Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C - Public Right-Of-Way STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: DATE: 9C GREG ILKKA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT TO ALLOW AGREEMENTS FOR PRIVATE USE OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS. AUGUST 4, 1997 SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the concept to allow agreements for the private use of public rights-of- way for neighborhood street improvement projects on previously unimproved streets. If authorized, a policy would be prepared to adress this issue. BACKGROUND: The residents along Linden Circle adjacent to Northwood Road approached the city requesting that they be allowed to pave Linden Circle at their own expense. It was not a request for a public improvement project as they want to keep the costs down. Their desire was to blacktop the road without the benefit of engineering. There are a number of locations like this in the city where dedicated streets/cui de sacs were not improved at the time of platting. To complicate matters there are areas where the platted right-of-way is only 20 feet in width and the currently traveled surface does not align with the platted right-of-way, Linden Circle is one such street. DISCUSSION: The possibility of vacating these rights-of-way, thus making them private streets was discussed by staff but determined to be contrary to city policy as we currently only allow private streets in PUD's. If the City was petitioned to pave one of these streets the City would undertake the work as a public improvement project, which would be engineered and paved based on City standards as adpted by the City Council and set out in the City's Engineering Design Manual. Stated simply, if the City paved the road it would cost residents more than if they undertook the project themselves. Understandably the citizens in these situations are concerned about the difference in cost if the City constructs the public improvement. It was felt there must be another way to address these situations. During staff discussions about whether there was an alternative between vacating the right-of-way or constructing the 16200~~Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQL.>\L OPPORTLNITY' EMPLOYER improvement (paving the street to City standards) the idea to allow the private use of a public right-of-way was brought up. Under this concept the homeowners would (1) sign an agreement with the City dealing with the private use of public property, (2) form a homeowners association to undertake an improvement project (subject to some minimal City standards/requirements) and (3) provide for the maintenance of the right-of-way. In signing the agreement, draft copy attached, the homeowners take on all responsibility for the permitted use, in this case paving and maintenance of the street. As part of the permit agreement they also indemnify the city, provide insurance, and agree to abide by parking restrictions established in the permit. The concept of "permitting" the private use of public property allows these older established neighborhoods to improve their streets and neighborhoods without the destruction of existing amenities often associated with public improvement projects. Whether to agree in any particular instance to permit the private use of public property is a decision for the Council, but this approach would be an additional option to doing nothing or following the public improvement process outlined in Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429. Staff would develop, as part of a policy for Council approval, a set of criteria for the Council to use when determining whether to permit residents to pave City rights-of-way pursuant to agreement. ISSUES: Items of discussion may include: Which streets would be eligible for this option? Staff would recommend that any public right-of-way that has never been improved, i.e, paved surface, should be eligible for this option. What will this mean to 429 projects? Nothing, the 429 process is still an option. There may also be instances where the City may want to initiate the 429 process, require the 429 process, or where the property owners themselves petition under 429. Won't everyone want to have less aggressive standards? Yes, but by limiting the eligibility to only those public streets that have never been improved and which meet certain other criteria staff will develop for council consideration we limit the number of potential candidates to probably less than a dozen. Some of the benefits to the City include: · Saves time and money because no City financing is involved with special assessments. · No need to prove special benefit to assessed properties. PUPROW.DOC ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: PUPROWDOC · Eliminates right-of-way acquisition and associated costs. · Provides an all season road surface for public use. · Potential to resolve gravel surface erosion problems, and reduce maintenance costs. Linden Circle is a case in point. There are three alternatives for the City Council to consider: 1. Approve the concept to allow agreements for the Private Use of a Public Right-of-Way for Street Improvements and direct staff to prepare a policy and standard agreement for future Council consideration. 2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction. 3. Table this item until some date in the future. Alternative NO.1. 1. A motion and secon to approve the concept of a Policy for the Publi Right-of-Way for Street Improvements. EXHIBIT C PERMIT AGREEMENT FOR PRIVA TE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 1997, by and between the_ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, Minnesota, a municipal (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and and wife; a partnership; a as "Owner"). corporation , [husband corporation] (hereinafter referred to RECIT ALS WHEREAS, Owner is the fee owner of a tract of land in Scott County, located at , and legally described as follows: [LEGAL] (hereinafter referred to as "Owner's Property"); and WHEREAS, the City is the owner of property, legally described as follows: [LEGAL] and; WHEREAS, a portion of the serving Owner's Property encroaches on a portion of the property abutting Owner's property. as described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the en.:roached portion of the property hereinafter referred to as the "Permit Property"): and -OR- WHEREAS, Owner wishes to use the Permit Property for ; and WHEREAS, Owners have requested the City to authorize continued use of the Permit Property for purposes; and WHEREAS, such continued use of the Permit Property is not inconsistent with current use of the property by the City and the public; and WHEREAS, the City may in the future desire to use the Permit Property for other purposes which are not consistent with Owners use of the Permit Property, and therefore the City intends to retain all of its right, title, and interest in the Permit Property: 46241 1 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Permit. Owners shall be permitted to use the Permit Property for purposes at Owner's sole expense and risk, and with full knowledge that the City may, upon notice as provided herein, require Owner's to be removed from the Permit Property at any future date,- at Owner's sole expense. The Permit Property must be kept open to public use at all times, and no fence or other obstruction may be placed on the Permit Property without the prior written approval of the City, which may be given or withheld in the sole discretion of the City. 2. Maintenance of Permit Propertv: Modification. Owner shall maintain the Permit Property in good condition at all times, at their sole cost and expense. If Owner fails to do so, the City may cause the necessary repair or maintenance to be done at Owner's cost. If Owner fails to pay the City for such costs, the City may assess the costs against Owner's Property. Owner shall not make any modifications to the the Permit Property without the prior written approval of the City, withheld in the sole discretion of the City. or otherwise modify which may be given or 3. Termination. In the event the City desires to use the Permit Property for a purpose which is inconsistent with use by Owner, to be determined in the City's sole discretion, or in the event Owner fails to comply with any requirement of this Agreement within sixty (60) days after receiving a notice from the City requesting such compliance, the City through its City Manager may terminate this Permit Agreement by giving ninety (90) days written notice of termination to Owner by certified mail at the following address: Such notice may, at the City's option, require Owner to completely remove the from the Permit Property within said ninety (90) day notice period, including all debris. If this Permit Agreement is terminated by the City as provided herein, Owner will be solely responsible for all costs and expenses related to construction of a which is located on Owner's Property, in accordance with all City Ordinances. If Owner fails to remove the as required by a proper notice of termination, the City may cause the removal to be done and the costs of such work shall be paid by Owner. If Owner fails to pay the City for such costs, the City may assess the costs against the Owner's Property. 4. Consent to Special Assessment. Owner hereby acknowledges and consents to the City's right to specially assess any costs incurred by the City for any repair or maintenance performed pursuant to Paragraph 2 of this Permit Agreement, or any costs incurred by the City to remove Owner's from the Permit Property pursuant to Paragraph 3 of this Permit Agreement. Owner waives any right to protest or appeal any special assessment levied pursuant to this Permit Agreement. 5. Future Development. Owner understands and acknowledges that the City may utilize the Permit Property at some future date and in the sole discretion of the City. In the 46241 2 event the City undertakes such development, and if this Permit Agreement is not terminated by the City as provided above, Owner agrees to cooperate with the City as necessary to facilitate City's use of the Permit Property, and the City agrees to use its best efforts to accommodate Owner's use of the Permit Property for the purposes stated herein. 6. Indemnity. Owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees, subcontractors, -attorneys, agents, and representatives from and against all claims, damages, losses, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, which may be incurred by or asserted against the City or for which the City may be held liable, which arise out of or result from use of the Permit Property for purposes, including but not limited to the maintenance, repair or removal of Owner's , except liability caused solely by the negligence of the City. 7. Insurance. As long as this Permit Agreement is in existence, Owner shall maintain a general liability insurance policy which provides coverage for the Permit Property for any damage to property of others or injuries to persons. Said insurance policy shall provide coverage on an occurrence basis in an amount no less than One Million dollars ($1,000,000), and shall include contractual liability coverage to provide coverage for the indemnification provision in Paragraph 6 above. Said policy shall name the City as an additional insured, and shall contain a clause which provides that the insurer will not cancel. non-renew, or materially change the policy without first giving the City thirty (30) days prior written norice. Owner shall provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance for said policy which specifically details the conditions of this Paragraph 6. 8. Waiver of Claims. Owner acknowledges City's ownership of the Permit Property and knowingly waives any and all claims against the City related to Owner's use of the Permit Property, including but not limited to claims of abandonment and contractual claims arising out of this Permit Agreement. except any claims which are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its employees or agents. 9. Condition of ProDertv. Owner accepts the Permit Property "as is" and the City makes no warranties regarding the conditions of the Permit Property or the suitability of the Permit Property for Owner's purposes. 10. Bindin~ Effect. This Permit Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto. their heirs, successors. or assigns. 11. Whole A~reement: Modification. This Permit Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions relating to the permit granted herein, and replaces any oral agreements or other negotiations between the parties relating to the permit. No modifications to this Permit Agreement shall be valid until they have been placed in writing and signed by all parties hereto. 12. Recordation. Office of the Owner shall cause this Permit Agreement to be recorded in the Coumy Recorder at their cost and expense. 46241 ~ -' , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Permit Agreement as of the date first above written. · CITY OF PRIOR LAKE OYVNER(S) By: By: -. / STATE OF MINNESOTA ) -../ )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by Lydia Andren and Frank Boyles, the Mayor and City Manager respectively of the City of Prior Lake, on behalf of the City of Prior Lake through authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was 19 by and on behalf of the [corporationlpannership]. acknowledged before me this and , respectively of day of the Notary Public This Instrument Drafted By: Campbell, Knutson, Scon & Fuchs. P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporation Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 46241 4 .. ,