Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1912 <br />February 23 2004 <br /> <br />consideration would accept additional expansion commercial zoning. He then asked if <br />the building next to the one currently seeking re-zoning would also become available for <br />commercial space. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff noted that the bill for rezoning is on the docket to be introduced this <br />evening, and the vole could take place at the next regular City Council meeting on <br />March 15th, 2004. He will present the citizen's letter to the applicant to allow that person <br />to respond by the next meeting, as to their reaction to these requests. <br /> <br />Alley Vacation Public Hearinq <br /> <br />A public hearing has been scheduled for this time and place to consider the proposed <br />vacation of an unimproved right-of-way behind 7831-7853 Olive. The property is <br />currently being used for private purposes by the adjacent owners from whom it came <br />and to whom it would be returned, if it was vacated. Returning it to private property <br />statues would remove any potential city liability or expense and would add very clear cut <br />responsibility for maintenance to the adjacent owners. Given the steep slope on the <br />land it is not conceivable that there would be any future public purpose or need. This <br />vacation is recommended following airing of all points of view at this public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams declared the public hearing open at 7:46 p.m. Mr. Ollendorff presented <br />two letters for consideration: one from the commercial owner to the south, fronting on <br />Olive, who wants the City to rebuild the wall in its entirety before vacating the property; <br />and the second is from an owner to the north, who favors the vacating and who <br />currently uses the property as her private driveway, recalling it had been vacated by the <br />City some time ago. Mr. Ollendorff said no record of the vacating could be found. As <br />there were no speakers, Mayor Adams declared the public hearing closed at 7:49 p.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch expressed her concerns about vacating the alley. She noted there was <br />record of discussions with owners over this matter since 1999, and that little or no <br />progress had been made in these discussions. By vacating the alley, she views the City <br />as "passing off responsibility" for closing discussions. She favors the City removing the <br />fence and the brush. She could not determine the condition of the retaining wall, but <br />gathers from Mr. Kennedy's notes that it needs improvement. Neighbors who use the <br />alley as their own, she pointed out, are not penalized by the City for doing so. She <br />regards the issue as "murky," asserting that if the City vacates the alley, the <br />responsibility for maintenance will be shifted to the owners, and the discussion will <br />continue, without solution, for more years. She agreed with the letter from the first <br />resident who favors the City cleaning and repairing the alley prior to vacating it. Mr. <br />Sharpe asked if the City could vacate this alley whether or not the owners agreed, and <br />was advised yes, it could be vacated. Mr. Munkel asked if the wall mentioned was a <br />retaining wall, and was advised that it was. Ms. Welsch asked where the retaining wall <br />is located and if it is on the property line? She asked who would be charged to repair <br />the wall, and if this would start an argument between adjacent land owners? Mr. <br /> Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />