Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 8, 1990 <br />Scalze pointed out that there are liability concerns <br />involved. Scalze felt that if the consensus of the <br />Council is to deviate from City street requirements, <br />then allowing the development of two or three lots <br />without improved street frontage should be established <br />as City policy. <br />Fahey pointed out that curb and gutter were required on <br />Savage Lane, and felt it should be required in this <br />instance as well. Fahey felt that if the road <br />extension were coming from Rose Place, which does not <br />have curb and qutter, the situation would be different. <br />Scalze felt the best situation would be to vacate <br />unneeded Rose Place right-of-way and serve the Stewart <br />property with a cul-de-sac. Scalze pointed out that <br />the vacation would result in some additional lots. <br />Stewart reported that the cul-de-sac would serve his <br />property as well as the Buche property, but not the <br />property to the north. Stewart pointed out that the <br />property to the north is a wetland and questioned the <br />need for curb and gutter, pointing out that run-off <br />currently flows into this wetland area. <br />There was no one else from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Blesener, seconded by LaValle, the <br />public hearing was closed. <br />Fahey felt that the street improvement was a necessity <br />and suggested that Stewart take the City Engineer's <br />estimates and discuss them with Mr. Buche. <br />Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 90-8-368 - APPROVING THE VARIANCE <br />REQUESTED BY MR. TOM STEWART FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF <br />IMPROVED STREET FRONTAGE FOR A NEWLY CREATED LOT <br />SUBJECT TO MR. STEWART'S PUTTING IN A STANDARD CITY <br />STREET 20 FEET IN WIDTH TO SERVE THE LOT, AS WELL AS <br />WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT, BUT NO CURB AND GUTTER AND NO <br />CUL-DE-SAC <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (3) Blesener, LaValle, Collova. <br />Nays (2) Fahey, Scalze. <br />Resolution denied. <br />Page 10 <br />