Laserfiche WebLink
"tI'!tJTES <br />City' Council <br />Dec. 12, 1985 <br />Waite <br />Guardrail <br />(Cont.) <br />Klidzejs <br />Property <br />Division <br />Agenda <br />Item No. 7 <br />his mail. Waite commented that the City has caused his problem by <br />putting up the last section of guardrail. <br />Fahey suggested that '"r. Blesener discuss with Mr. Glanzer the possibility <br />of removing this section of rail. Blesener also reported that he will <br />find out the history of the guardrail and report back to the Council. <br />Scalze felt that the City would be setting a precedent by installing <br />a guardrail to protect a mailbox. <br />Fahey did not feel that the City has a responsibility for negligent <br />drivers and he was not in favor of spending any more money on this. <br />Blesenercommented that he will report back at the next Council meeting. <br />Mr. Klidzejs of Twin lake Road appeared before the Council requesting <br />approval of the division of his property into Tracts A, 8, and C. <br />Klidzejs reported that he has a house on Tract 3, his son has a house <br />on Tract C and his daughter would like to build a house on Tract A. <br />Mr. Fahey pointed out that the Planning Commission tabled action on <br />this matter. However, the matter was before the Planning Commission <br />on May 5 at which time the Planning Commission recommended approval, <br />subject to a road easement of the proper width. This carried 6 to 1. <br />Klidzejs reported that he spoke to Mrs. Mitchell's son, owners of the <br />adjoining property, and was informed that they do not wish to develop <br />their 4.36 acres, and will sell the property to a developer sometime <br />in the future. Klidzejs estimated that 12 lots could be developed <br />from the Mitchell property and that access to this property would be <br />from the road easement running alongside his property. <br />Mr. Fahey did not feel that the City could approve the request as <br />the lots would not have frontage on an improved street. <br />The City Clerk reported that the City has 15.5 feet of easement for <br />sewer on both the Mitchell property and the Klidzejs property. Mr. <br />Klidzejs disagreed and reported that there is 20 feet of easement <br />on the Mitchell property. <br />Mrs. Scalze pointed out that when the Mitchell property develops, they <br />may want access from another area. <br />Fahey reported that City policy has been to require 50 feet of road <br />easement dedicated to the public to approve a property division. Fahey <br />did not feel that the Klidzejs property could be divided until the <br />Mitchell property develops. <br />Klidzejs reported that he has an easement to get to his house and <br />that in the future it would be public. <br />PAGE 3 <br />