04-09-07 Item 6A, Planning Case 07-45 Vacation of Drainage Easement at 3210 Hamline Ave

Home Browse Search

the west (3200 Hamline Ave N) about 75 feet from the Ii'ont of the 3210 Hamline Ave N property. However, neither the City nor County has an easement on 3200 Hamline Ave North for the drainage pipe. Since the City does not yet have an easement on 3200 Hamline Ave North, Staff proposed and the applicants agreed to leave a 20 foot wide easement along the western (side) property line in order to access the p0l1ion of the drainage pipe that is located on the subject propel1y. In reality, very little of the drainage easement will move to the west, and the size of the easement will actually increase from 3,318.2 square feet to 3,357.5 square feet. At some point in the future, the City, County, and/or Rice Creek Watershed District may want to obtain an easement for the portion of the pipe on 3200 Hamline Ave N. The realigned easement on 3210 Hamline Ave N will leave enough room for maintenance and replacement for the portion of the pipe on 3210 Hamline Ave N. The discrepancy between the drainage pipe and drainage easement was brought forth because the property owners are preparing plans to redevelop the property, and their proposed redevelopment may encroach a few feet into the eastern side of the existing drainage easement, which would not be pernlitted. However, if the drainage pipe were centered on the drainage easement, the potential redevelopment plans would not encroach into the easement. Although their redevelopments plans are still being prepared, the property owners would like to correct the drainage easement location discrepancy to make it easier to prepare redevelopment plans and to resolve a confusing situation. Despite the potential redevelopment plans for the propel1y, the easement realignment should be considered separately from those plans and evaluated on its own merits. With any vacation, the City Council should consider whether the existing easement alignment has any current or future public use as opposed to the new easement that would follow the true location of the drainage pIpe. Ramsey County Public Works has reviewed the proposal, and they do not have any objections to the proposed casement realignment. Since the easement realignment will not change the function of the pipe, the Rice Creek Watershed District did not have any comments. Although Staff is referring to this application as a drainage easement realignment, the existing easement would actually be vacated entirely and a new easement would be accepted by thc City. The City Attorney reviewed the proposed drainage easement replacement, and the proposed easement legal description on the submitted survey was not sufficicnt. The City Attorney spoke with the applicant's surveyor, and they prepared a revised legal description for the new drainage easement, which is on the Grant of Permanent Easement in Attachment 6A-2. Public Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin two weeks prior to the public hearing and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to residents adjacent to the easement as required by State Statutes. \\Mefro-illcl.IIS\(//,t!cllhills\PlflllllillglPlml1lillg Cascs\200i\OJ-()07 Partial Ea.\'cII1CII/ Vawlioll (PENDING) \040907 - CC Heporl- Easement Vacafion.doc Page 2 of3