03/13/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff presented the application by Gor-Em Builders, LLC for a Minor Subdivision. Staff reviewed the background of the lot by explaining Outlot F, measuring 10 X 300 feet, was originally platted as a pedestrian trail easeme nt, connecting Clearwater Creek Drive to LaCasse Drive, but not providing conne ction to any other system of trails. The reason for the trail was to provide pedestrian access across the subd ivision, since a block of excessive length (1,700 feet) was created when a block in the 3 rd addition was added to an existing block in the 2 nd addition. Staff explained the trail had not yet been constructed in August 2000, when it came to the attention of the City Council Work Session Meeting of August 23, 2000, via Mr. Petronick, of 6601 LaCasse Drive. Mr. Petr onick expressed a number of reservations about the placement of a trail next to his home, plans for which he was unaware of when he purchased his property. It was reported th at “neighbors are also opposed to the trail.” After consideration, “council directed staff to proceed with vacati ng the trail easement,” according to the minutes for the September 6, 2000 City Council Work Session Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e City never actually owned or was dedicated Outlot F, according to the Final Plat dedication page for Clearwater Creek 3 rd Addition, which stated: “…and do hereby donate and dedica te to the public use forever the circle, courts, drives, lane, roads, park and easements for drainage and utility purposes…” Outlot F was unique from other Outlots within the subdivision in that it did not have drainage and utility easements over it. As a result, it was never part of the property dedicated to the City. Since the Outlot was never part of the property dedicated to the City, and the proposed trail was never cons tructed, the Outlot was still owned by Gor-Em Builders. Gor-Em had agreed previously to pay the City $1,000 should construction of the trail not be required. What was further needed, however, was a Minor Subdivision, dividing Outlot F in two along the boundary lines of lots 1 & 14, block 3, Clearwater Creek 3 rd Addition. The resulting two 150’ X 10’ pieces would then be attached to lots 1 & 14. Such action would: 1. Prevent the Outlot from becoming a useless piece of land, and thus going Tax Forfeit. 2. Resolve the trail issue. Staff had assumed that the above described two pieces should be atta ched to the two lots south of the Outlot, rather that be divided among all four of the neighboring lots (two to the north, and two to the south). This wa s because the Outlot and the two adjacent properties to the south lie within Addition #3, while the two lots to the north lie within Addition #2. Staff indicated even though it was originally Mr. Petronack who brought the situation to the attention of the council, it did not seem appropr iate to attach the resulting Outlot F land to his property, sin ce his property was located in Addition #2 and