04/09/2012 Council Packet (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • COUNCIL MINUTES March 26, 2012 P 2 0 DRAFT 90 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 12 -28 as presented. Council Member 91 O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 92 93 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 94 95 6A) Resolution No. 12 -29, Calling for a Hearing to Establish Cartway — Community 2055 96 Development Director Grochala noted that the city has received a petition from Adam Johnson, 97 Otter Lake Drive, to establish a cartway easement to provide access to a landlocked parcel that he 98 owns. Mr. Johnson lives at the end of a public roadway just before a private bridge that provides 99 access to other land, including ten acres that Mr. Johnson owns. The private bridge and roadway 100 belong to Oakbrook Peninsula Homeowners Association who have denied Mr. Johnson's request for 101 a standard easement to utilize the roadway/bridge. Mr. Johnson has therefore submitted this petition 102 for a cartway, a process allowed under Minnesota Statutes. At this point the council is requested to 103 set a public hearing on establishment of the proposed cartway for April 23, 2012. The process also 104 calls for the petitioner to submit escrow funds since all costs of the city are to be paid by the 105 petitioner. 106 107 The mayor noted that this is the first cartway request that he's seen before the council and he would 108 like City Attorney Squires to explain the process further. Mr. Squires noted that a cartway provides 109 access across private property to a landlocked parcel, a process for which is provided under state law. 110 For many years cartways were limited to townships but cities were included in 2006. The statute says 111 that the council shall grant the cartway if the petition is proper, the land is five acres or more and the 112 property is landlocked, all criteria that are met in this case. At this point the council is being 113 requested to schedule a public hearing and at that hearing allow property owners and the petitioneer to 114 comment. The council will be responsible to establish the route, assess damages to the impacted 115 property owners and the city and apportion maintenance responsibilities. 116 117 Attorney Dave Snyder, representing impacted property owner Julie Jeffrey Schwartz, addressed the 118 council. Mr. Snyder noted that his client first learned of this serious request the previous Friday. He 119 added that the council has heard about the cartway process under law but he would note that there is 120 no time limit on when the hearing can be set. He is requesting on behalf of his client that the hearing 121 be set in four or five months so that proper and necessary review can occur before the council is thrust 122 into consideration of this serious condemnation request. It will be important to allow city staff to 123 evaluate the situation fully including what is going on with the property involved and possible 124 regulatory impacts. City Attorney Squires responded that possible uses of the land is not an issue 125 germane in terms of the statute; he suggests that land use could be an issue but not in terms of the 126 cartway process; this request is to go over an established private road, a situation that would seem to 127 limit regulatory questions. Mr. Snyder suggested that is a presumption before the hearing and 128 discussion of the matter has occurred; further damages are an issue that will pertain as well as the size 129 of the cartway requested. 130 131 The council discussed when the hearing should occur. A council member remarked that more time 132 would be acceptable but several months may not be responsive to the request. Attorney Snyder 133 argued for at least 60 to 90 days out suggesting that would be a typical amount of time for the type of 134 analysis required for this request.