04-10-2013 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 10, 2013 did not feel there was any benefit to his proposed development to provide that access. Dave Brausen indicated that Pinetree Pond would gain a lot, not lose one. He stated that he did not understand why Howe did not like the design of his bulb plan. He again pointed out that the City can determine where roads go. The City Attorney indicated that the Council has the vacation action before it this evening. He noted that Mr. Brausen is discussing both the ghost plat as well as his bulb plan. With regard to the vacation action, the City Attorney stated that the City's focus is on what is in the best interests of the public. He noted that efforts of the City to work with both the developer and adjacent property owners on the development of the area. The Attorney noted that Brausen's bulb plan creates double frontage lots which do not conform to the City's ordinances. The Attorney again stated that the City Council's consideration is what is in the best interests of the general public. Dave Brausen again commented on the City's authority to determine where roads go. The City Attorney stated that the City can determine the location of roads through the eminent domain process. Blesener noted that eminent domain actions require a public purpose. Brausen noted that the City Administrator's report indicates that the City can determine where the road goes when the northeast property is developed, and asked why the same would not be the case for the Pinetree Pond development. Brausen again asked if anyone found anything wrong or any inaccuracies with the points that he raised. Montour stated that it was his feeling that the pointed raised by Brausen were his perceptions versus the City's. As an example, Montour noted Brausen's comments that the Pinetree Pond development would be developed with $500,000 homes. Brausen acknowledged that this is an opinion. Brausen stated that development of the ghost plat would result in a double frontage lot for one of the Pinetree Pond lots. Brausen asked the City Engineer to verify this. The City Engineer stated that this is not the case, and explained this on the ghost plat diagram. The City Administrator commented relative to the City's ability to determine where roads go, noting that this would require an eminent domain process if it did not occur voluntarily. If the City dictated where a road went without providing compensation for the right -of -way, it would be considered a taking. Blesener pointed out that the City must have a public purpose in order to take property under eminent domain. 9