Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Dennis Welsch <br />February 12,2004 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Mr. Garley is seeking an assurance that the City will not force removal of the garage because <br />of the setback violation. While I doubt the City has any particular desire to get into an <br />enforcement action over a 40-year-old garage, it also cannot provide any kind of blanket <br />assurance that the violation will never be addressed. Mr. Garley is basically asking for an <br />after-the-fact variance, which the City staff cannot give. In any event, this issue is unrelated to <br />the condemnation and should stay that way. I propose that we not allow this issue to become <br />part of any settlement over the condemnation. <br /> <br />4. Temporary Construction Easement. This issue is already being taken care of. <br /> <br />5. Additional compensation. Mr. Heeren raised the issue of two additional forms of <br />compensation that were identified by the City's appraisers in their appraisal report. Pages 96- <br />97 of the report list the following two additional types of damage: "damage to site <br />improvements" at $6,000, and "property tax reimbursement" at $600. <br /> <br />The site improvements at issue were the sod, hedge and the pOliion of the parking lot <br />that were removed. It is my position that the City is rectifying this issue by offering new <br />landscaping at City expense. One could argue that new landscaping does not really reimburse <br />the owner for the value of the asphalt that was taken, but I would nevertheless argue that the <br />new landscaping is offered as compensation for the destroyed improvements in general and <br />that no additional compensation is warranted. The landscaping is going to cost the City most <br />of $6,000 anyway so the owner is getting properly reimbursed. We can visit this issue some <br />more if Mr. Garley becomes adamant about it. <br /> <br />The tax reimbursement is probably due the owner. It would be difficult for us to argue <br />that it is not given that our appraiser clearly stated that it was a legitimate form of damages to <br />be paid. At $600, these damages are not worth spending much time arguing over anyway. <br /> <br />Let me know your thoughts so that I can respond to Mr. Heeren. Please call if you have <br />any questions. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />q~4/ <br /> <br />~:h J. Langel <br /> <br />Enc. (3) <br />RRM: 58587 <br />