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