Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br />steven sarkozy <br />March 16, 1992 <br /> <br />3. We have no city policy which addresses vacating drainage <br />easements which pre-existed residential property <br />development. <br /> <br />4. I agree that the development of a single-family home on a <br />lot fully restricted by a drainage easement should have been <br />caught in the building permit process. However, that <br />assumes that the records we have lists all the easements. <br />That is not always the case, so we are not always able to <br />catch these situations. <br /> <br />I asked Karl and Doug for their recollection on the history <br />of these issues for the past several years. A lot on Belair <br />Circle had a similar situation. The easement was conveyed <br />not by plat and the house was built without releasing the <br />easement. The property owners requested the lot be vacated <br />to satisfy the attorneys. <br /> <br />I would also mention that there are several instances <br />throughout the city where there is one house built on two <br />adjacent lots. Routinely, the original plats contain <br />sideyard drainage easements and it appears that in several <br />of these cases, the houses were built over the sideyard <br />drainage easements since the house was centered on two lots. <br />In one case on Gluek Lane, we were recently requested by the <br />attorney to vacate the sideyard drainage easements as part <br />of a property transfer. <br /> <br />In summary, I would recommend that we do nothing regarding the <br />Grove request. The city cannot be responsible for complete <br />maintenance of pUblic easement and plat records. These documents <br />rest with the county surveyor and county recorder and easements <br />needing vacation or correction are generally caught as part of <br />the real estate transfer process. <br />