03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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