08-08-2012 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attached to this memo is the preliminary plan sheet showing the location of the existing 48 -inch line and the route that is proposed for the 12 -inch line as described above in Option 2. Also attached is a picture of the building and retaining walls within the existing easement (background of the picture) and the landscape feature that is within the proposed new easement (forefront of the picture). We were working with the property owner to come to an agreement on the exact new alignment and the easement areas that would be traded and we have come to a point where some Council direction is needed. It has been our position that the easement areas would be traded at no cost, allowing the building and retaining wall features within the existing easement area to remain. The smaller landscaping features that would be disturbed within the new easement area would be removed and installed outside the new easement area as part of the contract. While the property owner has indicated a willingness to work with the City on the easement swap they would like to be compensated $15,000 for the impacted landscape features inside the new easement area. In return he would remove them and we would not be responsible for any reinstallation of the landscape features only restoration of the grass areas. It has always been the City's practice to work cooperatively with homeowners on projects that are adjacent to their homes regardless of if the project is within the street right -of -way or utility easement areas. On street reconstruction projects small modifications to the plans are made following neighborhood meetings to improve situations on private property without negative impacts to the overall project. However, in this case the property owner is asking to be compensated for landscaping features that would only be disturbed because we would be relocating a sanitary sewer outside of an existing easement to protect the private features within the existing easement. There would be some project cost related for removal and relocation of the landscape features however the cost is difficult to estimate. Based on the input from the City attorney the City is not responsible for removal of the private improvements within the existing easement or their replacement if they must be removed. The fact that a City building permit was issued for the backyard building that now exists in the easement does not change this fact. The homeowner is responsible for knowing the existence and location of easements on their property. We would request Council's direction if Option 2 above should be pursued farther and at what cost (i.e. the extent of the compensation for impacts to the landscaping or for the easement swap) or if the homeowner continues to request compensation should the sanitary sewer main alignment remain in the existing easement as outlined in Option 1. If you have any questions concerning this information, please call me at (763) 780 -0450. 10062 Flanders Court NE — Blaine, MN 55449 — Ph: (763) 780 -0450 Fax (763) 780 -0452 Memo - 080812 -CC (Easement Conflict)