Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />May 9, 2023 <br />Page 2 <br />1 <br />2 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Randle, to approve the Consent <br />3 Agenda items. <br />4 <br />5 Motion carried 5-0. <br />6 <br />7 IV.PUBLIC HEARING - NONE. <br />8 <br />9 V.REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF - NONE. <br />10 <br />11 VI.GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL. <br />12 <br />A.13 Resolution 23-029 – Denying a Request for a Vacation of An Easement and Easement <br />14 Agreement in the C Commercial District. <br />15 <br />16 City Planner Stephen Grittman reviewed the applicants are seeking vacation of an Easement <br />17 Agreement originally held by the HRA, but since assigned to the City of St. Anthony Village. <br />18 The easement encumbers the northwest area of Hannay’s commercial property at 2550 Highway <br />19 88. <br />20 <br />21 At the April 25 City Council Meeting a public hearing was held on the proposed easement <br />22 vacation, history discussed, current conditions and future prospects for the site were reviewed. <br />23 The Council voted 4-1 to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the vacation, based on a <br />24 number of factors, including findings that the easement was purchased, rather than given to the <br />25 City; that the easement could still be integral in promoting its original purpose, which include <br />26 facilitating redevelopment and preservation of a public open space or access to the area; and that <br />27 losing access to the easement area at this time could preclude the objectives raised by the City’s <br />28 long-term plans, even if those plans may change when fully implemented. <br />29 <br />30 The vote in opposition to the motion was based in support of the idea that enough time had <br />31 passed to believe that the easement was no longer necessary, and favored returning the use of the <br />32 property to the private owner. <br />33 <br />34 Staff has prepared the resolution and provided it to Council for review and adoption. The <br />35 resolution lays out the background and findings for the City’s retention of the easement rights, <br />36 and denying the request for vacation. <br />37 <br />38 Councilmember Jenson stated when he first read this prior to learning the City had purchased the <br />39 easement, his mind was changed to support the resolution. <br />40 <br />41 Councilmember Walker stated from the last meeting, the fact that this was purchased, it should <br />42 not be deemed as unfair. It is in the best interest of the City if the ownership is retained by the <br />43 City. <br />44 <br />45 Councilmember Randle stated he disagrees, he feels the applicant’s reasons for the request are <br />46 justified and we should support the request.