CC MIN 1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

53 Discussion followed and Mr. Fales, Mr Halsted and City Attorney Schricker commented and replied to questions concerning what assurance the City may have that all commitments will be met with , regard to improvements required for the entire area, the fact that Council had anticipated a total pro�ect when the Planned Develop- ' ment Permit was issued rather than development in �ncrements; whether or not the developer must bond at this time for all im- provements, whether the developer would be financially able to do so, whether any improvements to any unit of the sub�ect area would not represent an improvement over the present situation; how much assurance Council should require w�th regard to improvements; whether or not a time limitation with regard to completion of the entire pro�ect is necessary or enforceable; the fact that the Planned Development Permit refers to the entire area, even if it is developed in units within the PDP; whether a requirement could 9 be made that the improvementsoverlap into each succeeding phase to guarantee that they will be completed, the fact that if streets are completed and dedicated to the City, they must be maintained at the City's expense, even if there is no accompanying tax-paying development, and the intent of the developer that the planned de- � velopment be completed in phases for financial reasons. In response to questions, Mr. Halstead advised the actions he has taken since being granted the PDP in attempting to proceed with the development. He described the planned light�ng and asphalt for streets, the construction of intersections and landscaping, noting that the first phase is the most difficult In response to question, Director of Public Works Pusich adv�sed that it is current policy that full improvement drawings be avail- ' able before filing of the F�nal Map In response to coimnent, City Manager Fales advised that with regard to time limitations for completion of the pro�ect, that the de- veloper is attempting to corrunence the public improvements and that the PDP expires in five years from date of issuance, or in May 1981, suggesting that any improvement in the area is desirable. MOTION Councilman Barrett moved, seconded by Councilman Biagi, that with regard to the applicat�on of Sam Halsted for a Final Map for Cordilleras Heights Subdivision, Unit 1, that the improvement agree- ment be written to allow the Final Map approval of the first phase or unit of the pro�ect without pre�udice to the additional phases and that May 1981 be set as the deadline for public improvements v to be completed under the Planned Development Permit, being five years from issuance of the PDP City Attorney Schr�cker advised that later phases would be addressed by separate improvement agreements for each phase or unit, noting " that there will be separate subdivision maps and that all must con- form to the PDP issued for the entire property In further response to question, Mr Halsted advised that the CC&R's (conditions, convenants and restrictions) of the homeowners associ- ation anticipates a total of 44 units, each paying 1/44th of the ' i cost of maintaining the common area. He observed that until all 44 units are constructed, the developer will contribute to the maintenance cost, and observed that planting will be of natural materials and no great maintenance expense is expected. _3_ Reg.Mtg. 1/9/78