09-04-2012 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 4, 2012 APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE : September 4, 2012 5 TIME STARTED : 5:35 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 9:10 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, 8 Rafferty, Roeser and Mayor Reinert 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 10 11 12 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development 13 Director Michael Grochala; City Attorney Joseph Langel; Public Safety Director John 14 Swenson; Economic Development Coordinator Mary Divine; Finance Director Al Rolek; 15 Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson. 16 17 1. Cartway Easement Review—Community Development Director Grochala and City 18 Attorney Langel addressed the council. Mr. Grochala recalled the petition process that 19 brought the cartway matter to the council and that a public hearing was held after which 20 the matter was postponed at the city council meeting. He noted that the council received 21 a draft resolution in their packet for discussion purposes. He also noted that the council 22 has received information provided by the involved parties since the last council 23 discussion. 24 25 City Attorney Langel noted the draft resolution would set out fmdings relative to 26 establishment of a cartway, including meeting the statutory threshold, indicating location 27 of a cartway and possible damages. He recalled that questions arose previously about the 28 waterway being navigable and after research he believes that it is. Regarding possible 29 damages,he recalled that the question of an existing easement arose. Staff has found that 30 there is a docking easement in place but that doesn't impact this cartway matter. There 31 was an easement referred to in a settlement agreement to allow certain landowners access 32 across the bridge to a docking easement, however,no easement has been recorded so 33 there is no property right established. That brings the matter back to the full request for a 34 cartway. There was also discussion about private vs. public cartway and Mr. Langel said 35 that he understands that the homeowner's association is not interested in giving the 36 required permission for a private cartway so therefore the default is a public cartway. 37 The draft findings do not establish payment for the construction and the ongoing 38 maintenance of the cartway. There are blank areas allowing for the determination of both 39 damages and maintenance. He recalled that the homeowners association submitted 40 proposed damages and the petitioner has stated that he feels that damages would be 41 minimal if any at all. What remains for the council is to review the findings as proposed, 42 approve a location of the cartway and establish any damages. The mayor confirmed that 43 if the cartway is deemed to be public,then anyone could technically use it. The council 44 discussed current use of the private bridge. Mr. Johnson's attorney, Mr. Barnett, 45 discussed his belief that the settlement agreement expresses the granting of an easement 1