Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-1980-Land Development Committee-TIME: Thursday, August 21, 1980 - 10.:00'a:m: PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13.777 Fru'itvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Committee members present Staff members present: B. Minutes R. S,: Shook, R. S. Robinson, Jr. and Commissioner Laden K. Kerdus, D'. Trinidad and D. Wimberly It was moved and seconded to waive the reading of the. minutes of .August 7, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR /NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS A. Negative Declaration - SDR- 1463 - Gerald Jacobsen B. Negative' Declaration SDR- 1470.;- ,.Dick Gabhe-r. The above two Negative Declarations were removed from the-Consent Cal'enda.r :for, discussion along wi•t -h the appropriate items. III. SINGLE SITE APPROVAL PER ORDINANCE NO. 60'.0 -5 A. SDR -1474 - John Felch, 20221 Thelma, Tentative Building Site Approval (Over 50o.Expansion) 1 lot Staff explained that the applicant had been requested -to modify his plans to show a 20' x 20' garage,,and was.recommending continuance. The Land Development Committee.directed that this item.;be continued to the September 4, 1980 meeting. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS IW I: SDR -1463 - Gerald Jacobsen, Sohey Road, Tentative Buil.ding-Site Approval - 2 lots; Continued from 8/7/80 Staff stated that they had received the letter from the app.licant's realtor,.requesting a continuance. It was directed that this item be continued to the September 4th meeting. SDR -1470 - Dick Gabler, Piedmont and Park, Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 lots Mr. Gabler and his realtor, Ed Stell'ing, were present for the dis cussion. Staff explained that they had made an on-site.inspection of the property and had concerns about the slope of the site under- neath the proposed residence. If the slope were found to.be.over 40% at points underneath the proposed house, then a residence could not be located in its present proposed location. Therefore, Staff recommended continuance.until the applicant's engineer has submitted further information on the site. The public hearing was.opened at 10:15 a.m. Dick Gabler, 17775 Vista Avenue, Monte.Sereno,.expressed his concern over the slope and explained that.he did..'not want to take all of the brush away in order to determine- the slope, .'of.the site. - 1 - LDC 'Minutes - 8/21/80 Page 2 SDR -1470 (cont.) Mrs. Laden questioned the ,culverts` propos' d.fdr` the site, and Dan Trinidad explained that, if they were properly engineered, they should not be a problem. Additionally, Staff .explained that the Santa Clara Valley Water District -was the_.respo.nsib.le agency for the creek. Mr.-Shook asked that,the "notation of "culvert" be stricken from the map, so the Santa Clara Valley Water District could deter- mine what they would require.in order to issue an encroachment permit. It was directed that this item be continued to-the meeting of Sep - tember 4, 1980, after - receipt of a letter of continuance, in order to receive further information on the.slope of the site and to have the Word "culvert" stricken from the map. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert, 21130 Sullivan Way-, Request for a.Modification ,to the Site Development Plan for a Pool, Continued from 8/7/80 Mrs. Tolbert was present for the discussion and expressed that she had had problems hiring a soils engineer requested by the Land Development Committee at their last - meeting, but had finally been able to do so. She asked if the LDC could approve the modification as long as the geotechnical report did not change the placement of the pool. The LDC expressed a desire to have'a special meeting next week, rather than approve placement of a pool without -a geotechnical report, It.was directed to continue this item to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on August 28, 1980, at 11:00 a.m. B. SDR -1320 - Robert McBain (Van der Tooren), Highway 9 and Glen Una, Request for Reconsideration of Condition VII -A Mr. Van der Tooren and Mrs. Siegrist''were present for the discussion. Mr. Van der Tooren expressed his objections to the condition which required a 70 ft. scenic easement along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, He explained that he was very sensitive to the property., having spent a great deal of time on it, and felt that he knew what was best for the site. He stated that his proposal, with a 30 ft. setback to Saratoga - Los Gatos Road, would result in a house having less exposure to the road than if a two -story house were placed 70 ft. from the road. Mr. Van der Tooren-commented that he felt a house should be .placed in the north -south direction, and that having the garage at the end of the cul -de -sac resulted in no curb appeal.. He- explained that his drawings were taken from the eye -point of the driver. Mr. Wimberly proposed an option of changing the setbacks 'so that a side yard setback would be allowed of 20 ft. on the westerly yard, with the 70 ft. scenic setback remaining as the rear yard. The Committee discussed this and felt that option gave more flexibility to the applicant. Mr. Van der Tooren objected, saying that he i,Ta-nted the freedom to do the design in the best way, and that he couldn't change his design that he had worked on for numerous hours in ten minutes, or even an hour. He pointed out that he was asking consideration for a house that was to sell for $750,000 - $1,000,000. However, he added that he felt a compromise could be made by not following the full 70 ft. at each point. Additional.1y, with this compromise he would not use a fence or propose a two - story. Rather, he would propose a house that, while it had a portion 30 ft. from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, the major portion of the house would be 150 ft. from the road. Mrs. Laden stated that she was willing to compromise on the other setbacks, but.not the 70 ft. scenic setback. She commented that the road has been impacted enough. Mr. Van der Tooren stated that he was confused as to what they were protecting- - the cars from the houses or vice versa. Mr. Shook stated that if the question that was being raised now had been raised originally, the map wQ+t+d not have been approved. Mr. Van der Tooren questioned J - 2 - .. LDC.Minutes - 8/21/80 SDR -1320 (cont.) Page 3 whether the Land Development Committee had unlimited authority. It was stated that the condition was consistent with the policy for scenic highways; in fact, that the County had 100 ft. setbacks. Mr. Van der Tooren stated that he could see the 70 ft. setback on a totally new street, but that it was never intended to be used in such a situation. Mr. Robinson explained that the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road was designated as a scenic highway in the General Plan, and he felt that it was to be interpreted strictly. The LDC then deter - minted that, because of the orientation of the cul -de -sac, they felt they could redefine the setbacks, so that the westerly yard would become a side yard with a 20 ft. setback, and the southerly yard as a 30 ft. front yard setback. However, the 70 ft. scenic setback from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road would remain. Mr. Van der Tooren stated that he would be willing to compromise from the 30 ft. on Saratoga - Los Gatos Road to 40 ft. The LDC indicated an unwillingness to consider that proposal. They then explained that he could place himself on a Planning Commission agenda for review of this approach or take it to the City Council on appeal. It was moved and seconded to redefine the side yard and rear yard setbacks as formerly stated. The motion was carried unanimously. It was explained to Mr. Van der Tooren that he needed to write a letter to the City Council if he wished to object to this decision. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on August 28, 1980 at 11:00 a.m. The motion was carried unani- mously. Kathy er s, ecretary KK:cd