11/01/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council discussed the placement of this path and commented that it was a confusing issue. The option of Mr. McNees having a new survey done was discussed but Mr. McNees did not agree with incurring this cost. Hubbard suggested the applicant work with the City Engineer to resolve this issue. Hubbard concurred with minimizing the impact on Mr. McNees property but still believed a path was needed. Casey did not support condition #11. She did not believe there was any nexus between Mr. McNees remodel and the requirement of this path. She did not see where it connected to anything and other paths were available. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Moved by Casey to delete condition #I1. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Hubbard and passed by the following roll call vote to amend condition #11 to require a 20' wide pathway easement from the existing survey with the understanding that no improvements are to be made at this time and, if at the time any future improvements are made and the exact location of the path is established, then the applicant, Mr. McNees, the City Engineer and the Planning Director may revise the actual path dedication. AYES: Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers Dauber and Hubbard NOES: Councilmember Casey ABSTAIN: Councilmember Johnson 12.2 Request for approval of lot merger and conditional exceptions for Lots 1 through 14, Lands of Micko, Kingsley Avenue and Altadena Drive The City Attorney explained why this application was again before Council. She referred to the Micko's attorney, Mr. Robert Logan, and his letter dated 10/30/95. In that letter he states that the Mickos' application involves a voluntary lot merger and does not involve a division of land. Therefore, it is not a subdivision within the meaning of the Map Act. According to California Supreme Court decisions, the decision before the Council would be whether or not the resulting parcel of the lot merger would conform with reasonable zoning and building regulations. Mr. Logan further states that the Mickos are consolidating fourteen legally created parcels into one single lot that would comply with Town zoning and building regulations. To facilitiate the project, Mr. Logan requested that the Council hear this application as presented (as a subdivision) rather than start the process all over again as a lot merger. The City Attorney concurred with Mr. Logan's letter and recommended that the Council approve the request for the lot merger for Lands of Micko. November 1, 1995 City Council Meeting