10/10/2011 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES September 26, 2011 : February 28, 2010 . 5:30 p.m. . 6:20 p.m. : Councilmember Gallup, O'Donnell, Rafferty, Roeser and Mayor Reinert : None Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; City Engineer Jason Wedel; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; City Clerk Julie Bartell 1) Fence at 1205 Buckthorn Lane — City Engineer Wedel noted that this is a discussion continued from the last work session regarding an easement encroachment application for a fence. The application was not approved by staff because of the presence of a utility and drainage easement on the property. The property owners appealed that decision and the council asked staff to look further at the city's regulations as well as similar regulations in other cities. Mr. Wedel noted that his research did determine that the city's ordinances do not contain language that restricts fences from being located within drainage and utility easements that contain underground utilities (such as this case) but rather the restriction is listed on the city's Easement Encroachment Agreement form. Regarding his contact with other cities, he noted that three out of eleven cities are consistent with Lino Lakes while the other eight cities allow fences subject to engineering review. He added that the city's current ordinance does require that a fence owner would be responsible for removing the fence if necessary. Mr. Wedel pointed out that historically the city's easements were included with the original platting so the property was acquired with the easements in place. If the city council were to move forward with allowing this fence, conditions are recommended including full recording to the property records, requirement of a gate and that ponds not be included. The council discussed the possibility of allowing the fence including the ability of the city to charge for fence removal if necessary. The city engineer suggested that it would be difficult to charge for the actual removal but the replacement and repair would clearly be the responsibility of the property owner. The council concurred that the fence will be allowed under current regulations with conditions determined by the city engineer. 2) Review Regular Agenda Item 3A, Recommendation to reclassify one staff position and eliminate two staff positions — Administrator Karlson reviewed his organizational assessment document. P21