Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Pico shared the concern and asked if any of this would be before Council <br />again. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the next step was to prepare the vesting tentative map, then the <br />final map and improvement plans before any development could occur on Parcel A. Staff <br />recommends that come before the Planning Commission as a design review item, wh/ch <br />is the same way new buildings are reviewed in Hacienda Business Park as an example. <br />At this stage the standards, the uses, the setbacks and other requirements are approved. <br />What is not approved in the current plan is the precise area for the one or two acre <br />buildable envelope, the actual house design plans or the barn design plans. Staff has <br />coordinated the adoption of the agricultural easement to match that time frame. In other <br />areas of South Livermore, when the buildable area is known and a metes and bounds <br />description can be drafted, then the conservation easement is prepared to exclude that <br />area. In this case, because it is desired to record the conservation easement at the same <br />time as the final map, the easement will apply to the entire parcel with an exception for <br />the buildable envelope which will be determined at the time of design review. One gets <br />to the same place only at a different time. Before any construction is commenced, it will <br />be known exactly where it will be allowed. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico asked if the design review decision was appealable to the Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift said it was. <br /> <br />There was consensus to accept the staff recommendation. <br /> <br />Staff recommendation lb (regarding deletion of Lot 31) <br /> <br />There were no objections from Council to the staff recommendation. <br /> <br />Staff recommendation lc (regarding inclusion of parcels A and B in the homeowners <br />association) <br /> <br />There were no objections from Council to the staffrecommendation. <br /> <br />Staff recommendation ld (regarding the "Vineyard Village" architectural design <br />application to Parcels A and B) <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked if the staff recommendation allowed more flexibility for the <br />design of the house. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift said that was the practical result. <br /> <br /> Mr. Dennis further clarified that these parcels were zoned low density and the <br />Vineyard Village was a medium density area. Therefore the design guidelines are <br />different in the vineyard area. The low density guidelines are more appropriate than the <br />medium density ones. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 11 03/06/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />