Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 26, 1997 <br />13UII.DING FROM 2620 RICE STREET, IN THE AMOUNT OF <br />$5,300. 00 AS RECOMMENDED I3Y THE CITYADMINISTRATOR <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Morelan. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Morelan, Scalze, Fahey, Pedersen. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />PROPERTY Mayor Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the lot line <br />DIVISION - adjustment for 633/637 Keller Parkway as requested by Mr. Pau( <br />633/637 KELLER Sprosty. It was noted that the City Planner and the Plannin~ Commission <br />PARKWAY - have recommended approval. <br />SPROSTY <br />Mr. Ken Indrelie, 2746 Edgerton Street, appeared before the Council <br />expressing concern that the property at 633 Keller Parkway is not well- <br />maintained. Indrelie was concerned that once the property at 637 Keller <br />Parkway is developed, the maintenance problem will expand into that lot <br />as well. Indrelie stated that he would have less of an objection if there <br />were some trees planted along the property line to provide screening. <br />Fahey noted that the property division meets all City Code requirements. <br />Fahey suggested that the issue raised by Mr. Indrelie was one of code <br />enforcement. <br />Indrelie reported that he has made one call to the City re~ardin~ the <br />condition of the property, but indicated that he typically does not make <br />these sorts of complaints. Indrelie reported that there is an old appliance, <br />si~ns, piles of wood, and other debris stored on the property that is an <br />eyesore. <br />Mr. Paul Sprosty apologized for the condition of the property and reported <br />that he will clean it up. Sprosty repoited that he has been very busy and <br />has not been able to maintain the property as he would like. However, <br />with his son living next door to him, he will have some help in <br />maintaining the property. <br />Indrelie again asked that the City require trees to be planted to provide <br />screening. <br />Morelan stated that he did not believe the City could dictate screening as a <br />condition of the lot split approval. The City Attorney agreed. The City <br />Planner indicated that the property condition was a code enforcement <br />issue. <br />