05-24-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael P. Gaffron May 19, 1999 Page 2 “through A. Stubbs property," March 29,1991 Resolution. Your staff highlighted a number of pertinent portions in the Historical Information. You were absolutely correct when you said during the Council Meeting on April 12,1999, “[t]he clear intent of the City back in 1991 was to continue a 50-foot corridor across the top [of] the Stubbs property.” The City and I contemplated that persons living east of Crystal Creek would use the Crystal Creek road, and persons living in Ctystal Creek could use the roadway to the east. In particular, we assumed that the northern part of the Stubbs property would have the benefit of, and access off. Crystal Creek. Given the use of the Crystal Creek road, it seemed fair to require that the Stubbs property proved a 50-foot easement for access by Stubbs to its own property and for access to other properties located to the north and east of Stubbs. This plan makes great sense, and I note that the first application to subdivide the Stubbs property proposed an access off Crystal Creek’s road for the north of Stubbs property. It seems clear that Mr. Renckens should access the north end of his property off the 50-foot easement from Crystal Creek, As Mr. Kelly correctly noted during the April 12, 1999 Council Meeting, “If the applicant has access from Crystal Creek, he can eliminate the 30-foot outlot, move the lot line further south and make Lot 1 bigger so it could be subdivided in the future.” The property owners of Crystal Creek all had notice that the cul-de-sac is a “Temporary Cul-de-sac ”, and that the road would be extended to the east “through the land adjoining the property'” and hook up with my property' to the north. Exhibit B, Crystal Creek Declaration, Sections 3.1, and 3.4. They also knew that the easterly-most lot. Lot 7, Block 1, had a non-conforming temporary easement over adjoining Lot 6 until the main road “is extended into the land adjoining the Property'----” Sss Section 4.1. The owners of Crystal Creek had fair notice of City planning. Mr. Renckens had notice as well. This has been a very unusual subdivision. The first application to subdivide the Stubbs property was filed by John Vogt and Mike Hilbelink. Mr. Renckens apparently was not involved, but Mr. Winston was the attorney for Vogt and Hilbelink. According to the application, Stubbs w-as the owner of the property and Vogt and Hilbelink were the applicants. On January 19.1999, the Planning Commission voted that the 50-foot easement had to be provided at the north end of the property. At that point, Mr. Renckens* name appeared on the next application. That application said Mr. P,.enckens was the owner and Mr. Winston was designated as the applicant. On March 15, 1999, the Plaiming Commission again required the 50-foot easement. Rcnckens/Winston then took the matter to the City Council, and, on Apnl 12, 1999, the City Council voted to require the 50-foot easement. It now’ appears that Mr. Renckens was not in fact the owner of the property’ during this process. Mr. Winston’s unusual, to say the least, April 14,1999, letters to the Council members state that “I am deeply concerned that Mr. Renckens will now not purchase the property- ...” I understand from you that Mr. Renckens said he has now closed on the property. Mr. Rencke.-^/S wants to change the City- plan to his perceived benefit and the detriment of my land to the north and prior City planning. Mr. Renckens had fair notice of City plans before