Laserfiche WebLink
4�d'6 ` . ' <br /> 0 <br /> o � <br /> P1r Fales explained in response to concern that the success of the <br /> development appears to depend upon success in selling the lots, and <br /> with regard to a staging process, the procedures are well established <br /> and filing the Final Map will require that the subdivider install <br /> public improvements, or post a bond, and before recommending approval <br /> of a subd�vision agreement, the City will prefer that provisions are ' <br /> made for installation of all improvements. City Attorney Schricker <br /> also advised of the requirement that a Planned Development Permit be <br /> utilized within a year, w�th provisions for extension, and that if <br /> Council prefers, time of performance could be inserted in the agree- <br /> ment. <br /> Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the fact that this type develop- <br /> ment is unique in Redwood City, but not uncommon elsewhere, that a <br /> development plot plan is required to be submitted and that if the <br /> development varies substantially from that, it would be a violation <br /> of the Planned Development Permit <br /> Mr. Halstead replied to add�tional questions by Council, stattng <br /> that the lot sizes would vary from 10,000 square feet minimum to <br /> 25,600 maximum, the homes could range between 2,300 and 4,000 square <br /> feet, price range of the lots would vary from $25-30,000, and <br /> estimated cost of the houses would be from $90,000 to $130,000. <br /> Continuing discussion related to fenctng for screening, a review <br /> of the steps that must be taken before development proceeds, i.e., <br /> ' first, approval of a'Planned Development Permit, at which po�nt it <br /> is still basically philosoph�cal, then the Tentative Map and Final <br /> Map stages wheri it becomes closer to reality, with time limits. <br /> Mr Fales and Planning Director Schroeter commented and responded <br /> to questions concerning public versus private streets, advising that ' <br /> Cordilleras and Upland Roads are public streets, and that the,roads <br /> over the right of way and over the hill are shown on the plan as <br /> private, but that is not necessarily how the Final Map will be drawn <br /> up, that in any case, the roads,must be designed to public street <br /> standards The requirement for a homeowners assoc}ation wzll be <br /> expressed in the homeowners' by-laws, and dissemination of infor- <br /> mation to prospective purchasers is an obligation on the part of the <br /> developer, as a legal requirement of the Real Estate Department of <br /> the State , <br /> Dr Georqe Miners,"associated with Sequo�a Hosp�tal a number of years, <br /> stated that housing in that area is needed, and indicated his support <br /> of the proposal , , ' <br /> Phil Rauscher, 1636 Cordilleras, indicated that residents in the <br /> area realize development of the hill will come about,'but expressed <br /> concern regarding whether the type of development will be such as <br /> to provide a transition between the urban part of Redwood City <br /> and the rural area. , <br /> Bert Barrett, 272 Upland Road, expressed concern regarding increased <br /> traffic and that Upland Road is hazardous unless there are controls, <br /> also regarding potential condemnation of private property relative <br /> to improving the roads He stated that the residents in that area ' <br /> prefer the existing rural atmosphere ' <br /> Mynin Wong, 251 Upland Road,' expressed the belief that it was a good <br /> development, but was concerned about improvements of Upland Road, <br /> indicating that a portion of it is private <br /> Mr Schroeter referred to the drawings to show the portion of the road <br /> within unincorporated area, and advised that a portion of the road had <br /> -4- <br /> Reg Mtg <br /> 5/24/76 <br />