HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.b. 138th Street East Disposition �. _ = ITEM # � �
*��,�**�*�***,t****�*�,t**�**�****�***MEMO***�***���**�rt*����*��������*��*,t��*
DATE: MARCH 28s 1990
TO: MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERB
C/O ADMINISTRATOR JiLR
�,,,."""`--
FROM: CITY ENGINEER/POBLIC WORRS DIRECTOR HEF
RE: ITEM FOR THE APRIL 3, 1990 COUNCIL MEETINC�
OLD BUSINE88
138th Street East Disposition
This item consist of addressing a problem a Mr. Adam Kraft, on the east end
of the City, is experiencing in attempting to obtain title to a land-
locked parcel. This memo will provide some background for this matter
along with an attached list of alternatives.
Mr. Kraft is in the process of purchasing 80 acres of lar►d-locked property
owned by his mother, Ramona Kraft. The problem arises because the Title
Company is teZling Mr. Kraft that they need to have an access defined to
this landlocked parcel. The existing access to this parcel is a gravel
driveway off of County Road 73 {Rich Valley Boulevard) . It is my
understanding that back in the time when this area was in Rosemount
Township that the Township performed some maintenance an this driveway.
The City apparently inherited maintenance aspects of this driveway when we
incorporated with the Township in 1971. In speaking with our maintenance
people i;t appears that we have annually plowed snow off this driveway and
occasionally placed some gravel and calcium/chloride along this driveway.
To my knowledge, in the past five years we have only plowed snow off this
driveway. The fact that we did provide some maintenance activities on this
driveway does imPly, under State law, this driveway could be used for
public purposes. However, this poses a dilemma ta the City in that if this
roadway is considered as a public access then it would expose us to
potential liability resulting from the fact that the driveway is too narrow
to serve as a public street.
Of the attached list of alternatives, � would recommend pursuing
Alternative A. If Alternative A is pursued then our City Attorney
recommends that we hold a public hearing to formally vacate any interest or
rights we may have gathered along the way.
Our City Attorney is also looking into what private easement rights the
Krafts may have through the use of this driveway over the years.
I would be happy to assist in any way I can in the discussion of this
matter.
_ ,� .
L.-
138th Street (Kraft Driveway)
Analysis
March 30, 1990
I. Alternatives
A. Refuse accepting driveway as �ublic street
l. Pros
a. no city liability
b. no further maintenance
2. Cons
a. del.ays Krafts
(1) easement required from Moynihan
(2) lender requires maintenance agreement
between Kraft & Moynihan
B. Accept driveway as public street as is
1. Pros
a. easiest & quickest for Kraft
2. Cons
a. potential liability risk for city because of
deficient width of street & easement width
b. high cost of maintenance for anly 2 parties
C. Accept upgraded road as public street
1. Pros
a. eliminates liability risk due to deficient
width
b. would provide safe, standarcl access to property
& also adequate right-of-way
2. Cons
a. require obtaining easement �rom Moynihan,
probably at a cost
b. cost of roadway & easement borne by bene€ited
property (Kraft & Moynihan}
c. might promote development in area were
developrnent is not encouraged now
d. high cost of maintenance for very low usage