05/06/04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon advised that the Council needs to consider the following items: 1. Access: The City Council should discuss the need of having public access of 160th lane continued beyond the built road to Mr. Bauer's property. Is it desirable to have it as public right-of-way for future connections to the west? Are the property owners willing to have the City purchase it? Initial communication from the property owners indicate that they are not. 2. Trees taken down: If it is decided that the City will not pursue the purchase of the right- of-way, how does the City rectify the removal of trees on the Dusbabek's. and Kaas's property. 3. Alternative access: If it is determined that access does not come from 160th Lane, another access could be created from the intersection of 161st Lane and Olivine St. This access would need to cross a ridge and require the removal of additional trees. Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated staff is requesting that the City Council review the situation and provide staff with direction on the need for access from 160th Lane, finding a~ceptable remuneration to the affected .property owners regarding the trees removed from their property, and alternative accesses to Mr. Bauer's property. Mayor Gamec stated it is difficult to take back what has been done, but there are some things that can be done. This road can be stopped and a new road can be created coming in through the intersection of Olivine Street and 161st Lane. Some trees could be put back in the front of this area, but to restore everything would be almost impossible. If the Dusbabeks and Kaas are in favor, the road could continue to be run through in this location. City Attorney Goodrich explained both properties are subject to a road easement, although not necessarily in favor of the City. In addition, 160th Lane was not acquired-by the City through deed; it was acquired through "Use Statute". Every time someone wanted to build homes the City extended the road and maintained it. The creation of this road would be similar. The property to the east of'this is the Dusbabek p~operty. Ttifi property to the south was in a similar situation, they wanted to develop that so the City extended the road. He advised because these properties are encumbered by a road easement it takes away some of the rights of the property owners. To condemn this or to acquire it by direct negotiations would not be a total expense to the City of acquiring 66 feet; it would be acquiring 66 feet that is already encumbered by a road easement, although it is not dedicated to the public. Mayor Gamec requested clarification that the Dusbabeks and Kaas would be reimbursed for the road if they were to determine the road could go through in this location. City Attorney Goodrich explained the Dusbabek's and Kaas' properties are encumbered by an easement. An appraisal would likely diminish the value going to the road owners by a certain percentage. Councilmember Kurak questioned who would have the authority to the easement. City Council Work Session/March 30, 2004 Page 3 of 12 33