PC 050907 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 corresponding to the R-1-20,000 standard 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. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 9, 2007 Page 9 of 20