Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br />To:Mayor Stille and St. Anthony Village City Council <br />From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner <br />Date:City Council Meeting – May 9, 2023 <br />NAC Project No.323.01 – 23.03 <br />Request:Request for a Vacation of an Easement in the “C”, Commercial District <br />Property Address:2550 Highway 88 <br />Property PID:07-029-23-24-0358 <br />PROJECT DESCRIPTION <br />The Applicants are seeking vacation of an Easement Agreement originally held by the HRA, but <br />since assigned to the City of St. Anthony Village. The easement encumbers the northwest area <br />of the Hannay’s commercial property at the above address. Easement vacations are considered <br />as a part of a public hearing held by the City Council. <br />Per the applicant’s materials, the easement was purchased by the City in 1999 from the prior <br />owner, with the purpose of facilitating the creation of an open space and other public <br />improvements as a part of a larger redevelopment plan. Those plans have not resulted in a <br />project to date. The applicants are hoping to have that easement released, with the intention <br />that they enclose the space with screening fence and utilize it for temporary boat storage and <br />staging for vessels they have in for service. <br />At its April 25th meeting, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed easement <br />vacation, and discussed the history, current conditions, and future prospects for the site in <br />question. The Council voted 4-1 to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the vacation, <br />based on number of factors, including findings that the easement was purchased, rather than <br />given to the City; that the easement could still be integral in promoting its original purpose, <br />which include facilitating redevelopment and preservation a public open space or access to the <br />area; and that losing access to the easement area at this time could preclude the objectives <br />raised by the City’s long-term plans, even if those plans may change when full implemented. <br />The vote in opposition to the motion was based in support of the idea that enough time had <br />passed to believe that the easement was no longer necessary, and favored returning the use of <br />the property to the private owner.