Consider Request to Waive Fees for Easement Vacation on the Property Located at 6100 Bunker Lake Blvd NW; Case of Dennis Sharp

In 2004, Mr. Dennis Sharp received Site Plan approval from the City for a mini storage facility located at 6100 Bunker Lake Blvd.  There was and remains a perpetual easement for street and utility purposes over, under and across the west sixty-six (66) feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park 67 Industrial Park for the benefit of Lots 1-3, Block 1, Park 67 Industrial Park.  Since approval of the Site Plan in 2004, the mini-storage facility has been constructed and portions of two (2) of the buildings are within this easement area.  Mr. Sharp is requesting that the standard fees associated with requesting an easement vacation be waived.

No notification is required for this case.  However, should the easement vacation process proceed, in accordance with State Statute, Staff will attempt to notify property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property of the required Public Hearing via Standard US Mail and a Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Anoka County Union.

The easement was granted to the City via a Quit Claim Deed in 1991 and doesn't appear on the plat for Park 67 Industrial Park nor on the County half section maps, but is reflected on the Certificate of Title for Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 Park 67 Industrial Park.  In researching the Park 67 Industrial Park Subdivision files, it appears that the easement was required for access for Lots 1-3 Block 1 Park 67 Industrial Park.  It seems that there was agreement to vacate the easement once a public road was constructed for access to these lots, which now exists via Unity Street. Unity Street was constructed slightly west of the easement, as indicated on the attached exhibit.

The Easement Vacation presumably should have been processed concurrently with the Site Plan review for the min-storage facility located on Lot 1 Block 1 Park 67 Industrial Park.  Had either the City or the Applicant discovered this easement, the Applicant would have been responsible for the typical application and escrow fees for such a request. 

Alternative Options:

Require all standard fees be collected at time of application.  Standard fees for an easement vacation request are a $200.00 application fee and $300.00 escrow payment to cover costs associated with the request (public hearing notice, staff time, recording fees etc).  Had this easement been identified at the time of Site Plan review, it would have been reasonable to expect the Applicant to be responsible for all costs; however, since neither the Applicant nor the City discovered the easement during that review and the City allowed the project to proceed, this option may not be appropriate.

Waive all standard fees.  Again, the combined fees for an easement vacation request are $500.00.  This would generally cover all expenses incurred by the City in processing such a request.  While it may be reasonable to forego the expense of some of the soft costs associated with this request (Staff time namely), there are still hard costs that should be born by the Applicant (these costs would include public hearing costs, mailings, recording fees).

Waive the standard application fee and a portion of the required escrow fee.  This option, which Staff recommends, seems most reasonable.  Regardless of whether the existence of this easement was discovered during the initial Site Plan review process (by either the City or the Applicant) or at some later date, there are still certain hard costs incurred to vacate it.  Specifically, the hard costs associated with vacating an easement relate to the Public Hearing (publishing the notice in the local paper [~$60.00] and postage for mailings [~$10.00]) and recording fees (~$50.00).  The City could assume responsibility for the soft costs incurred while processing this request, which would principally be staff time.

It should be noted that this same street and utility easement extends across Lot 2 Block 1 Park 67 Industrial Park, which is owned by Park 67, LLC.  Staff will be attempting to contact that property owner as well regarding this matter.  If there are no encroachments, then that property owner may choose whether they would prefer to have this easement vacated (would be beneficial in 'cleaning up' the title work if nothing else).  However, if there are any encroachments, such as with structures and/or parking, the easement would need to be vacated.  Staff believes that whatever action is given by City Council regarding Mr. Sharp's request to waive fees should also be applicable to Lot 2 as well.

Staff would recommend waiving the standard application fee and a portion of the standard escrow fee for processing an Easement Vacation.  The collected escrow would be used for all costs the City is charged for including, but not necessarily limited to, publishing a Notice of Public Hearing in the Anoka Union newspaper, postage for the Public Hearing mailings to properties within 350 feet of the Subject Property, and the recording fee to record the Ordinance, assuming it is ultimately approved by City Council.

The request to consider waiving fees is being handled as part of regular Staff duties.

Motion to waive the standard application fee and half of the required escrow fee for an Easement Vacation request, requiring that the Applicant pay for all hard costs incurred by the City including, but not limited to, public hearing fees, mailing fees, copying charges, and recording fees, but not require the Applicant to be charged for City Staff time to process the request.