City Council Agenda and Packet 1997 09 02

Home Browse Search

Judd recalled that he had drafted and submitted to Bob Brisnehan, who was dealing directly with former City Administrator Annette Brand, a draft dated February 3, 1994, of Section 8 of the subdivision agreement. His draft contained 8.5 exchange of real property. He subsequently discussed this language with Griffiths in an attempt to complete the subdivision agreement. Davidson asked if the subdivision agreement was the way to do a land transfer. Tanoue did not think so. She stated that it was likely that somebody looked at the subdivision agreement and said this is not where we put a land exchange agreement and suggested that those provisions be omitted. They were in fact omitted from the subdivision agreement. She pointed out one piece of history that summarizes where we are: In August 1993 the Planning Commission's action in note No. 7. In August 1993 the Commission included with it's approval, a condition that stated, "The applicant must submit request for vacation of 80th Street and agreement to exchange property with final plat, correct note No. 7 on PUD Development Plan." She stated that the Commission then recognized that note No: 7 did not reflect the approval that it was giving that evening. Note No. 7 needed to be corrected. The process that was pointed out then was a land exchange agreement and that has not happened. Davidson asked why they had not submitted the formal documents to do the land exchange. Judd stated it was because they were told by the staff to do it as part of the PUD and it made sense to do it as part of the PUD for Lots 1 and 2. A formal transfer of the land had been contemplated, but had not taken place. Howard recalled concerning why the land is split up this way. It was more than just the idea of keeping the buffer between McCaslin and the property: The property owner and the City were supposed to share the cost of taking out .the asphalt. It was deemed that the property would be split up because of the sharing of that cost. Mayer suggested Council proceed to see if the developer and Council could agree on what exchange should take place, prior to anything going forth. Then go forward. Davidson recalled that the agreement was that there would be a transfer of the land and the asphalt would be removed. He pointed out that whether or not Council voted, assuming it would be the preliminary PUD (he thought they did), the asphalt has not been removed, the deal has not been consummated, the deal is now multiple years old, and to agree to pay a certain price in 1993 for property and now it is 1997 and you want to buy it for the same price even though there is not an option. In 1993, 1007 Corporation had an arrangement for a transfer of land, including certain services rendered to the City in exchange for that transfer, and did not complete it. Therefore, in the City Attorney's opinion, that no transfer had taken place and no subsequent property owner has the right to come forward and say in 1993 you agreed upon this price. It is now 1997 and I want to pay that 1993 price. He asked Council if they 'wanted the current applicant to make his proposal for a