Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 26, 1982 ,--\ \...-.) .,-, '-....) , \, \.J C,J U ~ ~ ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 26, 1982 AGENDA Call to order - 7:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes - 9/28/82 1. Comm. #10-82-1 Rosella Sonsteby Vacation of Easement Public Hearing CJ C.J ~ 01 ANDOVER ,~ , '----~ REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 26, 1982 mNUTES The regularly scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson d'Arcy Bosell at 7:36 P.M., Tuesday, October 26, 1982 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Anstett, Perry Spotts, Elling Commissioners Absent: Apel, Randklev Also Present: Rosella Sonsteby; Beverly Hagen Approval of Minutes September 28, 1982 Page 3, middle of page, delete Commissioner Perry's comment, "She also suggested that in Section 4 something be added to say that land be determined unbuildable regardless of where in the city it is located." MOTION by Elling, seconded by Perry to approve the minutes of September 28, 1982 as corrected. Vote on motion: Yes - Elling, Spotts, Perry; Present - Anstett, Bosell. Motion carried. ,.' , "~~osella Sonsteby Vacation of Easement Public Hearing (Comm. #10-82-1) Chairperson Bosell opened the public hearing. Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 - 141st Avenue N.W. - read the legal description of the property involved and noted that this is a petition to have said 33' easement to the Town of Grow, dated November 15, 1941, removed. Reading from her.petition, she noted the following: 1) She wants to torrens the property; 3) She cannot enjoy peacefully her lot on the north side due to this easement, by large commercial trucks, vans, dump trucks, dump trucks with back down to wash, cement trucks and equipment, station wagons, cars of many makes, tow trucks with cars and trucks to get repaired or junked out, being parked on the north side of the easement, blocking her from getting into her lot. At this time she presented some pictures of the easement showing cars and trucks parked there. She stated that after the first lawsuit she had a bigger problem then ever so she called her attorney and he talked to the judge and the judge called Hagens' attorney. Mr. Giancola, the Hagens' attorney, wrote a letter to them which stated the following: "This is to formally advise you that the easement granted by the Honorable Judge Carroll E. Larson over property which was the subject matter of the above entitled lawsuit is solely for ingress and egress to your property. Therefore the parking of cars or the encumbering of the easement in any manner would be a violation of the rights that have been established and thereby establish a cause of action for criminal trespass. Therefore, I wish to advise you to keep the easement property open at all times." Mrs. Sonsteby noted that at the same time Mr. Giancola wrote to the Hagens he also wrote to Judge Larson the following: "I did discuss this matter with Mrs. Hagen and she advised me that Rosella Sonsteby's claims are without merit. Mrs. Hagen F ,has advised me that she did follow my advice in the past of keeping the easement open. , _,Possibly, one thing that Rosella Sonsteby is complaining about is the fact that delivery men such as garbage haulers or milkmen do go onto the property, transact their business, but leave almost immediately. If I can be of any help in the future, please advise." Mrs. Sonsteby asked the Planning Commissioners if the pictures she had presented looked like Planning and Zoning commiss(,,_)eting October 26, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 L_J , -.., ,~SonstebY Vacation of Easement, Cont.) garbage trucks and milk trucks. Continuing with her petition she noted that sometimes she cannot drive through the easement, having to wait til tow trucks push cars or trucks in the garage. She also noted that small children sit in the easement playing with toys, which is shown on the pictures. She stated that she had an appointment with a perspective buyer at the lot. Two large trucks, one with a cement mixer in back and also a car were parked on the side of the easement. She took pictures and someone came out of the house threatening her and insulting her. The right-of-way is now overgrown with timber and has been in that condition for many years, thereby rendering its use as a cartway impossible. The aerial map shows and proves, plus a statement of Mrs. Hagen herself, that they had a garage attached to the house and went in and out from Round Lake Boulevard. The judge based his decision on testimonies in court that that's the only way they got into their property was through that easement and my 10 some feet. She stated that the City of Andover has not shown an interest in this easement or maintained it in any way since it was deeded to Grow Town in 1941. She noted that she is paying an assessment of sewer and water on that 33 foot easement; that she cannot build on it. She felt that the City of Andover should pay that assessment or remove the easement. She stated that she is paying taxes on a lot blocked by commercial trucks, pickups, etc. parked on the 33' easement to the Town of Grow on which no parking is permitted. She stated that the City of Andover has done nothing to correct the situation. Records since 1972 have shown that the Hagens and their friends have misused the use of said easement. She asked that the City of Andover remove the easement for the health and welfare of all concerned. r-~hairperson Bosell asked Mrs. Sonsteby if the lot immediately to the north of the easement ,-,Is hers. Mrs. Sonsteby replied that it is. Chairperson Bosell asked if the Francis's have some property to the north of that lot which is ilL" shaped. Mrs. Sonsteby stated they do and showed the properties on a map. She further stated that she tried to drive through there Sunday night and there were a lot of cars and trucks parked all around. She tried to get to the back of the property and there was a big trailer parked in the back on Francis' property. She had to brush a tree in order to get around the truck. Commissioner Anstett asked if the Francis' have access to their property via Underclift Street. Chairperson Bosell noted that they use Round Lake Boulevard. Commissioner Elling asked how far back the easement goes. Chairperson Bosell noted that it goes back to the 40 line. Discussion centered on the plat that Mrs. Sonsteby brought in covering her property and the fact that a portion of the easement will be vacated when the plat is finaled. The reason for this is that the easement runs through the proposed lots on the plat and you cannot build on an easement. Commissioner Elling asked if the plat had been finaled. Mrs. Sonsteby noted that it has not because of a problem with the park dedication. Commissioner Spotts asked if the lot to the north will become buildable if the easement is vacated. Chairperson Bosell noted that the lot is buildable as it is. ~Commissioner Anstett asked Mrs. Sonsteby if she has taken further legal action in the case , she originally brought to court; if there has been any change in the status of the judge's ~ruling. Mrs. Sonsteby noted they haven't done anything as yet, but something will be done some time soon. Chairperson Bosell noted that the pictures show that the easement is open but there is parking Planning and Zoning commiss(",Jeting October 26, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 . ,(Sonsteby Vacation of Easement, Cont.) ~) on Mrs. Sonsteby's property. Beverly Hagen, 14234 Round Lake Boulevard - stated that the parking is on the north side of the easement because of the 10 feet on the south side that belongs to Mrs. Sonsteby. The easement isn't where it should be, it should be further north. C,J Mrs. Sonsteby - stated that by looking at the pictures, you can tell they are parked on her 10 feet. Mrs. Hagen noted that she has pushed vehicles off of that property and has done everything possible so no one parks there. Commissioner Elling asked who is parking there. Mrs. Hagen stated that they are people who have been coming there for the last 20 to 30 years and have always parked there. Commissioner Elling asked Mrs. Hagen if they have a business going at their house. Mrs. Hagen stated they do not. Her husband is in the cement business and her son-in-law, who lives with them, owns the big trucks. Chairperson Bosell asked if they do car repair there. Mrs. Hagen stated no, there is one car body in the back that her husband used for parts. Chairperson Bosell asked if the 10 feet is on the north side of the 33 foot easement. Mrs. Hagen noted that the 10 feet that Mrs. Sonsteby owns is on the south side of the easement. She also noted that they have to go across that 10 feet to get into their land. She stated that she has tried everything she f~an to let people know where the easement is. '0 Chairperson Bosell noted that according to the pictures there is considerable parking on the north side. Mrs. Hagen explained that if they park on the south side they will be on Mrs. Sonsteby's 10.89 feet and it's hard to imagine where that 10.89' is. Commissioner Elling asked Mrs. Hagen how they get into their property. Mrs. Hagen stated that the judge's ruling allows them ingress and egress on Mrs. Sonsteby's 10.89'. Mrs. Sonsteby stated that in the first lawsuit they lied and said that they came that way all those years. In the 2nd lawsuit Mrs. Hagen said that they had a garage attached to their house and they came in straight off Round Lake Boulevard. Mrs. Hagen noted that there was a garage attached to the house when they bought the property but that it was full of rats so they tore it down. She presented a letter from Jerry Jacob, an attorney which stated the following: "I am enclosing a copy of a letter I sent to the Grow Town Board on September 8, 1967. At that time I represented yourself, Mr. Conrad Steffenson and Mr. Hoosline concerning the easement that is described in the letter. It is my recollection that I attended the meeting that is referred to in that letter and spoke on behalf of the three parties mentioned. The purpose of the representation at that time was to obtain a vacation of this easement. It is also my understanding that Mr. Steffenson owned the underlying property and upon the vacation of the easement then the parties concerned would exchange deeds which would divide the property between the adjoining owners. My file does not show what action was taken by the Grow Town Board." This letter was dated November 13, 1980. The letter referred to in the above letter read as follows: ~"I'm writing to you with regard to an apparent easement that exists adjacent to the ~~roperty owned by Mr. Conrad Steffenson and it lies between property owned by Mr. Hagen and Mr. Hooseline." Chairperson Bosell asked what property the Steffenson property is. Mrs. Hagen noted that it is the farm south of their house; the property being developed by Mrs. Sonsteby. Chairperson Bosell asked if Mr. Steffenson owned the easement as well. Mrs. Hagen noted that he did. Chairperson Bosell asked what property was owned by Mr. Planning and Zoning commissC.._1eting l._) October 26, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (Sonsteby Vacation of Easement, Cont.) (j Hooseline. Mrs. Hagen noted that the 79 foot lot north of the easement belonged to Mr. Hooseline. Continuing with the letter, Chairperson Bosell read the following: "The easement runs in a general direction westerly from Round Lake Boulevard and serves property presently owned by Rosella Sonsteby. My purpose in writing to you is that the above three parties have retained me to look into the possibility of having this easement vacated. This easement was established about 20 years ago for the benefit of a farm house that then existed near the end of the easement. The easement was to serve as a cartway and was to revert back to the original owner in the event the use of the easement was discontinued. This easement was never fully opened as it is apparent from the existence of big trees in the middle of the right-of-way and has not for some years been used by the people who it was intended to serve. It is obvious that this easement is not adequate to serve as a public thoroughfare as it is only two rods wide and it would be difficult to widen it as it would be necessary to purchase the two houses near Round Lake Boulevard to establish this. This easement does constitute a hazard to the houses owned by Mr. Hagen and Mr. Hooseline since it runs within 5 to 8 feet of the Hooseline home and is not too far distant from the Hagen home. I intend to appear at the next meeting to present the views of my client and would appreciate your consideration of this matter." Chairperson Bosell noted that this letter was sent to the Grow Town Board. Mrs. Sonsteby then read a letter from Conrad Steffenson dated August 1,1978 from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 11, 1978 regarding the vacation of this ,- '~asement. The letter read as follows: "Mrs. Hagen, 'We bought that house in 1961. Mr. \~teffenson owned the property that the easement comes from and he told us "don't ever drive on the south side of your house, use only that easement to get to your backyard like every- body before you has done". He said continue to use it and we, Hooselines and us, used the easements. We had just a narrow little strip between our driveways that used to pile up sand and we both got stuck so in 1963 we changed our driveway and then tore the garage down that was there when we moved here and started coming in from the easement. We paid for the upkeep with Hooselines." I did not make that statement as quoted above in Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes. My statements to the Hagens were, "I requested that they no longer use the north border of my property as a driveway and discontinue storing junk items there also." My intention was to retain use of my property and for my use alone. Due to a previous commitment, I was unable to attend this meeting to make the above state- ments to the City Council.' Mrs. Hagen stated that Mr. Steffenson came over to their house and asked them to drive on the north and didn't know why he changed his mind. In order to get their tractor in the backyard, they had to go down the easement. Commissioner Elling asked if the garage was built after they bought the house. Mrs. Hagen said yes, it was built in 1975. She noted that she brought the judge's decision to the city when she applied for the building permit and told them not to make any mistakes as to the location of the garage. The building inspector went to their property and put the stakes in so they would know where to build it. Mrs. ~~ha ve Mrs. came Sonsteby stated that the Hagens have added onto their house continually and they still enough room to put in a driveway to get to their garage without going on her property. Hagen noted that they had a purchase agreement for their house and when the buyer out and saw the mess on Mrs. Sonsteby's property they backed out. F , . , Pl anning and Zoning Commi SSlc...-_,eeting October 26, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 ,(Sonsteby Vacation of Easement, Cont.) \, ) -Mrs. Sonsteby stated that the building inspector went out and measured the setback from the garage and it's only ten feet. The Hagens can buy the property if they want to use it as their own. ~,) Chairperson Bosell stated that she met with some people recently who were interested in developing Mrs. Sonsteby's property. Mrs. Sonsteby noted that is one of the reasons she would like to have the easement vacated. Chairperson Bosell asked Mrs. Sonsteby if the easement property would become a part of the 79 foot lot if it is vacated. Mrs. Sonsteby replied that it would be. Mrs. Hagen noted that if the easement is vacated, their back lot would become landlocked and they could not build back there. Chairperson Bosell stated that the way Rosella's plat was drawn, the easement would have been vacated from the Hagen's property line from the east to the west. She explained that the Hagen's do have a buildable lot, that there is access to the property now. Commissioner Elling asked what the status of the preliminary plat is now. Chairperson Bosell noted that it was approved by the Planning Commission but there was a problem with the park land so it has not been finaled. She asked Mrs. Sonsteby if ~ewer is in by the easement now. Mrs. Sonsteby noted that it is and water will be put in shortly, perhaps in the spring. Commissioner Elling felt that the problem has been caused by the location of the garage on , 'the Hagen property. Chairperson Bosell noted that there was a mistake by the building '-~nspector telling the Hagen's to face the garage north. Mrs. Hagen stated that the garage was set back 22 feet from the south side of the easement. Chairperson Bosell told Mrs. Hagen that the mistake is that they have to cross Rosella's property to get into their ga rage. Mrs. Sonsteby stated that they could buy the property but they don't want to. If they bought it, there wouldn't be a problem. Also, if they didn't park there, there wouldn't be a probelm. Mrs. Hagen noted that the trailer parked on the Francis property was parked there with permission. It's too long to put on their own property and you can't park on an easement for a certain number of hours, the same as a public street. Mrs. Sonsteby stated that there is no parking allowed on this easement. Mrs. Hagen stated that she called Andover and they said that the city owns the easement and they can't make an exception for one easement. Mrs. Sonsteby said that the deed says there is no parking on that easement and the deed is what counts. Mrs. Hagen stated that the deed does not say that. Andover controls the easement, not Mrs. Sonsteby. Commissioner Spotts asked if the first civil action was in 1974. Mrs. Hagen stated it was in 1972. Commissioner Spotts noted that according to state law and according to what the judge said, easement by prescription, which is what the original easement was, is an easement by adverse . conditions which simply means that you used the other party's land, it was continuous, it ~~~as exclusive, it was without the owner's approval, but it was visible, it was open and it was notorious. That is what the state law says. Which means it was a legal easement by adverse conditions. State law says that the only way you can terminate an easement by ( " Planning and Zoning Commissi'\.",~aeting October 26, 1982 - Minutes Page 6 .(Sonsteby Vacation of Easement, Cont.) \ ~~rescription is when the purpose for which the easement was created no longer exists. When the owner of either the dominant or serviant tenement becomes the owner of the other portion providing there is an express intention to extinguish the easement. In other words, a merger of both. Either party could buyout the other party and then terminate the easement or by release of the right of easement to the owner of the serviant tenant. Which simply means. you because you are using the easement, say you are no longer going to use the easement, it reverts back to you. Or by abandonment of the easement, the intention of both parties together. That is the only way State Law says you can do it. Whether they mean one of these or all four of these, I don't know. Mr. Spotts noted that it's a legal easement and didn't feel we should touch it; an attorney or the Supreme Court should make the decision. Both parties have to get together and make a decision. L) Mrs. Sonsteby stated that she would not be here if the Hagens didn't have all of the cars and trucks parked there. Commissioner Anstett felt that is not something we would be governing. It would be a civil situation. Chairperson Bosell noted that it is criminal trespass and we don't deal with that. The Sheriff's Department would handle that. She also noted that there seems to be a problem with people parking on the north side of the easement as shown in the pictures. Commissioner Perry asked Mrs. Sonsteby if she has called the city and asked that someone come out to check if they are parked where they shouldn't be. Mrs. Sonsteby replied that she has called and they have come out and seen the cars but have not tagged them. '~~iscussion centered on the fact that if the city had not allowed the Hagens to build their '--garage facing the easement, there would be no problem. ! MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Anstett to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Spotts asked what the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court was. Mrs. Hagen explained that Mrs. Sonsteby took them to the Supreme Court only for trespass and the Court's decision was that they (the Hagens) did not trespass on Mrs. Sonsteby's 10.89 feet. MOTION by Spotts. seconded by Elling that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of a request by Rosella Sonsteby for a vacation of an easement described as 'That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the East line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29 which point is 16 rods South of the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence West at right angles a distance of 26 rods, thence North at right angles to the South line of that certain road easement in favor of the Township of Grow, thence Easterly along the South line of said road easement to the East line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29, thence South on said East line of the South- east Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29 to the point of beginning', for the following reason: A previous court decision granted the continuance of the easement for the Hagens as long as it was used for the purpose for which it was created. We recommend that the City Engineer determine via the property stakes of the legal description previously stated and set 'No Parking' signs on the length and width of the easement of 33 feet by 429 feet. Said signs are not to exceed intervals of greater than 50 feet. We wish to , ,indicate to the City Council previous denials, one dated August 29, 1979 and one dated ~ctober 30, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on November 16, 1982. Mrs. Sonsteby indicated that she will not be in the city on November 16th and asked if this Planning and Zoning Commiss~ 'eeting October 26, 1982 - Minutes .,J Page 7 , , , ) ~.. could go on the City Council agenda for their first meeting in December. She was asked , ;0 call the City Clerk to request this. MOTION by Spotts to adjourn. Carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Vicki Volk, Commission Secretary , ~ ~ I ,~J