Laserfiche WebLink
recommended changes to this plan. There were two workshops before the last hearing <br />where changes were recommended and the plans were adjusted. At the last hearing the <br />Planning Commission made additional recommendations for modification and most of <br />those have been included into staft's recommendations and agreed to by the applicant. <br />Only seven issues are left where there is disagreement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt the Planning Commission and applicant had done a very good job <br />of creating the final plan and taking care of details. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico inquired about the issues surround the location of the barn and <br />accessory structures. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the applicant proposed to split the two acre parcel into <br />two areas with one for the house on the north end and to relocate the barn and vineyard <br />outbuildings at the southern end of the property. Staff believes that is satisfactory. He <br />stated there is a policy in the Specific Plan that requires an increased setback adjacent to <br />the school property to keep the vineyard away from the playground area. The Planning <br />Commission felt the one acre maximum should be adhered to and did not agree to <br />splitting the buildings on this lot. Staff supports relocation of the old barn and felt it was <br />an attractive feature that adds to the authenticity of the recreated vineyard area. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico asked if splitting the two acres into two parcels gave the applicant the <br />ability to build another residence near the barn? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said this does not create two separate parcels, it merely designates the <br />area in which a house or barn can be constructed. The parcel cannot be subdivided under <br />the agricultural easement. The only residence that could be built would be a secondary <br />unit, which is allowed near the existing house. That would be included in the design <br />review for the entire property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked why the Planning Commission wanted to delete Lot 31 and <br />staff recommended that it be retained. He also inquired about the difference of opinion <br />regarding retaining Lot A and B in the homeowners association. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the Planning Commission had discussed at great length the <br />total number of lots for this property from several aspects, including the allowable <br />density under the General Plan, what kind of amenities were required to allow the <br />number to go above the midpoint; visibility from Shadow Cliffs Park; the view from <br />Vineyard Avenue, etc. Two proposed houses were the main focus and the Planning <br />Commission felt that by creating a bigger lot, one house could be moved farther back on <br />the lot and would not be as visible. Staff felt if one of the houses were a single-story and <br />was behind a berm and landscaping, it would not be noticeable. There was also concern <br />that the houses would look squeezed in the area, but staff pointed out that these are very <br />large lots and by putting a one story house near the street with all the landscaping that is <br />proposed, it would satisfy the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 7 03/06/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />