Laserfiche WebLink
Councimember Heineman agreed that he would prefer to give staff the most options available to <br /> remedy this situation. <br /> Economic Development Manager Sullivan asked if the preference would be to first attempt to sell <br /> the largest piece and work down to smaller options if the property owner does not choose to <br /> purchase the large piece. <br /> City Attorney Langel commented that throughout the park there are drainage and utility easements <br /> all over. <br /> Building official Szykuski stated that the easements impact homes in different locations within <br /> the park. <br /> City Attorney Langel noted that one easement has a home entirely across it while there are nine <br /> other homes that sit atop an easement to some extent. He stated that the easements have been in <br /> place for many years and there has not been an issue to this point. He stated that staff would <br /> suggest entering into an agreement with the park related to the encroachments, in that the park <br /> acknowledges that the encroachments exist and if there is an issue that needs to be resolved, the <br /> home would need to be moved at no expense to the City. He stated that there would be an <br /> additional stipulation that if two homes are moved, they could not go back in those locations <br /> because of the easements. He stated that part of the process would be to determine if there are <br /> utilities within those easements and whether the easements are therefore necessary or unneeded. <br /> He stated that staff would also suggest that when ownership of one home changes, that home <br /> should be repositioned out of the right-of-way, and it should be disconnected from the septic and <br /> well and connected to sewer and water. <br /> Counci member Riley asked why MnDOT was not concerned with this issue. <br /> City Attorney Langel was unsure. <br /> Councimember Woestehoff asked if there was any concern with Highway 10 and whether homes <br /> would be in the way of construction. <br /> City Attorney Langel stated that the City could either work with the property owner to develop an <br /> encroachment agreement or could try to force the park owner to move the homes out of the <br /> easements. He commented that he did not believe the park owner would voluntarily move the <br /> homes and noted that the City may not be supported in court because there may not be utilities in <br /> some of the easements and maintenance is not needed at this time. He stated that if the <br /> encroachment agreement is in place, everyone is aware of the standard and intent moving forward. <br /> Senior Planner McGuire Brigl asked if there is third option, which would be to ignore it. <br /> City Attorney stated the City could simply ignore it, his only concern is that if you have an <br /> encroachment agreement in place, then the owners know they are not setting additional homes on <br /> those encroachments and they need to stay away from those. <br /> City Council Nark Session 1 July 20, 2021 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br />