Laserfiche WebLink
To:Ron Mootsc. City Administrator <br />I'r Michael P. Gafiron, Aisistan! Planning St Zoning Administrator <br />Date: January 7, 1994 <br />Subje<i: #177S-79 Gocnen Plat - Fee Issue <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Appikant’s Lener re: Fees Received 12/23/93 <br />B - Dmil of Costs Incurred by City <br />C - Suit Letter to Applicant 7/9/93 <br />Judicial Landmark RepbKement <br />The prcliminaiy plat approval resolution indicated that the City shall have tlw Judicial <br />Landmark (JLM) at the east end of the property replaced in its correct location. That monument <br />was removed in 1981 when the Bluffs’ sewer went in. The Public Works Director made <br />arrangements with Mark Gronberg to replace it last summer. We estimated the cost of that <br />replacement to be arouiKl $200. <br />However, when the plat was submitted to the County Surveyor for acceptance, tlw fact <br />that a majority of the judicial landmarks were missing or out of place, and the fact that Section <br />2 has other survey inconsistencies, led the County Surveyor to require that the judicial landmarks <br />either be correctly replaced or all removed. Either process requires a court action. As a result, <br />applicant has initiated a legal proceeding to have ail of the judicial landmarks removed, and had <br />therefore asked tla City to delay replacement of that landmark pending final outcome. <br />Fee Dispute <br />Additionally, applicant has submitted a letter indicating he will not pay any bills for City <br />costs incurred related to his subdivision since he feels the City s tailure to replace the JLM has <br />caused him great expense. <br />The significant question is whether the City ’s failure to replace the <br />JLM was the sole reason why the applicant was required to initiate this <br />"proceeding subsequent". Conversations with the County Surveyor ’s <br />Office, applicant’s surveyor and die City Engineer have led me to <br />conclude that such a procedure would probably have been necessary <br />even if th'- easterly comer marker had never been disturbed by the <br />City, due to the other landmark problems. <br />The legal and engineering bills for this subdivision to date have <br />already exceeded the total initial application fees and final plat review <br />fees paid to date by the applicant by approximately $500, without <br />accounting for staff time or the additional costs we will incur when the <br />plat is actually filed. Please review applicant’s letter (Exhibit A) and <br />Exhibit B which details the costs incurred vs. fees paid.