Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 27, 1993 <br />Sculley pointed out that the Planner refers to <br />evaluation of an overall development plan for the <br />property. <br />The Administrator replied that the City Council has <br />determined that the 60 feet was necessary in order to <br />provide access to the properties abutting this strip. <br />Sculley reported that the City asked for the easement <br />in 1980 and his father fully intended to dedicate it. <br />Sculley did not believe he should pay the costs for <br />dedicating the easement. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that present policy <br />is that the property owner pay for the dedication of <br />any easements determined necessary by the City when <br />processing a development application. <br />Hanson pointed out that the City has reduced the <br />right-of-way requirement for residential streets from <br />60 feet to 50. <br />Scalze pointed out that in this situation it will be <br />much simpler to describe a 60-foot easement since the <br />four corner stakes will already be in place. <br />Morelan indicated that there is no doubt that a mistake <br />was made in 1980 when the City signed off on the <br />property division without the easement in hand. The <br />question is whether or not the City ever received the <br />easement description, and there is no evidence to <br />indicated that it did. Had the mistake not occurred, <br />the cost would have been incurred by the property <br />owner. <br />Scalze felt that Morelan's offer at the last meeting to <br />split the cost of getting the road easement recorded <br />was a generous one. <br />Hanson stated that he would support that offer. <br />Morelan indicated that he felt better about the offer <br />at the last meeting than he does tonight, because now <br />it appears that there is not much chance the City <br />dropped the ball. <br />LaValle asked the approximate cost of getting the <br />easement description and documents recorded. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that the situation <br />is the same as in other instances in that the property <br />owner is responsible for the cost. The Administrator <br />reported that he has collected a deposit of $500 toward <br />Page 16 <br />