My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.1
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1998
>
January 14, 1998
>
7.1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2016 12:54:09 PM
Creation date
12/7/2016 12:54:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Staff Report
Date
1998-01-14
Item Number
7.1
Description
Deceember 10,1997 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT <br /> December 10, 1997 <br /> Page 5 <br /> 4.2 LANDS OF ZATPARVAR, 26170 Fremont Road (179-97-TM-IS-ND-GD); A <br /> request for approval of a two lot subdivision, and proposed Negative Declaration. <br /> The Planning Director introduced this item noting the receipt of a letter from the applicant which <br /> discussed the easement for the drainage channel and access road which would need to be <br /> approximately 35.84 feet, while if there is no drainage channel, they would need only 25 feet. <br /> This means they are losing 10.84 feet of their property width for the development, which could <br /> have a negative impact on the house design. They were hoping for some flexibility from the <br /> Town in regard to codes and regulations. Also discussed in the letter was the height restriction <br /> on Lot A, and concerns regarding starting the driveway next to the channel and between the <br /> redwood trees (the applicant included an arborist report). <br /> The request for a landscape easement (along that portion of the channel that will not have a <br /> driveway adjacent to it) rather than a conservation easement was discussed by the assistant <br /> engineer who noted this was not the original location of this drainage channel. It use to cut <br /> through the other properties. She stated it was the City Engineer's view that this is actually a <br /> storm drain channel. This 30 foot wide easement that the storm drain channel is in will be a rock <br /> lined channel for the most part with some native plantings. This is the reason for a landscape <br /> easement so there will be native plantings adjacent to it so it will begin to look more like a <br /> natural creek. She further discussed the channel improvements as it relates to this property and <br /> the surrounding properties. Improvements on the these two lots will be a part of the subdivision. <br /> The channel depth will range from 4 feet from were it first outlets to 3 feet for the majority of the <br /> channel. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water <br /> District asking at some future date would the channel need to be widened. The assistant engineer <br /> commented no, not with the Town's current zoning. Commissioner Jinkerson asked, other than <br /> the impact on the development area, is there any other argument against putting the driveway on <br /> the east side of the property. The assistant engineer responded no, other than increasing the <br /> amount of development on the properties with the two driveways with more impact to the lots on <br /> the other side. The Town would still need access to the channel so there would need to be <br /> another roadway put in for the Town to access the channel. Commissioner Jinkerson felt there <br /> was a safety issue with the placement of a driveway within six feet of a creek in a flood plain. <br /> OPENED PUBLIC HEARING <br /> Jeff Lea, 26229 Eden Landing Road, Hayward, project engineer, noted if a conservation <br /> easement is placed over the channel, he asked that the wording include that reconstruction of the <br /> channel limits be allowed. A rock lined channel which will go through some settling in. The <br /> channel during its lifetime will need some repair as opposed to having a concrete lined channel <br /> which will not need repair but will have other drawbacks. He asked for language to be included <br /> to allow reconstruction to occur even if they call it a conservation easement. He further <br /> discussed the suggestion to increase the buffer between the channel and driveway to eight feet <br /> noting they could only increase the buffer to 6.6 feet. Anything beyond that would force them to <br /> go below the 160 foot building circle figure. He did not feel there was a safety issue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.