04-12-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren April 2,1999 Pages The taking of the Outlet, or the imposition of the Outlet requirement on this plat, is apparently based on that part of the City’s Ordinances found in Section 11.32, Subdivision 2.B.6., where the following language is found: ... proposed roadv= ays shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be subdivided___ However, the foregoing language is qualified by two exceptions; one exception applying where topography or other physical conditions mitigate against the extension of the roadway, and another exception allowing the City to make a judgment call that the extension is not "necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision. ..." Both exceptions are applicable in this instance. The extension of the roadway is in fact prevented by physical conditions, in this case trees and topography, and the layout is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of this subdivision wth adjoining subdivisions. Moreover, no roadway whatsoever is proposed with respect to this subdivision. While a driveway could be located off of Crystal Creek Road, and while a driveway location is proposed from Watertown Road next to the proposed Lot 2, no “roadway” is proposed. That being the case, paragraph 6 of the Ordinance is not applicable. Instead, paragraph 4 of the same Subdivision 2 is applicable, which reads as follows: Roadways shall be laid out to conform as much as possible to the topography, to discourage use bv through traffic, to permit efficient drainage and utility systems, and to require the minimum number of roadways necessary to provide convenient and safe access to property. (Emphasis added.) In view of our objections to the Outlot, and since both the Wear Lane and Crystal Creek neighborhoods also oppose creation of the Outlot, the City Council's focus should be on the language of the above-quoted paragraph 4, and particularly the words "to discourage use by through traffic". Our final reason for opposing the creation of the Outlot is that the City’s taking of this Outlot acreage amounts to a condemnation thereof because the taking is unrelated to the two-lot subdivision of the tract. While the taking may accommodate future public works with respect to properties to the West, North and East, and while the property to the North would surely benefit from and be enriched by access over the Outlot, none of that is related to the two-lot subdivision that we propose. In view of the taking of the Outlot, and because no compensation for the taking is proposed, the constitutionality of the Planning Commission’s recommendation must be challenged. The sanctity of private property is well recognized under our laws. While private property may be taken for a goverrunental purpose, just compensation must be paid. The only justifiable reason that this property is being taken is for perceived municipal uses at some future date, which municipal uses have nothing whatsoever to do with the two-lot subdivision proposed by us at this time. Accordingly, our final reason for opposing the taking of the Outlot is that it would be unconstitutional to do so.