10/22/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 1, 2012 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE : October 1, 2012 5 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 8:10 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, 8 Rafferty, Roeser and Mayor Reinert 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 10 11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Services Director Rick 12 DeGardner; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; Finance Director Al 13 Rolek; City Attorney Joseph Langel; Economic Development Coordinator Mary Alice 14 Divine; City Clerk Julie Bartell 15 16 Otter Lake Drive Cartway — Community Development Director Grochala noted that 17 staff has received additional information including a survey submitted by the petitioner. 18 19 City Attorney Langel reviewed his written report. The process of establishing a cartway 20 involves meeting the requirements of the statute and then looking at damages and 21 maintenance costs. He believes that the petitioner has met the requirements. On the 22 question of public use, he doesn't agree with the homeowners' association (HOA) that 23 this is a situation of eminent domain. If the cartway is established, by default it will be 24 public and the landowners could then choose to make it private. The question of use has 25 been brought up but it is irrelevant to the cartway question. On the question of location, 26 the petitioner has submitted a plan to follow the existing drive and that would meet the 27 requirements. On the question of damages, the statute is somewhat nebulous. In this case 28 both parties have submitted their recommendation of damages (which he then outlined). 29 Mr. Langel spoke about rights and consideration of how a cartway would impact land use. 30 He doesn't have a direct comparison to anything as it's quite a unique situation involving 31 an established roadway and an expensive private bridge. He noted that the petitioner's 32 estimate of damages doesn't recognize the cost of the roadway/bridge at all and that 33 doesn't seem fair. On the other hand, the HOA argues severance- damages but he doesn't 34 see any change that would actually sever other properties. Regarding maintenance, he 35 noted that he has received some historical information on maintenance costs from the 36 HOA. He recommends that it may not be fair to have a fixed amount and also the costs 37 should only apply to the portion of the cartway and not all the way through to the other 38 properties. As far as an impact on privacy to the area property owners, Mr. Langel 39 suggested there isn't a way to capture that concept. 40 41 A council member mentioned that the cartway easement will be attached to the land so it 42 could impact what happens with the land in the future (providing access to a new property 43 for instance). Mr. Grochala pointed out that the parcel in question isn't buildable since it 44 wouldn't qualify under current city regulations for a split due to its size. The council 45 heard about the threat of legal action against the city by the HOA.