PC 06/25/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

will expire in October this year. The applicant is working on the final map and the improvement plan; however, the processing time will exceed this time frame. He advised that it is unlikely that even if the final map is rushed through for approval, improvements could begin this fall. Commissioner Cooper asked if the sale of the property is contingent upon the extension. Mr. Swift stated that it was his understanding that the property was already purchased by the applicant. Commissioner Lutz asked if the extension date of the tentative map must extend to when the project is approved or when construction begins. Mr. Swift advised that the tentative map has a particular time frame and that during that time frame the final map and improvement plans must be approved or the tentative map will lapse. He noted that in Pleasanton this means the lost of Growth Management approval, as well as PUD approval. Commissioner Lutz asked if a reasonable time for extension for this particular map could be less than one year. Mr. Swift responded that there are significant dollars involved including fees and bonds for public improvements, and that the applicant would probably seek approval of the final map closer to the time that the improvement work is done, which would most likely be next spring. Commissioner Wright asked if this is the same project which was originally approved. Mr. Swift advised that it is and that it has the exact same conditions of the original approval. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended numerous changes at the time it was approved based on the neighbors' input. Commissioner Cooper noted that the original approval included 2: 1 cut/fill slopes. He questioned ~ whether this meets the City's standards. Mr. Swift advised that the general rule is if the soil analysis allows, cut slopes can be as steep as 2:1; but generally, the City likes to keep filled slopes no greater than 3: 1. Commissioner Cooper asked if this plan would have come before the Planning Commission now would the recommendation be for approval. Mr. Swift stated that the original proposal was developed with significant input from the neighbors. He advised that he felt it would, in that staff had received several calls from the neighbors regarding the extension and the only concern expressed was whether the project would remain the same. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jeff Woods, 12 Crow Canyon Court #207, San Ramon, represented the application. He advised that there is no intention of changing the plan. He said the reason for the extension is to allow the engineer to complete the work that needs to be done and to allow opportunity for the City's review. He reiterated that the intent is to build the project per the original approval. Commissioner Cooper asked if any neighbors had expressed concern to him. Mr. Woods responded that he is the developer of the Carriage Hills project located near this development and that he had sent a notice to the neighbors. The only comment he received was from a neighbor who had just purchased his home and was told by the realtor that this area was going to be "marsh" land. This misunderstanding may have resulted because the former developer was Marsh/Smith Associates. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 25, 1997