2014-04-02 P & R Set Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- r �e iffe v ]880 Wain Slreet, Curtenill"e, MN55038 '�- , 6.51 -129 -3232 or IFar6S 429 -8629 � <rutit i:fir•�1 185, March 26, 2014 To: Park and Rec Committee Re: Property at Mill Road —Lot 4, Block 2, Petersons Old Homestead Addition Background. Last summer, the Council determined that several parcels of property were surplus and that they should be sold. Those were listed with Gaughan Realty. The Council late in 2013, passed a resolution directing that the proceeds of the sale of all of the parcels be directed toward paying down the debt that financed 21" Avenue \Commerce Drive improvement. Recently, the Park and Rec Committee asked the question of whether the proceeds from the sale of the referenced lot, should go to benefit Park and Rec purposes. That suggestion is a valid request, if the property was either dedicated in the subdivision for park use, or was gifted with that restriction. 1. Was the lot dedicated on the plat for park use? The answer to that question is no. The plat was recorded with no park identified. The lot in question has no restrictions mentioned on the plat, other than the typical drainage and utility easements along the boundaries. 2. Was the lot transferred to the city to meet park dedication requirements? That answer also seems to be no. The minutes of the Council meeting of July 26, 1978, mention a $50 per lot "park fee" to be collected on all building permits in the plat. We cannot find minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings for February and March 2008, so any recommendations from that body are not available, but we would expect the Council action to be the final word on the issue. Building permits subsequently issued, show collection of $50 each for "park" fee. This amount is consistent with a plat approved for 20 lots of Rehbein Estates in 1979, which also required $50 per lot park fee. 3. Was the property purchased by the city, or was it gifted; with the understanding that it would be used for park purposes. The fact that the deed was given to the city approximately one year after the plat was filed would indicate that the transfer likely had nothing to do with subdividing the property into lots. The ownership was transferred by Certificate of Title in the fall of 1979. The Title has no use restrictions, but does mention the property is subject to drainage and utility easements. Also, I could not find any listing in the minutes of a disbursement to Peterson indicating the property was paid for in the normal sense.