My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/09/2012 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2012
>
07/09/2012 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2014 2:44:28 PM
Creation date
1/10/2014 8:32:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
07/09/2012
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
195
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
Issues <br />1. Have the threshold requirements for a cartway met? <br />Mr. Johnson owns a 9.89 acre parcel. The parcel is separated from his homestead site by <br />a water channel leading to Otter Lake. The only other access to the property is by land <br />owned by adjacent property owners to the north or by property owned by the Oakbrook <br />Peninsula Homeowners Association. This property includes a private street that provides <br />access to the association member's property. <br />2. Cartway Location. The primary issue is how far down the private drive does Johnson <br />need to go in order to properly access his property. The petition has requested that the <br />cartway cover all of Outlot A, Oakbrook Peninsula, which is the entire length of the road. <br />The petitioner does not need the entire length. The petition also indicates that they will <br />travel approximately 250 feet on the cartway before existing onto the landlocked parcel. <br />As for the width it appears reasonable and logical to simply use the width of the existing <br />roadway surface to the point where Johnson exits the road to get onto his property. <br />3a. Damages - City. The petitioner has provided a cash escrow to cover all city costs. In the <br />event that the actual costs incurred exceed the escrow amount the petitioner will be <br />required to reimburse the City. A provision should be included in the resolution to <br />require reimbursement. <br />3b. Damages — Landowners. There is little direct guidance in statute or case law for <br />determining damages. Statute states that "damages means the compensation, if any <br />awarded to the owner of the land..." Similar to a condemnation case the council may <br />take into consideration whether the value of the existing road is reduced by the creation <br />of the cartway, and if so, by how much? It should also be noted that this is intended to be <br />a private cartway, not public. <br />3c. Damages — Maintenance. The statue requires that the cost of maintaining the cartway "be <br />equitably divided" among all of the parties. The council may take into consideration the <br />following factors: <br />• Frequency of use <br />• Type and weight of the vehicles or equipment; and <br />* The distance traveled on the cartway to the individual's property <br />• Any other factors the council deems relevant <br />The Council will then have to formulate some sort of apportionment. A flat dollar <br />amount per year with an annual escalator may be the easiest for the parties to enforce. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.