Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT #6 <br />�7�• E.G. RUD at SONS, INC. <br />EsTis" Professional Land Surveyors <br />To: Joel Hanson <br />City of Little Canada <br />Prom: Jason Rud <br />Date: February 14, 2013 <br />Re: 33 Foot Street Basement Vacation- PINETREE POND <br />6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 <br />Lino Lakes, MN, 55014 <br />Phone: (651) 361 -8200 <br />Fax: (651) 3618701 <br />d.cem <br />The purpose of this memo is to provide some background information to the existing street easement that <br />encumbers the proposed plat of PINETREE POND. <br />I have reviewed the street easement granted to the City of Little Canada created per Ramsey County Document <br />Number 17 29438. Thts easement is described as <br />"The East 33 feet of that part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section <br />4, Township 29, Range 22, lying Northerly of Labore Road according to the plat thereof on file and of record <br />in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Ramsey County." <br />The 33 foot strip described above lies entirely within the parcel that was conveyed to Masterpiece Homes via <br />Trustee Deed, Ramey County Document Number 4132382. This has been confirmed with an initial review by the <br />Ramsey County Surveyor's Office as well <br />in the redevelopment of this parcel, said street easement is proposed to be vacated as part of the development <br />application. 1 understand question has arisen regarding the accrual of this easement area. As noted above the area <br />that is encumbered by the easement 1s owned in fee tide by Masterpiece Homes. As a result, the area encumbered <br />by said street easement following the vacation, will remain in fee title by Masterpiece Homes. This area would not <br />accrue to the neighbor at 2925 Labors Road. <br />Neighboring pare owners have brought up the question of whether a portion of this easement area would accrue <br />to their neighboring property. Again, I have forwarded our preliminary plat to the Ramsey County Surveyor, and <br />they have agreed that this would not be the case with their initial review. <br />The circumstances involving said easement vacation are different than a "simultaneous conveyance", otherwise <br />known as a plat. In a shnultaneous conveyance, adjoining parcels will accrue to the centerline of the vacated right <br />of way. The easement granted above was not of a simultaneous conveyance, so this would not apply. <br />1 hope this information helps clarify the issue, and provide some pertinent background information. Feel free to call <br />me at 6513614200 with any additional questions that you may have. Ultimately if legal advice is needed, then an <br />attorney should be consulted. <br />29 <br />34 <br />