My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-10-95 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
05-10-95 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:34:17 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:56:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MAY 10, 1995 <br />Magnuson property line at a cost of $250. The <br />Maqnuson's have requested that any trees that are <br />irreparably damaged or die within a two-year period <br />along this easement area be replaced with like kind. <br />The Magnuson's and Tima's are also requesting that the <br />storm sewer pipe be installed during the 1995 <br />construction season and capped until the road <br />reconstruction occurs. This will minimize future <br />impact to their properties. The Administrator pointed <br />out that storm sewer improvement costs are borne by the <br />City. <br />Mr. Kujawski, attorney representing the Tima's, <br />reported that his clients are in agreement with the <br />City Administrator~s recommendations. Kujawski asked <br />why the easement was being designated for utilities. <br />The City Administrator reported that easements are <br />typically designated as drainage and utility easements. <br />However, in this instance he can foresee no utility use <br />of that easement. <br />Scalze suggested that once a portion of the Jackson <br />Street right-of-way is vacated, the remaining right-of- <br />way be referred to as merely a permanent easement. <br />The City Administrator replied that the remaining <br />easement will continue to be a right-of-way, although <br />it will not be wide enough to qualify as street. The <br />Administrator pointed out that it will be possible to <br />vacate 7 feet of this easement rather than the 6 <br />recommended in his report. The remaining easement will <br />be adequate for the existing water main and proposed <br />pathway. <br />Fahey asked if the City needed to retain a 26 foot wide <br />easement. Fahey pointed out that it would be in the <br />City's best interests to vacate as much easement as <br />possible. <br />The Administrator reported that the City needs to <br />retain a 20 foot easement. However, the remaining 6 <br />feet would be located on the west side of that 20 feet <br />given the placement of the water main. The <br />Administrator pointed out that when property is <br />vacated, it goes back to the property from which it <br />came. In this instance, that would be the Morelan <br />property. The Administrator did not feel it would be <br />desirable to vacate the 6 feet on the west side of the <br />easement since that 6 feet would be separated from the <br />Morelan property by the 20 foot easement area. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.