The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/12/19761MUTES VARIAMP,E A'ln PEP'IIT MWTSWO Town of Los Altos Hills PF971 Fremont road Los Altos Hills, California May 12, 1175 4?e' 51 Side 1 Track 1 Count 01n to '181 'dice Chairman Comnissioner Carico opened the Variance and Permit Ccrnnission meet- ini at 7:nn p/m. nr!r_ rr1LL: Present: Commissioners Carico, Hahn, Schick. Absent: Commission Chairman William Perkins. Also present: Alexander n. Pussell, City Enoineer; Kenneth P. Pas- trof, Town Planner; nonna Pennington, Secretary. MI`lUTES: No action taken on '+irutes as there were none submitted for approval. PUBLIC HEAPIMgS 1. LAMDS nF Mr. CA.'IDLESS, La Loma nrive, Fran-Edler-rannis, Engineers; File #BSA 6167-76, Bequest for Building Site. Annroval. Town Planner Ken Pastrof directed Commission attention to Condition #6 of the Staff reoort, and a letter from the Santa rlara County Health nenartment, dated 'lay i1, 1176. In this latest letter, the Health nenartment allowed drainfield lines below the 555 foot contour line, nrovided a minimum of twelve feet (121) between centers wag adhered to, and that the lines be staked to determine their infringement on :ire fifty foot (5111) setback limitation from the drainage ditch. 17MM- vice Chairman Carico moved that this renuirement, as s',ated in the 'lay 11 letter from the Santa Clara County Health nenartment to the Town, be incorporated as Condition #6 of the "ay 5, 1176, Staff report. Motion was seconded and gassed by unanimous voice vote. 'I.% Pastrof then presented the general background of the property's topography r..r.a Stiff's recommendations for its development. t;:,aissioner Schick asked Hhy there was an additional ten foot (1n') pathway ease- -i 12111tested when the annlicant was already being asked for a thirty foot On') �ri.i8t of -way dedication. 1r. Pastrof explained that the Pathway Committee wasn't r:ecessarily aware of the richt-of-way request, which included a ten foot (1n') pathway easement along the outboard extremes of the easternmost nornerty line, whet the Committee considered the oroperty at its meeting. Commissioner Carico wimted it noted in the record that no Pathway romnittee member was in attendance ` ai this present Variance and Permit Commission meeting. Thr. vnriance and Permit Commissimlers nuestioned +rhether the pathway connected at either end of the Property. City Engineer Alec Russell stated that it dead - ended at both ends because it abutted County oronert.y on the upper side of the Property and that there was no path on the properties to either side, that they were in the public right -of -lay, "they" being the pathways. The applicant, Charles McCandless, speaking from the floor, stated he had no objection to allowing a r,ch easement viithin the thirty foot (.3n') richt-of-way, but that an additional ten foot (1'1') pathway dedication would serve no purpose. 'nTln'I: 'Ilea ^',airman rommissiener r",:•icn move" that rendition 411 of the "lav 5, l+ifi, Staff report be deleted. 'lotion seconded by Commissioner Schick, and passed by voice vote. '!hen asked by Ccrmdssioner Carico if he cared to address other Conditions of the Staff report, Ir. "icr.andless renuested that the City Engineer, rather than the soils engineer, he allowed to review the foundation design of any nrcposed resi- dence for the property. The Torn rdeologist had recommended that the soils engin- eer he re-employed to approve the specific foundation design prior to submission of plans to the Town for approvc,i, after this sane soils engineer had already determined which type(s) of foundation(s) was feasible iii general, based on the soil investinations. 'jr. McCandless reauested that Condi:ion 43 be changed to reflect this. The City Engineer explained that the annlicant should not be re - (41W stricted by the Toon as to his choice of enqineer, as long as the chosen indivi- dual was capable and also a penistered Civil 'naineer. Peferencing Conditions 1 through 3, Commissioner Schick asked if it would not he more appropriate to refer to "a" soil engineer rather than "the" soil engineer. Mr. Russell concurred, as did 'lr. McCandless. ':"TIMI!: Commissioner Schick roved that in Conditions 41, NP, and k3 of the 'lay 5, 1117r, staff rennrt, references to "the" soil engineer be amended to read "a" soil engineer, and in any other applicable conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carico and passed by unanimous voice vote. Speaking from the floor: C. A. Christensen, residing adjacent to the subiect property: Requested clarifi- cction and assurance of the location of the drainfield lines. Commissioner Schick pointed out that this was a requirement imposed by the Health Cepartmcnt, and the applicant affirmed that there �aould be no problems with the drainfield linea. i'rs. Laabrecht, 12IPI Edgecliff piece: Asked if the road easement had been aban- doned and about ingress and euress to the back of her property via the ^cCandless property. Coraaissioner Carico exrlained that these private kind of arrangements were between herself (sirs. Ldmbrecht) and r^.r. McCandless. City Engineer Russell stated that a Portion of the road at the foot of the property had been abandoned in 1954 by the i.ounty, and was so noted in the official Records of the County. -a- VARIANCE Arin PERMIT Corl"1ISSI01+ ^zi'n'TFS -''av 1?: LAIM OF "IC CA9nLESS, cc'tinq.. Thr. vnriance and Permit Commissimlers nuestioned +rhether the pathway connected at either end of the Property. City Engineer Alec Russell stated that it dead - ended at both ends because it abutted County oronert.y on the upper side of the Property and that there was no path on the properties to either side, that they were in the public right -of -lay, "they" being the pathways. The applicant, Charles McCandless, speaking from the floor, stated he had no objection to allowing a r,ch easement viithin the thirty foot (.3n') richt-of-way, but that an additional ten foot (1'1') pathway dedication would serve no purpose. 'nTln'I: 'Ilea ^',airman rommissiener r",:•icn move" that rendition 411 of the "lav 5, l+ifi, Staff report be deleted. 'lotion seconded by Commissioner Schick, and passed by voice vote. '!hen asked by Ccrmdssioner Carico if he cared to address other Conditions of the Staff report, Ir. "icr.andless renuested that the City Engineer, rather than the soils engineer, he allowed to review the foundation design of any nrcposed resi- dence for the property. The Torn rdeologist had recommended that the soils engin- eer he re-employed to approve the specific foundation design prior to submission of plans to the Town for approvc,i, after this sane soils engineer had already determined which type(s) of foundation(s) was feasible iii general, based on the soil investinations. 'jr. McCandless reauested that Condi:ion 43 be changed to reflect this. The City Engineer explained that the annlicant should not be re - (41W stricted by the Toon as to his choice of enqineer, as long as the chosen indivi- dual was capable and also a penistered Civil 'naineer. Peferencing Conditions 1 through 3, Commissioner Schick asked if it would not he more appropriate to refer to "a" soil engineer rather than "the" soil engineer. Mr. Russell concurred, as did 'lr. McCandless. ':"TIMI!: Commissioner Schick roved that in Conditions 41, NP, and k3 of the 'lay 5, 1117r, staff rennrt, references to "the" soil engineer be amended to read "a" soil engineer, and in any other applicable conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carico and passed by unanimous voice vote. Speaking from the floor: C. A. Christensen, residing adjacent to the subiect property: Requested clarifi- cction and assurance of the location of the drainfield lines. Commissioner Schick pointed out that this was a requirement imposed by the Health Cepartmcnt, and the applicant affirmed that there �aould be no problems with the drainfield linea. i'rs. Laabrecht, 12IPI Edgecliff piece: Asked if the road easement had been aban- doned and about ingress and euress to the back of her property via the ^cCandless property. Coraaissioner Carico exrlained that these private kind of arrangements were between herself (sirs. Ldmbrecht) and r^.r. McCandless. City Engineer Russell stated that a Portion of the road at the foot of the property had been abandoned in 1954 by the i.ounty, and was so noted in the official Records of the County. -a- VAP.IAMCE .AMD PEr".IT May 12, 1gi6 LANRS OF ?IC C,9'lnLESS, continued: MTIO6,: There being no furt'rer questions or comments from the floor, Commissioner Schick moved that the Variance and Permit Commission recommend to the city Council the annroval of RSA 11FIV7-7F, with the corrections, addi- tions, and deletions of Conditions 1 through 1? of the "lay 5, ig76 Staff resort. P'u':ion seconded by rommissioncr Kahn and PhSSED lb,%, unanimous voice •a'ci:e. "o:.mrris:>inner Schick roved that a rtenat�ve Del ^a ration be filed with the County Cler% as the nreperty is categm-icai';r exempt from the Califnrnia Environmental Duality Act. Motion seconded by Commissioner• Cuke art! PASSED by unanimous voice vote. 2. LVIDS nF S -MSF, 2Fn55 >`er:bridge Drive, Vauqhn Shahinian, Engineer. Pequest for Variance to Seti3ack Limitations for Construction of Tennis Court, File @yliR 7nSa-/6. Town fgea irsr• cEsnof direcae.-! ''on-iission attention ',i n-^ P of ihe °lay 5, 1476, Staff report. The dei of the '`ma�•iance and Permit Commission rrent inq, tl:e appli- cant had presented the TriLin a statement fro:a eleven rest cants in saooart of ihe Variance request. 11 i elevsn residents rrere listed as l i0,inq A iiin three fwn- dred feet (3n ') of the Scalise nroj,rrty lines. Comrmissiorer Car4c0 cuestil?Pd t%c accuracy of the 1 rra... Pastrof stai.ed here bad not bee a ,heck or: the as .s rresch.-1 r=ry to. in the ::ay. ',.r rastro'r then r�aixaed the oronosed location of the tennis court. The annli- cant reouesti5 a tc,PntV font (?n') encroachment into the setback area. Cnnur.issioner Schick was concerned over the extent of the cuts and fills required t+: Innate the tennis court no the nrogosed site, a=id also the final height of the ftricn. Mr. Pastrof indicated that a five foot rc'r.-:ininq `::all in the cut area could reduce i%.e arrount of fencing material needed to only f?!e feet. In the fill area, he stated, there i-�ould he a five foot fill placed to level the property. 'daurihn Shahinian, P.nq' Per for the amriicant, stated there •inuld he bvo feet of fill topned by a tan .not fence. '1r. Pastrof said thel; movi,hq the tennis court .d involve a 4:1 cut, necesait?- %1^7, a scvin foot (7') retaining wall, but elia:inating the rued for a Variance. Mff:n!l: As the adjournment hour had arrivc� at this noint, Vice Chairman Comris- sinnar Carico moved to continue the llnrienre ar.d Permit Commission meet- Enq until actiai was taken on the Variance request for the LAMPS OF SCALISL. "tction seconded by Commissioner Schick and rased by unanimous voice vrt•.a. Staff and Comoassicrers continued discussion of the topjOranhicaI qualities of the Scalise nrorerty i� conjunction with its nrescnt dwxlo neent and urnuosed i.ermis court location. Commissioner Hahn noted three letters we -e presented �r to the Tow.,. in onposition to the Variance and asked that the vrit�rs' I)M)erties be rointed out on the variance map, in relation to tte Scalise pror,erty. - 3 - VARIANCE AND PERMIT COM`1ISSIOPI "L'L"T`S - May 12, lg75 LANDS OF SCALISE. continued: Speaking from the floor: Mr. Scalise, 26[)55 Newbridge [)rive, applicant: Stated his reasons for making the the Variance request and how they were .justified in his opinion. He emphasized that the steepness of the slopes determined the location of the tennis court, and the location proposed prevented deep cuts that would do substantial damage to the terrain. In response to Com- missioner Schick he stated that he was in control of the development of the property beginning with construction of the residence. Joe Princhnell, Newbridge Drive: Spoke in favor of the tennis court and the Vari- ance request. Mr. Pfeffer, Todd Lane: Spoke against granting the Variance, referencing Section q-5.1107 (b) (4) of the Los Altos HIlls Municipal Code. Commissioner Carico closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schick requested that the record show that if the facts do not esta- blish that all of the six conditions set forth in the Los Altos Hills "lunicipal Code, Section q .11n3, are met, the Variance and Permit Commission shall recom- mend denial of the Variance; however, a recommendation of denial did not preclude the applicant from apnealinq same to the City Council when the matter was placed before them. MOTION: Because she did not feel the six requirements for approval of the Vari- ance request were met, Commissioner Schick moved that the Variance and Permit Commission recommend to the Council the denial of the Scalise Variance request without prejudice. Motinn was seconded by Commissioner Hahn, and passed by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Schick, Hahn; Vice Chairman Commissioner Carico. N0: None ABSENT: Chairman Commissioner Perkins. ABSTAIN: None 3. LANDS OF TIEFERT, 104gn Albertsworth, Kenneth Nelson, Engineer; Request fnr Variance to Setback Limitations for Construction of Swimming Pool, File #VAR 7027-76. MOTION: Commissioner CArico moved to continue this public hearino to the May 2r, 1976, meeting of the Variance and Permit Commission at the request of the Santa Clara County Health Department. 'lotion seconded by Commissioner Schick and PASSEn by unanimous voice vote. 4. LANDS OF RUSSELL, 13F2n Hillway, John Riley, Engineer, Files 49SA 6069-76 and OVAR 7026-76, Request for Building Site Approval and Variance to the Humber of Parcels Allowed on a Private Road. A _ VARIANCE AND PERMIT CotPiISSIOiI MINUTES - May 12, 1975 LANDS OF RUSSELL, Continued: MOTION: Commissioner Hahn moved to continue consideration of the LANDS OF RUSSELL to the next regular meetinq of the variance and Permit Commission, May 26, 1976, at the request of the Santa Clara Walley Water District. Motion seconded and gassed by unanimous voice vote. As there was no further business for discussion or comment, the Variance and Per- mft Commission meeting was ad,iourned at annroximately R:gg n/m. NAC/s resnectfully submitted, Helen A. C,ygnarowicz - 5 -