Laserfiche WebLink
drainage and utility easement. In addition the property owners do not want a sidewalk on their <br />14 feet. Staff has agreed to recommend to the Council that no sidewalk be constructed on that <br />side unless any of the property owners decide to subdivide. He explained the road could not be <br />expanded into the 14 feet, and no sidewalk could be built on that 14 feet. This drainage and <br />utility easement would provide adequate room for utilities and snow storage. City Attorney <br />Goodrich advised there are two properties to the south, owned by the Motts and the Lamonts, <br />who have not been contacted. The City would need to acquire easements necessary for the right- <br />of-way on these properties as well. There have not been any 'negotiations with these property <br />owners, and staff would need to contact and discuss these issues with the property owners. He <br />advised for this reason, anY approval of the preliminary plat would need to be very contingent on <br />the City acquiring the right-of-way. This can only be done through direct negotiations or <br />secondly by eminent domain. Statute requires negotiations prior to eminent domain proceedings. <br />It takes about 90 days to get access to any parcel, and during that period there would be <br />negotiations and an attempt to acquire the properties without having to go through the eminent <br />domain process. City Attorney Goodrich stated he is aware that most of the Councilmembers are <br />opposed to acquiring another person's property by eminent domain, but the Cit~ is committed to <br />negotiate, and required to do that under law. One thing the Council needs to consider is if <br />preliminary plat approval should be granted without having this access lined up, and this has <br />been emphasized in the revised resolution. It would be his recommendation not to allow the <br />developer to do anything until the access issue is resolved. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated she appreciates the City's effort to negotiate, but to approve <br />this, even if it is contingent, without having made contact with the property owners could leave a <br />bad taste in people's mouths. If there is an option, she would prefer to contact the property <br />owners and at least gauge their interest. She asked if the suggested upgrades on old CR 5 will <br />involve purchasing right-of-way. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson replied that would depend on the solution. His initial <br />thought is a solution would be to curve old CR 5, which would require the acquisition of some <br />land from the adjacent property owner. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he is concerned with the density, but that aside, with the road <br />acquisition and discussion of eminent domain it seems the City is setting itself up to take a <br />tremendous hit.' This will get very expensive. With the discussion of pushing new roads, this <br />whole area should have more of a master plan, rather than working with little plans. He stated <br />old CR 5 is a hazard waiting to happen. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated this road must be settled, whether or not a development is put in. <br />This should not be a reason to hold up development if the City is already maintaining the road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson said she agrees this is an issue that needs to be resolved, but she also <br />agrees with Councilmember Strommen that she hesitates to flex the eminent domain muscle <br />without having contacted the property owners. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec commented if the process is started the City i's still required to negotiate. <br /> <br />P84 <br /> <br />City Council/May 10, 2005 <br /> Page 16 of 31 , <br /> <br /> <br />