Laserfiche WebLink
Community Development Director Frolik replied no, explaining that they were the standard <br />perimeter easements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig inquired if it made any sense to include language in the ordinance that <br />would allow the City to re-establish the easements if necessary without using eminent domain. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik explained that when the property was re-platted the <br />City put the replacement easements in place. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig replied that that eliminated his concern. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if the City typically vacates an easement before or after a <br />property is re-platted. <br /> <br />Cormnunity Development Director Frolik replied that staff always waits until after the new plat is <br />recorded so that they are assured that the new easements are in place before they vacate the old <br />easements. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to introduce an ordinance <br />to vacate certain drainage and utility easements in Sunfish Lake Business Park. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Elvig, Kurak, Cook, Pearson, <br />Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #12: Consider Modification of Tree Preservation Plan for Village of Sunfish Lake <br /> <br />Assistant Director of Public Works Olson stated that a tree preservation plan was approved along <br />with other docmnents associated with the preliminary and final plat approvals for the Village of <br />Sunfish Lake. During the course of construction, it became evident that several areas within the <br />approved tree preservation area were incompatible with the final grading plan. Apparently, this <br />was due to changes in street widths and ali~m-rments without corresponding changes in the tree <br />preservation limits. The developer met with City Council in a work session on September 9, <br />2003, to discuss this issue. A copy c;f those rninutes were presented with the case along with a <br />memo from Loucks Associates detailing background from the developer's perspective and <br />summarizing the developer's request. Staff made the following recommendations: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />That the approved tree preservation line in Area A be staked and <br />identified with construction fencing, and that trees outside the tree <br />preservation area be allowed to be removed, following notification <br />of the adjacent residents of this development. <br />That no additional tree removal be allowed in Area A, but that <br />brush removal and ~ading with small equipment be allowed <br />within the tree preservation area to provide drainage for Lot 4. <br /> <br />-58- <br /> <br />City Council/October 14, 2003 <br /> Page 6 of 30 <br /> <br /> <br />