04/10/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2002 Page 2 Staff reviewed the background of the lot by explaining Outlot F, measuring 10 X 300 feet, was originally platted as a pedestrian trail easement, connecting Clearwater Creek Drive to LaCasse Drive, but not providing connection to any other system of trails. The reason for the trail was to provide pedestrian access across the subdivision, since a block of excessive length (1,700 feet) was created when a block in the 3`d addition was added to an existing block in the 2nd 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. Petronick 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 that "neighbors are also opposed to the trail." After consideration, "council directed staff to proceed with vacating the trail easement," according to the minutes for the September 6, 2000 City Council Work Session Staff presented its analysis by explaining the City never . ctually owned or was dedicated Outlot F, according to the Final Plat dedication pag`:r water Creek 3rd Addition, which stated: "...and do hereby donate and d the circle, courts, drives, lane, roa drainage and utility purpos Outlot F was unique from other 0 drainage and utility easements ov dedicated to the City. Since the 0 City, and the proposed tra Builders. Gor -Em had the trail not be required. the public use forever ark and easements for with the subdivision in that it did not have As a r'ult, it was never part of the property ever part of the property dedicated to the tistructed, the Outlot was still owned by Gor -Em usly to pay the City $1,000 should construction of 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 3rd 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 attached 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 was 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 appropriate to attach the resulting Outlot F land to his property, since his property was located in Addition #2 and the Outlot was located in Addition #3. A conversation on March 4`h with Deb Petronack confirmed that such an arrangement meets with the approval of the Petronacks.