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