Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 22, 2015 <br />property line. Anderson questioned the purpose that anyone would have <br />for using this unimproved right-of-way. <br />Torkelson stated that the drawbacks to improving Rose Lane include the <br />costs that would be incurred from the improvement, the area is not as <br />secluded as it has been, and property owners would be assessed for a road <br />that some would never use. <br />Roberto noted that Johnson doesn't want the right-of-way vacated, but <br />noted the possibility that the Johnson property would be assessed for the <br />improvement of Rose Lane. He indicated that vacating the right-of-way <br />would remove the assessment potential. Roberto also noted that when he <br />purchased his property he was able to use the right-of-way. He pointed <br />out that there is a street sign for Rose Lane at its intersection with Savage <br />Lane. Roberto felt that created an expectation that people could use the <br />right-of-way. <br />Keis summarized the options before the Council. One was to leave the <br />situation as is noting the possibility that the right-of-way may someday be <br />improved. Another option would be to vacate the right-of-way, which <br />Keis noted raises concern about equity in that the Roberto property gained <br />usable property while the Johnson property did not. A third option would <br />be to center the Anderson property within the right-of-way, with results in <br />the properties on the north and south gaining some additional usable <br />property. Keis stated that he was most comfortable with the third option. <br />Torkelson asked about the driveway maintenance. Keis felt it did not <br />make sense to improve Rose Lane because of the cost for very little value. <br />Roberto stated that he preferred to see the road improved rather than <br />centering the driveway and not surfacing it. Roberto indicated that if the <br />driveway is centered in the right-of-way he would definitely use it. <br />Keis indicated that there may have to be some compromise in this <br />situation. Montour asked if Roberto would have the right to use the <br />driveway. The Administrator asked Roberto if the issue was about using <br />the driveway or about gaining access to his backyard. Roberto indicated <br />that he wants to be able to use the unimproved right-of-way and pointed <br />out that he used it in the past. He again pointed out the existence of the <br />Rose Lane street sign which indicates the existence of a road. <br />The City Administrator asked if Roberto can use the unimproved right-of- <br />way if that resolves most of the issues. Keis stated that he was looking for <br />a reasonable and equitable solution to the matter. The Administrator <br />indicated that unimproved Rose Lane is public right-of-way, but again <br />noted the City Code provisions relative to access. The Administrator <br />again asked Roberto if he could use the right-of-way to access his back <br />yard to do some things, if that would resolve the problem. Roberto <br />7 <br />