Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-1980-Land Development CommitteeLAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: Thursday, March 20, 1980 - 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Committee Members Present: R. S. Shook and R. S. Robinson, Jr. Staff Members Present: K. Kerdus, D. Trinidad and D. Wimberly B. Minutes It was moved and seconded to waive the reading of the minutes of February 21, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. II. SINGLE SITE APPROVAL PER ORDINANCE N0. 60.05 A. SDR -1449 - .Steven Sundquist, Sobey and Ten Acres, Tentative Build- ing Site Approval - 1 lot; continued from March 6, 1980 Staff presented the new drawings of the proposed two -story house on the site and recommended that approval be granted. The LDC reviewed the proposed grading and the height shown on the new drawing. It was moved and seconded to approve SDR -1449. The motion was carried unanimously. B. SDR -1396 - George and Wanda Bottom, Bohlman Road, Building Site Approval - 1 lot The applicants were not present for the discussion, although the LDC did review the proposed map and submitted information. It was directed that this item be continued to April 3, 1980. C. SDR -1455 - Doug Rodrigues, Radoyka Drive, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 lot Staff explained that the project involved development of an exist- ing lot of record within an approved subdivision. The only concern was the several large trees to the rear of the lot which were pro- posed to be saved. After the applicant responded that he had no concerns, the LDC moved and seconded to approve SDR -1455. The motion was carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SDR -1448 - Ronald Haas, Bainter and Austin Way, Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 lots; continued from March 6, 1980 The public hearing was reopened at 9:20 a.m. Mel Wright, of Redberry Drive, expressed two primary concerns: 1) the 4,000 sq. ft. guesthouse which he understood was now to be remodeled, and 2.) the bridging of the creek, which he felt would be a traffic hazard for the traffic using Bainter as it funneled from Redberry and above Hidden Hill Drive. He stated that the neighbors were mainly concerned about preserving the environment, and he hoped that the access for the proposed lot split would be Austin Way. This would be better for both the neighborhood and the traffic. Mr. Haas, the applicant, explained that he felt access from Austin - 1 - I LDC Minutes - 3/20/80 SDR -1448 (cont.) Page 2 Way would not utilize the property well, nor would the view from Bainter Avenue be appropriate. He felt that a well designed house visable from Bainter Avenue would enhance the area, rather than a view of a pool, court or the back of a residence. Additionally, with access from Bainter, he would not be cutting down any trees or ruining the environment. The proposal with the house adjacent to Bainter also caused the placement of the court on the flatter area of the property and the court would be near the court on the adjacent property. When asked whether the bridge would increase the erosion on the creek, Mr. Wimberly stated that 1) it was under the jurisdic- tion of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and 2) the bridge structure would not hasten the slow and natural process of erosion on the creek. Mr. Wright asked what the treatment of Bainter Avenue would be, and the Committee explained that a-30 ft. half street was conditioned. Mr. Wright stated that he would prefer to see trees and landscaping on the site, rather than a residence. Mrs. Slemmons, of Redberry Drive, stated that she had lived in the area for 20 years and watched it develop. Her greatest concern was the bridge, rather than the development. She recalled when Bainter had been unusable due to flooding and expressed the concern for the sensitive ecosystem of the area. She also pointed out that Bainter Avenue in this area was the access road for the entire mountain area and that, therefore, a bridge was inappropriate. Mr. Robinson at this point requested that the applicant explore the possibility of an alternative access to the bridge on Bainter Avenue. Mr. Shook then stated that this application was similar to that of the Jeans off of Quito Road and, therefore, two lots might be allowed on a 15 ft. access way. He reiterated the request of the applicant to explore the Austin access. It was directed that this item be continued to April 3, 1980, in order for the applicant to respond to the access question and for the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Sanitation District to respond to the new proposal. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. 23- 18 -59- Ronald Cone, Mt. Eden Road, Review of County Conditions 78S of Tentative Building Site Approval prior to Annexation to City of Saratoga - 2 lots; continued from March 6, 1980 Staff again stated that this item should be continued, since no new information had been received. It was directed that this item be continued to April 3, 1980. B. SDR -1370 - George Day Construction Co. (Irany), Mt. Eden Road - 1 lot; Request for One -Year Extension Mr. and Mrs. Irany were present for the discussion. Staff explained that the Iranys were requesting a one -year extension on the subject property. It was recommended that conditions similar to other sites in the area be added to the Staff Report. Additionally, Staff requested the Committee to review the conditions for Mt. Eden Road, since the property across the street had received Tentative Map Approval. The LDC discussed at length the conditioning of Mt. Eden Road with the Iranys, and it was determined to modify condition II -C to read: "Dedicate and improve Mt. Eden Road to provide for a 25 ft. half street with Deferred Improvement Agreement on Parcel B ", which would be called at the time of the improvement of the other side of the road. It was moved and seconded to approve the one -year extension - 2 - LDC Minutes - 3/20/80 Page 3 SDR -1370 (cont.) per the additional conditions to be added to the Staff Report and the amendment to Condition II -C. The motion was carried unanimously. It was explained to the Iranys that they could appeal this decision, but they indicated satisfaction with the Deferred Improvement Agreement conditioning. V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. i Kat Ker us,� ecretary KK:cd