Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MAY 25, 1994 <br />available to the City. <br />Mr. Schorn suggested that the City establish a policy <br />which would stated that only a certain number of houses <br />would be allowed to develop on an unimproved street <br />before the street must be improved. <br />Scalze agreed that the City should adopt such a policy. <br />LaValle suggested that when additional variances are <br />requested, the City order the improvement of Lake <br />Street. <br />Morelan was not sure the street would be improved <br />unless the property owners on both the east and west <br />sides of the street want it. <br />LaValle pointed out that assessments could be deferred <br />until such time as the abutting property develops. <br />Tom Keenan suggested that the variance be granted and <br />when additional development is requested, the road be <br />improved and benefitting properties assessed. <br />Scalze pointed out that the hardship criteria must be <br />met before a variance can be granted. That hardship <br />cannot be economic in nature. <br />Tom Keenan pointed out that he has been paying taxes on <br />the property for the past 20 years. <br />The City Administrator suggested that should a variance <br />be granted, Mr. Keenan be asked to sign a Waiver of <br />Right to Appeal Assessments for any future improvement <br />of Lake Street. <br />Tom Keenan pointed out that he does not have enough <br />frontage on the road to allow him to petition for a <br />public improvement. <br />Aanson pointed out that the property is platted, and <br />Dr. Keenan has been paying taxes on it for many years. <br />Aanson felt the situation was unique enough to warrant <br />granting the variance. <br />Scalze agreed that the hardship in the case is the fact <br />that Dr. Keenan does not have enough frontage so he can <br />9 <br />