Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 8, 2016 5 <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler recommended that the Council approve the Certificate of Completion <br />and Release pertaining to the Development Agreement between Josephine East, LLC and the City <br />of Arden Hills for the property at 3177 Shoreline Lane. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant requested comment from the City Attorney. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik advised that when real estate transactions occur, the attorneys representing <br />the purchaser often identify items in the title that raise concerns to them. The purchaser in this <br />situation was represented by an attorney who reviewed the title and identified the development <br />agreement as an issue that had implications for the purchaser. There was a question as to what <br />areas of the agreement have been satisfied and more importantly, which ones remain unsatisfied. <br />This led the purchaser to request that the City Attorney review the development agreement. This <br />was done to eliminate the ambiguity with regard to the title. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated that she believed that the development agreement was unique in <br />this situation due to the fact that a street connection still hung in the balance. She explained that <br />she held a discussion with the City Attorney and with Senior Planner Bachler. She feared that by <br />usurping these two provisions, the City would be creating more confusion. She expressed concern <br />with the assessment and escrow language that would remain within the development agreement. <br />She wanted to see the subdivision plan if it existed and believed that more work needed to be <br />done on this matter before it could receive Council approval. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden was unclear if the City had an easement to allow for the connection of <br />the streets. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik reported that the City did not have any easement rights on the 3187 <br />Lexington Avenue property as this was not part of the plat in 1999. It was his understanding that <br />the City wanted to make a connection when and if the property at 3187 was split to create an <br />additional lot. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant recalled this being the case. He stated that it was unfortunate that the road was not <br />pushed through when it was originally designed. It was his hope that the City would not make <br />this mistake again in the future. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden questioned what right the City has to push the roadway through if 3187 <br />was to split into two lots. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik commented that riparian law would allow for the roadway due to the fact <br />that the new lot would require access to a roadway. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden questioned when the Council had to approve this request. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler indicated that this request was not on a strict timeline like other land use <br />requests. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung questioned if the City could assess the benefitting properties if a <br />roadway were to be pushed through.