16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker added that for the Commission's information, the staff report identified that the new tank is being used not only for agricultural irrigation but also for domestic uses. She noted that since the writing of the staff report, staff has determined that the site is connected to City water and is metered as well, specifically for domestic use. She added that wells within the City are allowed to be used For irrigation and landscaping as long as there is an appropriate backflow prevention device that separates domestic use from irrigation use. Commissioner O'Connor requested clarification that the well is not being used for domestic purposes. Ms Decker explained that once a piece of property is connected to the City water system, wells are no longer allowed to be used for domestic purposes, and, consequently, backflow prevention devices are required. Commissioner Fox stated that from the pictures of the old wooden tank and the new poly tank and looking at the fence in the background and the size of the fence in both pictures, it appears that the picture of the old wooden tank was taken a lot closer to the tank than the new picture. She noted that when she tried to align the slats of the fences on both pictures, it appears that the old wooden tank is smaller than the new one. She inquired if the picture was taken very close to the old water tank, which makes it look very big. Ms. Amos replied that based on the information that was provided by the applicant, both tanks are about the same size. She added that the new tank is set back approximately 35 feet from where the old tank used to be located, which might be the reason for the differing perception on the picture. In response to Chair Blank's inquiry if the picture was taken by staff, Ms. Amos replied that the picture with the old water tank was provided by the applicant. Commissioner Fox indicated that she needed some clarification on the phrase "to relocate" on the description of the application. She inquired whether staff is recommending that the new water tank be moved down toward the garage or that it stay where it currently is. Ms. Amos replied that staff's recommendation is that the tank stay where it is currently located. Commissioner Pearce requested clarification regarding the correction made by Ms. Amos that the height of the new poly water tank was 15 feet and inquired if the old wood water tank was also 15 feet. Ms. Amos replied that in the applicant's narrative, the height of the tank was listed at 10 feet, but when she visited the site, she noted that although she did not measure the tank, based on her perception and experience, the water tank appeared to be over 10 feet in height. She indicated that the old tank could have been around ten feet high, which can be clarified by the applicant. In response to Commissioner Fox's inquiry if the new tank might be more like 18 feet high, Ms. Amos replied that she did not know. Commissioner Pearce inquired what distance would be required to move the tank if it were moved behind the garage. Ms. Amos replied that depending on which area of their property the EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 9, 2008 Page 2 of 15