Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MARCH 12, 2018 4 <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler explained it was common for cities and counties to request and receive <br />temporary easements to complete construction projects from private property owners. He stated <br />the need for a permanent easement was needed for the maintenance and operation of the Lift <br />Station. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik advised if the temporary easement was not able to be obtained through <br />voluntary negotiations, the City has the authority to condemn the temporary construction <br />easement, which would be the rental value of the property for the time it could not be used by the <br />fee owner. He explained this action has been taken during road construction projects for the <br />period of construction. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung questioned if this would be an additional cost to the City if a larger <br />easement was not granted. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik reported this was the case. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked if staff believed the City had an adequate amount of easement after the <br />proposed vacation were approved. <br /> <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated this was correct. She anticipated the City <br />would not have to complete major excavation work at this site for another 40 to 50 years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden questioned what work would have to be done over the next 40 years. <br /> <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka explained liners and grouting work could all be <br />done from the interior of the Lift Station. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. <br /> <br />Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, stated the proposed plans would put an additional burden <br />on the City. He anticipated a new Lift Station could be built on the smaller easement, but he <br />believed this would be more difficult and more expensive. He explained in 2007, the City <br />Engineer and the Public Works Director recommended easements not be reduced this much, <br />stating it would be difficult to rebuild a future Lift Station. He stated in the past, when easements <br />were reduced on one side, expansions were created on the other. He commented this easement <br />was further complicated by retaining walls, a catch basin, and trees and was being shrunk to 30% <br />of its original size. He indicated this Lift Station would need to be rebuilt at some point in the <br />future and explained the last construction process went beyond the current easement. He <br />questioned how the site would be rebuilt if the easement were reduced so drastically and noted the <br />sewer line would run under the driveway of proposed Lot 1. He feared that if the Council were to <br />approve this this request a precedent could be set. In addition, he anticipated it would cost the <br />City more money to rebuild this Lift Station given the small amount of space that would remain <br />for reconstruction. He commented it does not appear to be in the public’s best interest to vacate <br />this easement and therefore should not be approved. <br /> <br />Ivan Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, stated the City was proposing to squeeze the Lift Station <br />onto a lot and feared that this could create a problem. He commented the only reason this was