My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 12-13-1993
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
CCP 12-13-1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:09:36 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 3:05:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
<br />. Arden Hills Council 3 November 29, 1993 <br /> PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS <br /> CASE #93-25 VACATION OF EASEMENT <br /> JAMES HANTON <br /> 3945 ROLLING HILLS ROAD <br /> Community Planning Coordinator Fritsinger stated that James <br /> Hanton is requesting to vacate a twenty foot wide "utility <br /> easement II . <br /> Mr. Fritsinger explained that the applicant, during the <br /> closing process on his new horne, discovered a plat from 1957 <br /> which reflected the utility easement running north and south <br /> across the new lot. Before the applicant can close on his <br /> horne, the applicant's Title Company is requesting this <br /> vacation of easement. <br /> Mr. Fritsinger outlined the following findings of fact: <br /> 1- There is no apparent need for a 20 foot wide utility <br />. easement in this area. <br /> 2. No recording document for the easement can be found <br /> with Ramsey County. <br /> 3. As no recording documents can be located, a <br /> determination of whom the easement was granted to is <br /> impossible. <br /> 4. Northern States Power, US West and the School District <br /> have been contacted and can find no record of an <br /> easement being located in this area. Upon a site <br /> visit, representatives from NSP also stated that they <br /> could see no reason to hold an easement in this area. <br /> 5. The easement, on lot 7, runs right through the middle <br /> of the applicant's house. No public purpose would be <br /> benefitted by refusing to vacate the easement on this <br /> lot. <br /> 6. As the easement runs the full length of Rolling Hills <br /> Road, it also affects other property owners. In some <br /> cases, it appears to run, if not through, adjacent to <br /> many of the homes. <br /> Fritsinger reported that staff and the Planning Commission <br /> have recommended approval of the vacation of easement for <br /> the area legally described as Shorewood Hills No. 6. <br /> addition, lots 2 through 7. <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.