My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/15/1997
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
City Clerk
>
City Council Minutes
>
1997
>
01/15/1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2016 12:18:42 PM
Creation date
5/21/2015 4:18:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Minutes
Date
1997-01-15
Description
Regular Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
L planning to sell, realtors had advised her that if the lot was determined for whatever <br />reason to be less than one acre, the property value would be reduced. Ms. Carsten <br />further stated that she did not think the dedication request was at all reasonable as she <br />could not imagine La Paloma ever being widened. <br />Virgil Gualtieri,13613 Burke Road, commented that he had sold Ms. Carsten her lot and <br />the comments about reduced property value were true. If it became a substandard lot, <br />it would be worth less. <br />Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, noted that she had lived in Town about <br />thirteen years and they too had experienced reduction in lot size. All the residents had <br />been treated equally and she believed if an exception were made the Town would have <br />to go back and return all the dedications taken earlier. <br />Ellen VanDorverk, applicant's mother, urged Council to favorably consider her <br />daughter's request because she (Mrs. VanDorverk) was planning on living in the <br />secondary dwelling. <br />Casey saw no reason to require this dedication. La Paloma was not going to be <br />widened and the openness of La Paloma was not affected. The Town could take an <br />easement to address the drainage issues, if necessary. Casey believed this dedication <br />was of no significant purpose to the Town but greatly affected the owner by its <br />resulting in a non -conforming lot. Johnson could not imagine La Paloma ever being <br />widened. He did not understand improving the lot by having a secondary dwelling <br />which would at the same time reduce the property value. Hubbard was concerned <br />about consistency. Deleting this condition for the dedication would not be consistent <br />with the road right of way policy. However, possibly the Town could get an easement <br />and not have to take the dedication, thus leaving the lot at one acre. Siegel referred to <br />the drainage problems on La Paloma and the value of wide easements to enhance the <br />openness of the Town. Other lots on La Paloma had dedicated a 30' half street. Dauber <br />did not believe this dedication reduced the property value. The issue was one lot unit <br />factor not one acre. She did not understand how this dedication could not be made <br />when such dedications were required on cul-de-sacs. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Siegel and <br />passed by the following roll call vote to deny the applicant's request to delete conditions <br />of approval #10, 17 and 18 for a site development permit for a secondary dwelling unit <br />at 13761 La Paloma Road. <br />AYES: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel <br />NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Casey <br />ABSTAIN: Councilmember Johnson <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />January 15, 1997 <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.