09-28-2005 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

encumbrances." The more restrictive provision requires the City's right-of- way to be unencumbered. Therefore, the proposed right-of -way for Preserve Court should be moved off the Williams easement as required in the approval of the preliminary plat. Commentary: This issue now appears to be resolved based upon the developer's representation that Magellan (Williams) will vacate 10 feet of their easement to achieve an unencumbered right -of -way. (See Attachment C — Letter from Magellan). Therefore, the location of the road will remain as originally proposed, but our right -of -way will no longer be encumbered by the pipeline easement. • 1004.020 (e) 4. The proposed Final Plat was submitted more than 100 days following Preliminary Plat approval, rendering the Preliminary Plat approval void. The preliminary plat was approved on October 23, 2002. The proposed Final Plat was submitted on May 27, 2003 or 216 days after the approval of the preliminary plat. If we counted from March 24, 2003 or the date the developer initially submitted a final plat application (that was subsequently withdrawn by the developer), 152 days would have elapsed. Furthermore, if we counted from the date the City was served notice of Developer's court action relative to the approval of the preliminary plat (February 23, 2003), 123 days would have passed. Commentary: Not applicable based upon Court rulings. • 1004.030 (d) No street addresses were submitted with final plat. Commentary: Developer was provided with street addressed for both a 14 and 15 lot layout. Street addresses have been submitted with final plat documents. • 1005.020 (d) 1. As supplementary information, the City had asked for verification of the existence of the Williams Pipeline easement and its release should it impact the proposed plat. (See City Administrator's notation of 9/18/02.) Title work supplied by Developer indicated the existence of the easement over the proposed development property, but no evidence of release by Williams has yet to be provided. Commentary: the developer had provided a release previously, but it was not recorded. A new release will be required based on the Magellan letter (Attachment C). City will need to verify adequacy of the release. The City will also need documentation of the piece of property to be exchanged for the new release and no negative impact occurs to the plat, rights -of -way, or improvements associated with the final plat. • 1005.020 (d) 2. No information on proposed protective covenants has yet been received. Developer has indicated the need for this document to cover issues such as maintenance and replacement of retaining walls.