PC 050907 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 16-foot wide access roadway from the Ruby Hill gate to the pad as well as the comparable sizes of the surrounding homes. In response to Commissioner O’Connor’s inquiry regarding the average size of the homes in the Ruby Hill development, Mr. Lamson stated that there are three distinct communities in the development. The smallest homes measure from 2,200 square feet to between 2,900 and 3,200 square feet; in the second group are semi-custom homes and measure between 3,200 and 3,800 square feet; and the third type is the custom homes which are built around the golf course and measure from 3,200 to 12,500 square feet. 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 a 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-1; 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, dated May 9, 2007, and the following amendments: (1) Modify Condition No. 7 to replace the language prohibiting heating lamps and/or special lighting with the following: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 9, 2007 Page 10 of 20