1999-135-PARK STREET EXTENSION TO SERVE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY FOR PEDC, PROJECT CONTRACT

Home Browse Search

Hov-12-89 10:04.m From-WOLFE,CL~RK,HEHDERSOH'TIDWELL,LLP +9038822397 T-438 P,02/02 F-840 MEMO To: cc: Earl Smith, City Engineer City of Paris City Council, Mayor. City Manager James Corley Henderson, Acting City Attom~ ConstrUction of "Park Street Extension" -'U^'" November 12, 1999 From: Subject: Date: This memO will confirm my opinion comm\lnicated to you earlier this week that it is not a violinion of any City ordinance, under the present circUmstances as outlined below, for the "Park Street Extension" to be constrUCted out of asphalt material, rather than concrete, t I You and 1 reviewed the history of this property on Wednesday. November 10, 1999, Based upon what our maps reflcc;t and infonnauon received from PEDC, it appears that the property upon which this "road extension" is proposed is private property which belongs to the PEDC. Generally. the history of this property is that it was originally held as a municipal airport, but thereafter transferred to the Industrial Foundation. There does not appear to have been any easements reserved for pUblic roadways at the time of that ll1IIlsfer. As I understand it, the properly has been available for development through cooperative efforts between the Industrial Foundation and PEDC. Neither the "road extension" nor the road which is being extended. as best as I can tell. has ever been dedicated as a public road. You and I inspected the road, lUld it appears that the road serves as a back driveway, and that it does not serve residential traffic or any other public traffic. Presently, the road dead-ends at the back entrance to a private business, When extended, the road will dead-end into another private business. In sumrnllIY, my opinion is that this extension would probably more properly be characterized as a private driveway at this time. The proYision concerning construction of roads of concrete is set out in the subdivision ordinance. This property has never been platted, and has not been through the procedure set out in the subdivision ordinance. That procedure would allow the developer/owner and the City, through the P & Z procedure, to establish the location and teclmical requirements for any roads which would be dedicated to the public use. In the present case, the PEDC is the owner of the property upon which the extension is to be constructed. The PEDC enabling statute, as well as the City ordinance which established the PEDC, provides that the PEDC is broadly empowered to do things such as constrUction projects. and it is my opinion that the PEDC is very clearly within its authority in constructing this extension, Moreover, the question came before the City Council on November 8, 1999. to approve a bid which had been publicly taken for the project. The plans and specifications for the project had preyiously been approved by the Council at an earlier meeting, The project is to be paid for entirely by PEDC and built on its own property. Therefore, the provision in the subdivision ordinance which requires public streets to be constructed of concrete wotUd not apply to this project, particularly since the property has not been platted and there is no inditation that the road will be dedicated to public use or used by the public. Likewise, the City would: not be obligated to maintain the driveway. -