09-09-87 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Sept. 9, 1987 Street Fahey noted that Council has received a copy of the City's assessment Assessment policy which was adopted on March II, 1967. Fahey stated that the Policy decision before the Council is whether it wants to apply this policy to the street improvements recently completed in the City, or if Agenda the Council feels a new street assessment policy should be adopted Item No. 7 as these are the first street repaving improvements the City has undertaken. The City Engineer reported that the policy that was adopted in March of 1967 was adopted when the City's first sanitary sewer improvements were made and the first assessments levied in the City. Council discussed the various provisions contained in the assessment policy. However, Council noted that the City has never assessed for a street improvement in the past, pointing out the concerns raised at the last meeting with regard to the corner lots along Morrison Avenue. Fahey noted that the policy does not adequately address property that is splitable. Loren Kehn, 333 Brooks Avenue, noted that the 1967 assessment policy states that sideyards would be assessed at 20% of the front footage, while frontyards would be assessed at 100%. Kehn also referred the Council to the August 9, 1978 Council meeting minutes in which a lot split was denied in the Roy Wilson Addition due to past precedent set to retain 1/2 acre lots in that addition. Fahey pointed out that at the time the lot split was denied, the lot proposed to be split did not meet Code requirements as to lot depth. However, the City Code has since been changed which eliminates a lot depth requirement. Joe Kausner appeared before the Council reporting on the past history of the Roy 6Jilson Addition and the assurances that the property owners received that the lots in this addition could not be split but would remain 1/2 acre lots. Kausner also submitted for the record a letter dated October 5, 1967 from Attorney William McGraw regarding lot size in the Roy 4lilson Addition. Kausner stated that he was disturbed that due to an ordinance change it may be possible to split the lots in the Roy ldilson Addition, and Kausner felt that such lot splits would devalue his property. Fahey pointed out that City Codes do change, and the Council would be hard-pressed to deny a lot split if setbacks can be met. Scalze reported that she talked with Jim Seivert who thought there was a restriction in his deed from dividing his property. However, Seivert did not research this. Kehn agreed that there were deed restrictions on the properties in the Page -3-