|
<br />It
<br />
<br />',.1 '1
<br />J. : Request for Disclaimer, Prospect Park (Chambers south of 25th) - Manager ex-
<br />plained that preliminary approval has been given to Phase I of Prospect Park,
<br />a three-phase planned unit development fronting on Chambers south of 25th.
<br />A 3D-foot strip running east/west the full length of the property, north of the
<br />first phase, was deeded to the "public" by Ernest and Mabel Jones in 1958 and
<br />recorded in 1959. At that tim: the property was in the County, and any City
<br />. interest now would be because of annexation. The Planning Commission was aware
<br />of the dedication at the time of preliminary approval but did not question its
<br />legal status. However, there is no record of acceptance of the property by
<br />either the County or the City; the City became aware of it at the time of pay-
<br />ment of intersection paving costs in the Chambers Street project.
<br />
<br />Herman Hendershott, attorney for the Prospect Park developers, is requesting
<br />that the City sign a disclaimer to ,the 3D-foot strip to clear the title and
<br />allow financing for the planned unit development to be finalized. Planning
<br />Comrndssion has never considered whether the City has use for this strip, al-
<br />though both Planning and Public Works feel there should not be a street on that
<br />alignment_~ A street system has been worked out and approved for the PUD. Since
<br />'the' 3D-foot strip has never been accepted as dedicated land, there is no re-
<br />quirement for vacation. The- i>roblem can be cleared with a disclaimer to any
<br />interest by the City.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />IMr. Hendei:shott conimented on development of the property and meetings with City
<br />staff at which street pattern and access were considered. He asked favorable
<br />lconsideration of the request prior to the ,next Council meeting.
<br />
<br />r Y
<br />[Mayor Anderson said that since the Commission did not comment it could be
<br />; as~umed there is no desire to use the property for public purposes. Manager
<br />I '
<br />l.said that although the Commission was aware of the public dedication there was
<br />:no diSCUSsion with regard to the City's interest or whether City should divest
<br />iitselfof any interest. Discussion was on street pattern to serve the PUD
<br />~whi.chis not in conformance with the aligiunent of the dedication in question.
<br />) The>st:rieet pattern approved provides for entrance onto Chambers :(~r.ther north
<br />!":t;han tl}EF' dedication and other entrances from the west e~-,,'Ni:rthrough con-
<br />i nec~j.~n';is planned unless at, some futuretime--i t is fel t to be desired.
<br />
<br />l", :.. ;:-..
<br />'Stan'r..Qng, assistant city attorney, in answer to Councilman Hershner said that
<br />: grant.c?of.'may still have title if the gift has n~t been accepted.
<br />
<br />I ,
<br />I Discussion followed with regard to possible purpose for which the dedication
<br />'was made, relationship of owners of balance of property in the development to
<br />those who dedicated the 3D-foot strip, whether the property is on the tax roll,
<br />ownership of the PUD property, possibilities of litigation as a result, of execut-
<br />ing a disclaimer, tax status as a result of returning the property to private
<br />ownership after its not being on the rolls since 1959, etc.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to authorize staff to execute a dis-
<br />claimer ()f interest in the public proi>ert", in return for which the City will
<br />receive a "hold harmless" agreement from lIr. Hendershott's clients that would
<br />state in event of litigation the City's ihterest would be protected and that
<br />the City would be reimbursed for any cost;' of intersection paving previously
<br />paid by the City.
<br />i
<br />Councilman Hershner raised the possibility of criticism because of releasing a I
<br />substantially large piece of public property without knowing the status of the i
<br />title and without working out reimbursement for i.ts value. )'
<br />
<br />; Ed ~eny~n; -R~~ister-Guard, asked whether the attitude of the Jones who dedicated.
<br />: the property is known. Mr. Hendershott replied that it was of no consequence /
<br />'because a disc:laimer was all ~h~t;.w:a.~~ nee,ded to c!.e~~the, tip~.. ... , . ' " 'i
<br />nO. . "I: - --<". ,- --, - .:r;..".~ :-.',_.~_.,....,- ."-- ......_,....'''''"_..-._;..~.:.:..-;.r_--~__._.-...:.~:'--c._-~_-'-.)
<br />
<br />~...' -. ,-
<br />'There was' further' dlscussion and general agreement that lOOre :!-nformation should;
<br />, ,be presented prior to action.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />I
<br />, : Vote was taken on the motion as. stated. Motion defeated, Councilmen Beal and
<br />:Wil~iams voting aye; Cdimcilmen Hershner, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wdod
<br />i vot~ng no. .
<br />,
<br />i
<br />!It . was understood staff woul~ bring back more information wi th regard to own~r-I
<br />ish~p of the property. Counc~lman Hershner expressed an interest in knowing the'
<br />,'purpose of the original dedicatiol) to the public.
<br />
<br />_.,,- _,~,_-_,'-,-..'-...-
<br />
<br />-----,-.-~._---~._'.~~,. --.
<br />
<br />_. .._~- -,-"_. ....-- ._-.~~.--, ~---._--.-~~---.-
<br />
<br />15
<br />
<br />3/12/73 - 7
<br />
<br />,
<br />',. i
<br />I
<br />I
<br />\
<br />I
<br />i
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />2/28/73
<br />Affirm
<br />
|