09 ATTACHMENT 06-8 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT PUD-93-02-09M/PCUP-182, Barnabas Nagy Applications for: (1) a major modification to the Ruby Hill PUD development plan to: (a) relocate the existing sales office building on Ruby Hill Boulevard northwesterly along Vineyard Avenue; (b) change the existing office use to restaurant use; (c) revise the configuration of the existing parking lot; (d) establish a new driveway off of Vineyard Avenue; and (e) establish a pad location and design guidelines for a future single-family residence; and (2) a conditional use permit to allow alcoholic beverage service after 10:00 p.m. The property is located at 2001 Ruby Hill Boulevard and is zoned PUD/OS/A/LDR (Planned Unit Development/Open Space/ Agriculture/Low Density Residential) District. Also consider a Negative Declaration for the project. Ms. Soo presented the staff report and summarized the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project. She noted that following many neighborhood meetings to address concerns regarding noise, traffic, and proximity to residences, the applicant indicated he was willing to make the project work and decided to push the building farther out towards Vineyard Avenue, thereby providing a 1,000-foot buffer between the project and the closest residence. She noted that a condition had been added requiring the restaurant to be placed closest to Vineyard Avenue and that the surroundings must be maintained in an attractive way; enforcement actions would be taken if that condition were to be disregarded. She described the Tuscan-style home which would be built in the future; staff recommended the R-1-20,000 standard rather than the R-1-6,500 standard. In response to Commissioner Blank's inquiry regarding whether there was astand-alone bar in the restaurant, Ms. Soo replied there was only a cocktail lounge. Commissioner Blank requested that a condition be included requiring a full menu to be available when alcoholic beverages were to be served. Ms. Soo noted that condition could be added. She then described the requirements placed on the applicants should the buildings fall into disrepair or become abandoned. Chairperson Fox recalled that the Planning Commission had been told that no buildings would be placed on land designated as Open Space/Grazing, such as on the Austin PUD. Ms. Decker stated that the difference between the two projects was that the leftover land in the Austin PUD was considered to be dedicated open space. In this case, the General Plan designation is Agriculture/Open Space, with an overlay with the South Livermore Valley Area Plan as well as the Tri-Valley Conservancy, outlining a 2.5-acre limit for development. The Tri-Valley Conservancy has voiced its support for this project within those limits. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the floor area ratio (FAR) and the maximum size of the house, Ms. Soo replied that staff recommended following the R-1-20,000 regulations, which allow a maximum FAR of 30 percent. The pad area drawn on the plan was 130 feet wide by 130 feet deep. The living area could be a maximum size of 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Olsen referenced the letter from the Ruby Hill Homeowners Association in Attachment 8 and inquired whether the transition of landscaping maintenance had been DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 9, 2007 Page 1 of 7