Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren <br />April 2,499^ <br />Pages <br />The taking of the Outlet, or the imposition of the Outlet requirement on this plat, is <br />apparently based on that part of the City's Ordinances found in Section 1 1.j2. Subdivision <br />where the following language is found: , * <br />... proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be <br />subdivided.... <br />However, the foregoing language is qualified by two exceptions; one exception applying where <br />topography or other physical conditions mitigate agadnst the extension of the roadway, and another <br />exception allowing the City to make a judgment call that the extension is not "necess^ or desuable <br />for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision ----'' Both excepaon^are-applicable m this <br />instance. -The-extension of the roadway is in fact prevented by physical conditions, in this case frees <br />and topography, and the layout is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of this <br />subdivision with adjoinins subdivisions. Moreover, no roadway whatsoever is proposed wito r^ct <br />to this subdivision. While a driveway could be located off of Crystal Creek Road, and while a <br />driveway location is proposed from Watertown Road next to the proposed Lot 2, no roadway is <br />proposed. That being the case, paragraph 6 of the Ordinance is not applicable. <br />Instead, paragraph 4 of the same Subdivision 2 is applicable, which reads as follows. <br />Roadways shall be laid out to conform as much as possible to the topography, <br />to discourape use bv through traffic, to permit efidcient drainage and utility ^ <br />systems, and to require the minimum number of roadwavs necessary to provide <br />convenient and safe access to property. (Emphasis added) <br />In view of our objections to the Outlot, and since both the Wear Lane and Crystal Creek <br />neiffhborhoods also oppose creation of the Outlot, the City Council's focus should be on the lan^age <br />of ^e above-quoted paragraph 4, and particularly the words "to discourage use by through traffic . <br />Our final reason for opposing the creation of the Outlot is that the City's taking of tWs OuUot <br />acreage amounts to a condemnation thereof because the taking is unrelated to the two-lot subdivision <br />of the tract. While the taking may accommodate future public works with respect to properties to <br />the West North and East, and while the property to the North would surely benefit from and be <br />enriched by access over the Outlot, none of that is related to the two-lot subdivision that we propose. <br />In .view of the taking of the Outlot, and because no compensation for the taking is propo^, <br />the constitutionality of the Planning Commission's recommendation must be challenged. ™ <br />sanctity of private property is well recognized under o^ laws. mUe private property ma> ^ <br />for a governmental purpose, just compensation must be paid. The only justifiable reason to ^ <br />propel is being taken is for perceived municipal uses at some future date, which m^cipal^ <br />have nothing whatsoever to do with the uvo-lot subdivision proposed by at this time. <br />Accordingly, our final reason for opposing the taking of the Outlot is that it would b <br />unconstitutional to do so.