Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 22, 1995 <br />Moser reported that the trees are on the Denery <br />property. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City could develop and sell <br />the two lots. <br />Moser asked if the City would participate in the <br />improvement costs. <br />Pedersen suggested that the City could sell the land to <br />the developer at the raw land value. Pedersen asked if <br />the two lots are buildable. <br />Moser felt that they were. <br />Fahey suggested that the Council approve the concept <br />development for the 7 lots as shown in Option 3, and <br />that the issue of the 2 lots on City park land be <br />referred to the Park & Recreation Commission for a <br />recommendation on whether or not they should be offered <br />for sale to the developer. <br />Scalze suggested that the City determine the raw land <br />value of the property. <br />Moser reported that Mrs. Denery would like concept <br />approval. Once that is obtained, she will sell the <br />property to a developer, who will proceed to plat it. <br />Moser reported that Mrs. Denery will be selling her <br />property at raw land value, and estimated that she will <br />get approximately $12,000 per lot. <br />Morelan asked if the park land extended to County Road <br />D. <br />The City Planner replied that it does not. The <br />property falls a few feet short. <br />Morelan pointed out that access to County Road D is via <br />a 48.5 foot strip of property. Morelan asked if there <br />was any way to widen this strip to 50 feet. <br />Moser replied that there was not. Moser reported that <br />at the time adjacent lots were platted, the City Clerk <br />informed Mrs. Denery that the 48.5 foot access would be <br />adequate. Otherwise, the property could have been <br />platted in such a way as to have left a 50 foot access <br />point. Moser did not believe the adjacent property <br />4 <br />