05-25-94 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MAY 25, 1994 The Planner replied that there was not. Pedersen stated that he would be opposed to the vacation of the Lake Street right-of-way because at some point this area will develop. Scalze and Morelan agreed. Tom Keenan pointed out that without a variance, the City might be forced to put in the road improvement and assess abutting properties. Keenan asked if the Council wanted to force such an improvement, pointinq out that this was the only alternative to the variance. Keenan also stated that it was his understanding that the variance procedure was a way to grant an exception to the rule when the situation warranted. Keenan felt that a variance was the least painful way to address the situation. Scalze suggested that the hardship in this instance would be that Mr. Keenan would be deprived of the ability to develop his property if the rest of the property owners abutting unimproved Lake Street were not willing to participate in a street improvement. The City Planner noted that 350 of the abutting property owners would have to petition for a road improvement. If such a petition were received, a public hearing would be held and the Council would vote on whether or not to improve the street. The Planner indicated that he has not seen any special conditions for this situation that warrant a variance. The Planner noted that Lake Street has not been improved because such a project would be expensive. Scalze pointed out that Keenan does not have the ability to petition for the road improvement since he does not own 35% of the abutting property. Therefore, he is denied the right to even petition for a road improvement. Hanson pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Mason, who own property abutting unimproved Lake Street, do not oppose Mr. Keenan's developing a house on his property. However, they are opposed to participating in the cost of improving Lake Street. Hanson pointed out that many 5