03-25-2015 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 25, 2015 Montour indicated that if the City vacated the entire right-of-way, the only property owner that would see a benefit would be Roberto. Roberto noted that this right-of-way is not on the tax rolls at this time, and would be if it were vacated. Keis asked the City's options relative to the amount of right-of-way to vacate. The City Administrator indicated that Roberto would like to see the 25 feet adjacent to his property vacated so that land would accrue to his property. The Administrator also noted that dependent on the amount of right-of-way vacated, there could be issues with snow storage if the driveway easement width was not adequate. Therefore, a snow storage easement might also be necessary. The Administrator noted that the Council has the option to vacate all of the right-of-way, a portion of it, or none of it. However, if the Council initiates the vacation hearing, it will take 4/5ths of the Council to approve the vacation. Fischer suggested the option of vacating only 10 feet of the right-of-way on either side and moving the Anderson driveway to the middle of the remaining right-of-way. This would give the property owner at 2552 Savage Lane some additional usable property. Keis agreed, and felt a vacation should not be for the sole benefit of Roberto. Roberto raised the issue that he has been kept from using this unimproved right-of-way. He noted that the City has the road marked with a street sign, but pointed out that he has learned that he cannot walk on this unimproved right-of-way. Roberto stated that he would like to see the right-of-way vacated and this become a non -City issue since the City will not allow the public use of this area. McGraw indicated that to him this was an issue of fairness. He cited the history of the Anderson and the Roberto properties, noting that when the Anderson house was built in the 1970's, a variance was granted to allow the driveway use over the unimproved Rose Lane right-of-way. He noted that no objection was raised and that time and pointed out that the Roberto Family owned this property at this time. Then in 2003 when Sam Roberto was developing his property, he sought a variance to the required setback in order to locate his house on the portion of his property that had better soils. The Council also vacated 5 feet on each side of unimproved Rose Lane so that the Roberto property would be buildable. McGraw felt that in undertaking these actions, the Council acted in the best interests of each of the property owners at the time. He pointed out that nothing has changed since that time. McGraw now noted the Roberto request for the vacation of unimproved Rose Lane right-of-way, which he pointed out will only benefit Roberto, even though there are potentially three property 8