Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant Community Development <br />consider the following items: <br /> <br />Director Trudgeon advised that the Council needs to <br /> <br />1. Access: The City Council should discuss the need of having public access of 160th lane <br /> continued beyond the built road to Mr. Bauer's property. Is it desirable to have it as <br /> public right-of-way for future connections to the west? Are the property owners willing <br /> to have the City purchase it? Initial communication from the property owners indicate <br /> tl~at tl~ey are not. <br />2. D~ees taken down: If it is decided that the City will not pursue the purchase of the right- <br /> of-way, how does the City rectify the removal of trees on the Dusbabek's and Kaas's <br /> property. <br />3. /llterm~tive access: If it is determined that access does not come from 160th Lane, another <br /> access could be created from the intersection of 161~t Lane and Olivine St. This access <br /> would need to cross a ridge and require the removal of additional trees. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated staff is requesting that the City <br />Council review the situation and provide staff with direction on the need for access from 160th <br />Lane, finding acceptable remuneration to the affected property owners regarding the trees <br />removed fi'om their property, and alternative accesses to Mr. Bauer's property. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated it is difficult to take back what has been done, but there are some things that <br />can be done. This road can be stopped and a new road can be created coming in through the <br />intersection of Olivine Street and 161~t Lane. Some trees could be put back in the front of this <br />area, but to restore everything would be almost impossible. If the Dusbabeks and Kaas are in <br />favor, the road could continue to be run through in this location. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained both properties are subject to a road easement, although not <br />necessarily in favor of the City. In addition, 160th Lane was not acquired by the City through <br />deed; it was acquired through "Use Statute". Every time someone wanted to build homes the <br />City extended the road and maintained it. The creation of this road would be similar. The <br />property to the east of this is the Dusbabek property. The property to the south was in a similar <br />situation, they wanted to develop that so the City extended the road. He advised because these <br />properties are encumbered by a road easement it takes away some of the rights of the property <br />owners. To condemn this or to acquire it by direct negotiations would not be a total expense to <br />the City ot' acquiring 66 feet; it would be acquiring 66 feet that is already encumbered by a road <br />easement, although it is not dedicated to the public. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec requested clarification that the Dnsbabeks and Kaas would be reimbursed for the <br />road if they were to determine the road could go through in this location. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained the Dusbabek's and Kaas' properties are encumbered by an <br />easement. An appraisal would likely diminish the value going to the road owners by a certain <br />percentage. <br /> <br />Counci hnember Kurak questioned who would have the authority to the easement. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/March 30, 2004 <br /> Page 3 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />