2008_1013_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4. 1 The Old Dominion Freight Line parcel is 5.14 acres in size and is located south of the 26 unimproved Iona Lane, east of the unimproved Mount Ridge Road, and adjacent to Cleveland 27 Avenue. 4�.2 The parcel is located in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, has a land use designation of BP, 29 Business Park, and a current zoning designation of 1-2, General Industrial. 3�,,:-); 4�.3 Cent Ventures 2 has a purchase option for the Old Dominion Freight Line parcel and has been 3 1 in negotiation with Metro Transit on the purchase of an approximate I acre lot in the northeast 32 comer of the parent parcel. Metro Transit intends to redevelop the I acre lot (the subject of the 33 current preliminary plat) into a park-and-ride facility, which requires approval of a General 34 Concept and Final Development Planned Unit Development. 35 5.0 REVIEW OF EASEMENT VACATION 36 5.1 The applicants indicate in their narrative that the Ramsey County Surveyor has stated that a 37 FINAL PLAT cannot be recorded with roadway easements on a plat document. Therefore the 38 applicant has requested that an easement for a I0- foot -wide portion of Iona Lane and Mount 39 Ridge Road be vacated. 4o 5.2 However,, Document No. 1511814 recorded at Ramsey County, is a Quit Claim Deed giving the °11 Village of Roseville the subject area thought to be an easement. Specifically the Quit Claim 42 Deed gives that Village/City the northern 10-foot-wide portion of Lot 20 and Lot 1, Block B, 43 Twin View and the eastern 10- foot -wide portion of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block B, Twin View (see 1 44 Attachment C). Therefore it is staff s opinion the there is not an easement to vacate. 45 5.3 The applicant and their surveyor have contended that the City only holds interest in the land 46 described in the deed for "Public roadway and highway purposes"' and that the land is or acts 47 like an easement. However,, the Roseville City Attorney has completed an opinion of the 48 subject quit claim deed, concluding the following.- 49 The deeds that Ms. Bloom� sent over (Document Nos. 1511815 and 1511814) b h indicate that they tir quitclaim "1 the described property to the Village ofRoseville. The word tir easement " is not mentioned anywhere on the deeds. The fac that consideration for each deed was one dollar does not change the nature of the document; payment of nominal consideration by a m�un icipality for property is not unusual. Furthermore, the phrase ' for public roadway and highway purposes " that is on b h deeds directly after the legal description does not establish an easement. At m�ost, it is a use limitation. Just b�ecause easements often have similar phraseology does not alter the fundamental nature of these documents, which expressly "q i tclaim "1 the properry to the (7ity. 58 The Attorney General m�em�o and case law cited by the developer are not relevant. In the m'em'o, the language at issue was an exception on a tax deed. The language of the exception was 60 deemed to be in recognition of an existing highway easement. Similarly, in the case cited, the 61 deed reserved an alley to the seller. The reservation was ruled to be an easement. The pressnt 62 deeds, on the other hand, involve the explicit quitclaim ofproperry to the (7ity. This is not a 63 situation where the property was sold and a portion was reserved to the (7ity or excepted out for 64 the benefit of the (., Y ity. The m�em�o and case law are not on point and are therefore of no Page 2 of 4