Minutes - Council - 05/10/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ch'ainagc and utility easement. In addition the property owners do not want a sidewalk on their 14 tizel. ,";taft has agreed to recommend to the Council that no sidewalk be constructed on that side unless any of thc property owners decide to subdivide. He explained the road could not be expanded into thc 14 feet, and no sidewalk could be built on that 14 feet. This drainage and utility casement would provide adequate room for utilities and snow storage. City Attorney (}ooclrich advised there are two properties to the south, owned by the Motts and the Laments, who have uot been contacted. The City would need to acquire easements necessary for the right- of;way on these properties as well. There have not been any negotiations with these property owners, and staff would need to contact and discuss these issues with the property owners. He advised tbr this reason, any approval of the preliminary plat would need to be very contingent on the (;ity acquiring the right-of-way. This can only be done through direct negotiations or secondly by eminent domain. Statute requires negotiations prior to eminent domain proceedings. I~ takes about 90 days to get access to any parcel, and during that period there would be negotiations and an attempt to acquire the properties without having to go through the eminent domain process. City Attorney Goodrich stated he is aware that most of the Councilmembers are opposecl to acquiring another person's property by eminent domain, but the City is committed to negotiate, and required to do that under law. One thing the Council needs to consider is if preliminary plat approval should be granted without having this access lined up, and this has been emphasized in the revised resolution. It would be his recommendation not to allow the clcv¢loper to do anything until the access issue is resolved. (',ouncilmcmber Strommen stated she appreciates the City's effort to negotiate, but to approve this, even if it is contingent, without having made contact with the property owners could leave a bad taste in people's mouths. If there is an option, she would prefer to contact the property owncr~g and at least gauge their interest. She asked if the suggested upgrades on old CR 5 will involve purchasing right-of-way. Assistam I'ublic Works Director Olson replied that would depend on the solution. His initial thoughl is a solution would be to curve old CR 5, which would require the acquisition of some lm~d fi-om thc adjacent property owner. (;ouncilmember Elvig stated he is concerned with the density, but that aside, with the road acquisition and discussion of eminent domain it seems the City is setting itself up to take a tremendous lilt. This will get very expensive. With the discussion of pushing new roads, this whole area should have ~nore of a master plan, rather than working with little plans. He stated old CR 5 is a hazard waiting to happen. (iouncilmember Cook stated this road must be settled, whether or not a development is put in. 'Ibis sh()uld not be a reason to hold up development if the City is already maintaining the road. C(>uncilmcmber Olson said she agrees this is an issue that needs to be resolved, but she also agrees with Councilmember Strommen that she hesitates to flex the eminent domain muscle without having contacted the property owners. May(~r (;amec commented if the process is started the City is still required to negotiate. City CounciFMay 10, 2005 Page 16 of 31