CR 01-104 Request for Vacation of Easement 110 Wayside Rd
C\TY OF
m
August 6, 2001
HOPKINS
Council Report 2001-104
Request for Vacation of Easement
110 Wayside Road
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move that Council deny the request for
partial vacation of a drainaoe and utility easement at 110 Wayside Road.
Overview.
This item was considered by City Council at the July 17, 2001 meeting. After
discussion with staff and the property owner, the City Council voted to continue
the item until the August 8 meeting so that Council could take a closer look at the
property. The property owner at 110 Wayside Road has asked that the city
vacate a portion of the drainage and utility easement running along the west side
of Highway 169. The owner would like to construct a 24' x 32' storage building in
his backyard and he would like to position the building as far back into the corner
of his lot as possible. The 35' - 42' wide easement prohibits this building
placement. Located within this easement area is a 16" water main and the
embankment rising up to the Hwy 169 sound wall. The water pipe is located
about 18-20 ft from the east easement line, near the base of the sloped
embankment. City staff maintains that when this water pipe needs maintenance
or repair it will be necessary to have room for the excavation plus equipment and
trucks on the west side of the pipe. The east side of the pipe is the embankment
area and would not be useable for vehicles/equipment. Staff recommends denial
of the partial vacation.
Primary Issues to Consider.
· Is a compromise possible?
· Options - staff recommendation
Supportino Information.
· June 18, 2001 letter addressed to Hopkins City Council
· Photographs from easement/backyard area
· Prop rty survey
. S cti n drawing
~
Steven J. Stadler
Public Works Director
Council Report 2001-104
Page 2
Analvsis of Issues.
· Is a compromise possible? No. Even with a minimum excavation width
of 4' from the bottom of a trench (see attached cross-section drawing),
there is only about 16-17 ft from the easement line. All of this space
would be needed for excavation equipment, trucks, stockpiling of
excavated soil, etc. If there were useable space on both sides of the pipe
it would be easier to give a few feet on the west side of the pipe. This is a
unique situation with the adjacent embankment and sound wall.
· Options - Staff recommendation
o Deny vacation request - this is the staff recommendation
o Grant vacation request - staff will prepare description of easement
vacation, notify public utilities of proposed vacation and schedule a
public hearing and 1 st reading of ordinance to vacate easement.
Public Hearing date: Sept 4, 2001
1 st reading of ordinance: Sept 4, 2001
2nd reading of ordinance: Sept 18, 2001
Date of publication: Sept 26,2001
Date Ordinance takes effect: October 17, 2001
o Grant a vacation of a smaller size than requested by prop owner -
same actions & timing as described in previous option.
June 18, 2001
To: Hopkins City Council Re: Partial vacation of e~ement- 110 \tVayside Road
East
We are requesting the vacation of a portion of a large easement on our property
to help facilitate the construction of a storage garage.
We bought this property as bare land consisting of recombined surpius lots from
old Hennepin County Higmway 1819605 condemn?tions, at sealed bid from
Hennepin County in 1987~ Our goal Was to bLlild a one level accessibie home.
After difficulty, we were able to obtain, a set back variance from the abandoned
portion of Wayside Road East, and built this home'in 1988-9. We have been
quiet owner-occupiers since.
In recent tim'ss, ,we became aware or cities (and our bty) proposing/enacting
ordinances dealing with uncovered vehicles/campers/boats, and since we fit this
category of homeowner; we began to'plan a storage structure. ' '
The home is located on the higher north end of the property, so we looked to fit
this new building into the south' corner of the lot where it has the lowest elevation
with heavy foliage and can better blend in.. -
We knew about the easement and water line running thru ,it, and called the city
water superintendent, Mr. Lausengr tq outline our plans and he came out and
located the \vater main. '(I wanted to do this first, because' some of the problems
with our earlier home setback variance in 1988 vvas because of an incorrect map
of this area at city hail. i wanted to be sure to physically site the structure ,away
from the water line.) The w'ater line was 2 fe9t up from the base of.the noise wall
hill and 18 feet from the wall itself. I asked i\tlr. Lauseng what is the normal size
for a water easement for a water main and his response was 10 feet on either
side of the line. 10 feet from the water pipe to the west placed it on a line to the
south telephone POle corner.. marker, what I figured'to be the west boundary of
the easement. Subsequent research by- Mr. Hill of the engineering department
disclosed that, in fact, there was an additional 10 feet to that line for a total
easement width in the south of over 39 reet tapering to 35 feet north near the
house.
This means that this west side easem~nt is 20 feet rather than 10 feet from the
\Jvater. This added 1 Q'feet is making it difficult to properiy site the building with ~
the topography/sideyard setback and ,aesthetics.
in phone conversation with Mr. Stadler, he indicated that easement vacation was,
not something that he was likeiy to favor.
Mr. Stadler apparently feels that easement reduction will adversely affect
possible future water line maintenance, and wants the 35-39 feet to remain.l
have been assured by equipment operators and, contractors that vve are leaving
enough room for necessary trucks/backhoes/heavy equipment.
Mr. Stadler also indicated by email that our request "is not in the best interest of
the city/l-Certainly having a iarge taxable easement is an advantage for the city,
but this configuration fashioned by Hennepin County when it owned the homes
and properties, puts future private owners in a poor positio~ with their property.
Over 1/4 of our lot and over 8000 square feet are consumed by this easement.
\ We are asking to pare 1/8 from that, and feel that the result will not hurt the
city-now or in the future..
In our original request to Mr. Stadler: we had asked to pare 10 feet from the vv'est
side of the easement. We asked if he had any other suggestions on this issue,
but have not given him ~~ch time to respond. We could get by)Yith leaving the
easement north end as It IS) and allow us to move the south end 10 feet east1
and. redraw the boundary line from that. (se~ survey maps) The 1985 Hennepin
County survey w.est boundary line was based on a bearing shot from the south
monument at the telephone pole: so a new bearing should work. This approach
will still ensure maintenance access while allowing us to reasonably site the
structure. We. also narrowed the building from our original plan. This gives a
setback of 12. feet on the south end of the building to the water line and that
dimension increases to 17 feet at the north end.
. Alsol we' feel that the easement west of this "telephone poie!l marker that
extends through the Dalbec's lot at 401 Hollyhock Lane is likely excessive and
should be looked at for vacation.
We enjoy our neighborhood and hope that the council w'ill work \A/ith us for a
common sense solution to deal wit,h our different lot.
VVe believe that the best way for cpuncil members to get a good understanding
for this request, is to visit us and the site-ali the way to the end of Wayside Road
in Hobby Acres, Thank you ~
Dan, Kathy and Kate Lapham
110 Wayside Road East
933-2435 dig pager 612-538-5434
lapham3@aol.com
./
.
~ .
I .
I
I
,
I
I
f
~
~
J
I
I
I
I
;;
ii
j
~
j
J
.~
i'
I ,/
! 9, .... .
3 "v'
~ .~ \,
D~N
LAJO!Lf~M
SUR\/EY FOR:
',,-
.'....
~
~~
\ i 'J'50J
;X'I ~ ' ,
/~~ ) '9~~>O
/1\." ::19>. . ~
. . ~s .D
/ 0:.. J~d' ~91 ~""1' j.......... ~
/ -'<'.."-;,i' ~ ~9<l ~
. Q.J /.:' / -!.~j i 'b.~.._ '''&, O^"
. o;.?;:? " J \ ~ ~ ~ \ y~
;f;;rfO' ...) ~ / ~ \ ~ J i. : (~ I So "\ / '\....../
" 1<;" \ \ "Q. .ct.' ~,-
'./... e 91~'--M./ Ict./\\ -\ ~.+-~A~-:--2--'-<l--------~ -~.\ 9.
" . .. e . s ... I r.;. W' .V~ IS'
. A.~\ .<:~;:<,. \;:;. '/ \ 1-<" 11'" ./
".( o-,f-, ,J.. .. \ \ (It \ yl \ '0 \ \ "
1fT - '\.y , \ ' . \.. i..............
/ "" ,r-/\)\ \ \ \; \ ~
/ " 7~ ~~ \ \ , \.. \ / \ \'
'\~ j?;\ \ ~ \~ \~ \ '[--
(h&.~;(. i \O.~I \ 1. \. I \
'" 'IN I \ \ \<!~z. \ + \ ,.- \
\ -t \ I '\
~' \ , \ ' 1
~ '4/ 'Jlf~~. \ 'y I "
P7' (~\ / \ i \
.. ,,</ ~. <I,o.>-~ ( I I, , \
. .'.'. . .~~ '-0 :\. ~\'C9
. r'.....\ ( ,.)- i r.
."..' I I, I r
~.' /1 j '--'/ ~..l.
; - -~ \,' , !1Jj ,I
- ./', \ .\11 !
~ \ lei I
'.. (I-o:"""'.on-- -nol I.. 1
~. . i......}.i' [J j . .-J t:' U (: j
". . '.l.I.J.- r-, ! .........J ....._.....-...~. .
" '. j I. r f J. t 1 I C S ~ '?""" ", ; /
'<"~ ~ ,", ;'::J '>. ,".. \ V ~ C)
~.~, I iN ~- 1"'.%
\.) ,-, I tD ~ 'c \...;[
... /. 2:...w.
"0, " . 1 f<) 0 en
\.. ' \ I / l~ / (-: 5 ·
~ \ / l~^? Ii 8
, .. " h / /U..,/
"'\. I I \~ '1~ ~\1.?
'" i / < ) I~ ~
I l /1 I; ~
/" '-J
".. i 0i
90'/0.4-..... . . .. 9\0
, --2<:.\ .-. 0.0
~ 1 ".6f-.. x...."'-=---
__'1
(
I
j
/
I
/
2'
:1
i
1
,f
1
')
~
~
Ii
;;
~
)1
~
~
.~
11
~
[1
~
[j
:1
[I
j
:j
I
/
r:f..
--
fl
.~
---
<
J^ -. '" - ~
-, "- J '.
l <:::::::>,~""""i. -.5 " _
r;-') : ~
~\(' lr-'lI\_ ; ...,...
,
j,r,.A~.
y\~..)-
::J:i::o,- ~ -.
'. 0 6- ,<;,~''?1
~ i"bor'
p)..ct..V1..S
i
lO
:<
;2;
tu
-,....
~
+
(
~
~
'"
:>
~
!
I
b1
I
~
~
~~.
K-.
l
~
~
jk'~'Vl ~~~"1'"'" .... uc.u::
Jr; -r- ~- I ...,
. ' .
\
('
~ .".
\, rr;~/""n r
0"',0; ~ ~';i,HA.,,!
.-!->1Y;.fA <r;;';-';' 3 . .
i....7.';j"":>.'"J,-,',.,p-;;:;.j
~
....
'~
~
~ .$,
,3 -S
--.. "
~
-i~~
~ ~
~
J
w
....f.
\~
l
.o.i
A
~
.3,
/,/ ~
/ -
!
u
\
---'1'- ,tf .. . ' V
J - I I 7f-q;..../ ....
u""--'-"Q.j,e "-- I" t- . V/" .
. ",,' r'<r;:'P(1Q1Q 'i
l; '"7':' ': ~ 1 ,:,. : . ~~i. ~---- 1. 'i 1~
'-'i., ".- . -,
__~_,' 'ii "---" '---.-.1----
. I
- I
i I
,~ -J-~
"". ,:-:<" -I
~~~_._-
r
........
~
i\
}
~
~