Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-1981-Land Development Committeer ! LAND.,DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Minutes DATE: Thursday, February 19, 1981 - 10:00 a.m. PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Frui.tvale Avenue,, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Committee Members: R. S. Robinson and Commissioner Laden Staff Members: K. Kerdus, D. Trinidad and R. Harison B. Minutes The following corrections were made to the minutes of February 5, 1981: Commissioner Laden was present,*arriving at 10.:10 a.m. Under SDR -1352, the sentence should be added:. "Advisory agencies are not allowed to add conditions at time of extension." With those changes, it was moved and seconded to waive the reading and approve as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC: HEARINGS A. SDR -1482 - Negative Declaration B. SDR -1482 - Anita Bolin, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval 3 Lots (continued from 1/15/81) Staff noted that their recent studies showed more storm water runoff than anticipated, so that special consideration would be given to tie it into San Thomas Creek. The handling of the drainage from upstream would also be worked out with this drainage plan. Staff explained that Mrs. Bolin would bear the cost of the storm drainage system, but she would get credit for any over - sizing, with a poten- tial reimbursement. agreement for the upstream properties. The litigation involved an abnormal storm water runoff problem, and was a civil matter. Setbacks for structures.were discussed, and it was noted that no setback was required from.easements, storm drain or otherwise. The public hearing was reopened at 10:25 a.m. The applicant's engineer, Bill Heiss, stated that the easement existing on the property was only for sanitary sewer, and that a new easement would have to be created for the drainage which could follow the natural flow at the property line between the two pro- posed lots, conveying the water to Quito, He stated that the drainage problems that were being contested may have involved a change to the drainage system above. Mike Amanatullah, Evans Lane, stated that the water that created the problem came from the other ten acres down Evans Lane, and not from his drainage system; rather it had crossed it. Commissioner Laden questioned whether all the properties involved could be hooked into the proposed drainage system.. Mr. Trinidad stated that this would. be off -site work, but that the properties could be included; if an easement c.oul.d be acquired. Mr... He_iss noted that. they were thinking of a channel rather-than.a pipeline. He also felt that the additional drainage should not be this property owner's obligation. Mrs. Anita Bolin stated that there had 'been no drainage problem when her family had bought the property in th,e early 601s; that it all appeared with tl-e: new building. She .was.;concerned over the l Land Development Commit _ Meeting - Minutes 2/1.9/81 SDR -1482 (cont.) Page 2 required drainage easements because they reduced the usable acreage. Commissioner Laden expressed her desire for the City to think of the entire area, rather than just this property. Mrs. Bolin stated that this was no problem. Staff noted that the City's interest was to convey the water reaching this property safely into a drainage facility. Mrs. Pope, Evans Lane, stated that she had been flabbergasted with the amount of water that had flooded the area two years ago. Mr. Amanatull.ah said he wanted to avoid any future lawsuits, and also to have the drainage handled. He stated that he had not modified the drainage of the area. Mrs. Bolin questioned whether she had to take care of a problem that had antedated her development. Again Commissioner Laden stated that the City's concern was to take care of the water on her property, no matter how or where it came from. Mr. Hei.ss stated that this would be done through a natural. facility or swale following the property lines. It was noted that, if nothing ha.d been done to modify the drainage of the area, there would be no liability on a property owner's part. Mrs. Pope expressed agreement with an easement for handling the water of the area. Mr. Trinidad noted that it might need to be larger than a 10 ft. swale, say a 20 ft. swale. Staff noted that they were now aware of the problem, and that it would be handled prior to final approval through the use of natural. water courses. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden expressed the desire to explain to Mrs. Bolin her options for a credit agreement or reimbursement provided for in the ordinance. Mr. Trinidad did so. Tt was moved and seconded to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1482. The motion was carried unanimously. It was moved and seconded to approve SDR- 1482, per the Staff Report as amended, including the letter from Public. Works dated February 18, 1981. III. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR -1480 - P & S Construction, Reconsideration of Tentative Building Site Approval, Pierce Road, 2 Lots (cont. from 2/5/81) Staff explained that the applicant, Mrs. Volk, was requesting a continuance of the modification in order for her new buyer to pre- pare his plans. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on March 19, 1981. B. SDR -1352 - Lillian Rodoni, Gerald Zapelli. Ct., Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 Lots, Request for a Second One -Year Extension (coat, from 2/5/81) Staff stated that they had checked with Faber Johnston, the Attorney for the City on this subject site, and that all court proceedings had been completed; therefore, the LDC could proceed with the item. The LDC noted that the map had expired, and,, therefore, no action could be taken. They requested that Staff so inform the applicant. C. Clyde V. Martins, Sobey Road, Modification to a Site Development Plan for a New Residence (cont. from 1/15/81) Mr. Martins and his architect, Mr. Cobb, were present for the dis- cussion. Mr. Martins stated that he was_now essentially placing the proposed home on the existing pad with some fill to the rear of the house. The new residence would be 2- story, replacing an existing 1 -story home. The turret would have a non- reflective metal roof. - 2 - Land Development Commi e Page 3 Meeting - Minutes 2/19/o1 Clyde Martins (cunt.) To the top of the house itsmaximum height would be 28 ft. When questioned, the applicant stated that the length of the structure was 130 ft. and the square footage was 4800, and an additional 3 -car garage. In other words, they had cut down the structure by 1000 sq. ft. and had removed the additional driveway entrances. The LDC carefully reviewed the map submitted, and it was moved and seconded to approve the modification, per Exhibit "F" dated Febru- ary 19, 1981. The motion was carried unanimously. D. SDR -1435 - Loyde Paradise, Mendelsohn Lane, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot. Request for a One -Year Extension The LDC reviewed the request, and it was moved and seconded to approve a one -year extension for SDR -1435. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. V. GRADING COMMITTEE A. Tract 6605 - Lot #2, Brian Morrow, Request for a Modification to the Site Development Plan - Illegal. Grading Mr. Morrow was present for the discussion. Staff explained that the lot had been graded to the rear of the house with two flat pads to the property lines. Mr. Morrow stated that he had not known that this was illegal grading. Commissioner Laden expressed concern about the drainage on the property, and Staff stated that a swale for drainage to the side would be required prior to any sort of approval. Two options existed for the Committee - -(1) a retroactive grading permit, or (2) holding up the final building approval for the house in order to have the grading corrected. Rich Harison. explained that the plan called for a 7 ft. retaining wall. Com- missioner Laden questioned what had happened in the western hill- sides, and Staff responded that the retaining walls could be a maximum of 5 ft. on Parker Ranch. Staff explained that the appli- cant could trim the slopes of 3:1 and eliminate the proposed wall. The LDC expressed concern for any walls being on a property line and also the height of the proposed walls. Additionally, they desired to see the grading contoured. Mr. Robinson said that he was not in favor of the applicant's present. proposal. However, the applicant could submit a plan that would meet the LDC's concern and post a short -term bond (say, two to three months) for accom- plishing the work. The LDC requested that the applicant submit a new plan, showing the walls pulled back from the property lines and shorter, with the drainage swale detailed to the side. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting of March 5, 1981. Respectfully submitted, A;�i� . J KK:cd