My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-23-1989 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
10-23-1989 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:01 AM
Creation date
8/1/2025 1:40:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
10/23/1989
Retention Effective Date
8/1/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
547
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Hauser/Lauer/Wayzata Country Club Subdivision <br />October 16, 1989 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />6. Accept easement as it is. The City could accept the <br />easement as presently offered realizing that if it ever <br />wanted to exercise its rights, it may well have to "condemn" <br />the rights of all the other easements owners across the <br />outlot. This would be in addition to "condemning" the <br />interest to the north if the City had not otherwise obtained <br />an easement or outlot on the north in the interim. <br />It should be noted that while the issue effects both the Hauser <br />and Lauer/Country Club outlots, the subdividers had not appraised <br />Mr. Hauser of the issue. He learned of it from City staff. <br />Action/Alternatives - <br />1. Indicate which alternative is acceptable to the City. <br />2. Table for further discussion. <br />3. Take no action with the owner having to satisfy requirements <br />established by the City Attorney. <br />Recoi endation - <br />Because of the number of problems associated with such <br />private access (in this case it only further illustrates the <br />problems of these private driveways that have more than 2-3 <br />people on them), it is recommended that the City require an <br />easement satisfactory to the City Attorney or an agreement for <br />the future conveyance of the outlot when the City is ready for a <br />public road be conditioned on appropriate notification (perhaps <br />as much as 6 months to 1 year), and a road edge definition of <br />distance from the outlot boundary. <br />The Country Club will argue that the City should accept the <br />limited title because it didn't feel that the issue was a <br />significant one for the Council when the initial subdivision was <br />passed. <br />Secondly as you will note the issue of appropriate avenues <br />for requiring the easement was mentioned by the City Attorney in <br />Attachment B. (Originally Lauer's lot was going to access to the <br />north and acces, through the Hauser property was an alternative.) <br />The Country Club has indicated that the agreement and subdivision <br />may fall apart it the City requires either a "clear" easement or <br />deeding of the outlot. If it does and the parties were again to <br />request it, they may have to access across the north of the <br />property. If a combination could again be worked, the City may <br />choose to require a private road at the 50' width instead of the <br />current 20' corridor allowed. It should be remembered that the <br />actual outlot and the easements in questions Hauser/Lauer/Wayzata <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.