26 ATTACHMENTS (B) - Laserfiche WebLink

agricultural uses on their property which are to be retained after the approval of the final map for the development on the lower portion of the their property. At that time, their existing home and the new development will be connected to the City water, but they want the existing agricultural uses to be able to continue to use well water. The Chrismans further believe that the size of the waterline installed by the City for the Specific Plan area and further along Vineyard Avenue are adequate for domestic use but are not adequate for domestic and agricultural uses. Therefore they believe they must have well water to irrigate agricultural uses. Staff has indicated that the sizing of the new water supply including the new water tank in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor located at the Reznick property, was not sized for any use other than a domestic potable water supply and did not include agricultural uses. The Brozoskys are also concerned that the Chrismans' continued use of an easement on their property to access the shared well will unreasonably interfere with their ability to subdivide their property in the future (the Specific Plan allows the Brozoskys the potential to develop three lots on their property, in addition to creating a separate lot for the existing house. Staff recognizes that given the topography of their site, it is possible that one of the proposed lots could be situated where the existing easement in favor of the Chrismans currently exists. Accordingly, subdivision of the property and/or location of the proposed house where the easement exists may present challenges. The Planning Commission has the discretion to maintain the original condition for the temporary water line from Chrismans to Brozoskys. Option One The Planning Commission has the discretion, in context of this PUD modification, to recommend that the existing condition of approval for the temporary water line from the Chrismans to the Brozoskys not be changed. This option would affirm City Council's condition of approval No. 23 as noted above. The implementation of this condition would also require that an easement be granted from the Chrismans to the Brozoskys over their [the Chrismans'] property for access and maintenance by the Brozoskys. Additionally, if the temporary service were to be used, it would require City staff to read the meter via traveling into the private Chrisman property some distance away from the public right of way. The existing condition does not require the abandonment of well water access and rights that the Chrismans currently enjoy. However, the Commission could agree with the Brozoskys and find that the use of well water is not required for irrigation purposes and, accordingly, recommend a revision to the conditions to eliminate the right of the Chrismans to use the well on the Brozosky property (because it would not be required for irrigation purposes) once City water service is available to the Chrismans' property. Case No. PUD-OS-02M 16 Planning Commission