Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 22, 2015 <br />ownership. The City Attorney indicated that he would like to discuss this <br />issue with the League in light of the Duluth case, however. <br />Keis noted the wetlands in this area and asked if drainage should be <br />considered. The City Administrator indicated that there are existing <br />drainage patterns that should be considered and suggested that the <br />Watershed should be involved in the discussion. Keis stated that if a <br />portion of the right-of-way is vacated, Roberto would likely have to have <br />the Watershed review any grading or fill plans for this area. Roberto <br />indicated that he would want to do some filling and landscaping of the <br />right-of-way. The City Administrator stated that the Watershed would <br />have to look at plans to determine if there is any impact on the wetland or <br />on drainage patterns. <br />McGraw suggested that no decision could be made without the City <br />Attorney's researching the issue with the League and without input from <br />the Watershed. The City Attorney again stated that he would like to <br />discuss the issue with the League. <br />Torkelson asked if Anderson was concerned about other people using his <br />driveway and possibly damaging it. Anderson replied that that was one of <br />his concerns. He indicated that Roberto commented that he was stopped <br />from using unimproved Rose Lane from a trespass standpoint. Anderson <br />reported that he was stopped from bringing a dump truck into the right-of- <br />way to access the rear of his property. Anderson reported that he had <br />previously had an agreement with Roberto that he could use this area <br />provided he called first and cleaned up after himself. Anderson indicated <br />that Roberto did not clean up the area; therefore, he discontinued <br />Roberto's access. Anderson stated that he does have concerns with people <br />driving on his driveway who shouldn't be there. <br />Torkelson asked Anderson what his cost was for maintaining his <br />driveway. Anderson was not sure. He indicated that he periodically has <br />to bring in additional class V material. He also has to plow it and maintain <br />some of the trees so that they do not hit vehicles driving on the driveway. <br />Anderson was not sure what the annual maintenance costs would be, <br />however. <br />Keis again raised the equity issue. He asked if the City Council could <br />determine where the vacated property would accrue. The City Attorney <br />indicated that the vacated property would accrue to where it originally <br />came from. McGraw pointed out that if the right-of-way were vacated, the <br />south half would accrue to the Johnson property and he would have no <br />benefit as this is the portion that has the Anderson driveway as well as the <br />City's sewer line. It was suggested that perhaps centering the driveway <br />would provide for a more equitable situation. Roberto indicated that he <br />did not agree with moving the driveway. Montour questioned the equity <br />5 <br />