Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />Monday, Apri 1 9, 1984 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />In discussion, concerns expressed by Council, if not a <br />recorded restriction, were: <br /> <br />1. Restriction could get lost. <br /> <br />2. Potential land owners may not be aware of the <br />restriction when purchasing these lots. <br /> <br />3. Future construction may be desired, after initial <br />Building Permit is issued (deck, room addition etc.); <br />restriction, if on original Building Permit may not <br />be carried over to subsequent permits. <br /> <br />Hoganson explained that his concern is that the restriction, <br />if recorded in covenants, may result as a "cloud on the title" <br />at some time in the future. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve the <br />Final Plat of Lametti Addition, subject to the filing of <br />restrictive covenants on Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2 establishing <br />15 foot sideyard setbacks at the south lot lines, and <br />resolution of the park dedication. Motion carried unanimously. <br />(4-0) <br /> <br />Petition for Village to Install Streets and Utilities, <br />Resolution No. 84-12, Orderinq Feasibility Report for Impr. <br />No. 84-2 <br />McNiesh reported that she has the Petition signed by Catherine <br />Lametti, requesting the City to install the streets and utilities, <br />and a letter stating that developer will reimburse the City <br />for the cost of preparation of the feasibility report if <br />improvement is aborted. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Rauenhorst, that Council adopt <br />Resolution No. 84-2, ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR IMPROVE- <br />MENT NO. 84-2. <br /> <br />(Mulcahy arrived at Meeting) <br /> <br />Motion carried (Hicks, Rauenhorst, Christiansen, Woodburn <br />voting in favor; Mulcahy abstained). (4-0-1) <br /> <br />Park Dedication <br />William Muske reported that he has discussed park dedication <br />with Councilman Mulcahy; noted that he would like to resolve <br />the park dedication requirement as soon as possible, in order <br />to know their costs. <br /> <br />Mulcahy suggested that Council wait until the value of the <br />property can be determined; is reluctant to accept the <br />Assessor's market value, without further expert opinion that <br />this is an adequate base on which to determine park dedication. <br /> <br />Muske reported that in 1982 the assessed land value was <br />$84,000; in 1983 the assessed land value was increased to . <br />$257,400, including the lot on which Mrs. Lametti's house is <br />located (Lot 5, Block 2). Muske ~oted that the land has not <br />been sold; is being developed by Mrs. Lametti; consequently, <br />no appraisal has been made; feels the matter can readily be <br />negotiated on a reasonable basis. Muske advised that the <br />house is assessed at $36,000; house and land at $293,400. <br /> <br />After discussion, Mulcahy moved, seconded by Rauenhorst, that <br />Council select an appraiser to determine the "undeveloped <br />land value" of the Lametti plat; appraisal costs to be paid <br />by the developer. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />(Appraisal to include values of land with and without Lot 5, <br />Block 2). <br />