09 ATTACHMENT 06-8 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT as this would require a $20,000 traffic study. He encouraged the Planning Commission to support this project, which he believed would enhance the City. He noted that Condition No. 8 on page 23 referenced a $5,500 charge for the removal of three tress, which had originally been to encourage people to retain heritage trees where possible. In this case, the trees were being removed as a mitigation measure because they had to move their existing building to a new location, currently surrounded by landscaping. He noted those three trees were not heritage trees. Earl and Linda Ault, 7000 Tesla Road, Livermore, noted that they owned Cedar Mountain Winery and added that they looked forward to any enhancement to the area with such a high quality restaurant. He would like more people to visit the wine country and complimented the Nagy's on their display of fortitude during this project. He believed this project was wholly consistent with the goals of the area. Kerry Lamson, 799 Avio Court, noted that he was speaking on behalf of the Ruby Hill owners. He noted that living in a wine destination had its drawbacks as well, and he hoped the infrastructure would support the projects. He noted that they had been approached by the Nagy's and described the series of meetings with the neighbors, the latest of which had been at 4:00 that afternoon. He noted that he and the neighbors had developed a great deal of trust in the Nagy's and in what they were working to accomplish. He noted that the Nagy's had addressed all of their concerns and had been responsive to the neighbors; he believed they could support this project. He believed the compromises were acceptable under the circumstances and noted that there were already several other event centers and wineries. He hoped the traffic models would work to the area's benefit and believed they should be specific enough to be effective without stifling the business. He hoped that the Nagy's would continue to be responsible throughout the process. He noted that they would remain available throughout the process and hoped the neighbors would also become involved with the development of the residence. He believed it was important that the developers would be living in the immediate vicinity and noted that they were concerned regarding any ownership change. He hoped there would not be any blanket approvals with respect to any ownership change. Mr. Lamson believed the directional signage was a very important addition and believed the FAR was appropriate. Commissioner Olson complimented Mr. Lamson on the approach he had taken. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether a condition could be added to ensure that the ownership of the residence and the restaurant stayed the same similar to live/work sites, Ms. Harryman replied that it was not within the Planning Commission's authority to limit sale of a piece of private property. She noted that it would not be legally advisable to limit a use based on a change in ownership. She noted that if the site or restaurant use were vacated or a change in ownership occurred, a new business license must be obtained and a zoning certificate obtained, which would require review of the PUD conditions and reassessment of the conformity. Mr. MacDonald confirmed that the restaurant and the residence must be on a single parcel under single ownership per the conservation easement; further subdivision would not be allowed. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 9, 2007 Page 3 of 7