8.2. SR 07-15-2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 8.2 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by General Business July 15, 2019 Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Hilltop Woods Estates Second Addition, 20655 Peter Beck, City Attorney Victoria Drive Reviewed by  Easement Vacation Cal Portner, City Administrator  Plat of Hilltop Woods Estates Second Addition Action Requested Adopt, by motion, a resolution approving or denying the proposed vacation of existing roadway easements on Lot 4, Block 1, Hilltop Woods Estates. Adopt, by motion, a resolution approving or denying the plat of Hilltop Woods Estates Second Addition. Background/Discussion Case Nos. EV 19-02 & P 19-08 The City Council reviewed the proposed easement vacation and plat on June 17, 2019, and directed staff to return with two resolutions one approving and one denying the plat and easement vacation. Since the last meeting, attorneys for both the applicant and the neighbors opposed to the subdivision submitted letters regarding the application. Following staff and legal counsel review, we find that the 1993 Developer Agreement, which following the practice at that time, was not approved by the City Council, does not create a negative restrictive easement on the property and is not a legally sufficient basis for denial of this subdivision. Additionally, Condition 7 included in Council’s approval of the plat on May 17, 1993, requires that “A Developer Agreement is entered into reflecting the stipulations of approval.” The 11 conditions of approval do not prohibit development of additional lots north of Victoria Drive prior to a connection to the city street system north of Victoria Drive. Meaning, the prohibition of lots described in the Developer Agreement was not a condition imposed by the City Council as it was not a condition of approval for the final plat, and the Council did not formally approve the Developer Agreement, and inherently the limit to future development. As the limit to development was not directly approved by the City Council in 1993, the limit should not be considered when reviewing the current request. Finally, the language relied on in the Developer Agreement as a basis to deny this proposal to split lot 4 into two lots is entitled “Future Phases” and reads, in its entirety: (01) Future Phases - The Subdivision is the first phase of a development which may include future lots. Final plat approval of future phases will be subject to such conditions as shall be imposed The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity