Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 6. #16-3800 WHITNEY AND ELIZABETH MACMILLAN, 1560 FOX STREET,AND <br /> CONLEY AND CAROL BROOKS, 1640 FOX STREET,VACATION OF PERIMETER <br /> DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOT LINE <br /> REARRANGEMENT,7:31 P.M.—7:38 P.M. <br /> Conley Brooks, Applicant,was present. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicants are in the midst of doing a lot line rearrangement,which can be done <br /> administratively. However, there is an easement that exists along the lot line within the larger property. <br /> That easement was created when a subdivision was done some years ago. There was an existing <br /> driveway at that time and the easement was jogged around it. There is also an artificial lake that was <br /> created and Staff is waiting to hear from the MN DNR on whether the artificial lake abutting the <br /> properties is considered a"public water." Staff does not expect the DNR to have an issue with the <br /> easement vacation. <br /> In order to not have the easement become an issue in the future as these two parcels become one, the <br /> applicants have requested and Staff has suggested that the old easement be vacated and a new easement <br /> be created at the new boundary line. The easement to the lake will remain. Staff is not aware of any <br /> utilities in this area. The utility companies have been advised and one company has stated they have no <br /> objection to vacating the easement. <br /> Staff does not see an issue with vacating the easement and recommends approval of the vacation <br /> application for the easement as identified in the attached materials subject to: <br /> 1. Brooks granting a replacement 10-foot drainage and utility easement as shown on the plans. <br /> 2. The vacation is to become effective only upon completion of the administrative lot line <br /> rearrangement and receipt of the replacement easement. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is a reason why the existing easement is not being vacated along a portion of the <br /> lower property. <br /> Gaffron stated that was the choice of the two property owners, who did not want to vacate that piece of it. <br /> Landgraver asked what the point is by connecting it to the right. <br /> Gaffron stated there is an existing easement that comes down five feet either side of the lot line, which <br /> provides a connection to the street if it is ever required. <br /> Conley Brooks, Applicant, stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated the application is pretty straight forward. <br /> Page 10 of 30 <br />