04-10-2013 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 10, 2013 • The City met with the adjoining property owners and the developer of Pine Tree Pond in an attempt to find a development option that could accomplish the diverse goals of all of the affected parties. No workable solution was found. • Of all the proposed developments of the Pine Tree Pond property and adjoining property, the proposed Plat of Pine Tree Pond would create the most attractive home sites. This would result in the construction of higher value homes which benefits the City from a tax standpoint as well as creating a more desirable neighborhood. Furthermore, the development of Pine Tree Ponds does not preclude the development of the adjoining property if cooperation can be obtained in the future. • The proposed layout of the Pine Tree Pond subdivision provides for better roadway alignment on LaBore Road by being located directly across from Cherry Hill Lane. If the existing 33 foot easement were utilized for access to Pine Tree Pond, offset intersections would result on the curved portion of LaBore Road. That is a less desirable outcome from a public safety perspective. • The need for the easement is diminished because the use of a new access point to LaBore Road has resulted in lot layout patterns that are not dependent on the existing 33 foot easement. • If the existing 33 foot easement were to be retained and the Pine Tree Pond project moved forward in the manner essentially proposed, an existing street constructed over and across the existing 33 foot easement would create double frontage lots for two of the lots in the proposed Plat of Pine Tree Pond. Double frontage is not allowed under Subdivision Ordinance, Subd. 1006.020J. This would result in two of the lots in Pine Tree Pond becoming nonconforming. • According to Jason Rud of Rud Land Surveyors, the underlying fee interest in the easement is held by the owner of 2966 Arcade Street. That owner is the developer of the proposed Pine Tree Pond Subdivision. Therefore, if the subdivision makes the use of the existing easement an ordinance compliance problem, vacating the easement interest and allowing its usage for otlzer than street purposes solves that problem and makes more land available for other development uses. • By vacating the existing 33 foot easement, no abutting parcel is being officially "landlocked" as all legally existing parcels do not rely on this easement as the sole access point. In fact, all abutting parcels have access via LaBore Road. The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (4). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. 14