10-19-93 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Mary Kueffner October 15, 1993 Page 3 construction would be assessed pursuant to Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes against all benefitted properties. It was decided by the City Council that there was insufficient benefit to the abutting properties to justify that project. The Colosimos did not make known to the City Council that, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement with the Collyards, if the road were required to be improved, the Colosimos had specifically agreed to pay all of the assessments which could be assessed against the Maistrovich property. it appears to us that the City Council was not made aware of that when it decided the issue. Nonetheless, the proposal was denied and the City now has before it the issue of whether or not this subdivision with an extended cul-de-sac will be approved. The Collyards ask the City Council to approve of the subdivision. Please note that pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Court's Order, if this subdivision approval is denied by the City Council, then the Collyards and Colosimos will come back before the City Council asking that a through street be approved and that the costs be divided entirely between the Collyards and the Colosimos for the construction of the road pursuant to the terms of the Contract. The Collyards, at this point in time, are asking the Council to do the following. First, approve of this subdivision and the extension of the cul-de-sac. Second, the Collyards and Colosimos will jointly be petitioning the City to vacate the remaining Isle Avenue North street easement. Once the cul-de-sac is in place, there will be no need from a planning and zoning perspective to retain the easement. The easement was given to the City for the specific purpose of constructing a road. The City has already denied a request to pave the road. By approving of this subdivision, the City will also be impliedly voting that the road will not be constructed. There simply would be no further practical need for that road. All abutting properties would have necessary road frontage pursuant to City Zoning Code. As a practical matter, the City should also vacate the easement. The existing easement is a safety hazard and an outstanding liability for the City. It would be a stretch of anyone's imagination to term the path existing across the easement as a "road". It is simply a rutted path used for vehicular traffic. The grass alongside the path grows in excess of 4 feet in height. Additionally, the area drifts in fairly deeply in the winter. During the summer, children walk across and drive their bicycles across the easement. As the path goes over small hills and winds somewhat, there have been several near collisions between children and automobiles. While the Council may believe that no one drives over the easements, that simply is not true. Many neighbors drive over the easement, frequently at ver high speeds. Additionally, the path which exists does not traverse simply the easement area. A portion of the path drives onto the