Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 22, 2015 <br />right-of-way. Roberto felt that the City should either develop the road or <br />vacate the right-of-way. <br />Keis asked if the City had responsibility for maintenance of the <br />unimproved right-of-way. The City Administrator indicated that if a tree <br />needs to be removed from the right-of-way, the City has taken the <br />responsibility to do so. Roberto indicated that the City had no duty to <br />maintain a private road. The Administrator pointed out that this is not a <br />private road, there is a private driveway on an unimproved right-of-way. <br />Carol Stenger, Savage Lane, asked if the road will be improved. The <br />Administrator felt it was not practical to improve the road and it would be <br />a difficult improvement to assess given the benefits received test. <br />Roberto suggested that the entire right-of-way be vacated and the <br />driveway easement maintained. The Administrator pointed out that there <br />is no driveway easement. He noted that 298 Rose Lane was granted a <br />Variance in order to allow their driveway over the unimproved right-of- <br />way. The Administrator noted that if the road is vacated, the Anderson <br />property (298 Rose Lane) would need a driveway easement over the <br />Johnson property (2552 Savage Lane). <br />Stenger asked why the need to change anything. Roberto replied that <br />changes need to be made given the trespass issues that his family has had. <br />Stenger did not believe Rose Lane would ever be improved. Roberto <br />suggested that they the right-of-way should be vacated. <br />Keis asked who would make the determination about which property the <br />vacated right-of-way would accrue to. The City Attorney indicated that <br />that is governed by State law, and typically the right-of-way accrues half <br />to each abutting property. <br />Roberto indicated that he is looking for equity and pointed out that the <br />Anderson property was granted front yard storage when other properties <br />were not. <br />Keis pointed out that there needs to be driveway access to the Anderson <br />property. That driveway currently lies within the south half of the Rose <br />Lane right-of-way. Therefore, if the entire right-of-way is vacated, the <br />north half would go to the Roberto property and the south to the Johnson <br />property. Given the location of the driveway, Keis felt there was no <br />benefit in the vacation to the Johnson property. Mr. Johnson agreed with <br />that statement. <br />Roberto suggested that the solution then was to improve the street. <br />Roberto stated that he has an interest in this right-of-way and again <br />indicated that he wants to landscape around his property. <br />3 <br />