Ordinance 17-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

From : THE LAKE STATE CO. Docember 6, 1999 The City of Lino Lakes Mr. John Powell, City Engineer 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 PHONE No. : 651 653 1381 Dec.06 1999 1:32PM P01 RE: Easement Vacation at 21 50 Otter Lake Drive **********VIA I+ACSIMILE********** original via U.S. Mail Dear Mr. Powell: Regarding thc above-mentioned easement vacation request, we have a few questions we hope to address with both you and Mr. Wessel personally. We hope to set up a meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss some ()idle following issues, or at a minimum, have these issues addressed prior to any formal city action being taken. As you arc aware, we have supplied a survey indicating that the Melton rink is significantly closer to the DNR protected wetland (lake) than as indicated on the Melton -procured survey. The distance indicated on our survey would indicate that the rink is in violation of the Shoroland Ordinance, and as such, would need a variance to remain. How does the City intend to doal with these two contradictory surveys? Additionally, would a variance request be conducted simultaneously to the easmnent vacation request? Iu light of the potential error on the Melton survey, we feel it is important to validate the calculations made for compensatory water storage, as reliance on erroneous calculations by the RCWD and City, would be to our and our development's detriment. in light of the Anoka Conservation District letter and thc Environmental Committee recommendation, how will the City consider these in any formal decision made in the staff recommendation? Plcusc note, both were concerned, as we are, with the prcccdcnt this sols to encourage people to ignore permitting requirements and thc casement ordinance, as well as the preoedent it sets for others to request casement vacations. lithe City docs not vacate the easement, what action will bc taken to stop interim use attic rink on city -encumbered property? Specifically, what will be dune about the lights in the interim, which we believe exceed candle -foot powers as stated in the City Ordinance? Please also note that the power hox for the lights is still within the easement area that would he retained by the city (not part of the vacation request). Since the presence of this is in violation of ordinance, how will this bc dealt with? Docs the City consider this a permanent or temporary structure? If permanent, does it not nccd a permit? We believe it is permanent due to definitions stated in the UBC and City code, specifically, the method of attachment, and the fact that it has remained up year-round, raid has not been, as defined by the temporary structure definition in the City's zoning code "removed when the designated time period, activity, or use for which the temporary structure was erected as ceased." Based on this inlbrmation, will the Mcltons need to seek obtaining a building permit?