Minutes - Council - 05/23/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3) Approval of the Shadetree Creek final plat 4) Construction of Potassium Street as part of the Shadetree Creek plat, with the developer of Rum River Meadows paying 25% of the cost and acquisition of Potassium Street. Councilmember Pearson asked if all the issues on Potassium Street have been handled. Community Development Director Trudgeon replied the applicant has gone through extensive discussions talking to WMO about the minimum impact on the wetland. City Attorney Goodrich reviewed that the Council authorized condemnation on Potassium Street in December 2005. There have been appraisals of all of the properties, which were sent to the landowners around March 1. The WMO just made a decision in April of this year concerning the wetland issue. Jodi Ruehle of The Tinklenberg Group has been negotiating the landowners and has been reasonably successful. The eminent domain action has commenced. The first public purpose hearing will be held on June 23 and there will be definitive information as to what position the owners will be taking at that time. It is not likely that there will be a contest of the public purpose, as this taking is for transportation. Assuming there is no contest, the court will appoint three commissioners to appraise the damages and a quick take notice has been sent out so the City will have possession of Potassium Street on August 22. The City is taking the position that they own 40 feet due to their maintenance of the street, as well as an additional 10 feet on each side for maintenance facility. One owner is contesting whether the width is 40 feet or 30 feet, which Jodi Ruehle is working on. Councilmember Elvig indicated he would like to clarify a few things. He was contacted by couple of the homeowners. Their complaint is that this has been a lengthy process; the WMO is not dealing with this in a swift fashion, and with the developer not dealing with this the City has needed to step in. The homeowners provided him with a copy of the notification that was served on them, and another point of contention was a mistake in the paperwork of 58 feet versus 52 feet. The paperwork discusses the process of eminent domain and states that the full Council voted for eminent domain; however, he did not vote in support. He indicated there are things to be cleaned up with regard to this. City Attorney Goodrich indicated the resolution was adopted on December 13, 2006, and administrative staff had indicated there was a 6 - 0 or 7 - 0 vote; however, the actual vote was 4 - 2, Councilmember Olson was absent and Councilmembers Elvig and Strommen voted no. The point is that the resolution passed, so that error has been rectified. There is no issue or error on the designation of the number of feet. On the Hampton parcel they made an attempt to avoid the trees. After the WMO meeting in the middle of April they asked Shade Tree engineers to draft a revised plan to avoid the trees, which the Hamptons are very pleased with. Councilmember Elvig stressed the need to be careful that the City's information is correct and accurate; going forward this needs to be cleaned up. He indicated most of the landowners are appreciative of the compromise that allowed the trees to be saved. Councilmember Cook stated the WMO put their best effort forward. One reason things took so long is that the landowners asked for consideration of moving the road, which required someone visiting the area to assess the situation. One of the landowners attended the last meeting and was appreciative of the fact that they had taken the time to study this and get the road moved. City Council / May 23, 2006 Page 5 of 20