03-27-2013 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

idea of their desires and that we would try to work with them within reason. No further input has been received on this matter from the Bileks. A second concern expressed by the Bileks related to the loss of the potential to subdivide their property if the easement is vacated. Staff conducted research into this issue and learned two key facts. First, they would need to dedicate 17 feet for additional right -of -way to achieve the 50 feet needed to meet subdivision requirements. By doing so, they would create nonconformity for their existing home relating to the required 30 foot setback from a right -of- way. (They would have a setback of 28.87 feet.) The City Engineer also determined that a lot is theoretically possible to be subdivided from their property if the required right -of -way is provided. (See Map #2) However, the engineer's estimated cost to construct the needed improvements was about $120,000 versus an expected lot value of about $100,000. Furthermore, even if the Bileks were willing to fully pay for the needed improvements, the City still has discretion in determining if the improvements would be allowed or not. From staffs standpoint, we would recommend against this situation given the future costs of street and utility maintenance associated with one lot creating do not warrant the future added the taxpayers will be subjected to given the lack of "benefits received" associated with assessing future improvements to the new lot and abutting properties. In short, tax payers would likely be providing a heavy subsidy for any street /utility work needed in the future. Staff did discuss their interest in splitting off a portion of their property and combining it with the 2966 property to create a new lot that would be accessed off the new street. (See Map #3) Staff also offered the opportunity to retain that land until they decide to sell their current home and then do the split at that time. To accommodate that option, we needed to know now if that was of interest so modifications could be made to the Pine Tree Pond plat. An e -mail was sent on March 8th (as a follow -up to our February 26th meeting) asking if they were interested in this option and no response has been received. AcostaBoogBrausen Properties: From staffs perspective, the best way to summarize the concern of Acosta/Boog is they would like to have their property impacted in the least manner possible while not foregoing future subdivision potential. The Brausens would like to see development potential achieved sooner (now) rather than later. To develop these properties has always required the cooperation of other landowners. Before Pine Tree Ponds was proposed, at least five property owners needed to grant 17 feet of right - of -way to develop street /utilities from LaBore Road to the Brausen property. With Pine Tree Pond and the resulting new access point, these three property owners still need to work together based on current circumstances. The Brausens submitted some alternative development options to try to address their ability to developer sooner while not requiring major changes to the Acosta/Boog properties. One option (See Diagram #1) required an extension road off the Pine Tree Pond circle. While providing the ability to develop their property now and creating one additional lot (not fully review pursuant to subdivision standards), Masterpiece Homes is unwilling to pursue this