Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Alley Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alley vacation reheard after notice concerns; funeral home opposes change
Summary
A rehearing on a petition to vacate a short downtown alley drew competing accounts: petitioners cited repeated illegal parking and a vehicle striking their house; Becker Kleissner Funeral Home argued the alley provides essential, ADA-accessible rear entrance, deliveries and casket transfer for an 87-year operation. The council voted 5-2 to table the matter and gather additional facts and surveys before acting.
The council reopened consideration of Ordinance 2026-15 after new ownership and notice information surfaced following an earlier vote to vacate a downtown alley. City counsel explained the rehearing would permit all affected property owners to present evidence and that the council must weigh the public interest.
The record shows the petition was filed by Jeremy Schrader and Michelle Wirtle; Schrader told the council he and his spouse "respectfully object to the holding of this hearing" as litigation is pending but nonetheless reiterated their safety concerns. "We continue to believe the use of this alley presents safety concerns for our property, but most importantly, for our family," he said, citing multiple incidents of illegally parked vehicles blocking their garage and an instance where a vehicle struck the house.
Attorney Bill Kaiser, representing Becker Kleissner Funeral Home, argued the alley has long served the funeral home's rear entrance and canopy, providing ground-level access for elderly and disabled patrons, space for deliveries and access for vendors and mortuary transfers. Kaiser presented historical records (an 1893 ordinance and a 1985 partial vacation) and a recent survey that, he said, confirmed Becker Kleissner abuts the alley. He emphasized the funeral home has operated at the location for 87 years and that vacating the alley would impair its ability to serve the community.
During public comment, James McCarthy, whose 98-year-old mother lives nearby and is named in the lawsuit, said caregivers provide 24/7 care and highlighted the difficulty of vehicles backing out of the alley and the safety risks posed by frequent reverse maneuvers.
Council members debated whether signage, enforcement or simple operational changes could address the problem and raised procedural questions about whether proper notice was given to adjoining owners before the March vote. Legal counsel confirmed the city had suspended enforcement of the earlier ordinance pending rehearing. Given unresolved factual questions (who is parking in the alley, frequency of blockage, and notice to adjoining owners), the council voted to table further action until the next meeting to collect more facts and survey results; the tabling motion passed on a roll call vote recorded as 5 in favor and 2 opposed.
