Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAVEN VIEW - PDP - 12-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - EASEMENTSAnne Aspen - Re: Ravenview - Contractual language on contracts - Topic 134 Offsite Easements Page 2 Apparently, Engineering is hung up on a letter of intent concept from Gray and Patterson before we can get the hearing. We have no problem providing the executed easements at final compliance. Legally, a real estate contract is more binding than a letter of intent, although I suppose you could consider it a letter of intent for definition purposes. Anyhow, we would like to get this issue resolved in order that we can move to the administrative hearing phase of Ravenview. It would be helpful if we could have a meeting with Planning, Engineering, and perhaps the City Attys office, if necessary to resolve the request in Topic 134. Tom Peterson Stanford Real Estate, LLC (970)226-1414 CC: Paul Eckman; Sheri Wamhoff; Wes Lamarque Anne Aspen - Re: Ravenview - Contractual language on contracts - Topic 134 Offsite Easements Page 1 From: Susan Joy To: Anne Aspen; Tom Peterson Date: 10/20/2005 4:24:26 PM Subject: Re: Ravenview - Contractual language on contracts - Topic 134 Offsite Easements Anne and Tom, The contract for the emergency access easement is fine. It is the descrepency in the plans and plat that is the issue BUT that is easily corrected. It is the easement for the property owner to the east that is the problem and it must be corrected before going to hearing. Engineering is 'hung up" on the fact that the contract with the property owner provides for a 20' access and utility placement easement. The improvements that the applicant is proposing requires somewhere between a 26 and 27' wide easement and it needs to be a drainage and utility easement. I have said repeatedly that the actual document will be finalized in Final Compliance and that the easements eventually need to be dedicated to the City. All I am asking for prior to hearing is something from the affected property owner that says - I am willing to grant the above easements for the above width. As it stands now, I have no idea if the property owner even knows the extent of the easements or improvements on her property. All I know for sure is that she is willing to grant a 20' wide access and utility placement(?) easement. This does NOT allow the developer to construct what he is currently proposing on the plans. The current documents would allow the sanitary sewer connection but not the storm sewer nor would it allow the full width of the driveway or the retaining wall. I think that's a problem. From what I understand, the affected property owner is out of town and it is unknown when she will be back. It could be next week or it could be the next couple of months. While I sympathize with the developer, I think it would be irresponsible of me, if not illegal, to allow a project to go to hearing without making sure that this property owner knows about and agrees to the actual extent of the improvements on her land. I wish it was something I could be flexible about, but our standards REQUIRE that all offsite easements are either obtained before going to hearing or at the very least, a letter of intent is obtained from the affected property owner before going to hearing. We have never, to my knowledge, ever gone to hearing without those documents in place. Susan >>> Anne Aspen 10/20/2005 3:15:06 PM >>> Hi Tom, I will talk with Susan about this and see if we can be flexible on this issue but I will defer to her and Sheri on what format is ultimately needed to go to hearing. To my knowledge, we have never accepted contracts in lieu of t-Ols. Anne >>> "Stanford Real Estate" <srellcna.awest.net> 10/20 2:58 PM >>> Dear Anne, I am just following up on my voicemail from yesterday. We have submitted specific language from the real estate contracts from V. Gray and B. Patterson, which obligates them to provide the necessary easements for items like utility access, and drainage. The real estate contracts were signed before a site plan was developed.