PC 101905 - Laserfiche WebLink

questions of Gcncral Plan conforxr~ance and site design go hand. in hand and would like to see a design that works with iha vineyards, treating them as aii amenity to be taken advantage o£. Staff noticed all property owners and residents within a 1 ,000-foot radius of the project site and everyone living in the Kuby F-1i11 coxnxrxunity. He noted that the Tri-Valley Conservancy would like assurance that whatever was done in tenrxs of anon-vineyard use was not a detriment to the marketability and longevity of the vineyard plaxiting areas- Staff believed that a General Plan Amendment would he required. A discussion o£the inception and purpose of the Tri-Valley Conservancy ensued; the Conservancy was established with the intention of preserving the agricultural and viticulture] ].ands in the South Livermore Valley. Mr. Pavan indicated that a memorandum from Mr. Potter, the applicant, identified and clarified certain corrections in the staf£report_ Additional exn ails were received from Ruby Hill owners aRcr the staff report was released and have been attached to the staff report- THE PUBLIC' IIEAKING WAS OPENED~ Terry Potter, applicant, Flexxon Operati ng, Ltd_, 17833 Hillside Way, Lake Oswego, Oregon, described the layout and scope of the proj cet_ They intended to operate the vineyard, produce wine, and sell it in a, .-x on-site tasting room. They would like to have an approxin~xately 10,000-square-£oot grocery/deli that would serve visitors and neighbors. The remainder of the first floor would be shops, and the second floor would be designated as a day spa for both visitors and neighbors. They intended the operation to be a starting point for touring the vineyard area and bringing amenities into the vineyard area, such as in Napa Valley- He noted that the center of the project was the Farthest point of the property away front every residence in Ruby I-fill; the closest portion on the site was more than I ,000 feet away lrom any property line in. Ruby Hill. They proposed to plant Italian Cypress along the back of the property to bufifar the Ruby Hill residents, and the central piazza would be open to the vineyard. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin whether they would have live concerts on site, Mr_ Potter replied that they would not have that kind of entertainment, which would be a problem for the neighbors. Michael Goldsworthy, project architect, 3860 Blaekhawk Road, Dan villa, displayed the color-and-material board to the Commission. Ha noted that he would be available for questions. uric Wante, property owner, 5565 Tesler Road, Livermore, spoke in support of this application on behalf of his family, who wished to encourage the kind of environment that would be conducive to successful wine production and sales. He believed this project would reflect the type and style of activity required to move the Livcrniore Valley viticulture] area ahead and to help them he competitive in this area. in response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts regarding the open space easement, Nlr. Wente confiirmcd that it had the casement since the advent of the Ruby Hill project- In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts wlxettxer the I-Iagex-n an house had historical value, Mr. Wcnte replied that it was possible. He noted that older houses were difificult to use successfully YL,ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 79, 2005 Page 10 of 19