Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/2003 Council MinutesAPPROVED • 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 5 DATE : March 10, 2003 6 TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M. 7 TIME ENDED : 10:25 P.M. 8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmembers Carlson, Dahl, O'Donnell, 9 and Mayor Bergeson 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : Councilmember Reinert 11 12 Staff members present: Director of Administration, Dan Tesch; City Administrator, Linda Waite - 13 Smith; Community Development Director, Michael Grochala; City Engineer, Jim Studenski; and City 14 Attorney, Bill Hawkins. 15 16 SETTING THE AGENDA 17 18 Councilmember Carlson requested that Items 8A and 9B be removed from the agenda. 19 20 The agenda was approved as amended. 21 .22 CONSENT AGENDA 23 24 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as submitted. Councilmember 25 O'Donnell seconded the motion. 26 27 Motion carried unanimously. 28 29 ITEM ACTION 30 31 A. CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES: 32 33 i) March 10, 2003 (Check No. 67565 - 34 67640, $305,481.83) Approved 35 36 ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 13673 - 37 13696, $17,011.70) Approved 38 39 OPEN MIKE 40 41 No one was present for open mike. 42 43 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK •44 45 There was no report. COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT • 46 47 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH 48 49 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-39 Supporting Amendment to the Boundaries of the Rice 50 Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve, Linda Waite Smith — City Administrator Linda Waite Smith 51 summarized her report for the Council. She noted Staff's recommendation to adopt this Resolution. 52 53 Councilmember Carlson moved to Approve Resolution No. 03-39 Supporting Amendment to the 54 Boundaries of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve, as requested by the Anoka County Parks 55 Department. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 56 57 Councilmember Carlson advised she attended the Environmental Board meeting when the 58 presentation for this proposal was done. She indicated it is a great opportunity for Lino Lakes, with 59 192 acres of the proposed park within the city, and the cost being covered by the Minnesota DNR 60 Greenways Program, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Program and the Rice Creek Watershed 61 District. She stated $200,000 for 682 acres is a very good price, and she understands that the City of 62 St. Paul is giving them approximately $100,000 off the price because it will be used for parkland. 63 64 Motion carried unanimously. 65 66 Resolution No. 03-38 can be found in the City Clerk's office. • 67 68 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAVE PECCHIA 69 70 There was no report. 71 72 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER 73 74 There was no report. 75 76 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT, MIKE GROCHALA 77 78 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-33, Site and Building Plan Review, Living Waters Church, 79 NAC, Bob Kirmis — Mr. Kirmis presented the staff report, noting there have been two modifications 80 to the site plan; elimination of sidewalk from the fire door; and elimination of trees that were 81 requested for screening. He noted there is currently vegetative screening in existence, and additional 82 tree plantings would not be needed to provide screening in accordance with the ordinance. 83 84 Mr. Kirmis advised that it is Staff's recommendation that the site and building plans/conditional use 85 permit be approved as outlined in Resolution 03-33, subject to the conditions in said Resolution. 86 87 Councilmember Carlson asked about the proposed elimination of tree requirements. She asked if 88 anyone from Staff had actually gone out to the property and looked at the current vegetation. Mr. 89 Kirmis indicated he had not personally. 90 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT • 91 Councilmember Carlson stated she did not know for sure whose property the existing trees were on, 92 but understands now they are on the church's property. She indicated the subdivision ordinance says 93 there must be 80 percent screening, and she does not believe what is there provides this amount of 94 coverage. She indicated the proposal was asking for eight trees, and she does not want to see that 95 eliminated. 96 97 Councilmember Carlson also noted on page two of the Staff report it says `Preliminary review by the 98 Anoka County Highway Department indicates that turn lanes may be required as a result of the 99 proposed improvements to the site. Any roadway improvements should be subject to comment and 100 recommendation by the City Engineer and the ACHD. She asked if the church was aware of this 101 requirement and how they would pay for it. 102 103 Mr. Ken Erkenbrack, representing the church, indicated they have reviewed this, and are of the 104 understanding that it may be possible to re -stripe the road rather than add new lanes, which the church 105 is prepared to do. 106 107 Councilmember Carlson asked if that was not deemed possible, how the lanes would be paid for. 108 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that as with other developments on Birch, any 109 improvement would be the responsibility of the applicant, so the church would have to pay for it. 110 111 Councilmember Carlson stated that with the first conditional use permit for the church, there was not •12 a condition for drainage. City Engineer Studenski indicated that was correct; there was no 113 requirement for a pond. Councilmember Carlson asked how this would be addressed now. City 114 Engineer Studenski indicated all general requirements, such as ponding, parking, etc., would be 115 addressed with this conditional use permit. Councilmember Carlson mentioned that since the 116 conditional use permit requirements direct the city to correct any existing problems, she assumes what 117 is happening now is not causing any problems. 118 119 Mr. Erkenbrack indicated that there were ponding provisions with the original plan, which the church 120 provided. He indicated they are adding to the drainage pond now, but there has been one there all 121 along. 122 123 Councilmember Carlson noted the estimated heights of the addition were approximately 22 feet for 124 the main building and 27 feet for the decorative section. Mr. Erkenbrack indicated that was correct. 125 Councilmember Carlson commended the church for this design, noting it fits well into the residential 126 area in which it resides. 127 128 Mayor Bergeson stated that on the screening issue, he would like to refer it to staff to determine what 129 is appropriate, whether it be a combination of the existing and new plantings, or maybe all new 130 plantings, to fit the ordinance. He would like to approve the request with the condition that staff will 131 review this area. 132 W33 Mr. Kirmis indicated the Resolution states the screening will meet the ordinance requirements, 34 whether with existing or new vegetation. 135 3 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT 0136 Councilmember Carlson indicated she would be fine with referring this to staff, but asked if the 137 wording did not refer to the landscape ordinance. Community Development Director Grochala 138 indicated it does not; it is referring to the subdivision ordinance. 139 140 Councilmember Carlson stated the word `adequate' is very loose, and asked if the ordinance does not 141 say 80 percent screening. Community Development Director Grochala indicated this is being 142 presented under the old ordinance, and the City is bound by that. Councilmember Carlson stated it 143 was not a big point, and even under the old ordinance, there has to be a buffer. 144 145 Mr. Erkenbrack stated that there are currently 9 pines and 1 other tree. He stated they could add a few 146 more if necessary. Councilmember Carlson indicated that would be acceptable to her. 147 148 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-33, Approving Site and Building Plans 149 with a Conditional Use Permit for Living Waters Lutheran Church. Councilmember Dahl seconded 150 the motion. 151 152 Motion carried unanimously. 153 154 Resolution No. 03-33 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 155 156 Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 06-03, Vacating Drainage and Utility •57 Easements, Outlot A, Spirit Hills, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director 158 Grochala presented his staff report, noting the Staff recommendation to approve. 159 160 Councilmember Dahl moved to approve SECOND READING and adopt Ordinance No. 06-03, 161 Vacating Drainage and Utility Easement, Outlot A, Spirit Hills, as outlined by Staff. Councilmember 162 Carlson seconded the motion. 163 164 Motion carried unanimously. 165 166 Ordinance No. 06-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 167 168 Consideration of Resolution 03-34, Final Plat Approval for Spirit Hills Center, Michael 169 Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala presented the Staff report, noting the 170 recommendation to approve. 171 172 Councilmember Carlson asked about the certificate of occupancy that would be issued by the City. 173 She stated she received a call about a possible liquor store and day care being very close together, and 174 the caller believed that the City Council has a say with the certificate of occupancy, which is not her 175 understanding. 176 177 Community Development Director Grochala explained that the certificate of occupancy ties to the 178 building codes, noting that when all the building codes have been satisfied and the building has been W79 inspected, the city will issue a certificate of occupancy. He indicated this certificate does not address 4 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT 80 use of the property. He added, however, that different permits are needed for various businesses to 181 operate and the Council has input in that area. 182 183 Councilmember Carlson noted she will return the call with this information. 184 185 Mayor Bergeson asked when construction would resume. The developer indicated it would resume 186 tomorrow. 187 188 Community Development Director Grochala asked that one condition be added to the resolution, 189 which would require review and approval of the title work by the City Attorney. 190 191 Mayor Bergeson moved to approve Resolution No. 03-34, with the additional condition outlined by 192 Community Development Director Grochala, for Final Plat Approval, Spirit Hills Center. 193 Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. 194 195 Motion carried unanimously. 196 197 Resolution 03-34 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 198 199 Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 05-03, Rezoning from R -X, Rural Executive 200 to R -X, Rural Executive/Planned Development Overlay (PDO), Michael Grochala — Community O01 Development Director Grochala presented the Staff report, noting it is Staff's recommendation to 202 approve. 203 204 Councilmember Dahl moved to approve SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 05-03, Rezoning 205 from R -X, Rural Executive to R -X, Rural Executive/Planned Development Overlay (PDO). 206 Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. 207 208 Mayor Bergeson noted the Council was one member short this evening. He indicated he voted 209 against this at the first reading; however he is aware the majority of the Council is in favor of this, so 210 he will vote in favor for this second reading so there is no question of its passing. 211 212 Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember O'Donnell 213 voted yea. Mayor Bergeson voted yea. 214 215 Motion carried unanimously. 216 217 Ordinance No. 05-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 218 219 Consideration of Resolution 03-17, approve minor subdivision, NE 1/4 NE % of Section 9, SSR & 220 W Development, LLC, Willard Morton property, Michael Grochala — Community Development 221 Director Grochala presented the Staff report, noting it is Staff's recommendation to approve, with 22 conditions 1-5 as outlined in the report. W223 5 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT S24 Mayor Bergeson asked if at a future date the area was further developed, the City would hope to have 225 a larger right-of-way, and wondered how they would get there. Community Development Director 226 Grochala indicated that they are taking 33 feet now, with the intent of gaining the other 33 feet from 227 the other side of the road. He stated there is an existing 16 foot right-of-way under Mn/DOT now, 228 and the additional 17 feet would be needed when development occurs. He expects that the road will 229 be addressed when sewer and water is put in that area. 230 231 Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-17, Approving Minor Subdivision, NE 1/4 232 NE 1/4 of Section 9. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 233 234 Councilmember Carlson indicated she would like to say to Mr. Racutt that he presented her with 235 some letters, one being a letter dated January 18, as she arrived at the February 24th City Council 236 meeting. She stated that she did not have time to read them before the meeting or she feels this could 237 have been discussed and settled at that time. She apologizes that he had to return for another meeting. 238 239 Motion carried unanimously. 240 241 Mr. Alan Kantrud, representing the Racutts, indicated one issue that had been raised was a public 242 safety concern. He stated that a member of the family is on the fire department, and brought the Fire 243 Chief to the site. He noted the Fire Chief did not have any concerns, and thanked the Council for 244 their decision. 45 246 Resolution No. 03-17 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 247 248 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-35, Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 249 2003 Wearing Course, James Studenski — City Engineer Studenski presented his report, noting 250 Staff's recommendation to adopt this resolution. 251 252 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-35 authorizing preparation of plans 253 and specifications for 2003 Wearing Course. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. 254 255 Motion carried unanimously. 256 257 Resolution 03-35 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 258 259 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-36, Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 260 2003 Sealcoat Project, James Studenski — City Engineer Studenski presented his report, noting 261 Staff's recommendation to adopt this resolution. 262 263 Councilmember Dahl asked how long the road was expected to last after the Wear Course was added. 264 She noted that the Sealcoat Project list includes some roads where the Wear Course was added 2-3 265 years prior, and she is wondering how long they expect that to last. .66 67 City Engineer Studenski indicated that typically the roads are made to last 20 years. He stated 268 sealcoatting is done to seal any cracks, which deteriorates the pavement. Councilmember Dahl 6 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT •69 clarified that the sealcoatting, then, eliminates the cracks. City Engineer Studenski advised that it 270 seals the cracks to eliminate any deterioration caused by water getting into the cracks, which erodes 271 the road beneath. 272 273 Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-36, authorizing preparation of plans and 274 specifications for 2003 Sealcoat Projects. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. 275 276 Motion carried unanimously. 277 278 Resolution No. 03-36 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 279 280 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-37, Designating No Parking on Elm Street Reconstruction, 281 James Studenski — City Engineer Studenski presented his report, noting the recommendation of Staff 282 to adopt this resolution. 283 284 Councilmember Dahl moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-37, designating No Parking on Elm Street. 285 Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 286 287 Motion carried unanimously. 288 289 Resolution No. 03-37 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 11,90 291 Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 08-03, Zoning Regulations, Michael 292 Community Development Director Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala noted 293 that Council had two memos relating to the Zoning Ordinance, one from him outlining the changes 294 from the work session and one offering an opinion on the Tree Service issue. 295 296 Community Development Director Grochala outlined the minor changes, 1-10, that were results of 297 the City Council Work Session on March 5, 2003. He added that two additional changes from the 298 Environmental Board needed to be made, on pages 3-16 and 3-44, outlining what those are. He added 299 that one additional change not mentioned in the memo was on page 2-55, item 3, where 300 Environmental Board and Park Board have been added to PUD reviews. Previously it just indicated 301 Planning and Zoning Board. He noted two additional changes; to page 6-11 item C.2., it was 302 originally 90 feet, this has been changed to 80 feet; and page 6-11 item C.1., the Environmental Board 303 requested 'no fewer than' be removed in the sentence 'no fewer than 30 percent of all individual lots 304 in the subdivision shall be equal to or greater than 15,000 square feet in area', but that change has not 305 been made. He indicated that the discussion surrounding this request was that the board wanted to 306 promote maximizing open space. He stated the thought was by taking that wording out, it would 307 encourage the maximum space, by providing the minimum amount of 15,000 square foot lots 308 possible. He indicated Staff's concern was that by taking out the words 'no fewer than', it might be 309 interpreted as only 30 percent of lots could be 15,000 square feet, which would discourage use of this 310 zoning. S11 12 Mayor Bergeson stated that if someone was interested in using this zoning, he agrees they might be 313 more inclined to do so with some flexibility, rather than hard and fast rules. 7 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT 014 315 Community Development Director Grochala noted that one change that may work to remove 316 ambiguity, is to say 'a minimum', rather than 'no fewer than'. Mayor Bergeson asked what Staff's 317 recommendation was on this matter. Community Development Director Grochala indicated they 318 recommend leaving the wording as it is. 319 320 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that on page 2-5, the conditional use permit 321 criteria has been replaced with new ones, which are listed on page 2-6, with the intent to clarify the 322 necessary criteria. He indicated that the Environmental Board did request that items f. and h. from the 323 deleted criteria be brought forward into the new language, however he feels these points are 324 adequately covered in the new standards. He stated item h. is fairly vague, and it is not clear who 325 makes the decision, and the standard is not truly quantified. 326 327 Councilmember Carlson stated that for page 2-5 items f. and h., she realizes we are taking out the rest, 328 but did not hear Community Development Director Grochala say that item f. is a poor item, just that it 329 is covered in other areas. 330 331 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that in general, it is a poor item. He stated that 332 if a use would cause one of these areas to be in excess, it is probably not listed as a use in the zoning 333 district. He stated it ties back to what the use is, and what is detrimental, indicating the Council has 334 to review each individual use and determine. 111335 336 Councilmember Carlson stated that what she is seeing is what would be excessive. She indicated that 337 in looking at the ordinance as a whole, she worries the City will see undesired consequences from 338 something missed, and thinks this may cover those situations. She would support the Environmental 339 Board recommendation to leave it in. 340 341 City Administrator Waite -Smith asked how the Council would determine what is excessive. 342 Councilmember Carlson stated the same as they have in past years. Community Development 343 Director Grochala indicated he could see the benefit for that, adding that there are definitions for 344 excessive in some cases, such as level of service for traffic, etc. He agrees this could be left in. 345 346 Mayor Bergeson agreed the City has standards for traffic, noise and glare, but not necessarily for 347 smoke and fumes. Community Development Director Grochala indicated this could be left in, as if 348 anything, it is redundant. 349 350 Councilmember Carlson asked about item h. as it relates to the lakes in the city. Community 351 Development Director Grochala indicated they could not do anything with the lakes, as they are 352 subject to ruling by the Watershed District. He is concerned about making a finding that relates to 353 things of `major importance', as there is not a set list of what would fall in this category. 354 355 Councilmember Carlson indicated she brought it up because she has seen a deterioration in the lakes 356 in the 30 years she has lived in the city. She would like to see item h. left in. Mayor Bergeson W357 indicated he does not think this addresses water quality. Councilmember Carlson stated that it is why 358 lakes are deteriorating, so it covers water quality and what happens around the lakes. 8 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT *59 360 Mayor Bergeson stated he does not see how this would be able to be implemented. Councilmember 361 Carlson indicated it does not undo anything they are trying to accomplish. Community Development 362 Director Grochala stated item h. could go forward, his concern is with determining what is of `major 363 importance'. 364 365 City Attorney Hawkins offered that it is always best to have standards, as the court will usually rule 366 against the city if there is some ambiguity. 367 368 Mayor Bergeson asked if Staff agrees with adding item f. back in. Community Development Director 369 Grochala stated he prefers to have it out, but there are other standards so it would be okay with it in. 370 Mayor Bergeson asked for an informal poll of opinion on this matter. 371 372 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated he would prefer to keep it as presented, with item f. out. 373 374 Councilmember Carlson indicated she would like it put back in. 375 376 Mayor Bergeson stated he would like it kept out. 377 378 Councilmember Dahl stated she would like items f. and h. left in. 379 080 City Attorney Hawkins asked if there was definition regarding either of these items. Community 381 Development Director Grochala stated that concerning item f., there are standards relating to traffic, 382 noise, and glare. City Administrator Waite -Smith stated that other government agencies have 383 standards that could be used. 384 385 City Attorney Hawkins offered that in his opinion, item f. would be okay to leave in. He added that 386 item h. is vague, and it is not clear who determines what is of significant importance. 387 388 Mayor Bergeson asked for a poll on item h. 389 390 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated he would like it left out. 391 392 Councilmember Carlson stated that when she is weighing her decision, she tries to look at things to 393 see if they are pro -developer or pro -citizen. She feels this is pro -citizen and supports leaving it in. 394 395 Mayor Bergeson stated he would like it left out. 396 397 Councilmember Dahl indicated she prefers it be left in. 398 399 Community Development Director Grochala stated they could leave them both in. He indicated that 400 with item h. he thinks they will have some problems pop up, but it can be left in. •401 9 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT 0402 Councilmember Carlson indicated she had a discussion with Mr. Kukonen from the Environmental 403 Board on page 6-11, and when doing the math she came up with a postage stamp sized parcel being 404 reserved, so she will refer that issue to him. 405 406 Community Development Director Grochala indicated there were two pieces on that page. He stated 407 with the R-EC district, that is as far as they wanted to go for flexibility. He indicated that when 408 dealing with urban lots, it is hard to get the cluster needed for urban space. In discussions with the 409 task force, they did not feel comfortable going lower than 10,800 square feet per lot. He stated that if 410 they are going to do a PUD, the developer will probably ask for smaller lot size. He indicated this 411 will not give the city 50 percent open space, but that is what the Environmental Board was 412 comfortable with. He explained that if a developer comes in and does all 15,000 square foot lots, it 413 will provide more green space, but not preserved open space. He added that page 2-52, item 2, it does 414 not say someone could not come back and request a PUD, but in R-1 and R-2 the easier process is to 415 go to R-EC. 416 417 Mayor Bergeson asked if there were any situations where lots less than 10,800 square feet would be 418 allowed. Community Development Director Grochala indicated in R-1 and R-2 they would be. He 419 stated that the yield plan shows how many 15,000 square foot lots will be allowed on the parcel, then 420 up to 70 percent can be moved to 10,800 square feet with the remaining land dedicated open space. 421 422 Councilmember Carlson asked if Clearwater Creek came in under this, would they have to go through 9123 a PUD. Community Development Director Grochala indicated it could be done under R-EC. He 424 stated Clearwater Creek is actually an R-1 development, adding that what makes a difference in that 425 development is the significant wetlands that could not be touched. 426 427 Mayor Bergeson stated that some land in Clearwater Creek that was not developed could have been. 428 He indicated the park area is larger than was rquired, and they voluntarily set aside land. He does not 429 know what was given up on the flip side. 430 431 Councilmember Carlson stated she was not on the City Council at the time, but she remembers seeing 432 plans, noting that the developer came in with a traditional plan, then came back with smaller lots and 433 more open space. Community Development Director Grochala noted that they used to allow 434 developers to plat through wetlands, which created lots of open space, but it was private open space, 435 with nothing to prevent the property owners from removing trees, etc. He indicated they do not allow 436 that now. He stated that through the R-EC zoning they may not achieve the same space, but the City 437 tried to maximize the land they would pick up, noting that the developer could come back with a 438 PUD. 439 440 Councilmember Carlson asked if the language was that which was recommended by the Task Force. 441 Community Development Director Grochala stated it was. 442 443 Community Development Director Grochala refered to the memo concerning the Tree Service Alk444 presented to the Council, and reviewed the four options offered. He indicated that any answer, other W445 than no, will have reprecussions, and he is nervous about the possible snowball affect. He added that 10 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT 0446 Staff does not want to delay the zoning ordinance, and recommends not accommodating the Tree 447 Service within the ordinance. 448 449 Councilmember O'Donnell commented that the Tree Service is an upstanding, well-run business, and 450 he hopes that they will continue to operate in Lino Lakes, but with that said, he does not want to make 451 sweeping changes. He added he would like to separate the issues, but hopes that the Tree Service will 452 come in as a separate project that the Council can address. 453 454 Mayor Bergeson asked if all or most of the options mean the Council will be amending the ordinance 455 in some way. Councilmember O'Donnell indicated they would have to handle the screening issues, 456 but it would not require big changes. 457 458 Community Development Director Grochala noted the problem the Council is having is the same one 459 they had at the Planning and Zoning Board. The City wants to work with the Tree Service, but they 460 do not want to amend the Comprehensive Plan or rezone this land. He indicated that he is not sure an 461 auto body repair shop could go in there again under the time provisions of the CUP, but whether the 462 City decides to rezone or amend the Comprehensive Plan or something else, it is really a separate 463 issue. 464 465 Councilmember Carlson indicated she talked with the Planning and Zoning Board member who made 466 the motion, who felt this could happen under the existing ordiance, and it would not be a big change. •67 She realized after that conversation that was not the case, and agress with Councilmember O'Donnell 468 for that reason. She does not believe the Council should make a sweeping change for one business. 469 She noted that the four cities surveyed that responded, being Shoreview, Blaine, Ramsey and Hugo, 470 allowed this type of business in industrial zoning. If Lino Lakes has a less restrictive ordinance than 471 those cities, those wanting to run this kind of business will come to Lino Lakes. She agrees the 472 Council needs to separate this issue from the zoning ordinance. 473 474 Community Development Director Grochala noted there is an actual application that has to be acted 475 on in the next month, so there will be additional review. 476 477 Councilmember Carlson asked if this could be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Board 478 meeting on Wednesday as a discussion item. Community Development Director Grochala indicated 479 it could. 480 481 Mayor Bergeson commented on Option 4 from the memo. He stated he was not sure of the 482 implications, but as a matter of principal, he might be in favor of expansion of the interim uses in 483 rural districts. He indicated this property has that classification. He stated his concern that one goal of 484 the city is to preserve rural area, whether permanently or temporarily, until an appropriate use comes 485 along, but one thing that helps property owners hold on to their property longer is uses that might 486 generate some income. He added he would like to review land uses at some time. 487 .488 Community Development Director Grochala indicated the use is really to store equipment, adding 489 that even though they call it a Tree Service, it does not differ from a plumbing service with trucks or 11 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT •90 any other kind of service, since they are not actually working on trees at the location, simply storing 491 equipment. 492 493 Mayor Bergeson stated that to incorporate a change in the ordinance tonight that would address the 494 Tree Service would require three votes in favor. He indicated they already have two votes against it, 495 so that possibility is not possible for tonight. He indicated that the City has a request related to this, 496 and they need to be prepared to address not only this situation but others also. 497 498 Community Development Director Grochala indicated the last issue is the external storage piece. He 499 explained the changes made to page 3-73, indicating that as written, with the wording `indoor or 500 outdoor', it would not allow for any storage, even in a pole barn. He stated K.1.a. is also a problem 501 for people with multiple vehicles, as they would not be able to park because of the 72 hour rule. He 502 explained that this starts on page 3-37, and reviewed item P.1.a.1-8. He added that page 3-59 item 6 503 is related, and says you can only use a residential driveway for cars or one truck. He indicated the 504 intent of 3-73 is to not allow parking of anything over 11,075 pounds in a residential or rural zone 505 with less than 2 /2 acres, without a permit. He stated they now need to clarify the wording and 506 determine what the City is really trying to do. He added his recommendation is that since they have 507 added language to address rural lots 2 1/2 acres or less, and the wording is more restrictive than it was 508 previously, he suggests adopting the ordinance with the 2 1/2 acre wording and coming back in a few 509 months with an amendment, if needed, after examining the intent. He does not believe they should 510 hold up the zoning ordinance, but feels Staff and the Council need to review all three sections •11 together and see how they fit. 512 513 Councilmember Carlson stated that the conversation late last week related to the addition of item 514 1.a.8. on page 3-37. She asked if the wording 'per Sec. 3 Subd. S.K.' was a mistake. Community 515 Development Director Grochala indicated it was not, noting that what that says is provided you can 516 meet these requirements, it would not be considered exterior storage. He explained that page 3-37 is 517 saying all personal property must be in a building or screened so as not to be visible. However the 518 City realizes that is not practical, so there are exceptions, for things such as swing sets, laundry poles, 519 etc., or, if you meet the rquirements of item 3.5.K., you could park a semi outside provided it is not 520 there for more than 72 hours in a seven day period. 521 522 Councilmember Carlson indicated that they had discussed the number of trucks this could encompass, 523 and that concerns her. Community Development Director Grochala indicated they had a big 524 discussion on residential and rural less than 2 1/2 acre lots, and he agreed it does not clearly say not 525 more than two trucks. He indicated they have added some language intended to clear up the issues 526 but have not yet accomplished it, and he is concerned about the unintended consequences they may be 527 creating, which is why he suggests stopping where this is now and re-evaluating these sections. 528 529 Councilmember Carlson indicated she sees it as stronger wording after 3-37, but does not see 3-37 as 530 being strong. She stated her point had been they could put five, six, or 50 trucks there, to which 531 Community Development Director Grochala had responded they could put six, or fifty, however 532 many they could fit. She added she does not think they should add item P.1.a.8. until they have 33 evaluated all the sections together. 534 12 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT S535 Community Development Director Grochala stated he was concerned that removal of item P.1.a.8. 536 would not prevent more trucks from being parked there, and pointed out that on page 3-59 there are 537 some limitations. Councilmember Carlson stated that 3-73 and 3-59 were fine, but she does not want 538 them refered to in 3-37. 539 540 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if it was not restricted by saying that any vehicle has to be registered 541 to the owner. Community Development Director Grochala indicated that only refers to recreational 542 vehicles. 543 544 Councilmember Carlson indicated that she sees adding item 8 as legalizing it, whereas before it may 545 have been gray, now this validates it. 546 547 Community Development Director Grochala explained that 3-59 and 3-37 were addressing weights of 548 vehicles and restrictions for parking, whereas 3-37 only addresses what is considered outside storage. 549 Councilmember Carlson clarified that one of her concerns was with businesses being able to operate 550 on 2 %2 to 10 acre parcels. Options for wording were discussed to clarify the number of vehicles that 551 would be allowed on various sized lots. The City Attorney was asked where it would be appropriate 552 to add wording limiting the number of vehicles based on lot size. City Attorney Hawkins offered that 553 he believes it would best be suited on 3-73. 554 555 Councilmember Dahl asked for clarification on what size truck would fit under the 11,075 pounds. It 056 was determine this would include UPS trucks and other delivery vehicles, while most semis or dump 557 trucks would be over this limit. Councilmember Dahl asked what the roads were meant to handle. 558 Community Development Director Grochala indicated most are seven ton roads. 559 560 Councilmember Dahl asked for comments from the City Attorney. City Attorney Hawkins agreed 561 that the Council wants to limit the number of trucks that could be parked, as they have had problems 562 in the community, but indicated 3-73 was enforceable as it is now. He stated if the Council wanted to 563 go to 10 acres, that would be legal as well. 564 565 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if it would help to take item 8. and move it down to a provision of 566 item b. on page 3-37. Community Development Director Grochala stated that still only addresses if 567 something has to be screened. Councilmember O'Donnell commented that item b. seems to put a 568 limit on the number by requiring that they be registered to the owner of the property. Community 569 Development Director Grochala noted that if someone had 15 trucks registered to them, they would 570 still be allowed to park there, and that is why he feels they should move forward with the ordinance as 571 written and sit down and discuss options for an amendment. 572 573 Councilmember Carlson asked the City Attorney how they could amend to achieve a limit on the 574 number of vehicles. City Attorney Hawkins indicated it would have to be included on page 3-73. 575 Community Development Director Grochala suggested they could add an item 2. to K. to address 2 %2 576 acre to 10 acre parcels, but then they would be opening it up to parcels over 10 acres. He stated that 577 you also get into indoor versus outdoor and many other issues. He indicated he does not know the W578 impact, but they can add item 2. and amend it as needed if that is what the Council wants. 579 13 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT 080 Mayor Bergeson asked for an informal poll of the Council's preference on this matter. 581 582 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated he would prefer to take Staff's lead and rather than do 583 something that may or may not be appropriate, leave it as is and amend it after the fact. 584 585 Councilmember Carlson stated she wants to address it now as they have a situation operating and 586 growing, and she is concerned that they may not come back and look at this right away. She believes 587 the ordinance could have an item K.2., dropping the 72 hour limit and picking up the other points that 588 apply to this size parcel. 589 590 Community Development Director Grochala reviewed how he thought item K., 1. and 2. would read. 591 Councilmember Carlson noted that once they have decided to make the change in this section, it is not 592 that difficult to determine wording. 593 594 Community Development Director Grochala stated item K.2. would say no more than two 595 commercial motor vehicles. City Attorney Hawkins noted two permits would not be needed for this, 596 one would suffice for the two vehicles. Mayor Bergeson asked if two was the right number. 597 Councilmember Carlson stated they had talked about two at the work session, noting that 2 1/2 acre to 598 10 acre lots were not that large to be able to accommodate more. 599 600Community Development Director Grochala clarified that current users would not have to comply. 001 City Attorney Hawkins indicated his agreement, noting they would be grandfathered non -conforming 602 uses. Councilmember Dahl asked if that would include anything questionable, whether legal or not, 603 that is happening at this time. City Attorney Hawkins offered that it either complies with the 604 ordinance now or it does not. 605 606 Mayor Bergeson asked if page 3-73 item K.2. was now part of the staff recommendation. Community 607 Development Director Grochala noted it is. 608 609 Councilmember Carlson asked if 3-90 has been left in. Community Development Director Grochala 610 indicated it has, noting that originally they were going to strike it. Councilmember Carlson advised 611 that this is one of the corrections she has for the February 24th minutes. She noted the minutes say 612 'City Planner Smyser stated 3-90 had been struck', but according to the tape he said '3-90 had been 613 struck, but now it was not going to be'. 614 615 Mayor Bergeson opened the floor for public comment. 616 617 Rod Kukonen, representing the Environmental Board, indicated he had two suggestions for changes. 618 He indicated on page 2-52 item 2., they propose striking the word `only', and adding wording so item 619 2. would read "Urban residential planned unit development shall be applied within the City's R-2, R- 620 3, and R-4 Zoning Districts and may be applied in R-1 and R -1X districts. He stated this does not 621 slam the door for using PUD within the R-1 and R -1X districts. 0622 14 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT S23 Community Development Director Grochala noted the problem with removing `only' is then it states 624 it `shall be', meaning everything would have to go through PUD. By changing this, you would not 625 need a PUD district, because you have set the standard within this wording that everything would be. 626 627 Mr. Kukonen commented that it already says `shall be'. Community Development Director Grochala 628 indicated that removing the word `only' would make it mandatory rather than saying these are the 629 only districts you can use it in. 630 631 City Administrator Waite -Smith indicated that what Mr. Kukonen is suggesting is could this be 632 applied to R-1 and R -1X. Community Development Director Grochala stated it could, but in a 633 different way. City Administrator Waite -Smith indicated it does not sound that way from the 634 wording. Community Development Director Grochala advised that they wanted to make the process 635 easier. He noted CUP is not available under R-1 or R -1X districts, but they would still allow 636 someone to rezone. He indicated that by making this change they would have to modify the other 637 residential district wording. He added this changes the intent, whereas now it says you can only do it 638 in these districts, the change would make it say you must do it in these districts. He clarified how this 639 could be applied to R-1 and R -1X districts through rezoning, indicating there were two processes set 640 up now for PUD, one through a CUP and one through rezoning. 641 642 Mr. Kukonen demonstrated an example concerning page 6-11, items C.1. and 2. Using a ten -acre 643 parcel, he calculated the amount of open space that would be dedicated if 30 percent of the lots .44 remained at 15,000 square feet, which was 84,600 square feet of open space. Demonstrating what 645 would happen if all the lots remained at 15,000 square feet, he calculated that only 600 square feet 646 would remain to be dedicated. He stated that the Environmental Board had suggested that it read 25- 647 30% of lots, rather than no fewer than 30%, to alleviate the fear of maxing out the lots to 15,000 648 square feet, defeating the purpose of the conservation district. 649 650 Mayor Bergeson noted that with the last scenario you really do not end up with a conservation district, 651 but an R -1X with good sized lots. Community Development Director Grochala agreed, stating a PUD 652 is meant to have a benefit to the developer, some type of incentive. He indicated in R -EC you can 653 have 15,000 square foot lots, so the city is getting larger lots but it is private open space, not 654 preserved land. He stated the intention was to establish the 15,000 square foot limit and make it 655 worth it for the developer to go down to 10,800 square foot lots. In this way, they receive the same 656 number of lots, but hopefully lower their costs with the need for less infrastructure, etc. He indicated 657 that was the intent, but it is possible a developer could come in and build all 15,000 square foot lots. 658 He feels that by limiting it to 25-30 percent you are not achieving anything, or providing an incentive 659 to the developers. He stated that right now the developers can have 30 to 100 percent of their lots at 660 15,000 square feet, and to go to 25 to 30 percent is very restrictive. The idea is to entice them to use 661 it for open space. 662 663 Councilmember Carlson noted that the Environmental Board did pass, as did the Planning and Zoning 664 Board, the recommendation to remove motor fuel stations from the Neighborhood Business Districts. �665 She asked how areas would be zoned Neighborhood Business when the requests they receive are 66 always for General Business. 667 15 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT S68 Community Development Director Grochala stated that when a request comes in, the Council decides 669 if the application is appropriate, and if not, the applicant can come back with another request. He 670 stated the City Council can also change the zoning map to make it consistent with the Comprehensive 671 Plan, noting that the last zoning map was prepared many years ago, and the City Council has the 672 authority to change it. 673 674 Councilmember Carlson asked if this was an involved process. Community Development Director 675 Grochala stated that depends on the extent of the changes. He stated that anything greater than five 676 acres only requires an ad in the paper, whereas anything under five acres requires notification to 677 everyone within 350 feet of the property. He stated that it is typical for cities to prepare a new zoning 678 map when they adopt a new Comprehensive Plan. 679 680 Councilmember Carlson asked what the Council would base their decision on when a request comes 681 in. Community Development Director Grochala indicated they would need to take into account the 682 text language of the Comprehensive Plan, look at the surrounding uses, the function of the roads 683 servicing the parcel, etc. He added that parcels adjacent to intersections would see a higher class of 684 service use. 685 686 Councilmember Carlson stated that when looking at R-2, 3 and 4 it says these shall apply only in 687 these situations. She asked if this was similar for commercial districts. Community Development 688 Director Grochala indicated it was not. With R-2, 3 and 4 the City is saying they will give flexibility 089 with the types of development. The City will look at what they are trying to accomplish, and make 690 sure impacts are evaluated too. 691 692 Mayor Bergeson asked Community Development Director Grochala to highlight and summarize the 693 changes they have agreed upon. 694 695 Community Development Director Grochala indicated Staff is seeking approval of the zoning 696 ordinance with minor changes 1-10 as outlined in the memo dated March 10, 2003, also including the 697 Environmental Board comment changes 1 and 2, with the revision on page 3-73 of item 3.5.K.1. and 698 2. as it relates to vehicle parking on 2 Y2 to 10 acre parcels, with no more than two vehicles 11,075 699 pounds or greater, with the three conditions discussed, and no changes as relating to tree service uses, 700 and the addition from page 2-5 of items f. and h. to 2-6. 701 702 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 08-03, 703 Amended Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. 704 705 Councilmember Carlson noted this has been a long process, and she thanks Staff, the Task Force 706 headed by Councilmember O'Donnell, and the others who have worked on this. She indicated the 707 importance of the ordinance and stated that as the mayor earlier supported something he was not in 708 favor of, she would support this because of the amount of work put into it. She stated that they may 709 run into problems in the future, but this has been a give and take process and they have reached a •710conclusion. 11 16 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT .12 Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Councilmember Carlson 713 voted yea. Mayor Bergeson voted yea. 714 715 Motion carried unanimously. 716 717 Ordinance No. 08-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 718 719 Mayor Bergeson called a short recess at 10:12 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:14 p.m. 720 721 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-32, Approving a summary of the Zoning Ordinance for 722 publication, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala presented the Staff 723 report, noting the recommendation to approve Resolution 03-32. 724 725 Councilmember Dahl moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-32, approving a summary of the Zoning 726 Ordinance for publication as presented by staff. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 727 728 Motion carried unanimously. 729 730 Resolution No. 03-32 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 731 732 Consideration of Motion to Authorize Acquisition of NPDES Permit and Reporting Software .33 (ASIST), Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala presented the Staff 734 report, noting the recommendation to approve the motion. 735 736 Councilmember Dahl moved to authorize acquisition of NPDES Permit and Reporting Software. 737 Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. 738 739 Motion carried unanimously. 740 741 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-39, Approving Change Order No. 1, Clearwater Creek 742 Booster Station, James Studenski — City Engineer Studenski presented his report, noting Staff's 743 recommendation to approve. 744 745 Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-39 approving Change Order No. 1, 746 Clearwater Creek Booster Station. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 747 748 Motion carried unanimously. 749 750 Resolution No. 03-39 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 751 752 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 753 1754 A. Approval of the January 8, 2003 Council Work Session Minutes - REMOVED X755 B. Approval of the January 13, 2003 City Council Minutes 756 C. Approval of the January 22, 2003 Council Work Session Minutes 17 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT •57 D. Approval of the February 5, 2003 Council Work Session Minutes 758 759 Councilmember Carlson noted that in the January 13 minutes, on page three, the middle of the 760 paragraph, the sentence that now reads 'She reviewed the cost of several City projects including "The 761 Village" which is $14 million' should say 'She reviewed the cost of several City projects including 762 "The Village" which was proposed at $14 million'. 763 764 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the minutes shown as items B, C and D above. 765 Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 766 767 Motion carried unanimously. 768 769 NEW BUSINESS 770 771 A. Approval of the February 19, 2003 Council Work Session Minutes 772 B. Approval of the February 24, 2003 City Council Minutes - REMOVED 773 774 Councilmember Carlson noted that on the February 19, 2003 minutes, on page 4, the first paragraph 775 after the bulleted points should read `Councilmember Carlson asked for clarification regarding why 776 applicants not being able to resubmit applications for one year after being denied was removed'. 777 078 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2003 Council Work 779 Session. Mayor Bergeson seconded the motion. 780 781 Motion carried 3-0. Councilmember Dahl abstained. 782 783 COMMUNITY CALENDAR March 11, 2003 THROUGH March 24, 2003: 784 785 A) Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 6:30 p.m., Planning & Zoning Board Meeting 786 B) Wednesday, March 19, 2003, 5:30 p.m., Council Work Session 787 C) Monday, March 24, 2003, 6:00 p.m., City Council Special Hearing 788 D) Monday, March 24, 2003, 6:30 p.m., City Council Meeting 789 ADJOURN 790 791 There being no further business, Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. 792 Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. 793 794 Motion carried unanimously. W7795 96 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, March 24, 2003. 797 18 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 DRAFT 098 799 800 801 Ann Blair, City Cler 802 803 Transcribed by: 804 Karen Whaley 805 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 806 • • 19 John erges• , Mayor