My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 11/26/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2002
>
Minutes - Council - 11/26/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 12:11:10 PM
Creation date
5/7/2003 7:48:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
11/26/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
View images
View plain text
law does not allow a cancellation of a purchase agreement for 30 days which is December 1, <br />2002. He requested that the Council approve the final plat contingent upon proof of good title. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that at this time they are only talking about one lot and the Council has <br />stated before that they wanted to address the entire Parcel at the same time. <br /> <br />Mr. McGhee explained that they are only dealing with this issue becaUse one of the lots will be <br />deeded back to the property owner so this is the process that is required. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon explained that one of the main reasons they have to deal with this lot <br />separately is because the townhomes and single family homes that are being proposed are going <br />to be part of an association and they are not able to plat everything at once and exclude one <br />parcel from the homeowners association. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich inquired if there were any 60-day concerns. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon replied that the City can.extend it up until February 25, 2003. <br /> <br />Mr. McGhee noted that they.are unable to close on the property until the other plat is recorded. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson inquired if the City Attorney had discussed the issue with the <br />Developer's attorney. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied no, noting that the only thing he has heard is that the Developer's <br />attorney feels that they do have an interest in the property and will proceed with that interest in <br />effect. City staff has talked to one property owner who has indicated that the purchase agreement <br />is no longer effective. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson inquired as to what the liability is to the City. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that there is none. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon noted that the purchase agreement dispute does not involve the <br />Deboer's property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that it seems unlikely that they would want to subdivide the <br />Deboer's property if the rest of the development is not going to proceed. She stated that she does <br />not want to get involved with a disagreement between the developer and the property owner. <br />She would be more comfortable with tabling action and give the developer and the property <br />owners an opportunity to workout their differences. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Kurak, seconded by Councilmember Hendriksen to table actionl <br /> <br />City Council/November 26, 2002 <br /> Page 14 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.