and to keep the issue from continuing to be raised. He noted that this development was significant and that it would create the impact of noise and disruption for up to ten years. He hoped the applicants could mitigate those impacts. He would like to be able to maintain the water line all the way to where the City takes over. The City has Lots 1-10, and the water line goes through the private driveway, which is the exclusive property of the Chrismans, who are responsible for maintaining the water line. He noted that because his water line comes off of that driveway, he would have to be allowed to pass an emergency vehicle access (EVA) across the road to fix any water problem he might have. He added that the Chrismans would be required to fix the water line if they destroy it. He noted that if the Commission desired not to change this condition, he believed the EVA and easements should be placed so that he could maintain the water line to the meter, which the Chrismans are required to install. He noted that the EIR stated that the proposed vineyards would be irrigated with ground water supplied by on-site wells, but City water will be used for all other irrigation needs, which would help the water table down the road. Mary Roberts noted that she appreciated Mr. Gorney’s design guidelines, although she did not like the FARs. She noted that the May 16, 2007 online staff report did not include the attachments and that Condition No. 2 stated that all conditions of the Case “shall remain in full force and effect except as otherwise modified by this proposal.” She understood that with any major modification of a PUD, the Commission could do anything it deemed to be appropriate with it. She agreed with staff that there was no nexus between the design guidelines and the well issue and added that there did not need to be one. She noted that page 78 of the Specific Plan reads, “Existing homeowners choosing to subdivide are required to connect to the City water system at the time that service is extended to the subdivided land.” She noted that they may use the well water for irrigation, assuming it was not a shared well. Ms. Roberts noted that originally, the Planning Commission was very concerned about visibility from off-site. She noted that several of the Berlogar lots were not visible from the street, although some of the rows of houses on the Chrisman lots were extremely visible from off-site. She noted that they were treated somewhat differently, which was the reason for her concern about the FAR. She noted that the Berlogar lots were larger and that he used the dirt on his own property rather than off-hauling it. She noted that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 2007 Page 10 of 27