Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-1981-Land Development Committeema DATE: Thursday, May 7, PLACE: Crisp Conference TYPE: Regular Meeting LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES 1981 - 10:00 a.m. Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Committee Members Present: R. S. Robinson, R. S. Shook and Commissioner Laden Staff Members Present: K. Kerdus, D..Trinidad and R. Harison B. Minutes It was moved and seconded' to waive the reading of the minutes of April 16, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. II. SINGLE SITE APPROVAL A. SDR -1494 - Donald and Diane Elam, Live Oak, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (over 50% expansion) Mr. Robinson explained that this was a two -story 100% expansion. The applicant proposes to add 3,000 sq. ft. to a 2,300 sq. ft. house. Staff pointed out that the setbacks were nonconforming; however, the playhouse might be within the setbacks and, therefore, require removal or moving. Mr. Trinidad explained that there was a Deferred Improvement Agreement on Live Oak Lane with Dr. August, and that a Reimbursement Agreement would be required. Mr. Elam recalled the Reimbursement Agreement and thought that it had been taken care of with the sewer construction. The LDC reviewed the Staff Report, and it was moved and seconded to approve SDR -1494 per the Staff Report dated May 5, 1981 and Exhibit "B" dated April 3, 1981. The motion was carried unanimously. It was explained to Mr. Elam that there was a 15 -day appeal period on this approval, and that in order for him to expand to the second story, the use permit would need to be granted. B. SDR -1493 - Steven Arnold, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (over 50% expansion) Mr. Fuqua and his architect and engineer were present for this discussion. Staff explained that this was also an over 50% expan- sion involving a two -story use permit. The Planning Commission had reviewed the proposal at one of their Committee -of- the - Wholes, and the second -story use permit had been previously approved. The LDC questioned whether the applicant had any questions on the Staff Report. Mr. Arnold questioned the improvement of the half- street on Sobey Road, as to whether this was a standard condition. Staff explained that this was a standard condition and the improvements called for were similar to those adjacent to the Springbrook sub- division. Mr. Arnold then questioned the geotechnical work required, and it was agreed by Staff that a letter by a civil engineer would be sufficient. The location of the tennis court next to a swale was discussed, and Mr. Fuqua was advised to check with Staff as to whether this met the requirements of the tennis court ordinance presently in force. - 1 - 01 Land Development Committee Page 2 Meeting Minutes of 5/7/81 SDR -1493 (cont.) It was moved and seconded to approve SDR -1493 per the Staff Report dated May 5, 1981 and Exhibit "B" dated April 3, 1981. The motion was carried unanimously. III. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR -1480 - P $ S Construction (Daniels), Pierce Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 lots, Request for Modifica- tion to Site Development Plan. Continued from 3/19/81 Staff explained that the applicant was requesting a modification to the Site Development Plan, whereby the proposed driveway would require the removal of three large pepper trees. A letter from Lee L. Lesh, consulting arborist, was in the LDC packet, which stated that these trees were obviously dying or dead. The LDC discussed at length the proposed improvements, which were to be up to minimum access street standards, and eventually it was moved and seconded to approve the modification subject to the conditions of the regular map and receipt of a new map clarifying the minimum access road improvements. The motion was carried unanimously. B. 21485 Saratoga Hills, Mr. and Mrs. Scheuermann, Modification to Site Development Plan Mr. and Mrs. Scheuermann were present for the discussion. Staff explained that the LDC was reviewing this item at this time since a bath house had been added to the decking shown on the original modification to the plan. The Scheuermanns explained that they did not feel that this was a modification, but simply an addition of a bath house near the pool on the decking they had shown on their original plan. The LDC reviewed the impact of the changes and reiterated the condition that landscaping be placed below the pool and decking to screen it from any adjacent owners. A motion was made and seconded to approve the modification, subject to placement of appropriate erosion control features in the pool area, as required by the Grading Inspector prior to final building inspection. The motion was carried unanimously. The applicant was informed of the 15 -day appeal'period on this approval. C. SDR - 923 - Perata (Wise), P.erata Court,.Modification to Site Develop- ment Plan for a Swimming Pool on Parcel "A" Staff explained that.this proposed pool modification was a resub- mittal in conformance with the previous LDC request: reduction in the amount of decking, rotation of the pool for minimizing grading, a shortened pool, with a shortened retaining wall (52 ft. maximum). The LDC requested that Bill Cotton's letter be made part of the conditions prior to issuance of a permit, and that appropriate erosion control measures, per the Grading Ordinance, be required with the building permit. It was moved and seconded to approve SDR -923, modification for a swimming pool on Parcel "A ". The motion was carried unanimously. D. 14141 Palomino, Mr. and Mrs. Schumacher, Modification to Site Development Plan for a Pool The LDC reviewed the plans as proposed and noted that the pool was located in a PD area. Staff explained that a letter from the City Geologist with requirements had been received and that work would be required prior to issuance of permits. It was also noted that the pool would be subject to.the Grading Ordinance. However, - 2 - Land Development Committee Page 3 Meeting Minutes of 5/7/81 Mr. and Mrs. Schumacher (cont.) the LDC expressed concern about the location of the pool with respect to the house and questioned the future grading that might be required to make the pool livable. It was then determined that they would review the site at their next meeting at 9:30 a.m. E. SDR -1338 W. J. Martin (Iwanaga), Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 lots, Request for Reconsideration of Conditions Staff explained that, after a site review of the proposal, noting a nice driveway and good access with landscaping, they were recom- mending eliminating the widening condition past the driveway on Lot A. The LDC reviewed the originally approved map, and it was moved and seconded to approve the request for reconsideration of conditions, per the Staff recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously. F. Tract 4956, Lot 13, Mr. and Mrs. Cornwall, Crisp Avenue, Request for Modification to Site Development Plan Mr. Cornwall was present for the discussion. Staff explained that essentially Mr. Cornwall was interested in obtaining a stock pile permit in order to retain the soil from his proposed swimming pool for the construction of a future tennis court. With that, Staff had recommended that the entire site be brought in for review by the Land Development Committee. It was explained that filling of the site, possibly illegal, had taken place in April of 1973, in order to fill an erosion ravine. Essentially that brought the land to the pad level and made it more usable. However, the compaction job may not have been adequate. With this proposal, the applicant would key it in properly with the construction of the tennis court. The LDC reviewed the plans and agreed with the pool location. The applicant did explain where he proposed to build his walkway between the house and the pool (steps to the deck behind the wall), causing minimal grading. The LDC moved and seconded to approve the modification to the Site Development Plan for a pool only on Lot 13, Tract 4956, with the advice to the applicant that he check with the Planning Department as to the relationship of the proposed tennis court with the tennis court ordinance. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. Kat y s , Secret y KK:cd