10/05/1998 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1998 3. City officials at the Planning and Zoning meeting in July indicated both parcels existing would be considered as fronting for Snow Owl Lane. 4. A real estate agent and attorney has advised them that the land dedication is unfair. Mr. Hill noted that this issue has been very stressful for both him and his wife. He asked the City to try and negotiate a fair settlement. Mayor Sullivan asked about the definition of a subdivision. Mr. Hawkins explained that when a subdivision occurs,the State has given municipalities the right to require right-of-way dedication. If the City feels a right-of-way is necessary,the City has the right to require the right-of-way. Mayor Sullivan asked what the impact will be regarding the required right-of-way, based on the precedence set. Mr. Hawkins indicated the required right-of-way is following the precedence already set. Developers are very often required to donate additional right-of-way. Mayor Sullivan asked if the 14 feet of right-of-way is excessive. Mr. Hawkins indicated that 14 feet is the immediate need for the City and is not excessive. Mayor Sullivan explained that technically all the lots on the west side of Snow Owl Lane were grandfathered. This variance will also be grandfathered. Mr. Hawkins stated that a blanket variance was granted in this area,therefore,this variance can be grandfathered with no future implications. Council Member Lyden stated that the Council must make a decision based on what they feel is right. He indicated he does not believe it is right to required the right-of-way when the road is not ready for reconstruction. When Elm Street is ready for the improvements,the City will have to purchase the right-of-way. He stated he will make his decision based on what his heart feels is right in this situation. Council Member Bergeson stated he believes there is justification for the lot split and variance. There is justification for the City to acquire the right-of-way. It is in the public's best interest for the City to obtain consistency regarding the right-of-way on Elm Street. He stated the question is compensation. He asked if there is a way to provide compensation for the right-of-way or should the right-of-way be dedicated to the City. He indicated the Council has explored many different options. Based on legal advise it has been determined that the right-of-way is relevant to the parcel of land and improvements to Elm Street are eminent. Those two (2) options are not available with no funding to support those options. Council Member Lyden stated that what is determined to be legally correct is not always the right thing to do. 5