01/15/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L planning to sell, realtors had advised her that if the lot was determined for whatever reason to be less than one acre, the property value would be reduced. Ms. Carsten further stated that she did not think the dedication request was at all reasonable as she could not imagine La Paloma ever being widened. Virgil Gualtieri,13613 Burke Road, commented that he had sold Ms. Carsten her lot and the comments about reduced property value were true. If it became a substandard lot, it would be worth less. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, noted that she had lived in Town about thirteen years and they too had experienced reduction in lot size. All the residents had been treated equally and she believed if an exception were made the Town would have to go back and return all the dedications taken earlier. Ellen VanDorverk, applicant's mother, urged Council to favorably consider her daughter's request because she (Mrs. VanDorverk) was planning on living in the secondary dwelling. Casey saw no reason to require this dedication. La Paloma was not going to be widened and the openness of La Paloma was not affected. The Town could take an easement to address the drainage issues, if necessary. Casey believed this dedication was of no significant purpose to the Town but greatly affected the owner by its resulting in a non -conforming lot. Johnson could not imagine La Paloma ever being widened. He did not understand improving the lot by having a secondary dwelling which would at the same time reduce the property value. Hubbard was concerned about consistency. Deleting this condition for the dedication would not be consistent with the road right of way policy. However, possibly the Town could get an easement and not have to take the dedication, thus leaving the lot at one acre. Siegel referred to the drainage problems on La Paloma and the value of wide easements to enhance the openness of the Town. Other lots on La Paloma had dedicated a 30' half street. Dauber did not believe this dedication reduced the property value. The issue was one lot unit factor not one acre. She did not understand how this dedication could not be made when such dedications were required on cul-de-sacs. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Siegel and passed by the following roll call vote to deny the applicant's request to delete conditions of approval #10, 17 and 18 for a site development permit for a secondary dwelling unit at 13761 La Paloma Road. AYES: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Casey ABSTAIN: Councilmember Johnson Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 1997 10