3.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission: July 22, 1998 Lands of Korman Page 3 Staff has been advised by the City Attorney that the Planning Commission may not condition the variance or site development permit on the preparation of a subdivision map, but may require the legal agreement outlined in condition #10 or take other appropriate action to assure that reasonable future subdivision options are not precluded. Pathway Along Kingsley Way As discussed at the last meeting, a 40 foot pathway and utility easement exists over what was Lowell Lane along the western boundary of the current parcel A (except for the northerly 150 feet to Esther Clark Park). At that meeting, it was reported that as a condition of abandoning the pathway easement, the City Council required the applicant to construct a Ilb pathway on the opposite (east) side of Kingsley Way and to provide an easement and connection to Esther Clark Park. Staff has since determined that the Council did not specify on which side of the street the path should be constructed, but left that for the City Manager to determine. The City Manager has determined that the path should be on the east side of Kingsley, to avoid the need to cross the Korman driveway, which will become even wider with this proposal. The path would then enter the park at the end of Kingsley Way. Based on this direction', the applicant has already (in June) cleared about half of the distance from the Clevenger property for the pathway, and graded probably a third of the distance. The Pathways Committee has recommended locating the pathway on the west side (Korman property) of Kingsley, to avoid impacts to some vegetation on the east side. Staff believes, however, that the vegetation is a m'%nor obstacle, primarily brush which can be readily trimmed without removal. Either side of the road is certainly feasible, but staff continues to recommend staying on the east side to provide continuity and as the work on that side has already begun. Abandonment of Lowell Lane There appeared to be some confusion at the last meeting regarding the abandonment of Lowell Lane. Lowell Lane was abandoned for road purposes in 1966 (the first 150 feet south of Esther Clark Park) and 1988 (the remainder south to Altadena). All that has existed since 1988 is the pathway and utility easement for all except the northerly 150 feet, approximately half of the western property boundary of parcel B. There is not and has not since 1988 been any potential to use Lowell Lane as a road to this site. And the recent abandonment of the pathway easement has no effect on the density or allowable intensity of development on either parcel A or parceli B. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposed project is a low-profile residence which does an exemplary job of preserving the open space characteristics of this site, and that condition #10 is adequate to protect the Town and property owner interests in the event of future subdivision. With the setback modifications proposed to further assure adequate room for landscape mitigation screening, staff recommends approval of the site development permit and variance. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have.