Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parcel Disposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two Rivers council authorizes staff to market 1.33‑acre Hawthorne/Eighteenth parcel for residential use
Summary
After reviewing conceptual plans, the Two Rivers City Council voted May 27 to allow staff to investigate and market a city‑owned 1.33‑acre triangular parcel at Eighteenth Street and Hawthorne for possible residential development, directing staff to return with pricing and engineering estimates.
The Two Rivers City Council voted May 27 to authorize staff to investigate and market the city‑owned 1.33‑acre parcel at Eighteenth Street and Hawthorne Avenue for potential residential use, following a presentation of conceptual single‑family and multifamily layouts and discussion of utility and access needs.
City staff presented several options for the triangular parcel—ranging from single‑family lots requiring a cul‑de‑sac or hammerhead turnaround, to townhomes or three buildings of four four‑unit structures—observing that utilities already exist around the site and that additional pavement or an extension of Lowell Street could be required depending on access choices.
Presenters noted the parcel has served as a buffer between industrial and residential areas, is small and irregularly shaped, and would likely not attract significant industrial users. Staff discussed zoning implications (existing industrial zoning, potential rezoning to R‑2 or R‑3), the option of pursuing a comprehensive plan amendment or rezoning through the planning commission and potential costs for curb, gutter and road extension that would likely fall to a developer but could be assessed or partially borne by the city.
Discussion covered the practicality of a traditional cul‑de‑sac versus a hammerhead turnaround, driveway and snow‑plow access, sidewalk placement and whether a developer would be asked to front improvement costs or be assessed later. Council members said the city’s comprehensive plan already indicates residential use on that corner, which would reduce the need for a comp‑plan amendment if the council pursues rezoning.
During debate, council member Mark Bender said, “That would be my motion,” before a motion was brought forward to allow staff to investigate and market the property for residential uses. The motion was seconded and carried; the council directed staff to work with a realtor to prepare a listing, produce an engineer’s estimate for potential street extension costs, and return to council in June with recommended pricing and next steps.
The council did not commit to any specific zoning outcome, sales price, or development assistance; members emphasized developers should bear primary costs for on‑site improvements and that any TIF or incentives would be considered separately and require council approval.
