10-28-87 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council October 28, 1987 Br•andt Mr•. Blesener• intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: Pr•oper~ty RESOLUTION N0. 87-10-523 - APPROVING TNE Division (Cont.) BRANDT PROPERTY DIVISION AS PRESENTED SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNER AS CONTAINED IN HIS OCTOBER 6, 1987 REPORT The for•egoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr•s. Scalze. Ayes (51 Blesener•, Scalze, Collova, Fahey, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 18, Page 553. Ganzel The Ci ty Attor•ney submi tted a copy of a 1 etter~ he r•ecei ved fr•om Mr•. Drainage Kelly, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Ganzel, regarding their~ P1atter• posi ti on for• settl ement of the tr•espass matter• wi th regar•d to the Ci ty' s sewer~ pi pe 1 ocated on thei r• pr•oper•ty. Agenda Item No. 15 Mr•. Kelly r•eported that in addition to the October~ 27, 1987 letter~ referred to by the City Attorney, he also corresponded with the City in both July and September~. Kelly r•epor•ted that at this point the Ganzel's ar•e in the negotiation phase with the City. The City Engineer• pointed out that the pr~oblem has ar•isen as the pr~evi ous Ci ty Attor•ney di d not fi 1 e the appr•opr•i ate easements for• the stor•m sewer• pipe which is located on the Ganzel's pr~oper•ty. Fahey asked if once the Engineer• dr•aws up an easement, if it is the City Attor•ney's r•esponsibility to have the easement signed and filed. The Ci ty Attor~ney r•epl i ed that thi s i s the pr•esent ar•r~angement hi s office has with the City Engineer. However, he could not speak to any pr•evious ar•r~angement the pr~evious City Attor•ney had with the City Engineer~'s office. The City Engineer replied that this was the previous arrangement as well. The Engineer~ r~epor•ted that ther•e ar•e other~ easements for~ this same stor•m sewer~ pipe which have not been filed. Fahey asked if it wer•e feasible to place the stor~m sewer• pipe on the r•ear• lot line of the pr•oper~ty as is being r•equested by the Ganzel's. The City Engineer• r•eplied that it is not feasible to place the pipe on the r•ear• lot line, but the pipe could be placed 10 feet fr•om the r•ear~ lot line. The Engineer• estimated that this is appr•oximately where the pipe is. Mr•. Ganzel disagr•eed stating that the pipe was 30 feet fr•om the r•ear• lot line. Fahey questioned why the City Engineer did not go out and look at the pr•oper~ty since the matter• was discussed at a pr•evious Council meeting Paae -19-