Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/2012 Council Packetq • Packet Revised October 1, 2012 WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, October 1, 2012 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. 2013 Budget Considerations 2. Otter Lake Drive Cartway (10 -8 agenda item) 3. Quarterly Newsletter (from 9 -24 work session) 4. Temporary Sign Permits (from 9 -24 work session) 5. Signal Project Update 6. Review Regular Council Agenda Adjourn WS — Item 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: October 1, 2012 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Joseph J. Langel Re: Otter Lake Cartway Background The City Council held a public hearing on July 9, 2012, to consider a petition from Mr. Adam Johnson, 2055 Otter Lake Drive, to establish a cartway to provide access to a landlocked parcel he owns. At the work session on September 10, 2012, the Council requested additional information from the parties, which was subsequently received. The following outlines the factors for creating a cartway and provides some guidance on damages if a cartway is established. Establishing a Cartway In order for a petitioner's request for a cartway to be approved, the following statutory factors must be satisfied: 1.) Own a tract of land containing at least five acres. There is no question that the subject property satisfies the acreage requirement. 2.) No access except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others, or the existing access is less than 33 feet in width. The subject property is bordered by the lands of others on three sides and by the Otter Lake channel on the west side. The channel is a navigable waterway as that term is used in this context. The Homeowner's Association ( "HOA ") now argues that Mr. Johnson can access the subject property via his own bridge, which they assert does not constitute "access by navigable waterway," so a cartway is not required. This argument is without merit. The statute requires the establishment of a cartway if there is no access "except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others..." Minn. Stat § 435.37, subd. 1(a). This means that if a property owner has to cross a navigable waterway in some fashion, then he does not have adequate access and a cartway is to be established. If a property owner could build a bridge, he is still going "over a navigable waterway" and the test is satisfied. The methods available for crossing are irrelevant. If a waterway exists and is navigable, the cartway statute treats it in the same manner as if it was land owned by others. The Otter Lake channel acts as a barrier to access and satisfies this element of the cartway statute. With both the acreage and access requirements met, the statute requires that a cartway be established. Public use or purpose The HOA continues to argue that establishment of a cartway is a taking and that all takings must be for a public use or purpose, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117. Because the Council previously indicated that it intended to retain private ownership of the HOA road and does not want to spend public funds on it, the HOA claims that the City is precluded from establishing the public cartway. This argument does not accurately reflect the law. While establishing a cartway is an exercise of eminent domain, it is not a taking under Chapter 117. The procedures and requirements contained within that eminent domain chapter do not control the cartway process. Cartways are established under separate statutory authority. Moreover, all cartways are for public use when initially established. Once constructed, the landowner can consent to designating it a private driveway. Minn. Stat. § 435.37, subd. 1(e). This was the hope and intent of the Council when the statement was made in March. If the HOA will not provide such consent, then the cartway will have to remain public. That does not mean, however, that it will be maintained by the City. The Council has indicated throughout this process that it will not spend public funds to maintain the cartway and it is not required to do so. Enormous Reaction/Small Problem The HOA argues that establishing a cartway for Petitioner's limited use is overkill. The use of the subject property however, is irrelevant. Petitioner made the decision as to the necessity for the cartway when he submitted the petition. The City's role is to determine whether the statutory requirements have been met to establish a cartway, and if so, then to determine the location of the cartway and determine damages. The extent to which Petitioner uses the cartway is up to him. Cartway Location Petitioner Johnson requests that the cartway be coextensive with the HOA' s existing driveway to a point where the cartway turns to the northeast into the subject property. The driveway meets the statutory requirement for a cartway that is two rods wide (see attached survey) without any unused width. The statute provides that an alternative route may be selected by the Council if the alternative is deemed "less disruptive and damaging to the affected landowners and in the public's best 2 interest." Minn. Stat. § 435.37, subd. 1(b). Given the existing driveway and bridge, their location relative to the subject property, and the minor amount of modifications required on the HOA's property, no other route meets the statutory standard. Damages Damages must be paid by Petitioner to the City before the cartway is opened. Minn. Stat. § 435.37, subd. 1(c). Damages "means the compensation, if any, awarded to the owner of the land upon which the cartway is established" along with maintenance costs and the City's costs. As you are aware, the parties' positions on damages are wildly divergent. In most cases, cartways are created where no road exists, so the use of the land changes when the cartway is built. What was once open land, timber or field is now a road. Here, a road two rods wide already exists except for a 4 1/2' x 33' section where the cartway turns northeast into the subject property. The questions is, what are the damages to the HOA for establishing a cartway upon a portion of the existing driveway, where the only new section of road will be approximately 147 square feet for the turn off? Petitioner Petitioner's most recent damage calculation is as follows: The cartway is 16,120.5 square feet in size. Using the HOA's land value of $.50 per square foot, the total land value of the cartway is $8,060.25. Because Petitioner is just one of six property owners who will utilize the cartway, his share (1/6) of the land value to be paid as damages is $1,343.38. This analysis does not take into account the impact, if any, on the remaining HOA property, including the improvements, incurred as a result of creating the cartway, nor does it address ongoing maintenance costs. HOA The HOA asserts damages of at least $747,987.25, which consists of three components: land value, improvement value and severance damages. Land Value The HOA's appraiser values Outlot A at $.50 per square foot. Using the entire width and length of the Outlot, which is calculated as 131,304 square feet, the estimated value of the entire Outlot is $65,652. The HOA takes this number and simply adds it to their damage calculation. A few issues come to mind with this approach. First, the $.50 per square foot amount was calculated using the sales comparison approach. The properties used as comparable sales appear to all be home lots, whereas Outlot A is an outlot platted for the specific purpose of being used as a road. Roadway outlots and single- 3 family home sites are not terribly comparable. Such outlots are jointly owned whether directly or through a homeowners association by those who use it. It is essentially a servient parcel that benefits only those owners. As a dead -end private right -of -way, it is of no value to the general public and would never be sold to anyone else. Consequently, the value derived by using wooded, single family home sites as comparables is likely inflated. Second, the HOA's damage number is calculated using the entire length and width of Outlot A. The cartway sought, however, is the road width (which happens to be two rods wide — the cartway minimum) and just enough length to get to the point of entry for the subject property. This amounts to 16,121 square feet, or only 12.28% of the total. Staff is unaware of any legitimate justifications for establishing a cartway wider or longer than Petitioner requested. Third, the appraisal calculated the land at sale value. While that approach is commonly used, for example, when more frontage is acquired from a property owner to widen a street or land is acquired to build a new street as part of a neighboring development project, it may not make sense when establishing a cartway over an existing road. Unlike in the typical situation, this land is already expressly dedicated for, and is used as, a roadway. In fact, that is the reason Outlot A was created in the first place. The land is therefore not being connected in the same manner as in a typical road project. The use is not changing at all; it was a road before and still will be if a cartway is established. What is being created, in essence, is a license to access a portion of a private road without any of the restrictions that can accompany a license. This is arguably a lesser impact to the existing rights of the HOA and, consequently, it gives rise to lesser damages than the typical creation of a new right -of -way easement. Thus, even if one only looks at the 16,121 square feet sought by Petitioner, the full sale value of $.50 per square foot (or whatever it ought to be) may be overstated. It is not as if the HOA will lose its use of the road. Rather, they will simply have to share it with another person and his guests. There is a value to that loss of privacy, but it may be less than the full sale value of $.50 per square foot. Improvements The HOA appraiser valued the roadway and bridge at $519,080. The Petitioner only seeks access across the bridge to his property. Adding the bridge value ($273,700) to 12.28% of the roadway, lighting and signage value ($30,133) equals $303,833. This is the estimated total value. As discussed above, these improvements are not being taken in total for this cartway. Rather, the usage of the existing road will simply broaden from the five HOA members to those five plus Petitioner and his guests. It is illogical to assign as damages the total current value of the improvements when the HOA will continue to utilize the improvements in essentially the same manner as before, with the only difference arising out of Petitioner's occasional use. Petitioner is not "taking" the improvements and converting them to his exclusive use. He is simply gaining a legal right to use the existing improvements. That usage is not likely to have a significant impact on the depreciated value of the bridge and road. 4 Severance Damages The HOA appraiser estimated 5 -10% severance damages to the adjoining properties, which the HOA calculates as at least $163,255. The problem with this argument is that these purported damages are attributed to separate parcels that are not directly involved in this action. These damages have nothing to do with Outlot A on which the cartway is located. The single family home lots owned by the HOA members have not been severed in any respect. Severance damages cannot be attributed to parcels that merely adjoin the parcel at issue. Staff sees no merit to the severance damages argument. Damages — Conclusion The creation of a cartway over an existing private road will adversely affect the value of the road. Even though the anticipated usage of the cartway is minimal, it will nevertheless no longer be a truly private road and will be viewed as a loss to the owners. It is very difficult to put a dollar value on that diminution in value. Petitioner suggests using the HOA's land value of $.50 per square foot multiplied by the square footage of the cartway, which equals the sale value of the land underlying the cartway, and then dividing by six to take into account the six property owners who will utilize the property. This 1/6 concept was also used by the HOA in its maintenance fee proposal. This approach results in the following: Land Value $1,343 Improvements $50,639 Total damages $51,982 Maintenance The HOA provided historical maintenance figures and then suggested that a set annual amount would not be equitable given anticipated future costs. That argument makes sense, although it makes the amount variable and possibly more difficult to enforce. The formula proposed by the HOA, however, suggests that 1/6 of the entire private road be factored in, not just the cartway portion. As stated above, staff sees no merit in that approach. Instead, the maintenance costs should be broken down into two parts: those unique to the bridge and the road underlying the cartway, and those common to the entire road. Petitioner should pay 1/6 of the former and 1/6 of 12.28% of the latter. In that manner, Petitioner will pay his portion of the maintenance costs related to the cartway. Requested Council Direction None required; discussion only. Council will be determining the cartway and damages at the October 8, 2012, meeting. 5 Attachments 1. Petitioner's Survey 2. September 13, 2012, e -mail from attorney Joe Barnett (Petitioner) 3. September 13, 2012, e-mail from attorney Chris Johnson (HOA) 0 70 0 w A py I?, 2 to Curb shots are token at the top and back of curb. Bearings shown are on an assumed datum. Feld survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 09/20/12. Z CIO COP DENOTES PROPOSED EASEMENT AREA 000(0(4 cn n n W i m 3 3 0 n ?° 0 4 0 3 0 o_ -: v n a a j y n 9' W o< 0 m n° c c W j 7 ° E c T 7 m 9 3 tcS n '° `C Uni'O 0 (04 7 0 .mil N j• m Fv m ... N W ,O 2 E am a n7 7 nom-' �, Stn o m m ° ° 7 °• —og-o— Ny ,0-0a-,-07.-..-90. q Cw.l y �o°l] mm° mm •. co o9N23yi.3E'7n>> n`O2a91 :104 - m mmo]]C 0]N m mHm O 0.0. n -\c 0W3.. g - m c am n iC,. N R ^' N; -- N A 7 ry "!' N 7' N m O m l� 00000 N� 0w m`" n vm ° °uni'mE °3 ''12'0 .2o0�oR gi4mWoam W2. 0 j 0 0 °O 1 m Q (y N' Vi Ort S 3, °. m] 0 0 O N,�,] n ] 07 0 0 0 ..,,26,0242m- T012 . �0 m °�Oc�wma �m – m m n S O N OO l N j n Q n N° n rn y O 'n m W N lmil d tmD O j W N W N n° O 7- S o n° ry J' G °" ® E 220 O'n °ag°n7`cmmm� y y0 m� cO W�Om3 °'�' n7m n N] rtW OoC W m -i �Omc mmW0ym wnn- . no 1 n mm ' , y 0 r 0 T° N O rt n 0 y" O T W a n] ] N ° Y 2 O 1y n o Sw. 5' ..0 nry m mAE n',c n 7 m motn'o ° r',.00 N -']g– g om' o °�mm� °°u�rt m'p•7o cc� oN. ri m m m �n ' m m c°° °Nn a° n to ?m ° °] c n3 ; -_ o c22°51-(1 -n n m 0 nnWn�94, Nm•+.yoi< mN`IlAzN.aO O - '.. ,a0( R A °° (ll y `V L N 0 f a^ N ° `V m a ° a.o. n_m -,,,,c ca. noAJ O °SOw— ,. N•� A�m m :NOIld183330 AVM10110 (13S0dOild 0 A �l7 rn AVMidVO a3SOdO21d -10- ~� 1 1 e% aa k/° / /, / / / \y / / / `� (' /0 NOSNHO' Wdab -JOi / s r,• / J / Tt /M /c /'1C 1� L r -- ._i / / / / / NOIIJIUOS]O ONV HO1])IS Michael Grochala Subject: Attachments: FW: Cartway Petition photo -12 jpg; ATT00001.htm; 4034_001.pdf; ATT00002.htm From: Joseph J. Langel f mailto:JJL@ ratwiklaw.coml Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:42 AM To: Michael Grochala Subject: FW: Cartway Petition JOSEPH J. LANGEL 730 Second Ave. S., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Ph. (612) 339 -0060 Fax (612) 339 -0038 The information contained in this electronic message may be attorney - client privileged and /or confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this electronic message is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this electronic communication or any attachment thereto is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, you should immediately return it to us and delete the message from your system. Thank you. From: Joe Barnett f mailto:jbarnett50©comcast.netl. Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 6:21 AM To: Joseph J. Langel Cc: ajohnso8Pgmail.com Subject: Re: Cartway Petition Joe: Mr. Johnson obtained the exact distance from the end of the Cul -de -sac to the point of entry (483.5'), including the distance from road to his property at the entry point (5'.) See attached. Using the requirement for width of a cartway pursuant to MN Stat. 435.37, the required size would be 488.5' x. 33' (16,120.5 square feet.) A fair way to look at the minimal damage issue is to take the Respondent's appraisal of $.50 cost per sf for unimproved and (Appraisal, p. 3) and multiply it by the size of the easement: Cost Per Square Foot $.50 Easement 16,120.5 sf 1 Total Value of Land $8,060.25 Because Mr. Johnson is only seeking access by easement you would further divide the total land value by the number of properties that routinely use the easement, which is 6 including Mr. Johnson, for a total damages of $1,343.38. Note that my calculation does not take into account Mr. Johnson's minimal use of the roadway. The City Council would certainly be justified in ordering lesser damages. 2 JOHNSON /TUHNEH ATTORNP?YS AT LAW d MEDIATION CENTER September 13, 2012 VIA E -MAIL ONLY Jeff Karlson, City Administrator City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lake, MN 55014 Re: Resolution 12 -29 - Petition to Establish Cartway Our File No.: 12- 1784 -002 Dear Mr. Karlson: Maintenance Expenses At the Council workshop, the Homeowner's Association was asked to provide some figures relating to the historic costs of maintenance of the private roadway. EXPENSES 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 SNOW PLOW $2,350 $1,575 $2,100 $1,750 $1,200 BLVD MOW $1,550 $1,300 $1,400 $1,390 $1,135 INSURANCE $652 $628 $628 $628 $625 STREET LIGHT $480 $480 $480 $480 $480 MISC $200 $18 $200 LEGAL FEES $105 212 STORM SEWER $6,700 TOTAL $5,232 $4,108 $4,838 $4,448 $10,140 Five Year Total $28,766 Five Year Average $5,753.20 per year As is depicted above, the Association has incurred average annual expenses of $5,753.20 over the past 5 years. The expenses have varied with the highest year being $10,140 in 2007 and the lowest year being $4,108 in 2010. Additionally, these figures do not include actual maintenance and repair of the infrastructure as none took place during that timeframe. The Association recognizes that it needs to now crack fill and seal coat the road. It has obtained bids for both. The crack filling will cost $9,130 and the seal coating will cost $17,150. The association plans to do the crack filling in 2013 and the seal coating in 2014. Given the variations in expenses and the fact that the Association will likely be facing significantly higher maintenance costs for mill and overlays, bridge repairs and eventually, road and bridge reconstruction, we do not believe attempting to set a dollar figure for the Petitioner's contribution towards maintenance and repairs would be an equitable approach, even with an automatic inflationary increase. A much more equitable approach would be to fix a percentage of the actual future costs that would be the responsibility of the Petitioner. The Association believes a 1/6 or 16.67% obligation would be the most equitable approach to the Petitioner's share of the street maintenance and repair expenses. 50 E. Broadway Ave. #206 12425 55th Street N. 539 Bielenberg Dr., #200 p 651.464.7292 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Woodbury, MN 55125 f 651.464.7348 www.johnsonandrurner.corn In re Cartway Petition September 13, 2012 Page 2 of 3 ThreshoLds That Would Require the Creation ofa Cartway Have Not Been Met. At the Workshop, the City Council seemed to assume that no dispute existed as to whether the threshold issues are met in this case obligating the Council to create the Cartway. To be clear, the Association does not believe the threshold issues are met or that the Council must grant the Cartway. First, the Petitioner has access to the land to which he seeks a cartway; spe[ifi[8liy, with a bridge over the creek. The Council seems to be operating under the belief that such a bridge would fall within the navigable waterway exception, but that is not the case. The cartway statute was relatively recently amended to provide that when access is available` but only by navigable vvatenmay, then a cartway should still be required. The predicate to the creation and application of the navigable waterway exception was that the use of the navigabte waterway is actually the sote means of access. In K8c johnson's[aSe. he can access the land without utilizing the creek. As the Association has demonstrated, he could build a bridge over the creek. As such, the answer to the threshold question of whether he has access to the land should b8°yeS"and the Council is not therefore obligated to create the Cartway. Additionally, as stated in our July 9, 2012 letter to the Council, as of 2006 all takings of private property by Cities in Minnesota must be for public use or purpose. Minn. Stat. §117.012, subd. 2. In the Council's March 26, 2012 Resolution the Council found that "[ilt is the Councit's intention to retain private ownership of that driveway. It is not in the public's interest to expend public funds on the cartway or to make the cartway into a public road." Based on that finding, we believe the Council is precluded by State Law from taking the private property rights from the Association. The Petitioned-For Cartway is an Enormous Reaction to a Small Problem It is useful to recall that the objectives of the Petitioner that have lead to the Petitioner's request that the City of Lino Lakes convert the existing private roadway to a public roadway were the stated need to walk to his land 2-3 times per week to drive an ATV to his land 1-2 times per week in the Spring, Summer and Fall seasons, and to drive asnnal[ tractor to his (and 2-3 times per year. First, these objectives can easily be accomplished with a small bridge over the creek for those seasons. Further, the Petitioner already has access during periods of low water and winter. Second and importantly, the alternative being suggested, to create a cartway and in so doing, taking private property interests for pubtic use, exposes the City of Lino Lakes to significant exposure for damages from the taking, with only the Petitioner to turn to for indemnification. This is another reason the bond required should be for the damages that coutd be awarded. At the hearing, the valuation of the taking was established. The only credible information in the record as to amount of the damages that wilt result from the taking is the appraisat that was provided by the Association. Pursuant to that appraisal, when factoring in the value of the underlying land that is being taken, the depreciated value oFthe private improvements that are being taken for public use and the severance damages (the reduction in value of the Association homeowners' retained land due to the conversion from a private to public road), the damages are at least $74T,987.25. Though the Councit may betieve that this figure seems In re Cartway Petition September 13, 2012 Page 3 of 3 high, when considering that sometime in the future, this cartway and the property owner's use of the newly-created public road could result in an ability to devlopthad land that would not otherwise exist. If not today, that right could be of great value to this large parcel of It appears that the Council is contemplating the foltowing steps: 1. Deciding that no access is available to the [and' despite the [[ear example by the Association's bridge that the Petitioner has reasonable access by building a bridge. 2. Deciding that the City has authority to take private property for a use that is has already said will not be public. 3. Defining the size of the cartway to be something less than the Fu[( roadway despite knowing that the public will inevitably use the entire roadway if for no other reason than to turn around on the deadend road. 4. Setting a damages figure less than $747'98725. despite the fact that no evidence in the record supports any lower figure and therefore anything less would be arbitrary on its face. 5. Setting afixed'do(larannount maintenance obligation that cannot function as an equitable share of the future road maintenance and repair costs over the subsequent decades and longer. The question for the Council is why consider taking any of these steps and exposing itself as a risk agent for Mr. ]ohnson, just to solve a stated need to occasionally walk tO the land and sporadically drive and ATV or tractor. Particularly when a much smaller solution exists that does not involve the City - namely Mr. Johnson should build a small bridge that will accommodate pedestrians, ATV's and a sma(L tractor. Very truly yours, 0HNS x _�°�_ [h'puvpher nson /nnah Enclosures cc: Joe Langel, Esq. Homeowners Association Board Checklist for Meeting Notices for: >1 City Council Charter Commission Other Meeting: p cc E �_�a- Q,cr�, -� :�% v ect,a-voa-v- Meeting Date: 0 ok ( i 2_0 1D-- 5-;30 o e Mayor signs special meeting notice Julie Schedule room Julie Notify and remind all council members and Julie appropriate staff CMS Aga J tU ( Prepare Notice Julie Post on website (3 places ) Lisa Post in display case (minutes, agendas) Jean Post on front "Public Notice" bulletin board Julie Publish to Quad ress — time permitting. *E -mail official notice to legalsapre ubs.com. Cc to: Julie, Kim, The Citizen. Code to: 101 -4 - 4343 -000 for City Council; 101- 405 - 4340 -000 for Cha Commission. J Send to agenda e-mail list Notify recording secretary or arrange for minutes (tape recorder) Julie Add to community calendar on agenda and weekly update Julie l--approvarofthc.)se tes4o--#bitu-re-agenda_. --. Julte_-...- Add meeting dates to Council timesheets Julie S: City Council/Checklist-Meeting Notice CITY OF LINO LAKES NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 15, 2012 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Lino Lakes City Council has scheduled a special session for October 15, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. to view the location of a proposed cartway easement. Members of the council will be gathering for this meeting in the vicinity of 2055 Otter Lake Drive. If you have any questions, please call 651- 982 -2406. Julie Bartell, City Clerk Julie Bartell To: City Council Cc: Michael Grochala; Jason Wedel; Jeff Karlson Subject: Special Council Mfg - Cartway The special council session to view the proposed cartway easement will be held on Monday, October 15, at 5:30 p.m. Council members are to meet at the Otter Lake Drive bridge. Please contact Mike Grochala with any questions. Julie Bartell City Clerk City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651- 982 -2406 651 - 982 -2499 fax julie.bartell@dlino-lakes.mn.us 1 Julie Bartell To: City Council Cc: Michael Grochala; Jeff Karlson Subject: Cartway Site Visit Staff is proposing a special meeting (at the cartway site) for Monday, October 15 at 5:30 p.m. This would allow time to address site questions prior to the council discussion on October 22. Please advise as to your availability for this special meeting. Julie Bartell City Clerk City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651- 982 -2406 651 - 982 -2499 fax julie.bartell@cilino-lakes.mn.us 1°11( ' Se-A;b- n(teoou 4v J 12 /R6P114A— ax, c Ask aw- \,0 tAA,H nAe.a. S-Gb_ 12ceAALPAA, -y p K. dlitCleAk- V1/6 Project: otl [ /O '%5 Subject: / / Date: By: 1 `�-C. 6'locCt L-_ SEH #: Checked by: Date: Office: File #: Sheet No: Of: / C 0411 7D O /cle2 s s 38 tJJel / e6/ i /e,/1---;da rvi,6eJ/ee/ , /c. ,C4 CaurIu 112, r R.e. vi '1-((e° /a cQ-r /; 5 S GI S ge of 5 Overt sTo' ,a c erect 4e frel4 " 7764 c r� X47. a % G� J ah" 3. Julie Bartell From: Michael Grochala Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:31 PM To: 'jbarnett@foleymansfield.com'; 'jbarnett50 @comcast.net; ajohnso8 @gmail.com; Julie Schwartz (lakestate @comcast.net); 'chris @johnsonandturner.com' (chris @johnsonandturner.com) Cc: Joe Lange! (jjl @ratwiklaw.com); Julie Bartell Subject: Cartway Council Site Visit To all: The City Council meeting to visit the proposed cartway location has been set for Monday, October 15 at 5:30 p.m. The council will be meeting at the bridge location and reviewing the proposed cartway location. Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 651 - 982 -2427 651 - 982 -2499 fax michael.grochala@ci.lino- lakes.mn.us 1