Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-1980-Land Development Committee3 LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES TIME: Thursday, August 7, 1980 - 10.-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, R.S. Robinson, Jr., and Commissioner Laden . 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 July 3, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR /NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS A. SDR -1463 - Gerald Jacobsen - Negative Declaration This item was continued to the discussion of this matter under Public Hearings. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SDR -1463 - Gerald Jacobsen, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 Lots Mr. Jacobsen, Dick Kier, the. applicant's civil engineer,. Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. Vaccaro, and Mrs. Thompson were present for the discussion. The public hearing was opened at 10:1S p.m. Staff explained that the proposed lot split involved a 2 -acre site on a minimum access road off of Sobey Road. Since City ordinances allow only four lots off of a minimum access road and this proposal would create a fifth lot on a minimum access road, Staff was recommending denial..of the subdivision as not consistent with the General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. Dick Kier, civil engineer, explained. that he had done the engineer - ing.work on the Veda Call lots, and he felt that it.was tragic that Mr. Jacobsen couldn't.use, the access road that..he actually owned. .When questioned, he stated that they had not pursued gaining an additional right- of -way for a public street to the lot split proposed by Mr. Jacobsen. He also noted that the. condi- tions listed in the Staff Report would result in two cul -de -sac bulbs on the minimum acc:ess.road. Mrs. Johnson, Sobey Road, questioned the improvements on -the roadway for the Veda Call lot split. Dan-Trinidad explained that the improvements had been bonded for, and a. certain time period set in.which they were to be done. Mrs. Johnson stated that. she, had no objection to a fifth lot'for Mr. Jacob.sen,.but that she felt the hump at the end of the road was very dangerous. Dan Trinidad explained that Veda Call did not have the right-of- way to flatten the vertical curve and,'therefore, had been con - ditioned to minimal improvements. Mrs. Johnson then.expressed - 1 - 1t Land Development Committee Page 2 Minutes - 8/7/80 SDR -1463 (cont.) concern over the potholes which had been caused by the pool construction for..the Veda Call site. Dan Trinidad said that the bonding would cover resurfacing the minimum access road but not its maintenance. The bond is probably close to expira- tion and at that time the-City can require Mrs. Call to do the improvements. Mrs. Johnson stated that she thought it was unfair that Mr. Jacobsen could not split the property, since he owned the road. Mrs. Vaccaro, Sobey Road, commented that they had had the right -of -way to do their lot split, and it was explained that their access was not._off the minimum access road. Mrs. Thomps.on, of 14906 Sobey Road, commented that the road is bad, particularly at.the hump, at the Jacobsen's driveway. The applicant questioned what it would take:to make a City road, and it was explained that the City road would need to go to the midpoint of the Jacobsen property. The consensus of the Commit,tee.was that the applicant should pursue obtaining right -of -way for a public road, and it was directed that this item be continued to August 21, 1980. The applicant's engineer commented that they may have problems with the lot sizes in order to get the road right -of -way. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. William Veerman, 14178 Palomino Way, Site Development Plan, Modification for a Swimming Pool; Continued from July 3, 1980 Staff explained that trenching had been and a landslide was discovered. It was engineering and geological work be done sidering this .item again It was moved the modification to the Site Developmen The motion was Icarried.unanimously. done in the pool area recommended that further prior to the LDC con and seconded to deny t Plan without prejudice. B. Saverio Vaccaro, Sobey Road, Request for a Modification of the Site Development Plan for a'po.ol (SDR - 1371.) Mrs. Vaccaro, Mrs.. Johnson, and Mrs. Thompson had remained for this discussion. Staff explained that,the Vaccaros were placing the pool within the proper setbacks and on the flatter portion of the lot, and they recommended that the LDC approve the pool as proposed. The Committee reviewed the plans, and it was moved and .seconded to approve the site modification as proposed. The motion was carried unanimously. C. SDR -1329 - Danforth Apker (Krajeska), Vista Regina,.Tentative Building Site Approval, 2 Lots, Request.for a One -Year Extension Mr. Krajeska, Mr. Tobin, his attorney,, and Danforth Apker., his engineer,.were present for the discussion. Mr. Tobin gave his explanation of the history of this request for a one -year exten- sion, commenting that he felt it was the Council's intent that the request be approved. He did have questions on the mitigation measures 7, 8 and 9, feeling that they were not equitable for a 2 -lot split. Staff explained that number 8 should be modified to clearly state.that if any road maintenance district were proposed, the applicant should participate. Discussion followed on the, road conditions for Vista Regina,, 'and the.fact that they had not been accomplished. Mr. Trinidad - explained that the other owners of Vista Regina were‚ÄĘpast due in making the improvements. Mr. Tobin stated that his client would be happy to work on the road if he had..an approved final map. Mr. Shook then stated that, since Mr. Krajeska doesn't yet have a final map, he'was under no - 2 - Land Development Comm *tee Minutes - 8/7/80 SDR -1329 (cont.) Page 3 obligation to work on the roadway. The major thrust of the Public Works Department would be towards the three other owners on Vista Regina. Mr. Tobin questioned why the mitigation measures had not been imposed originally. It was explained that several years had elapsed since the original conditioning, that an increase of activity in the area had occurred, and that the additional conditions had evolved from the concern of the City with the area. Finally, Staff has a mandate to bring any site approvals requesting an extension up to current condition- ing. In response to a question from Mr. Apker, Staff stated that the site approval, if extended, would be valid until April 12, 1981. Mr. Krajeska then said that he should have had a final approval on February 1, 1979. It was moved and seconded to grant the one -year extension subject to the Staff conditions. The motion was carried unani- mously. D. SDR -1403 - Ralph Mares, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Building Site Approval, 4 Lots. Request for a One -Year Extension Neither the applicant nor his engineer was present for the discussion. Staff stated that they had reviewed the conditions and found them adequate with current conditioning for the area. Additionally, the applicant had pursued annexation to the City and was now formally annexed. It was moved and seconded to approve the one -year extension for SDR -1403. The motion was carried unanimously. E. Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert, 21130 Sullivan Way, Request for a Modifi- cation to the Site Development Plan for a pool The applicants were present for the discussion. Mr. Wimberly stated that he had a major problem with the request for a pool on this site. He felt that the exhibits were still poor, and that the requested geotechnical investigation had resulted in a soils report by Melvin Hill. He was concerned with the ade- quacy of this report and the SO -70o slope below the proposed pool. At this point he could not recommend the modification favorably. The Committee then discussed the pool and the procedures for a site modification with the Tolberts at length. The owners felt that they were in the middle between the City and the pool com- pany, and they wanted to know exactly what needed to be done in order to get a pool on their lot. Mr. Wimberly explained that the reason why he could not recommend approval for the pool was the lack of an approved geotechnical report. Since the geo- technical report was not adequate, the pool placement might be affected. The Tolberts questioned whether or not the LDC could approve the modification subject to receipt of an adequate geo- technical report. The Committee felt that they needed to review the placement of the pool, since the geotechnical report might change its location. It was recommended that all the parties involved have a meeting and discuss the problem -- Inspection Services, the Tolberts, and Val's Pools. It was directed that this item be continued to the August 21, 1980 meeting. V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. Kathy Kodus, Secretary - 3 -