Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 25, 1990 <br />• <br />there is no improved road frontage to the property. <br />Fahey stated that if a cul -de -sac was run in from <br />Savage Lane, he could support the property division. <br />Fahey felt it was a mistake to allow a private drive <br />over public right -of -way. Fahey stated that this was <br />allowed in the case of the adjacent Buche property <br />since that property was developed prior to adoption of <br />the Zoning Ordinance. <br />Biesener pointed out that the north side of the street <br />is not buildable, therefore, could not be assessed for <br />road improvement. Biesener felt it unreasonable to <br />expect two property owners to bear the cost of a street <br />and curb and gutter improvement. Biesener suggested <br />that the City require a blacktop mat wide enough so <br />that two cars could pass. Biesener also suggested that <br />since the road would not meet City standards, that the <br />two property owners assume responsibility for <br />snowplowing and maintenance. <br />Scalze was concerned about the precedent this would <br />set. Scalze pointed out past opposition to curb and <br />gutter improvements, however, the City established as a <br />policy that all street improvements would include curb <br />and gutter. <br />Biesener felt the difference was that this drive would <br />serve only two lots. <br />Fahey pointed out past Council action in denying the <br />Pelton lot split due to lack of adequate road frontage. <br />Collova pointed out that there is a topographical <br />hardship in this instance since Rose Place could not be <br />put through because of grades. <br />Scalze pointed out that there <br />adjacent to this property and <br />financial hardship, which the <br />is not a basis for granting a <br />are no grade problems <br />felt the problem was a <br />Council has been informed <br />variance. <br />Biesener felt the situation was different than the <br />Pelton's since Pelton did not have adequate road <br />frontage on the street, and the Stewart property does <br />not front on an improved street. <br />Mr. Stewart felt that the cost of a road improvement <br />would exceed the value of the lot. <br />Fahey pointed out that the Buche property would be <br />assessed as well. Fahey asked what the cost of a <br />street improvement would be. <br />Page 4 Page 25 <br />