Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 25, 2015 <br />Pechmann reported that the gas main that services his home runs across <br />716 LaBore Road. Pechmann was concerned about his gas service being <br />disrupted. He also suggested that it is likely all of the soils will need to be <br />disturbed in developing the two new lots; therefore, all the trees will be <br />lost. Kotaski indicated that they are aware that the gas line may need to be <br />moved. <br />Boettner indicated that her preference is that the property not be <br />subdivided and that only one home be developed on the lot. Keis <br />indicated that he understands Boettner's position as well as her preference <br />that the walking easement accrue to only one lot. Keis suggested, <br />however, that if the easement is utilized by two lots, this will not result in <br />a huge amount of walking traffic. Keis also pointed out that the easement <br />is a private one and the City has no control over it. Keis asked if Boettner <br />is willing to grant an easement for the storm water pipe. Boettner replied <br />that she was. <br />Montour asked if there were any safety concerns with the location of the <br />proposed curb cuts on LaBore Road. The City Engineer replied that there <br />were not. <br />Upon motion by Fischer, seconded by Montour, the public hearing was <br />closed. Torkelson voted against closing the public hearing at this time. <br />Torkelson asked about a conditional approval of the subdivision and <br />expressed concern about the issue of the walking easement. Fischer noted <br />that the walking easement was a private easement and that the City has no <br />involvement in that easement. Keis indicated that if the easement <br />document is submitted to the City, the City Attorney could review and <br />comment on it. <br />Torkelson suggested that Boettner may have the ability to negotiate some <br />terms relative to the walking easement as a part of her dedicating an <br />easement for storm water. The City Administrator indicated that the City <br />has an obligation to approve the subdivision if it meets ordinance <br />requirements, and has no legal basis not to approve it based on the <br />situation with the walking easement. The Administrator did agree that <br />Boettner likely has some leverage relative to a modification of the walking <br />easement in exchange for dedicating a storm water easement. <br />The City Planner again noted that the walking easement is a private <br />easement and a civil issue between property owners. He indicated that <br />that easement may be exclusive or non-exclusive; and if non-exclusive, <br />the property owner can grant rights to the easement. The Planner <br />indicated that the walking easement is out of the realm of the City's <br />7 <br />