26 ATTACHMENTS (B) - Laserfiche WebLink

have to cross and bury his electrical lines. He expressed concern that he was allowed only three parcels on his property while the Chrismans were allowed to have 12 parcels; two of the Chrismans' pazcels had already been sold. He added that one of his three parcels could not be buildable because the easements went around the proposed site. He would also have to pay the Specific Plan fees for the third parcel that he could not develop. He noted that a fourth option was available to the Commission, which was to find that the use of the well water was not required for irrigation purposes, to recommend the revision to the conditions, and eliminate the right of the Chrismans to use the well on the Brosozky property when City water service was available to the Chrisman property. He would like the fourth option to be acted upon. He believed that if this issue was not resolved, he would appeal the proposed homes and would revisit these issues with the Planning Commission. He noted that the Berlogars drilled a well on the other side of the Chrismans, which yielded water with no problem; they relinquished their rights to the Reznick shared well without any issues. He believed the same should be done in this case. Mr. Schlies noted that he had not communicated directly with Mr. Brozosky about his concerns about one of his lots having a deep well easement through it. He noted that several years ago, they needed to service the electrical to the well, and the electrical easement and line went through Mr. Brozosky's vineyard; they would have to backhoe through the vineyard to service it. They were able to come to an accommodation by relocating the easement, and he hoped they would be able to have similar cooperation with respect to the easement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner O'Connor noted that since the home sizes were already approved, he believed that was the easiest way to go, rather than complicating the situation with various FAR ratios. The Commissioners agreed with that statement. Commissioner Fox preferred to keep the original FARs and not increase them to 35 percent as was suggested. She noted that she would only support the major modification if the developer was amenable to the condition of vacating the easement and the water rights upon the connection to City water. Commissioner Narum expressed concern about Lots 6-10 of the existing approved size, particularly that the FAR ranged from 32.7 percent to 38.95 percent. She would rather see a FAR of 35 percent because it was a measure of the mass. Ms. Decker wished to clazify that the FAR according to the design guidelines was closer to 32 percent when the gazage square footage was excluded. Commissioner Narum would prefer to see a standazd FAR for Lots 6-10 but noted that the existing FARs on Lots 1-5 were acceptable. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 6 of 13