Laserfiche WebLink
CC Regular Session <br />Meeting Date: 03/12/2013 <br />By: Chris Anderson, Community <br />Development <br />Information <br />7. 3. <br />Title: <br />Consider Request to Waive Fees for Easement Vacation on the Property Located at 6100 Bunker Lake Blvd NW; <br />Case of Dennis Sharp <br />Background: <br />In 2004, Mr. Dennis Sharp received Site Plan approval from the City for a mini storage facility located at 6100 <br />Bunker Lake Blvd. There was and remains a perpetual easement for street and utility purposes over, under and <br />across the west sixty-six (66) feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park 67 Industrial Park for the benefit of Lots 1-3, <br />Block 1, Park 67 Industrial Park. Since approval of the Site Plan in 2004, the mini -storage facility has been <br />constructed and portions of two (2) of the buildings are within this easement area. Mr. Sharp is requesting that <br />the standard fees associated with requesting an easement vacation be waived. <br />Notification: <br />No notification is required for this case. However, should the easement vacation process proceed, in accordance <br />with State Statute, Staff will attempt to notify property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property of the <br />required Public Hearing via Standard US Mail and a Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Anoka <br />County Union. <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />The easement was granted to the City via a Quit Claim Deed in 1991 and doesn't appear on the plat for Park 67 <br />Industrial Park nor on the County half section maps, but is reflected on the Certificate of Title for Lots 1 and 2 <br />Block 1 Park 67 Industrial Park. In researching the Park 67 Industrial Park Subdivision files, it appears that the <br />easement was required for access for Lots 1-3 Block 1 Park 67 Industrial Park. It seems that there was agreement <br />to vacate the easement once a public road was constructed for access to these lots, which now exists via Unity <br />Street. Unity Street was constructed slightly west of the easement, as indicated on the attached exhibit. <br />The Easement Vacation presumably should have been processed concurrently with the Site Plan review for the <br />min -storage facility located on Lot 1 Block 1 Park 67 Industrial Park. Had either the City or the Applicant <br />discovered this easement, the Applicant would have been responsible for the typical application and escrow fees for <br />such a request. <br />Alternative Options: <br />Require all standard fees be collected at time of application. Standard fees for an easement vacation request are a <br />$200.00 application fee and $300.00 escrow payment to cover costs associated with the request (public hearing <br />notice, staff time, recording fees etc). Had this easement been identified at the time of Site Plan review, it would <br />have been reasonable to expect the Applicant to be responsible for all costs; however, since neither the Applicant <br />nor the City discovered the easement during that review and the City allowed the project to proceed, this option <br />may not be appropriate. <br />Waive all standard fees. Again, the combined fees for an easement vacation request are $500.00. This would <br />generally cover all expenses incurred by the City in processing such a request. While it may be reasonable to <br />forego the expense of some of the soft costs associated with this request (Staff time namely), there are still hard <br />costs that should be born by the Applicant (these costs would include public hearing costs, mailings, recording fees). <br />