Planning Commission approves Sage Addition boundary adjustment plat, tables building plan over 50-foot power easement

The Planning Commission approved a final plat for a boundary-line adjustment affecting Lots 2A and 3A of the Sage Addition but tabled the related development plan after questions about a recorded 50-foot power easement.

The commission voted to forward the subdivision plat (case 25.01) to city council with staff conditions, including labeling the former lot line on the plat. The plat reduces the size of proposed Lot 2A from about 2.2 acres to about 2.0 acres and increases proposed Lot 3A from about 2.2 acres to about 2.4 acres, according to staff. The property is on the northwest corner of Chamberlain Road and Pontiac Street and is zoned I-1, light industrial.

Staff planner Megan said the application included minor surveying and easement labeling updates and recommended approval once planning considerations are completed. The plat approval was limited to the subdivision document; commissioners said outstanding site-plan issues must be resolved before any site development approval or building permits are issued.

Steve Granger of ECS Engineering, the agent on the file, told the commission he had worked on the plat but not the full site plan and that the map shows what appears to be a recorded WAPA power easement. Granger said the existing shop building partly sits in the easement and that the proposed new building also appears to overlap it. "There may be a conflict there," he said, adding that courthouse research is needed to confirm whether the old easement was ever vacated.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant to show the 50-foot power easement on the site plan, to verify whether the easement is occupied by infrastructure (overhead or underground), and to provide recorded-book-and-page evidence. Several commissioners said a new structure generally cannot be approved if it would sit inside an active easement; questions about ownership or vacation of century‑old easements must be resolved before council review.

After discussion, the commission approved the subdivision plat with the staff recommendations, including adding a label for the original lot line on the plat, and took separate procedural action on the development plan. Because the proposed building as drawn appears to encroach on the recorded easement, the commission voted to table the development-plan application pending documentation of the easement’s status, a revised site plan showing the easement and any infrastructure, and confirmation of parking, drainage and other plan items required by staff.

The commission recorded the plat approval by voice vote and then tabled the development-plan application to give staff and the applicant time to provide the recorded easement information and revised drawings before the case goes to city council.