03-27-2013 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

option. After extensive discussions with them, their primary reason for not pursuing this option (even after being allowed the opportunity to purchase /develop the Brausen lots) is their perception that the marketability of their development is negatively impacted due to the non- standard appearance of this layout. Given their decision, and our inability to force them to proceed in this direction, this option is off the table. Another option proposed by the Brausens would have created even more lots and involved more adjoining properties. (See Diagram #2) Staff informed them this option would not be pursued given it further complicates the development of this area and the proposed lots do not warrant $500,000 homes. That takes us to their third option which utilizes the existing 33 foot right -of -way (see Diagram #3). This option addresses their contention that if the City vacates the 33 foot easement, they now have to dedicate 50 feet of right -of -way rather than additional 17 feet. However, this option does not comply with the City's subdivision ordinance due to the fact it creates two double- frontage lots. (See Memo from City Planner - Attachment #3) In considering this factor, it is important to remember that the ability to utilize this right -of -way has been made more feasible by the Pine Tree Pond plat proposal. Without this plat, we would still be looking at the cooperation of more than three property owners to allow a road to reach the Brausen property. Therefore, to assume reliance on the existing 33 feet at the expense of the development that made it more likely is counterintuitive. The fourth option discussed is the Ghost Plat (Diagram #4) prepared by Masterpiece Homes at the request of the City. The basis for our request was to ensure we did not eliminate the potential for access to the three properties in question. We also felt their cooperation was essential. This was communicated to them in at a meeting held January 24th as evidenced by Attachment #4. (Note: Notice of this meeting was mailed to the three property owners of record on January 15th. No representative from the Brausen family was present on the 24th.) The problem with the Ghost Plat option is the right -of -way is closer to the existing homes. This is undesirable from the perspective of Mrs. Acosta and Mr. Boog. Without their cooperation, the Brausens are back to a waiting game to achieve development of their property. To offset this issue, the City proposed the possibility of purchasing the developable portion of the Brausen property condition upon our ability to enter in to Options to Purchase with Mrs. Acosta and Mr. Boog to ensure this area could be developed in the future. This concept would allow the Brausens to realize a return on their property today without requiring any impact to the Acosta/Boog properties. While Mrs. Acosta and Mr. Boog seemed interested in this possibility, conditioned on their ability to make one legacy transfer to a family member (i.e. they could transfer the property once to a family member, but any future transfer would need to be made to the City with the purchase price to be paid based on an appraisal conducted at that time), we could not reach agreement with the Brausens on a property value we both thought was reasonable. It should be noted that whatever option is finally decided upon for the development of the Acosta/Boog /Brausen properties, there are a number of other considerations that can make development challenging if there is not cooperation among all three property owners. Some of those issues are as follows: 3