Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />April 8, 1998 <br />Page 9 <br />Chair Schaps indicated that he thought the idea was to have the trail from the middle <br />school, through the project, then into the Village. Ms. Wyland explained that it was just a <br />park trail. <br />Mr. Skogland said that he misunderstood, as he believed it was to get the kids to school. <br />He continued asking why they could not follow the property lines more closely when <br />they cross the ditch, because otherwise it will cut his property into six peices, leaving the <br />area behind his garage triangular, approximatly 50' by 10'. Another area across the ditch <br />will be 50'; and another 50' by 250'. He noted that Mr. Rehbien would also have <br />property cut up into irregular shaped pieces. He wondered why they did not go down the <br />easement area for sewer and water. Mr. Skogland then showed a detailed map indicating <br />his property and where his property would be segmented, questioning again why the <br />street did not stay on the sewer and water right -of -way instead of turning. He stated that <br />there would be about 50' by 200 -250' of right -of -way that is useless. <br />Mr. Brixius explained that in reviewing the site plan, Staff had the same concerns as this <br />property owner. He believed that future right -of -way alignment needs to follow the <br />property lines so they are not severing property and leaving sites that are unuseable. <br />He said that it should be endorsed by the Planning and Zoning Board that future <br />acquisition of right -of -way north of the ditch follow the property lines. <br />Mr. Skogland stated that they could work together and possibly trade their property <br />so they did not have property on opposite sides. Mr. Brixius again said that this was a <br />concern of Staff and they would like to see this matter resolved in a way that works for <br />both property owners. <br />Chair Schaps then asked Mr. Skogland if he could recall why the DNR refused the <br />proposed ditch years ago. Mr. Skogland stated that he could not remember the details, but <br />did recall the proposal was totally shut down. <br />Mr. Robinson said that he could not recall the reason either, but did know that it was <br />in 1981 and the Corp. of Engineers had some reservations also. <br />Mr. Carl Bukholtz came forward and expressed his concerns about the cul -de -sac that <br />comes behind his property and the idea of taking more of his property for the future <br />road. Because his is a smaller lot, he believed that if they took any more of it the value of <br />his property goes down substantially. He asked if it would be possible to place it back <br />farther, as opposed to backing up to his property. He explained that the lights and noise <br />from the semitrucks would basically make his property worthless, noting that it is zoned <br />Residential and Light Industrial. <br />Chair Schaps asked Mr. Bukholtz if he had any discussion with Mr. Rehbein or Mr. <br />Corson regarding his concerns. Mr. Bukholtz stated he had never met Mr. Rehbein, but <br />had spoken briefly with Mr. Corson. He then stated he would like to see the road stay <br />