08-11-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued Page 3 August 8, 1997 Zoning File # 2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney, 980/1045/1055 West Femdale ______Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement_________________ aware that if Brooks does not gain title to Parcel B, his contiguous shoreline as measured in a straight line from extended-lot-line to extended-lot-line will be approximately 195', just short of the 200' standard for the LR-IA zoning district. Planning Commission chose noi to require that the dividing line be revised; Brooks property is satisfactory with a 195' defined width per their recommendation. Issues Surrounding Parcels B, C and D As noted in the memo of July 17, Parcel B is a 20' strip at the east end of the Skarp property which does not show up on plat maps. Information received since the Planning Commission meeting confirms that this 20' segment was deeded from Skarp to the owners of 960 and 980 West Femdale in 1951. Mr. Mitchell on behalf of Mr. Brooks has filed a 'Proceeding Subsequent' and Title Registration documents with the court in order to establish the ownership of Parcel B, as well as that of Parcel D, which is the property south of the centerline of Femdale Road across firom Brooks and Floyd. To make a long and complex story somewhat manageable; 1. 5. There have been docks located at Parcel B since at least 1970 or earlier, used by the owners of 960 and 980 across the road. The owners of 960, the Floyds, raised a concern at the Planning Commission meeting that in their opinion the City is acting prematurely to approve the 1045 split prior to final court action on the ownership of Parcels B and D. It is staffs conclusion that regardless of who owns Parcels B and D, it is apparent that Parcel B will end up as a separate property from the parcel being split for recombination. The use of Parcel B for dockage for 960 and 980 is a separate issue for the City to deal with in the future, ^. ven its width, and given its non-adjacency to (and not being directly across from) the 960 property it was intended to serve. The history of platting in this area may ultimately result in the court concluding that Parcel D is in fact in private ownership with the City having the right to maintain its road and shoulders as it has historically. Documentation provided by Mitchell suggests that if Brooks ends up with Parcel D, he is willing to allow Floyd to acquire a strip of shoreline across from - iv r '