Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

POPHAM BAIK MEMORANDUM TO: FROM; RE: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zonin,i Administrator City of Orono Thomas J. Barrett, Esq, Item #1967 Robert S. Olson/K·P Propertiest Inc. I~ October ))(1994 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Mlnncapoli$, Minnesota 55402 (612) 333-4800 VIA, TELECOfX Mike. after the last Council meeting and our discussiont I have reviewed the documents you provided. Looking at the exhibits, particularly Exhibit B dated 10/06/94. I am particularly concerned that the road access to the proposed large lot labelled Outlot B appears to require access over Lot 2, whlch is not owned by the subdividing applicant If a later attempt to develop Outlet B runs into resistance from the owner of Lot 2 as to the development of the proposed road, and if the other possible alternative route on the other side of Lot 2 does not materialize, then the contingent planned for road, represented by Outlot A, will only be as good as our ability to require Lot 2 to provide the comer of its Lot to the road proposed. To evaluate the degree of control which the City would have in opening a road over Lot 2, I have reviewed the Agreement, which is attached to the Council packet. I can imagine the following potential difficulties with this Agreement in any effort by the City or the developer to open a road over Lot 2. First, it is not apparent under the terms of this Agreement that the successors and assigns, subsequent purchasers, would be bound to follow the terms of the Agreement. Second, because of the contingencies discussed in the ;'\.,$reement, it is reasonable to assume that dis utes of fact will or ma arise as to whether or not the. cited contin~encies have occurred. In the event of such disputes, t e 1ty wou d faced with the prospect of litigation, rather than with the more desirable prospect of simply opening a previously platted road. I realize that platting a road on the property of Lot I. which reaches proposed Outlet D, has the undesirable impact of coming too close to the house which now is in place on Lot 1. One possible scenario for your consideration would be to plat the road, even though it is undesirable, and then to note in our subdividing and resolution, the existence of the Agreement and the planned Outlot A as the more desirable road access. Mike, this memo sets out my concerns. Please call to discuss. 0B2/2Z060346 IOIJ3/94