My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN051590
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN051590
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:45:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
244 <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver answered that the applicant would be exempt for <br /> five units a year for as long as it takes to develop the <br /> property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br /> application for the 15-unit project would have to come to Council <br /> for approval. No subdivision would be allowed until growth <br /> management approval is granted unless the project is exempt, in <br /> which case a subdivision of five lots or less is submitted every <br /> year until the project is completed. These subdivision approvals <br /> will not go to Council; five-unit subdivisions would come before <br /> the Planning Commission, and four units or less would go to the <br /> staff as a Parcel Map. Once the subdivision is approved, building <br /> permits can be taken out for those lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that this exemption is not intended to have <br /> big developers circumvent the ordinance and pull out five units a <br /> year without going through growth management approval. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that the reason for the exemption is to <br /> allow small developers who build only a maximum of five units a <br /> year to develop without having to compete with bigger subdivision <br /> projects. He added that reducing the number of exemptions from 12 <br /> to five appears fair and sound. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that the proposed ordinance should also <br /> provide for those who buy lots in a bigger tract and want to build <br /> at a later date. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver said that there is a provision that custom lots <br /> can be sold to individuals, who will then have the right to <br /> develop them. If a custom lot subdivision goes to PUD, the <br /> applicant will have to indicate how the lots will be developed. <br /> The lots, which would be part of growth management, can then be <br /> sold to individuals who may build on them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the lapsing provision states that a <br /> custom lot subdivision which has received growth management <br /> approval and for which fees have been paid within the year the <br /> unit is approved can be held in perpetuity without having its <br /> approval lapse. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ted Fairfield, Consulting Engineer with offices in <br /> Pleasanton, indicated that he was in favor of the existing growth <br /> management ordinance. He stated that instead of subjecting all <br /> projects to stricter provisions, problems with existing projects <br /> can be handled effectively by providing that the Council act as an <br /> oversight committee which would review the projects in question, <br /> and if it is able to make certain findings, it can withdraw growth <br /> management approval. He added that as projects become more unique <br /> with special infrastructures, the ability to comply with the <br /> proposed ordinance becomes more difficult. He mentioned that <br /> <br /> - 14 - <br /> 5-15-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.