06-04-2013 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 04, 2013 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Smith asked that question #30 be changed back to “Sunfish Lake Park.” MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO ADOPT THE 2013 CITY OF LAKE ELMO PARK SURVEY AND THE MAILING OF SAME, SAVING ROUGHLY $10,000. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. ITEM 14: CONVERSION OF ROAD RIGHT OF WAY TO UTILITY EASEMENT ON LEGION AVENUE NORTH (KUPFERSCHMIDT/TOFT) Planning Director Klatt gave history of the right of way and previous vacation request. A public hearing is required. He gave overview of the new request. He said the planned future sanitary sewer will eventually replace the 201 system currently in place. It was noted that the two property owners in questions were in attendance. Mr. Klatt explained that the previous plat would not meet the current plat requirements. If the vacation is granted, a survey will be required. Council Member Bloyer asked why the City would want to deny the vacation. Mr. Klatt stated because the City does not know what will happen, it needs to be considered. Al Kupferschmidt showed a map of the gate that PW uses to access the drainage ditch. He expressed his frustrations with using his property. Mr. Bloyer asked if Mr. Kupferschmidt had any issues with the stipulations. He responded that he does not. He did say he has already spent $1,000. Trying to do all he can. Council Member Smith stated she was opposed to residents paying for the surveys. It should be borne by the city. Rod Toft 11350 12st N, expressed his concern about the setbacks. Mr. Klatt explained why it was at where it was. Mr. Toft wants all his property back that he originally purchased. City Attorney Snyder noted that there are many unopened ROWs all over city and county. Different circumstances can explain why decisions were made. Decisions may have made sense at time. A change of circumstances does not mean a failure of council at the time, just because it now doesn’t make sense presently. Current council must protect those considerations in deciding to vacate. Questions is if there will be a public use. Situation is common. Current and future infrastructure implications on the property was discussed. City Engineer Griffin explained the difference between the ROW and Easement, mainly setbacks. Discussion of whether property can revert back to owners after. Mr. Snyder stated he would like to look into the possibility of reversion further. He would want to discuss with the property owner and engineering. Council Member Nelson stated he would like to do everything at once- vacate ROW and grant reversion to owner. Mr. Klatt stated that staff would need to further investigate because there may be issues or development needs involved. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO REQUEST THAT THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS PROVIDE THE CITY WITH: 1) A SURVEY DOCUMENTING THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO LOT 9, BLOCK 2 AND LOT 10, BLOCK 1 OF THE MYRON ELLMAN SUBDIVISION; AND 2) UTILITY, DRAINAGE, ACCESS, OR OTHER EASEMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER IN THE ABSENCE OF A