09 ATTACHMENT 06-8 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Kara Simone, 2694 Casalino Court, noted that she had not taken part in the focus group and noted that her neighborhood had stringent design guidelines and understood that the residence would not be in the neighborhood. She expressed concern about how the design and landscaping would impact her neighborhood visually and in terms of any safety issues. She was concerned about the size of the house footprint and inquired how big the house could be. She expressed concern about the safety of the curve in the road, where cars often pass her, even with a double-yellow line. She inquired whether the traffic report addressed that issue. Ms. Soo noted that should the City Council approve the project, the very detailed design guidelines would also be approved. She added that there would be an opportunity for public comment at that point. She noted that the building height is limited to 30 feet and described the turning lanes and turning pockets into and out of the site. Ms. Decker wished to clarify that the FAR and size of the home were more restrictive than the design guidelines originally proposed. Staff recommended an amendment to conditions of approval as well as to the design guidelines regarding the allowable FAR. Dave Cunningham, 2463 Pomino Way, believed the restaurant would be a real asset to the community. He expressed concern about the setback requirements for the new residence, which were 10 to 12 feet from their back fence. Ms. Soo noted that the back setback must be 25 feet; the Commission may increase that setback if it believed it was necessary. Jack Sum, 708 Avio Court, submitted a speaker card but noted that his question had been answered. Mr. Nagy requested that the original FAR be retained per the design guidelines and in consideration of the surrounding homes. A discussion of the size and styles of the Ruby Hill homes ensued. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Fox complimented the applicant's good faith effort in moving the building. Commissioner Blank commended the applicants and the residents in working together, as well as Ms. Soo in presenting a very thorough staff report. Commissioner Blank moved to find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and has de minimus impact on the site's wildlife and to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration for the project; to find that the proposed major modification to the PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance, to make the PUD findings as identified in the staff report, and to recommend approval of Case PUD-93-02-09M subject to the conditions of approval as shown in Exhibit B-i; to make the conditional use findings as stated in the staff report and to recommend approval of Case PCUP-182, subject to the conditions of approval as shown in Exhibit B-2, including the amendments in the staff memo to the Planning Commission, DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 9, 2007 Page 4 of 7