CCMIN040798 - Laserfiche WebLink

Sue Frost, 990 Sycamore Road, said she submitted an application for dividing her lot into three one-acre parcels. She has tried to preserve the property as a rural area. She believed the subdivision of the property would be good for the neighborhood and be a buffer between the rural existing areas and the new proposed development. She mentioned she has a pending sale on the property to a family who plans to build and live on the two front parcels. The family would like the lots recorded prior to their purchase to ensure that they would be able to build on the property. She was here this evening to ask Council to allow her to record the lots and in any future transaction she would be able to disclose that the lots were not buildable until the utilities were installed. She said the family buying the property is fully aware of all the information concerning the subdivision. She asked for Council to approve the subdivision and allow for the recording of the lots. She would like the Planning Commission's recommendation, Item C, "...the applicants are to make an open end offer of dedication..." changed to "the open ended dedication be limited to what is shown on the map ". The reasoning is so the road would not reduce the property less than one acre. She would like Exhibit B, conditions of approval, "...PUD plan approval should lapse and become void upon two years from date of approval... ", changed to "two years from the date the utilities are available". Mr. Swift said the PUD plan approval could become void if the standard condition was used by the City. If Greenbriar has not begun its improvements in two years the Specific Plan will need to be redone. The time frame for the Frost subdivision could be extended or linked to Greenbriar's development once the infrastructure is available. If Council adopted staff's recommendation as to the timing of the recordation of the map and it did not happen in two years, it is because something went wrong and the whole rethinking of the Specific Plan would need to be done. Ms. Frost said on page six, number eight, it states the applicant shall submit a detailed plan prepared by a Civil Engineer and Consulting Biologist for the design of the overflow from the creek area. She felt this was a costly study that might not be needed and asked if this could be deferred until the grading plans were drawn up. Also one of the conditions is a final design for the width of creek and that a multi-use trail be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the recordation of the final map. Did this imply that the applicant would need to design the trail? Mr. Swift said normally this would have been required at this stage, but it was deferred until the approval of the final map. He said the final easements needed to be shown on the final map. The designs of the trail and creek could be simple. The flood channel itself is a key element. If improvements were not made to the Frost property, then potential flooding could occur. He said there needed to be some assurance that these improvements would be made. Ms. Michelotti asked if the final map stage would be by the new owner? Pleasanton City Council 4/7/98 Minutes 11