Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES <br />DRAFT <br />October 8, 2012 <br />89 Minnesota Snow and Ice Control Handbook. He noted that staff has already been trained with the <br />90 handbook. <br />91 <br />92 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve adoption of the Handbook as submitted. Council <br />93 Member Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. <br />94 <br />95 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT <br />96 <br />97 There was no report from the Public Safety Department. <br />98 <br />99 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT <br />100 <br />101 There was no report from the Public Services Department. <br />102 <br />103 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT <br />104 <br />105 6A) Consideration of Resolution No. 12 -59, Establishing Cartway — Community Development <br />106 Director Grochala noted the resolution before the council that would provide for establishment of a <br />107 cartway on Otter Lake Drive. This process has been on- going, with a public hearing held by the <br />108 council in July and discussions at various council meetings. <br />109 <br />110 City Attorney Langel reviewed the resolution and cartway process. The petition submitted by Adam <br />so 111 Johnson (the "Petitioner ") requests a cartway between parcels of his land, over a private road and a <br />112 bridge that is owned by a homeowners' association (the "HOA "). The city council is responsible for <br />113 deciding if the statutory requirements for establishing a cartway are met, deciding on the location of <br />114 the cartway and determining damages to the owner of the land. The city has received information <br />115 from the involved parties. Staff feels that the threshold for establishing the cartway has been met. <br />116 On the question of location, the existing roadway and bridge are the most sensible location (the <br />117 survey of the proposed cartway was submitted by Petitioner and included in the staff letter). On the <br />118 question of damages, Mr. Langel noted that both parties submitted information. There is a wide <br />119 divergence between the two sides on the amount of damages. Staff has put forth in the report one <br />120 proposed means of determining damages; it is not the only way to make that determination. The <br />121 Petitioner has to pay damages and construction costs for the eartway. Mr. Langel also noted that the <br />122 cartway width would be the width of the roadway and the cartway cannot be utilized until all damages <br />123 have been paid. The resolution submitted to the council now contains the points mentioned this <br />124 evening and also some blanks for council consideration. On the question of ongoing maintenance, <br />125 the council is additionally responsible for determining the costs and a formula is proposed. <br />126 <br />127 The mayor remarked that it appears that the majority of the council has determined that the cartway is <br />128 allowed under state law. On the matter of damages, Attorney Langel explained in terms the <br />129 recommendation of the HOA ($748,000) and the recommendation of the Petitioner ($1,343.38). The <br />130 HOA estimate includes three areas of damages: to the land itself (the entirety of Outlot A), to the <br />131 roadway/bridge, and severance. Mr. Langel noted that his issues of concern about the HOA estimate <br />132 are mainly on the basis that they used the entirety of the Outlot for the calculations and that severance <br />133 wouldn't apply in this case. Staff's suggestion (and not the only option) is that the council look at <br />410 <br />