08/03/1998 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning&Zoning Board July 8, 1998 Page 3 property. She stated they decided to sell the property at 302 Elm Street. The City Engineer informed them the sewer was not up to State code. In order to sell the property, they would have to install a new septic system and drain field. She explained that they have spent a lot of money for sewer hook-up, homestead fee, land surveying, Park fees, and lawyer fees. Chair Schaps asked if they have a buyer for the property. Mrs. Hill indicated they do have some interest regarding the property. Mr. Hill stated that if the area is dedicated three trees must be removed, a concrete turnaround must be removed, and their property will only be 1/4 of an acre. The City is asking them to give up $10,000 value of their property. He indicated the property will be difficult to sell after the land dedication. He stated that other properties in.the area did not have to dedicate land for a right-of-way. He asked if something can be worked out. He stated that the City should not obtain this right-of-way at no cost. Mr. Corson explained that land dedications are not always equal. He stated that when Elm Street was put in Mr. Hokenson dedicated land on both sides of the street. Mr. Hill stated that he reimbursed Mr. Hokenson for some of the land dedication when he purchased the property. Chair Schaps explained that the property cannot be split without a variance. Mr. Dunn asked why the City is asking for so much right-of-way. Mr. Brixius indicated the City is trying to secure a uniform right-of-way all the way down Elm Street. Mr. Dunn asked how many homes were involved in the "blanket"variance that was passed in 1992 for the Ulmers Rice Lake Addition. He asked if those homes had paid a Park Dedication fee and what the circumstances were to allow the variance. Ms. Wyland stated that those properties did pay a Park Dedication fee. Mr. Dunn asked what it means to the City if Mr. and Mrs. Hill do not give up their land. Ms. Wyland explained that when Elm Street is improved,additional right-of-way will have to be purchased. She referred to a map that showed that most of Elm Street does allow for additional right-of-way. There are 4 lots where the City does not have the additional right=of--way. Mr. Dunn asked what the developer received for donating additional right-of-way. Ms. Wyland indicated they received subdivision approval. Mr. Hill stated that there is a large difference between a developer donating additional n right-of-way and himself donating additional right-of-way. He stated that a developer has