Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />Mar~ch 9, 1988 <br />Howe <br />Driveway <br />Concept <br />(Cont.) <br />The City Engineer~ commented that fr•om a safety standpoint, it would be <br />better• to have the dr~iveway access the r~oad easement r•ather~ than Edger•ton. <br />The Planner• agreed, pointing out that if the str~eet wer~e alr•eady impr•oved, <br />the City would r~equir~e the dr~iveway access the str•eet on the north <br />r•ather• than Edger~ton. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City does not r•equir~e r~esidential dr~iveways <br />to be blacktopped, and suggested that it not r•equir•e the r~oad easement <br />be impr~oved at this time. <br />Scalze noted that the plat shows the easement as a dr•ainage and <br />utility easement and not a r•oad easement. <br />The Planner• r•epor~ted that at the time the City r~equir~ed the easement <br />it was concer~ned what to call the easement. If the easement were <br />called a r•oad easement, the Council had concer•n that it would have to <br />allow the public the r~ight of passage over~ the easement. <br />The City Engineer• agr•eed, but pointed out that the easement was left <br />open for• a futur•e str~eet. <br />Blesener asked if a driveway could be placed over a drainage and <br />utility easement. <br />Collova did not think the City could stop the pr~oper•ty owner~ fr~om using <br />the easement. <br />Scalze was concer~ned that the City would have to go back and pur~chase <br />a r~oad easement from the pr•oper~ty owner• at such time it wanted to <br />impr•ove the road in this location. <br />The City Engineer• suggested that the City r•equir•e the r•oad easement <br />to be signed at this time. <br />Mr•. Fahey intr•oduced the following r•esolution and movetl its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-91 - INSTRUCTING THE CITY <br />ENGINEER TO RESEARCH THE MINUTES 61ITH THE CITY <br />CLERK TO DETERMIDIE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY <br />REQUIRED GORDY HObIE TO DEDICATE A 50-FOOT ROAD <br />EASEMENT 0~1 THE NORTH END OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, <br />LAKE VIEW ESTATES <br />The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•s. Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Fahey, Scalze, LaValle, Blesener, Collova. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declar•ed adopted. <br />This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 96. <br />Page -14- <br />