05-10-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren April 2,1999 Page 2.. 7. Outlet B may be residentially developed in the future___The subdivider shall be responsible for providing legal access to the property---- . • ‘ The subdivider, in accepting the City's plat approval, also accepted the above-stated condition, and is reasonably and legally bound to honor it now. Fui^ermore, there remains ample opportunity for the subdivider to acquire land to the East, and thereby obtain access to his property &om Old Crystal Bay Road. That task is his responsibility, as stated in Resolution No. 3896, not the City’s, and certainl y not ours. If land is to be taken from any property to serve the subdivider’s Outlot B, it should be taken from the subdivider’s own subdivision, which, in this case, would be Lots 6 and 7 of Block 1, Crystal Creek. That would be eminently more fair than taking the land from us, especially since the subdivider profited from the creation of those Lots 6 and 7. The subdivider has caused his own problem, and should be responsible for its solution. Please do not make us solve it. Our next objection is based on the loss of acreage that we would suffer from the taking of the Outlot. The creation of a 50’ Outlot across the Northerly boundary of our property results in a loss of 22,752.5 square feet of land, or somewhat more than one-half acre. That loss of acreage, not to mention the loss of acreage resulting from other Planning Commission suggestions, makes it much less likely that the Norfrierly lot could be subdivided into two lots in the future, especially in view of the City's 150% requirem‘ents for back lots. Zoning District RR-IB standards require two acres of dry buildable area. Therefore, the rriinimum area for each such lot would need to be 150% of that acreage, or three dry acres. With the taking of the Outlot, there is barely enough land to accommodate two lots of three acres each, and this situation is exacerbated because we cannot divide the property on an equal 50/50 basis because of the topography and existing natural conditions. This is truly a significant problem for us. When we purchased the propertv* we expected, and we think reasonably so, that we would have several subdivision alternatives for it m view of the acreage. However, after consulting with different surveyors, a land planner, the septic designer, as well as our architect and builder, we have concluded that, as a result of terrain and wetlands, there are just two building sites in the Northern part of the property. All other ^tematives vvould require the removal of the precious stand of pine trees, as well as substantial clearing and considerable, and expensive, alteration of the natural amenities. Another significant reason for our opposition to the 50' Outlot is that its creation takes away critical septic sites in the Northeast comer of the property. While Aese septic sites are not shown on our proposed subdivision, they are shown on an earlier application proposed by John Vogt and Mike Hilbelink. The City's taking of the 50' Outlot and the septic sites located there prevents us from situating our house in that area, which is our first and best choice for the location of our home. A further reason we oppose the Outlot is that there does not seem to be any good reason to require it in the first place, except, as 1 have heard, and to quote one of the members of the Planing Commission, "it would be nice to have". To quote another member of the Planning Coinmission, "if we don't take this opportuniw to get the Outlot, we may never have another opportunity."