03/20/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council had before them the Director of Public Works' staff report dated `, 3/20/91 which reported that the Planning Commission had voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council amend condition 7c of the conditions of approval for the Matadero Creek Subdivision to remove the requirement that the architecture be prairie style. The report also included the notation that the Town had generally resisted dictating architectural styles in the site development process. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend Section 2.a) (Findings) of Resolution #12-91 to read as follows: "There are changes in circumstances which make the condition calling for "prairie style" homes no longer appropriate in that many styles of architecture are low profile." MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Tryon and passed unanimously by all members present to adopt Resolution 12-91 removing conditions of approval for the Matadero Creek Subdivision to delete the requirement of "prairie style" for Lots #16 and #18. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.1 Report from Council Sub-Committee on Dedication of Conservation Easement on Lands of Packard and Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Vacating the Conservation Easement on Lands of Eshner Near kir Altamont Road and Adoption of Negative Declaration Hubbard presented the following report from the subcommittee: In a telephone call from Mr. Packard to Mayor Pro Tem Hubbard, Mr. Packard clearly stated that he wanted the Council to consider the Lands of Eshner independently of any plans he may have for his lands. Consequently, the Council should not consider a possible exchange of a conservation easement on the Eshner property for one on the Packard lands. The subcommittee is very appreciative that Mr. Packard would be willing to consider a transfer of a significant portion of his beautiful apricot orchard into permanent open space at some future date. This would be a priceless gift for generations to come. Mr. Richard McGowen, attorney representing the Eshner Estate, raised several issues regarding the conservation easement. He referenced the staff report which commented on the benefit of the easement to the public, noting the visual corridor and the benefit to those in the subdivision not to the public at large. Mr. McGowen also commented on the recent action of the Public Works Department which planted thirty oak trees on Altamont which in his opinion completely obstructed the visual easement under discussion. He wondered what Council planned to do. Keep the trees? Keep the easement? Mr. McCowen also commented that Mr. Packard and March 20, 1991 3