07-20-1981 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ns. Mabusth Page Three June 15, 1981 Klltzke Addition. Nothing In the real estate records Indicates that the "drainage easement" referred to on the plats Is a mere reflection of the existence of the Flowage Easement. As a result, a prudent attorney examining title to Mr. Evans' property would probably assume that two independent easements exist, one being the Flowage Easement, and the other being a "drainage easement". The Flowage Easement benefits only the City of Orono by Its terms. Accordingly, I believe that the City can vacate the Flowage Easement by following the statutory vacation procedures. The "drainage easement' shown on the plats of Stielows Addition and Klitzke Addition, however, at least arguably benefits the owners and mortgagees of all other land in the plat of Stielows Addition. I have not researched the proper method to modify or extinguish the "drainage easement" shown on the plats. ^ It appears to me that would probably require an action in Hennepin County District Court, either to vacate a portion of a plat under Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 505.14, or an action to register title to Mr. Evans' property unencumbered by the drainage easement as presently constituted, or some other form of action. Clearly a replatting of the two lots in Klitzke Addition would not be sufficient to limit the "drainage easement" as shown on the plats of Stielows and Klitzke Addition, since the plat of Stielows Addition (which created the "drainage easement") included more than just the two lots in Klltzke Addition. Further, it is not clear that a replatting of all of ^ Stielows Addition would be sufficient to limit the "drainage easement", and such a replatting of Stielows Addition would require the consent of all owners and mortgagees in that plat. The Flowage Easement is the major concern of Mr. Evans, since it contains severe restrictions on the use of a large portion of his land. Any "drainage easement" shown on the plat would not be as restrictive, but rather would merely require that the land designated as being covered by the "drainage easement" be available for the drainage of surface waters from adjacent property. The flowage easement, which is our client's primary concern, can be vacated in part by statutory vacation proceedings conducted by the City of Orono. On the other hand, the "drainage easement" which is of lesser concern to Hr. Evans, can be modified only through an action in the District Court, which would obviously involve uncertainty and additional delay and expense. Although I sympathize with the desire of members of the Planning Comnission to correct all incorrectly described easements created in connection with the original platting of Stielows Addition, I do not think it is appropriate to require that to be accomplished as a condition to vacating a portion of the Flowage Easement. It is n\y understanding that the City's staff agrees that the legal description over which the Flowage Easement exists was incorrectly drawn and is over-inclusive. Further, it is n\y understanding that the legal description attached to Mr. Evans' Application is acceptable to the City's staff. 1