04-10-2013 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 10, 2013 The City has not been able to find such a solution. The Administrator noted that the vacation action was initiated by the City Council, therefore, will require four affirmative votes to pass. The Administrator outlined some of the history with the road easement. He noted that it was dedicated in 1968 and represented half of the standard road easement at the time. Since then, the Code has been changed and the requirement for a residential street easement is now 50 feet. The easement came from the 2966 Arcade Street property. The Administrator noted that since the easement was dedicated, it would require the cooperation of five property owners each dedicating an additional 17 feet of easement as well as additional easement area for a cul -de -sac in order to bring a road into this area. This has never happened. The Administrator also noted that the properties abutting the easement all had homes on them, except for two, prior to dedication of that easement. The Administrator reported that access to the rear of the Brausen property was possible until a lot split that occurred in 1982 which created the parcels at 2987 and 2995 LaBore Road. At that time, the property owner involved declined to dedicate additional right -of -way for a cul -de -sac. The Administrator noted that when a subdivision of the property now owned by the Brausen's was considered in 1981, the City Planner noted that access through the Westwinds plat should have been considered. The connection of the road easement through to Westwinds was not contemplated when the plat was considered in 1979. The Administrator noted that the proposed Pinetree Ponds development has changed the development concept for the area by creating a new access point to LaBore Road across from Cheery Hill Lane rather creating an access point where the 33 -foot road easement intersects with LaBore Road. The Administrator pointed out that it is City staff's position that this new access point is better from a public safety standpoint. He also noted that the Pinetree Pond proposal also reduces the number of property owners that would have to cooperate in the development of the property to the northeast from five to three. The Administrator indicated that retention of the 33 -foot road easement and its use as road to bring development to the Acosta /Boog /Brausen properties would result in double frontage lots in Pinetree Pond, which does not comply with the City's Subdivision Code. The Administrator reported that City staff has held a number of meetings with the three property owners (Acosta /Boog / Brausen) and the developer of the Pinetree Pond plat to try to reach a compromise. Such a 5