Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Woestehoff asked if City Engineer Westby was saying the park easement was <br /> 32,000 square feet. <br /> City Engineer Westby confirmed this. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff replied it is a pretty good deal for park land. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove referenced the width of the land and asked if it has to be that wide. She <br /> noted when residents have easements on their property and they want to have the easement <br /> removed, they have to apply and pay an application fee to the City. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied it depended on the situation but generally he wasn't aware of <br /> residents paying for an easement vacation. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff clarified that is vacating an easement the City has. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove agreed, adding that is vacating the easement on the private land. She <br /> felt the situation here was vacating an easement on public land with a public easement on the land. <br /> She didn't feel that was the same as other situations. She stated it is still public land, City owned, <br /> and a part of the park, but the applicant has the right to move over it to get to his land. She asked <br /> about the State Statute on cartway easements and how that gives guidance to the City on what is <br /> allowed because it is pubic land with a public access which tax payers pay for, so Mr. Kurak would <br /> just have access to his land. She stated if a developer comes in and wants to build on private land <br /> and/or a resident who owns private land and has an easement on it. <br /> Mayor Pro Tem Riley replied Mr. Kurak would have rights that other residents don't. He will be <br /> able to drive on it and clear the bushes or trees. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if Mr. Kurak would be given land that he would have to clear <br /> versus a side end of the park. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied the draft easement agreement gives the petitioner certain rights to <br /> manage vegetation, not to cut down trees, to clear area for access along that lot line. It would be <br /> the case that he would have rights that other don't. <br /> City Attorney Knaak replied what should be recognized is that it is a very particular statute that <br /> says if someone has land that can't be accessed, they get a right of condemnation. He stated it <br /> should be looked at as a condemnation over a very small, defined sized access; that is all it is. He <br /> stated the City Council has the responsibility to carry out the condemnation. In a condemnation, <br /> once the condemnation process is started, they can make the process a little easier and cheaper. <br /> He stated that is what happened here. He explained once the petition was accepted and there was <br /> a right to access, they are obligated to follow through and allow for the access in addition to <br /> providing reasonable alternatives. He stated that is what happened because what the petitioner <br /> came in with isn't what he ended up with. The reasonable alternative that the Council came up <br /> with minimized the amount of private land that was taken and maximized the amount of public <br /> land that could be spared. He stated that is the only way park land could be given, through a <br /> City Council Work Session/April 26, 2022 <br /> Page 14 of 20 <br />