My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1997/03/03
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
Agenda Packets - 1997/03/03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:44 PM
Creation date
6/28/2018 9:15:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/3/1997
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/3/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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
• <br /> Pam Sheldon <br /> faFebruary 28, 1997 <br /> Page 4 <br /> amount of $1. My intention is to schedule that meeting to occur promptly following City <br /> Council approval of the stipulation and receipt of consent of Great West. I am hopeful that the <br /> owner will be agreeable to permitting the commission-to proceed even if Great West does not <br /> give its written consent (I previously have been advised verbally that Great West has given the <br /> consent but I have not received written confirmation of this.) The purpose of having the <br /> stipulated award is to bind the parties other than the City and Moundsview Square Associates. <br /> Typically, those parties would not be entitled to receive any damages but they have interests in <br /> the property being subjected to the easement and therefore have a right to be served with notice <br /> of the proceedings. <br /> Since initially preparing this letter, Bob Long told me that he had spoken with the Mayor. The <br /> Mayor expressed concern about whether the walkway easement which has been negotiated may <br /> cause the City to incur costs in the future simply because of the existence of the easement even <br /> if the bridge is never built I've reviewed the proposed walkway easement to determine whether <br /> it contains any provisions which may cause such on-going costs for the City. The following is <br /> an outline of some of the key rights and obligations of the City (as Grantee) and Associates (as <br /> 40 Grantor) under the easement <br /> The City is authorized to "construct, maintain, repair, operate and reconstruct a <br /> pedestrian walkway, bicycle access and bridge over and across the easement <br /> parcel" <br /> The City "shall have the right to alter or to remove the drainage pond currently <br /> located on the easement parcel." <br /> Associates"shall be prohibited from materially or substantially interfering with the <br /> access over and across the easement parcel without the prior written consent of <br /> the (City)." <br /> Associates "shall not be required to alter the drainage from any portion of its <br /> • adjoining property which may flow onto the easement parcel." <br /> The City, at its cost, and the prior written consent of(Associates),may alter <br /> the drainage from any portion of(Associate?)adjoining property which may flow <br /> onto the easement parcel." <br /> Associates "shall not obstruct or interfere with access to and from (City's) bridge <br /> located within the easement parcel at any time, and shall not permit any vehicle <br /> • to be parked or any obstruction of any kind to exist in said access which will in <br /> any way prevent or obstruct traffic over and across said access." <br /> RLD118507 <br /> MU125-59 <br /> 9t/9 3Ottd 0t£6L££ZtS°QI N3A1t21O '8 AQaNN3}I°4IO2i3 CO 2.6-eZ-a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.