10-23-1989 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Larry J. Berg, seq. October 18, 1989 page 2 in an effort to arrive at an acceptable solution, however,- you proposed that property owners simply convey fee title to outlots B and C (over which the proposed easements to the City were to lie), reserving toTthemselvhat es awasopriate easements for ingress and egress. with favorable reaction by City officials? although the City of the remained wary of potential liability current roadway lying within the boundaries of the new Outlots B and C. Thus, the City has formulated its most current proposal as follow4: 10, The property owners would initially convey a road and utility easement to the City, as originally contemplated, within Outlots B and C. 2. Contrary to the initial proposal, the City would not thoserpersonsswhowaresto benefitednbyhtheoeasementf created in 1956. 3. Contrary to the proposal of October 3, 1989, the City would not require the fee owners to defend the City's easement interests in the event those interests are challenged by the benefactors of the 1956 easement. 6. The fee owners (and/or their heirs, successors or assigns) would agree to convey at a future date, upon the written request of the City, fee title interest to Outlots B and C, free and clear of all encumbrances other than the existing 1956 easement. S. 6. The right of the City to obtain fee title to outlots B and C would b,t conditioned upon the commitment by the City to nn atreasonablelic perioddway over followingOtheotJ B and C withi request. Obviously, any grant of fee title to Outlots B and C in favor of the City would include a reservation of an easement in favor of the fee owners for ingress and egress until such time as the proposed public roadway is constructed. E00'39dd 'SIdW N1dH WdHd0d WOa3 61:91 68, 91 1D0