DCPREZ-0000-04255 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF SUN PRAIRIE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 124 COLUMBUS STREET SUN PRAIRIE, WISCONSIN 53590-2299 (608) 837-2511 June 28, 1988 Dane County Regional Planning JUN 28 1988 Attn: Norbert Scribner City-County Building 210 Monona ZON DIV. Room 116 Madison WI 53709 RE: Request to Rezone Marlin Vernig Property and Approve Requested Certified Survey Map for Said Property (Delayed Effective Date) Dear Mr. Scribner, The City of Sun Prairie's Plan Commission has reviewed this matter with the petitioners. On its direction, City of Sun Prairie staff have met with the Vernig's on several occasions to discuss possible means of resolving the City's concerns. The City of Sun Prairie does not oppose the requested rezoning of the subject property from the A-1 Exclusive Agricultural District to the R-3A District. The existing residence is so located (adjacent to County Highway N) and is of sufficient size to make conversion into a duplex unit a reasonable course of action. The City of Sun Prairie has granted equivalent zoning to similarly situated lots in the Glacier Park Subdivi- sion located on the north property line of the subject property. However, the City of Sun Prairie is opposed to the subdivision of the subject property. Basically, the City of Sun Prairie wishes to annex the subject property at some point in the future. The subject property is located within our Urban Service Area, and the City will be able to provide full public services to the property within the next few years. Also, the City does not wish to have a situation created in which the subject property (in an unincorporated area) can prevent or delay the voluntary annexation of properties to the south and/or east. With this position in mind, City of Sun Prairie staff has met with the petitioner to explore a means of resolving this issue. The City's sug- gested conditions (arrived at after our first position was rejected by the petitioner) continue to be rejected by the petitioner. The essence of our position is to require the property owner(s) of the subject prop- erty enter into a binding agreement with the City which requires the voluntary annexation of the subject property upon the request of any adjacent property owner(s) for annexation into the City. This condition is the only way in which the City feels it can protect the long-run interests of our taxpayers. We regret that it is not acceptable to the petitioner, and that because of the DED status of the rezoning request, the petitioner may have to refile for simply a change in zoning.