My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/25/2002 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2002
>
03/25/2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2014 2:55:14 PM
Creation date
2/4/2014 9:36:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
03/25/2002
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Meeting <br />Outlot F. Minor Subdivision <br />March 25, 2002 <br />ANALYSIS <br />The City never actually owned or was dedicated Outlot F, according to the Final Plat <br />dedication page for Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition, which states: <br />"...and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever <br />the circle, courts, drives, lane, roads, park and easements for <br />drainage and utility purposes..." (Attachment 6) <br />Since the Outlot was never part of the property dedicated to the City, and the proposed <br />trail was never constructed, the Outlot is still owned by Gor -Em Builders. Gor -Em had <br />agreed previously to pay the City $1,000 should construction of the trail not be required <br />(Attachment 5). <br />What is further needed, however, is a Minor Subdivision, dividing Outlot F in two along <br />the boundary lines of lots 1 & 14, block 3, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition. The resulting <br />two 150' X 10' pieces would then be attached to lots 1 & 14. Such action would: <br />1. Prevent the Outlot from becoming a useless piece of land, and thus going Tax Forfeit. <br />2. Resolve the trail issue. <br />Staff has assumed that the above described two pieces should be attached to the two lots <br />south of the Outlot, rather that be divided among all four of the neighboring lots (two to <br />the north, and two to the south). This is because the Outlot and the two adjacent <br />properties to the south lie within Addition #3, while the two lots to the north lie within <br />Addition #2. Thus, even though it was originally Mr. Petronack who brought the <br />situation to the attention of the council, it does not seem appropriate to attach the <br />resulting Outlot F land to his property, since his property is located in Addition #2 and <br />the Outlot is located in Addition #3. A conversation on March 4th with Deb Petronack <br />confirmed that such an arrangement meets with the approval of the Petronacks. <br />Outlot F appears physically indistinguishable from the adjacent properties; it has been <br />sodded and taken care of by the neighboring residents and visually blends into their <br />lawns. The four property owners adjacent to Outlot F have all been notified of this <br />meeting, although it is not required that Public Notice be given in the matter of a Minor <br />Subdivision. The two affected property owners (lots 1 & 14, block 3, Addition #3) have <br />each agreed to accept the resulting 10 X 150 -foot property, which will be deeded to them <br />from Gor -Em builders, pending approval of this Minor Subdivision. <br />Thus, it is the recommendation of staff that such approval be granted with the following <br />conditions: <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.