PC 022708 - Laserfiche WebLink

follow, similar to that on the Berlogar property. She noted that the neighbors had expressed concern about the timing of the landscaping within the common area, which was a frontage area. During the July 11, 2007, hearing, staff clarified that those improvements were accepted at the same time the other improvements were accepted. Staff included a condition of approval that outlined the timing of the landscaping and believed it was reasonable to have the common area approved by the Planning Department and landscaped prior to the first lot being sold. She noted that it would not lie fallow and that it would have more growth on it prior to the first lot being sold. She noted that there had been discussion in terms of landscaping in the rear of Lots 6-10, and there was a question regarding whether it would be maintained by the developer or the Homeowners Association (HOA) until the lots were sold. She noted that was a problematic condition as that condition had never been required on any other subdivision. She noted that these were private properties, and as the front parcels were sold and built, it was unlikely that the retaining walls would be seen. She added that the landscaping would probably be removed by the future owners, which was a waste of resources, energy, and funds. She noted that the City wished to be good stewards of the environment. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the City would need an agreement from both parties in order to go forward with an easement, Ms. Decker replied that the project would be conditioned and that an agreement would be needed from the Chrismans to have an easement within their property to the property line in order to access the water line. The meter on the Brozoskys' side would need to be under a City easement as well. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the 200V line as discussed in the Brosozky letter was part of the easement, Ms. Decker replied that it referenced the easement within the Brosozky property to which the Chrismans had access. She noted that would not be modified with this action as far as requiring an easement going up the Chrismans' new driveway for the purposes of maintaining a public water line to the meter that would then be placed for temporary water service to the Brosozkys. None of the well infrastructure, wiring, or connections that lie within the Brosozky property would be modified in any way. She noted that the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that the Chrismans be required to vacate all of their water rights and modify and rescind their easement from the Brosozky property. However, at this time, staff did not recommend that particular action. Commissioner Olson believed the conditions did not address well usage and it appeared that the Council did not do that either. He noted that in the Minutes of the July 11, 2007 meeting, staff stated that it did not see a nexus between well usage and change in design guidelines. He inquired whether the City had determined whether it had the legal right to require an easement for water rights to be vacated. Ms. Harryman replied that the City's position was that it had the option to do so, although that was not staff's recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 4 of 26