RES 23-029 DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF AN EASMENT AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE C,COMMERIAL DISTRICT- 2550 HWY 8

Home Browse Search

CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 23-029 A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF AN EASEMENT AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE C, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PID:07-029-23-24-0358 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2550 HIGHWAY 8 WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the property owner to vacate an existing easement held by the City of St. Anthony Village over a portion of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the property consists of approximately 2.1 acres, of which approximately 0.5 acres is covered by the easement in question; and WHEREAS, the subject easement was acquired by the City's HRA in 1999 as a part of a purchase, subsequently transferred to the City; and WHEREAS, the purposes of the easement was for the preservation and establishment of open space, and to facilitate a redevelopment plan, in an area of primarily commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the easement grants the City of St. Anthony Village an ownership interest in the property in an effort to ensure that the public purposes are eventually realized; and WHEREAS, release and vacation of the easement would interfere with the public's redevelopment and open space objectives for the area; and WHEREAS, the release and vacation of the easement would raise the likelihood of private uses that would be inconsistent with the public's redevelopment and open space interests; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution for approval: 1. The easement in question was acquired for a fair -market value purchase price at the time of acquisition. 2. The objective for acquiring the easement, although not yet achieved, continues to be a valid public purpose and is a key component of realizing the long-term land use objectives for the area. 3. While the plan for redevelopment is not specifically defined, preservation of the public access and use of the area are important factors in the planning for the subject property. 4. The current business located on the property acquired the parcel with the easement in place, and with knowledge — actual or constructive — of the long term public ownership interests in the property. 5. With the other findings, the City Council finds that release and vacation of the easement would not be in the public interest.