09-26-2011 Council Minutes (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 26,2011 APPROVED 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE : September 26, 2011 5 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 6:20 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Gallup, 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 Engineer Jason Wedel; Director of Public Safety John 14 Swenson; City Clerk Julie Bartell 15 16 1) Fence at 1205 Buckthorn Lane—City Engineer Wedel noted that this is a discussion 17 continued from the last work session regarding an easement encroachment application for 18 a fence. The application was not approved by staff because of the presence of a utility 19 and drainage easement on the property. The property owners appealed that decision and 20 the council asked staff to look further at the city's regulations as well as similar 21 regulations in other cities. Mr. Wedel noted that his research did determine that the city's 22 ordinances do not contain language that restricts fences from being located within 23 drainage and utility easements that contain underground utilities (such as this case) but 24 rather the restriction is listed on the city's Easement Encroachment Agreement form. 25 Regarding his contact with other cities, he noted that three out of eleven cities are 26 consistent with Lino Lakes while the other eight cities allow fences subject to engineering 27 review. He added that the city's current ordinance does require that a fence owner would 28 be responsible for removing the fence if necessary. Mr. Wedel pointed out that 29 historically the city's easements were included with the original platting so the property 30 was acquired with the easements in place. If the city council were to move forward with 31 allowing this fence, conditions are recommended including full recording to the property 32 records, requirement of a gate and that ponds not be included. 33 34 The council discussed the possibility of allowing the fence including the ability of the city 35 to charge for fence removal if necessary. The city engineer suggested that it would be 36 difficult to charge for the actual removal but the replacement and repair would clearly be 37 the responsibility of the property owner. 38 39 The council concurred that the fence will be allowed under current regulations with 40 conditions determined by the city engineer. 41 42 2) Review Regular Agenda 43 44 Item 3A, Recommendation to reclassify one staff position and eliminate two staff �..- 45 positions—Administrator Karlson reviewed his organizational assessment document. 1