Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/1995 Council PacketAGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday March 27, 1995 6:30 P.M. - Call to Order and Roll Call SCANNED - PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO THE CIRCLE -LEX VFW, POST #6583 AND LADIES AUBILARY FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY TO SUPPORT PARKS AND RECREATION AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Mayor Reinert - Setting the Agenda: Are There Any Items to be Added or Deleted from the Agenda? CONSENT AGENDA Consideration of Minutes: Council Work Session, February 8, 1995 Joint Council Meeting with the City of Hugo, February 1, 1995 REGULAR AGENDA Open Mike A. 20/20 Vision Update, Kim Sullivan Consideration of Disbursements: A. March 27, 1995 B. Centennial Fire District City Clerk -Treasurer's Report, Marilyn Anderson A. Consideration of a Petition Titled "Conflict of AGENDA Interest" B. Consideration of a Petition Titled "City Cap on Building New Homes" C. Consideration of a Petition Titled "Improved Criteria on Notification" 4. PUBLIC HEARING, Vacation of Easement, Rohavic Oaks, Second Addition, Mary Kay Wyland 5. Planning and Zoning Report, Mary Kay Wyland A. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Advertising Sign for Contractor Property Developers, Inc. B. FIRST READING Ordinance No. 04 - 95 Amending the Shoreland Management Ordinance C. FIRST READING Ordinance No. 03 - 95 Amending the Sign Ordinance D. Final Plat, Woods of Baldwin Lake, Second Addition 6. City Engineer's Report, John Powell A. Consideration of Resolution No. 95 - 30 Ordering the Improvement of Woods of Baldwin Lake, Second Addition B. Consideration of Resolution No. 95 - 31 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Woods of Baldwin Lake, Second Addition C. Consideration of Resolution No. 95 - 36 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Country Lakes Estates, Phase 2 D. Consideration of Resolution No. 95 - 37 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Hodgson Road Trunk Watermain 7. City Attorney's Report, Bill Hawkins A. Consideration of Accepting Easement from Vivian Hanson, Hodgson Road Watermain Improvement 8. 6:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING, Redesignating the Unused Portion PAGE 2 AGENDA of the 1994/1995 Community Development Block Grant Funds, Resolution No. 95 - 34 Randy Schumacher 9. Consideration of Resolution No. 95 - 27 Authorizing Amendment to the 1994 General Fund Budget, Randy Schumacher 10. Old Business A. Consideration of Letter From Fairview Hospital, Oral Report, Randy Schumacher B. Consideration of City Clerk -Treasurer Compensation Adjustment for 1993 LLMA 11. New Business A. Consideration of a Gambling License Request from the Dead Broke Saddle Club, Marilyn Anderson B. Consideration of Resolution No. 95 - 35 Correcting 1995 Special Assessments, Marilyn Anderson 12. Adjourn PAGE 3 REcFNED p.^ �- �01995 �~ /-p� v1 �� �V{_} �7 �� �l' w�� MINUTES OF T ���ES JOINT COUNCIL MEE1INu UF_FLBKU Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Hugo and Lino Lakes City Councils held a joint meeting at the White Bear Country Inn, White Bear, Minnesota- Lino Lakes Mayor Reinert called the meeting to order at 8:13PM' PRESENT: Lino Lakes - Mayor Reinert; Council members Kuether, Elliot, Bergeson, Neal; Administrator Schumacher; Engineer Powell; residents Cyril LaCasse, Tom LaCasse, Jay Cain. Hugo - Mayor Miran; council members Barnes, Goiffon, Leroux, LaValle; Administrator Museus; Engineer Dresel' Orr, Schelen, Mayeron and Associates (OSM) representative Willenbring. CLEARWATER CREEK DRAINAGE OSM Engineer Willenbring made a presentation following a letter dated February 1, 1995 titled "Preliminary Findings and Recommendations Associated with Hydrologic Study for Clearwater Creek Watershed OSM Project No 5465.06". A copy of this letter is attached to and made a part of• these minutes. It was noted that wetlands make up approximately 20% (1,500 acres) of the subject area. Three options reviewed were as follows: 1' Restriction of flow from Bald Eagle Lake. Minimum benefits would be obtained from this option. 2. Effective use of wetlands as storage areas' It must be determined whether the current wetland areas remain full or if they empty between storms. It is important that the wetlands are drawn down after storms to ensure future capacity. 3. Utilize storage areas within Clearwater Creek itself' It may be beneficial to increase the "low flow" within the creek system. The most restrictive creek area is under Interstate 35E. It would be a goal that the flow underneath Interstate 35E be less than 500 cubic feet per second to prevent overtopping of 35E. Options and recommendations of OSM Engineers with regard to financing wee: 1. As development takes place, require the developer to construct on site ponding utilizing existing wetlands or constructing holding areas, limiting discharge rates. 2. Require monetary contributions from developers that would be dedicated to a fund to increase storage capacity. This could include improvements such as on site drainage, regional facilities, and/or within the drainageway. It appeared to be the recommendation of OSM Engineers that the cities consider incorporating both options. HiRWLiDo L.Ahtrt Minutes - February 1, 1995 Page 2 OSM Engineer Willenbring responded to several questions and answers from Council and audience members as follows: - It may be possible to construct an additional culvert to handle low -flow conditions, creating additional capacity underneath 35E (5 to 15 years into the future). - The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has been briefly updated, but it would be appropriate to obtain direction from the City Councils prior to "selling" the project to the RCWD. - The RCWD probably would not support an increase in capacity or peak rate across 35E, but may be more receptive to downstream improvements. - It would be important to assure wetland draw down, versus draining of the wetlands. Of concern is the Wetland Conservation Act. - Increasing the amount of water in wetlands during storms and controlling runoff is the most cost effective way to deal with drainage concerns with the subject area. - The most effective utilization of water storage is within the existing wetlands. - It would be a goal to drain water out of wetlands between storm events to ensure storage. - The proposed Lino Lakes development south of Cedar Street and west of Elm Street will not significantly affect this proposed drainage concept. - Funding will be the most difficult issue. - It would be appropriate to meet with representatives from the City of Centerville if the Councils from Hugo and Lino Lakes would like to promote this drainage concept. - The issues that the RCWD will be considering are ditch laws, wetland issues, development of a regional ponding area and controlled runoff. Hugo Administrator Museus summarized the proposed process to include three issues: 1. Low flow under Interstate 35E 2. Rechannelizing Clearwater Creek 3. Regulating development to improve wetland storage. OSM Engineer Willenbring advised that if the Hugo and Lino Lake City Councils are comfortable with the project, the planning process could completed through the following steps: be 1. Identify the project as high priority. 2. Present to project to the RCWD. 3. Discuss the project with the City of Centerville. 4. Prepare a preliminary draft plan for the Cities of Hugo and Lino Lakes to review. 5. Draft a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). Hugo Administrator Museus noted that Clearwater Creek has not been cleaned since 1958. He suggested that the RCWD help pay for the cost of creek improvements. OSM Engineer Willenbring suggested that possibly the RCWD could abandon the Creek as a judicial ditch and redesignate it as a municipal ditch. He did express concern that other contiguous cities may want to continue the Creek as judicial. Hugo/Lino Lakes Meeting - February 1 Page 3 Lino Lakes Administrator Schumacher suggested that before a JPA is drafted, it may be beneficial for each City to independently discuss financing issues and funding resources. OTH Hugo Engineer Dresel outlined transportation plan issues which may be in conflict with those of the City of Lino Lakes. The area in question is south of Frenchman Rd., east of Elmcrest Ave., north of 130th Street and west of High 61. The Hugo transportation plan calls for east/west extensions within the above area. Lino Lakes Engineer Powell, advised that the City of Lino Lakes is trying to discourage through traffic from west of Elmcrest Ave' (area of a proposed housing development) and the City of Hugo is trying to utili7e the area as a thoroughfare. Hugo Administrator Museus noted that all traffic in this area is through residential streets Hugo is trying to create east/west routes to decrease vehicular traffic through residential neighborhoods' Lino Lakes Engineer Powell expressed concern that the Hugo Transportation plan will increase traffic through Lino Lakes residential developments (i.e. proposed Elmcrest subdivision). It was noted that through the Hugo municipal water system, there are opportunities for the City of Lino Lakes to share water to service the proposed Elmcrest subdivision in Lino Lakes. The City of Lino Lakes will prepare feasibility study for an elevated water tower in the Interstate 34E area. The study would address fire flow needs of future commercial, industrial, and residential development' It may be possible for the City of Hugo to interconnect with this system in the future. Lino Lakes Mayor Reinert advised that he and Lino Lakes Council member Bergeson had met with the Centerville Mayor and a Centerville Council member to discuss the Interstate 35E intersection. Mayor Reinert suggested that it may be beneficial for the Cities of Centerville, Hugo and Lino Lakes to consider development of this area as a joint effort, erasing boundary lines. He appeared to feel that it would be important to work together to create compatible zoning districts. He noted that it does not make a difference who obtains the first development, all will benefit. Mayor Reinert further noted that developers may be very anxious to work with a cooperative Cities group' He felt the three cities together could create an interchange that we could all be proud of. Meeting disassembled at 9:43PM' Respectfully submitted, Tamara M. Miltz-Miller City of Hugo COUNCIL WORK SESSION CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNCIL MINUTES - WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 8, 1995 Staff Members Present: City Administrator, Randy Schumacher; Assistant to the Administrator, Dan Tesch; 20/20 Vision Coordinator, Kim Sullivan; Acting City Engineer, John Powell; Community Development Director, Brian Wessel; Planning Coordinator, Mary Kay Wyland, Public Works Street Superintendent, Tom DeWolfe. REGULAR AGENDA, 13 FEBRUARY 1995 Mr. Schumacher reviewed the Council agenda for February 13. There were some questions concerning the feasibility report for Trappers Crossing. Mr. Powell explained that 18% of the Holly Drive feasibility relates to Trappers Crossing or 1.8 miles. The City may have some responsibility for the balance of the project therefore a cost sharing proposal is under consideration. Mr. Powell also explained that this will be a State Aid project and the cost could be $1 1/2 Million. The Council also discussed Annual Appointments and the Council Liaison positions. Mayor Reinert stated that he felt they were important. Council Member Kuether and Elliot questioned their purpose as they do not feel comfortable answering for the entire Council when questions arise. This will be discussed further at a future work session. SNOW REMOVAL AND ICE POLICY - TOM DEWOLFE Tom DeWolfe explained the current snow removal and ice policy. The City can not, for liability reasons, plow or sand private property. Tom supplies a list of snow plowers and advises residents they can come to City Hall and pick up a bucket of sand. He also advises them that it does contain 10% salt. There was some discussion about having two or three locations were sand could be picked up by residents. Those suggestions included Sunrise Park, Birch Park, City Hall, and the Park & Rec Building. A final determination will be made prior to next winter. 1 COUNCIL WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 8, 1995 The City Attorney has reviewed the existing policy and indicated that it looked ok to him. The League of Cities has agreed. This matter will be referred to the next City Council meeting. CANCELLATION OF CAPITAL FACILITIES MEETING (18 FEBRUARY 1995) Canceled until completion of land swap meeting with Met Council. INVITATION TO COUNTY ROAD J MEETING - 9 FEBRUARY 1995 John Powell will attend this meeting as the Lino Lakes representative. He will report back to Council. CHARTER COMMISSION APPOINTMENT New member Paul Montain. QUAS PRESS - NEW REPORTER Christy Belcomieno was introduced to the Council. CABLE COMMISSION UPDATE Dan Tesch provided the Council with a brief update on the Cable Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P.M. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at a regular meeting of the City Coucil on March Mary Kay Wyland Vernon F. Reinert, Planning Coordinator/Recorder Mayor 2 DISBURSEMENT LIST MARCH 27, 1995 Page: 1 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Claims Roster sorted by Department, Grouped by Invoice Vendor Company (Entry Description) Amount 1994 CONSTRUCTION FUND 1994 CONSTRUCTION FUND APPRAISAL ENGINEERING BUREAU,(PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) 500.00 Total for Department 500.00 Total for Fund 500.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS POLICE DEPARTMENT SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,(COPIER) 393.00 Total for Department 393.00 Total for Fund 393.00 CONTRACTORS DEPOSITS Default Department * A T & T(SERVICE) 3.35 BRAUN INTERTEC(PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) 408.37 Total for Department 411.72 Total for Fund 411.72 DEDICATED PARKS OTHER LACASSE, JON J.(BASE MAP OF BRANDYWOOD PARK) 62.50 Total for Department 62.50 Total for Fund 62.50 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 7.57 ANOKA COUNTY(MAPS) 14.91 D.C.A. INC.(FLEX HEALTH) 155.80 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 1,391.00 OFFICEMAX(SUPPLIES) 113.84 SCHLOER, PAULA(MILEAGE) 33.75 * US WEST COMMUNICATIONS(MONTHLY SERVICE) 1.38 Total for Department 1,718.25 Page: 2 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Claims Roster sorted by Department, Grouped by Invoice Vendor Company (Entry Description) Amount BUILDING INSPECTIONS * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF(DUES) * ROYAL OAKS CAR WASH, INC.(CAR WASHES) 0.80 390.00 85.00 7.40 Total for Department 483.20 Default Department AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSUR(WITHHOLDING) * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) ECONOMIC DEVELOPEMENT 261.88 112.00 1,293.00 Total for Department 1,666.88 * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) ANOKA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMER(SEMINAR) * EXPRESS MESSENGER, INC.(SERVICE) FINANCE 5.33 12.00 39.30 Total for Department 56.63 * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 0.44 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 484.50 NORWEST CENTER(FORUM) 15.00 * US WEST COMMUNICATIONS(MONTHLY SERVICE) 1.44 Total for Department 501.38 FIRE DEPARTMENT * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 437.00 FLEET MANAGEMENT EGAN OIL COMPANY(FUEL) TRACY FUELS(FUEL) ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS, INC.(PARTS) ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA, INC.(SERVICE) Total for Department 437.00 1,463.07 894.19 570.31 34.08 Total for Department 2,961.65 Page: 3 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Claims Roster sorted by Department, Grouped by Invoice Vendor Company (Entry Description) Amount FORESTRY DEPARTMENT AMERICAN FORESTS(MEMBERSHIP) 30.00 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 280.00 MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ABORICULT(DUES (2)) 30.00 Total for Department 340.00 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 0.41 A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 82.69 HARMON GLASS & GLAZING(PARTS) 88.00 INTERIOR COMM SYSTEM, INC.(TRIP/LABOR) 81.45 JULEE QUARVE-PETERSON, INC.(ASSESSIBILITY EVALUATION) 341.17 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRST(INSURANCE) 129.25 * NORTHERN STATES POWER, INC.(MONTHLY SERVICE) 178.69 PLUNKETT'S, INC.(MONTHLY SERVICE) 27.16 * US WEST COMMUNICATIONS(MONTHLY SERVICE) 1,208.88 MAYOR AND COUNCIL COUNTRY INN - WHITE BEAR LAKE(MEALS) NEAL, ANDY(MILEAGE) PARKS DEPARTMENT Total for Department 2,137.70 211.46 15.30 Total for Department 226.76 A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 0.39 * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 0.45 BESSWENGER'S HARDWARE(SUPPLIES) 19.56 * CELLULAR ONE(MONTHLY SERVICE) 25.37 CIRCLE PINES, CITY OF(MONTHLY SERVICE) 180.10 * EXPRESS MESSENGER, INC.(SERVICE) 12.60 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 995.00 * NORTHERN STATES POWER, INC.(MONTHLY SERVICE) 442.24 * ROYAL OAKS CAR WASH, INC.(CAR WASHES) 7.72 * SIGNS BY NORTHLAND(SIGNS) 23.96 * US WEST COMMUNICATIONS(MONTHLY SERVICE) 99.21 * VIKING SAFETY PRODUCTS(TOOLS) 21.52 Total for Department 1,828.12 PLANNING DEPARTMENT * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 4.19 * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE - 20/20 VISI) 33.91 * CELLULAR ONE(MONTHLY SERVICE) 12.25 CHYLE, JULIE(FACILITATION - 20/20 VISION) 126.00 GRUBER, MARY(FACILITATOR - 20/20 VISION) 84.00 Page: 4 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Claims Roster sorted by Department, Grouped by Invoice Vendor Company (Entry Description) Amount * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 437.00 LORENZ BUS SERVICE, INC.(BUS - 20/20 VISION) 120.00 PERPETUAL MOTION UNLIMITED(AUDIO TAPE - 20/20 VISION) 9.00 * SIGNS BY NORTHLAND(SIGNS) 23.97 * US WEST COMMUNICATIONS(MONTHLY SERVICE) 0.69 Total for Department 851.01 POLICE DEPARTMENT A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 7.07 AAA MINNESOTA(SUPPLIES) 294.70 CIRCLE PINES POST OFFICE(STAMPS (2ROLLS)) 64.00 D C. HEY COMPANY(MONTHLY SERVICE) 93.01 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 2,251.00 MCPA(REGISTRATION) 40.00 MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT(REGISTRATION) 400.00 MINNESOTA COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASS(BOOKS) 263.70 * NORTHERN STATES POWER, INC.(MONTHLY SERVICE) 3.14 PETTY CASH(PETTY CASH) 65.32 PETTY CASH(PETTY CASH) 25.00 PETTY CASH(PETTY CASH) 5.06 * ROYAL OAKS CAR WASH, INC.(CAR WASHES) 69.48 STREICHER'S, INC.(SUPPLIES) 545.49 SUBURBAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOC(MEMBERSHIP) 15.00 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS(MONTHLY SERVICE) 295.08 Total for Department 4,437.05 RECREATION DEPARTMENT * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 1.91 * CELLULAR ONE(MONTHLY SERVICE) 26.19 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 390.00 MRPA(BOOK) 10.00 Total for Department 428.10 SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS(MONTHLY MAINTENANCE) 148.13 Total for Department 148.13 STREETS * A T & T(MONTHLY SERVICE) 3.57 * CELLULAR ONE(MONTHLY SERVICE) 25.37 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 862.00 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS(STREET SIGNS) 562.42 * VIKING SAFETY PRODUCTS(TOOLS) 21.51 Total for Department 1,474.87 Total for Fund 19,696.73 Page: 5 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Claims Roster sorted by Department, Grouped by Invoice Vendor Company (Entry Description) Amount IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1988 DEBT SERVICE NORWEST BANK(AGENT FEE) 190.00 Total for Department 190.00 Total for Fund 190.00 PROGRAM RECREATION RECREATION DEPARTMENT BROADWAY AWARDS(TROPHIES) 62.84 Total for Department 62.84 Total for Fund 62.84 SEWER OPERATING SEWER DEPARTMENT * CURTIS 1000 INC.(SUPPLIES) 234.85 * GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL, INC.(MONTHLY SERVICE) 5.25 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 240.75 * HILLESHEIM, TIM(MONTHLY CELLULAR PHONE) 5.06 * NORTHERN STATES POWER, INC.(MONTHLY SERVICE) 297.51 * ZIEGLER(INSPECTION) 247.50 Total for Department 1,030.92 Total for Fund 1,030.92 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT OTHER BAROTT DRILLING SERVICES, INC.(WELL ABANDONMENT) 566.50 Total for Department 566.50 Total for Fund 566.50 Page: 6 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Claims Roster sorted by Department, Grouped by Invoice Vendor Company (Entry Description) Amount WATER DEPARTMENT * CURTIS 1000 INC.(SUPPLIES) 234.85 FEED RITE CONTROLS, INC.(CHEMICALS) 2,416.50 * GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL, INC.(MONTHLY SERVICE) 5.25 * HEALTH PARTNERS(INSURANCE) 328.75 * HILLESHEIM, TIM(MONTHLY CELLULAR PHONE) 5.06 MN. DEPT OF HEALTH(WATER EXAMINATION APP) 15.00 * NORTHERN STATES POWER, INC.(MONTHLY SERVICE) 432.00 * US WEST COMMUNICATIONS(MONTHLY SERVICE) 35.83 * ZIEGLER(INSPECTION) 247.50 Total for Department 3,720.74 Total for Fund 3,720.74 ** Total ** $26,634.95 * - Invoice split to different Departments Page: 1 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Summary Claims Roster Vendor - Company Name Amount 000007 - AAA MINNESOTA 000050 - A T & T 000052 - A T & T 000200 - AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSUR 000220 - AMERICAN FORESTS 000350 - ANOKA COUNTY 000422 - ANOKA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 000469 - APPRAISAL ENGINEERING BUREAU, INC. 000580 - BAROTT DRILLING SERVICES, INC. 000648 - BESSWENGER'S HARDWARE 000820 - BRAUN INTERTEC 000860 - BROADWAY AWARDS 001030 - CELLULAR ONE 001100 - CIRCLE PINES POST OFFICE 001110 - CIRCLE PINES, CITY OF 001122 — CHYLE, JULIE 001211 - COUNTRY INN - WHITE BEAR LAKE 001240 - CURTIS 1000 INC. 001260 - D.C.A. INC. 001261 - D C. HEY COMPANY 001407 - EGAN OIL COMPANY 001450 - EXPRESS MESSENGER, INC. 001480 - FEED RITE CONTROLS, INC. 001680 - GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL, INC. 001751 - GRUBER, MARY 001813 - HARMON GLASS & GLAZING 294.70 82.69 69.39 261.88 30.00 14.91 12.00 500.00 566.50 19.56 408.37 62.84 89.18 64.00 180.10 126.00 211.46 469.70 155.80 93.01 1,463.07 51.90 2,416.50 10.50 84.00 88.00 Page: 2 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Summary Claims Roster Vendor - Company Name Amount 001825 - HEALTH PARTNERS 9,892.00 001840 - HILLESHEIM, TIM 10.12 001940 - INTERIOR COMM SYSTEM, INC. 81.45 001962 - INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF 85.00 001980 - INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS 148.13 002101 - JULEE QUARVE-PETERSON, INC. 341.17 002225 - LACASSE, JON J. 62.50 002320 - LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRST 129.25 002375 - LORENZ BUS SERVICE, INC. 120.00 002509 - MCPA 40.00 002696 - MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT 400.00 002760 - MN. DEPT OF HEALTH 15.00 002822 - MINNESOTA COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC 263.70 002963 - MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ABORICULTURE 30.00 003050 - MRPA 10.00 003150 - NEAL, ANDY 15.30 003180 - NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 562.42 003250 - NORTHERN STATES POWER, INC. 1,353.58 003340 - NORWEST BANK 190.00 003341 - NORWEST CENTER 15.00 003390 - OFFICEMAX 113.84 003484 - PERPETUAL MOTION UNLIMITED 9.00 003492 - PETTY CASH 95.38 003540 - PLUNKETT'S, INC. 27.16 003850 - ROYAL OAKS CAR WASH, INC. 84.60 003930 - SCHLOER, PAULA 33.75 Page: 3 Date: 03/24/95 City of Lino Lakes Summary Claims Roster Vendor - Company Name Amount 003978 - SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, INC 004010 - SIGNS BY NORTHLAND 004240 - STREICHER'S, INC. 004256 - SUBURBAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIO 004470 - TRACY FUELS 004670 - US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 004730 - VIKING SAFETY PRODUCTS 004890 - ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS, INC. 004896 - ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA, INC. 004920 - ZIEGLER 393.00 47.93 545.49 15.00 894.19 1,642.51 43.03 570.31 34.08 495.00 ** Total ** $26,634.95 DATE: March 22, 1995 TO: City Council City of Circle Pines City Council City of Centerville City Council City of Lino Lakes FROM: Milo Bennett SUBJECT: Ratification of expenditures and approval for payment of March expenses. Your approval of March expenses and payroll listed on the attached copy of the check register, checks #7420 - 7455 and #10932 - 10937 in the amount of $ 7,037.03 is hereby requested. MB/hc cc: 7 Circle Pines City Council 7 Centerville City Council 7 Lino Lakes City Council 2 File FINDERS - Line up top of check with these numbers, entry will appear on corresponding line. DESCRIPTION DATE CHECK ISSUED TO 1 CHECK NUMBER G%A7e /,tee 3,42/ , ,EP/L K 6eaoGo- 3/ go/y AweA - /44/A/ J H /////z U . / /ve-r 44L'/4 i,teue6e V" ` Mem Lk/v/v/;0/Ai �D�(iI/1�1 LOLL _7 2) 7;e4veL 7ya / - ,AVet /;k_ 741-9 74/a.3 7,64tee_ 7/iay' 71AteL /c:1-/ez21.- a fr /NG• Zi/117 �G C/OAs7 /lit/NNPL�Aro Ez rg/G Zk '7 T.O. S. V//K/NC-� Al- F(et- &,'y _Ate9 /A/G. /4/1e /CAN FAsT�n,�iP /G1 /NN 6MM /G1/NN (o4M L//7/r/N/Ni / //trT/iv4, Ns,7 GUGO CSA/,V �s A)�- ACCOUNTANT CLIENT g77 --W /11A/A/7 , 9 km/A/7-- 1 �CriL/T/es 7ez&AL/Dn/e_ .F01 %,z9 ion/ LT/L / 7/es 71/, TeLeP//,0A_ 7zW 7G/vr 7y lea// Fug f 74/3 /PA/itr � o ,4 a?A T/n/G V 7'/z4 /tot %LSP/ o�1e- 74/4 /1/ce . cGcP/ ''.s 7z/L/ G(T/L/T%es /9) Te'LeP1/o/,/_ PAGE TOTALS /A CHECK AMOUNT T' w /GD a7 gi-p /5/z-1 /8/, g /7 oz/ 2S ,/3,k8/ DATE SUBMITTED PREVIOUS PAGE 4 TO DATE 10. A MO. DAY YR. pSafeguard 7,- BUSINESS YTESTEMS. T LANSDALE PA.. LOS ANGELES. CHICAGO -ATLANTA FORM NO. AJPD-35-EDP-1 NUMBERS ACCOUNT TOTALS 41 TO FINDERS - Line up top of check with these numbers. entry will appear on corresponding line. DESCRIPTION DATE 3tgft Affr CHECK ISSUED TO CHECK NUMBER A CHECK AMOUNT T! V1, Q� yc��iS�,Pvice C'o. I/, ,,1,477,ALt2A/� E A. Ai. //v/ • 78* 7</k/l4 /N" ,e1VA7 L L "7- /eAL 4 Oil e-67 � I /.a/� .� ay Ner P/,Q 2NiGGe j A /A/7T a /c67 Szeglaz_ goif SgcA,e/e� 11./7/?A -7 i/7 ACCOUNTANT CLIENT )ATE ;UBMITTED PAGE 4 TOTALS ► PREVIOUS PAGE 4 TO DATE ► MO. DAY YR. Safeguardr "wa & seESS YSTEMS MIG IANSOALE, PAS-L0S ANOEIES.CNICA00 ATLANTA FORM NO. AJPD-35-EDP-1 TOTALS TO DATE ACCOUNT NUMBERS AGENDA ITEM 3A STAFF ORIGINATOR Marilyn Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer DATE March 21, 1995 TOPIC Consideration of Petition Titled "Conflict of Interest" CNN Attached you will find the first page of as petition delivered, to my office on February 22, 1995 at 5:00 P.M. The City Charter requires that, "the City Clerk -Treasurer examine the petition as to its sufficiency and report to the Council within 10 days". The petition should have been presented to the City Council by March 6, 1995. I contacted the Secretary of State's office immediately upon receipt of the petition and requested an updated registered voters list. The list was received pn March 9, 1995. Nearly three (3) full days of my time was need to examine this petition and two (2) other petitions received at the same time. The City Charter, Section 5.05, Initiative, states that any ordinance may be proposed by a petition to the City Council. The City Council may pass the ordinance as petitioned thereby not requiring the ordinance to be submitted to the voters. If the City Council fails to enact the ordinance as petitioned within 60 days after the final determination of sufficiency of the petition, the ordinance as petitioned shall be placed on a ballot as determined in Section 5.03. Section 5.03 states, "The sponsoring committee shall file the completed petition in the office of the Clerk Treasurer. For determining the required number of signatures, the term "base" shall be defined as the number of registered voters at the time of the last regular municipal election. At least five percent (5%) of the base shall be required to make an initiative or referendum petition sufficient and allow such petition to be placed on the next scheduled election ballot as determined by Section 5.05 or 5.07. At least ten percent (10%) of the base shall be required to allow an initiative or referendum petition to cause, as determined by Section 5.05 or 5.07, a special election to be scheduled within 120 days of said petition's filing so that said petition can be placed before the voters". There were 5, 824 registered voters for the 1993 Municipal Election. CONFLICT OF INTEREST PETITION Page -2- (See attached Summary of Municipal Election.) Therefore, a petition with at least 292 signatures is required to make an initiative or referendum petition sufficient and allow such petition to be placed on the next scheduled election ballot. At least 582 signatures are required to allow an initiative or referendum petition to be placed on a ballot at a special election. The petition titled, "Conflict of Interest" has 201 qualifying signatures. This is not sufficient to require that the matter be placed on a ballot. OPTIONS 1. Adopt Resolution No. 95 - 38 Determining that the Petition Entitled, "Conflict of Interest" is Insufficient and directing the Clerk -Treasurer to deliver a copy of the petition, together with a written statement of its defects to the sponsoring committee. RECOMMENDATION Option No. 1 C !l1 CO *^:*•**T1 )72 CT OF INTEREST 2-3 /9 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTERS (MAY BE REGISTERED AT THE TIME OF VOTING) OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, REQUEST THAT AN ORDINANCE BE PLACED ON A CITY BALLOT. IF THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT IS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY VOTE, IT .xrILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 31 DAYS AFTER VOTING IS COMPLETED. THIS ORDINANCE CANNOT BE REPEALED EXCEPT BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF LINO LAKES. IT STATES THAT: No MEMBER OF THE LINO LAKES CITY COUNCIL, OR ANY ADVISORY BODY, SHALL BE INVOLVED IN ANY BUSINESS FROM VHICH THEY WOULD RECEIVE MONETARY GAIN AS A RESULT OF ANY ACTIONS OR APPROVALS MADE BY SUCH ELECTED OR APPOINTED BODIES. IF SUCH A "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" SHOULD ARISE, SUCH MEMBER SHALL ABSTAIN FROM ANY DISCUSSIONS AND VOTING ON ANY SUCH ACTION - - SUCH AS REMOVING SELF FROM CHAMBERS ANI) NOT BRINGING OWN CASE TO BOARDS OR COUNCILS. THIS INCLI nES. BTJT IS NOT TD TO, SUCH MEMBERS BEING ; IN` OLV.:ED IN BUSINESS DEALINGS IN OTHER U iS ICT1NS ',VITT I nrRSC\S SELve G OR APPROVAL FROM THE CIT ;F LINO LAKES. WE, THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS. ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIRCULATION OF THIS PETITION. 61ALcs (th epettcZ ,., /3. /T. /6. e //,)/ yva 9. 10. 1?. 13. G/ c` -CC..w SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL ELECTION CITY OF LINO LAKES November 2, 1993 PREC. #1 PREC. #2 PREC. #3 TOTAL *************************************************************************** - Number of Registered Voters: 1284 2037 2406 5727 - Number of Voters Registering on Election Day: 15 24 58 97 TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS: 1299 2061 2464 5824 *************************************************************************** CANDIDATE TOTALS: Mayor: Vern Reinert Harold L. Bisel WRITE IN VOTES: 226 226 286 738 244 140 319 703 No Name, Anyone Else 5 1 6 Blake LaCroix 1 1 Harvey Karth 1 1 Joel Tagg 1 1 Ina Liljedahl 1 1 D. J. Moser 1 1 Corky Laska 1 1 Bill Bohanen 1 1 Robert Hale 1 1 Robert Elsenpeter 2 2 Benito Musslini 1 1 Robert Minter 1 1 Ben Benson 2 2 Daniel B. Stennes-Rogness 1 1 Joanne Kendrick 1 1 Kerry Ostengren 1 1 TOTAL WRITE-IN 11 6 6 23 Blank Ballots 3 1 5 9 TOTAL FOR MAYOR 484 373 616 1473 *************************************************************************** Council Person: Sally Kuether 305 209 391 905 John Bergeson 331 242 412 985 PAGE -2- WRITE IN VOTES: PREC.#1 PREC.#2 PREC.#3 TOTAL No Name, none, none of the above 6 3 2 11 Ina Liljedahl 13 16 8 37 Scott Rasmusson 8 32 15 55 Schones (Ed) 3 13 12 28 Kulazewicz (Dick) 3 4 5 12 Ed Rasmusson 1 1 Diane Moss 1 1 Pat Smith 2 2 Jerry Hansen 2 2 Me 1 1 Rod W. Kukonen 1 1 Robert Knabe (Bob) 2 3 3 8 Joe Davis 1 1 Jerry Hanson 2 2 Harvey Karth 2 2 Scott Feather Stone 1 1 Scott Bean 1 1 Andy Neal 1 1 1 3 Bill Bohjanen 2 3 5 Dan Kiezeh 1 1 Chris Ross 1 1 William Stenach 1 1 Craig Severson 1 1 Jon Falkar 1 1 Judith Standish 1 1 Dave Pecchia 1 1 Bob Williams 1 1 John Anderson 1 1 Al Ross 1 1 Lyle Bye 1 1 Gail M. Judd 1 1 Cynthia Louise Herring 1 1 Ben Benson 2 2 4 Nikita Hill 4 4 Melissa Hill 4 4 Glenn Rehbein 1 1 Mike Winge 1 1 Jean Robinson 1 1 J. Livingston 1 1 Candi Sanders 2 2 Roger Nelson 1 1 John Baumann 1 1 Jim Gage 1 1 Jeannie Goldade 1 1 Harold Bisel 1 1 2 William Hale 1 1 Neal Benjamin 1 1 Phyllis Blaylock 1 1 Ted DeSantell 1 1 PAGE -3- PREC.#1 PREC.#2 PREC.#3 TOTAL Donald Duck 1 1 Mickey Mouse 1 1 Ed Vaughn 2 2 Bill Clinton 1 1 Jim Johnson 2 2 George Lindy 1 1 Michael Gray 1 1 Phil Lindberg 1 1 Dick M. 1 1 Deb Wismer 1 1 Micheal Wismer 1 1 Laura Dufeck 1 1 Al Ross 1 1 Don Gorowski 3 3 Bob Kirchoff 1 1 Gary Trittel 1 1 Steve Hiskary 1 1 Charles Prokop 1 1 John Landers 3 3 Joe Cucco 1 1 Doris Herr 1 1 Chris Guldin 1 1 Dennis Cheesebrow 1 1 Scott Wong 3 3 Dennis R. O'Connor 2 2 Rob Gregory 1 1 Kerry Ostergren 1 1 Jim Warnest 1 1 Art Hawkins 2 2 Amy Donlin 2 2 TOTAL WRITE-IN 64 102 88 254 Blank 268 193 341 802 TOTAL FOR COUNCIL PERSONS 968 746 1232 2946 Percentage of Voter Turnout = 25% *************************************************************************** We, the legally constituted Municipal Canvassing Board certify that we have herein specified the names of the persons receiving votes and the number of votes received by them in the Municipality at the Municipal Election held November 2, 1993, as they appear by the returns by said election in the three (3) precincts in Lino Lakes duly returned to, filed, opened and canvassed and now remaining on file in the office of the Municipal Clerk, witness our official signature at Lino Lakes, Anoka County, this 5th day of November, 1993. PAGE -4- Vernon F. Reinert Sally A. Xliether •,._ -, / / %-<_ - Linda - jdnda A. Elliott // ..'2 ',.. 4---L-L- /____ John Be %? r son ---/ Wesley A. ( dy) Neal / AGENDA ITEM 3B STAFF ORIGINATOR Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer DATE March 21, 1995 TOPIC Consideration of Petition Titled "City Cap on Building New Homes" Attached you will find the first page of a petition delivered to my office on February 22, 1995 at 5:00 P.M. This petition was delivered with the previously mentioned petition titled "Conflict of Interest". This petition contains 186 qualifying signatures. As outlined in the previous "green sheet", 292 signatures are required to make an initiative or referendum petition sufficient and allow such petition to be placed on the next scheduled election ballot. At least 582 signatures are required to allow an initiative or referendum petition to be placed on a ballot at a special election. The attached petition is not sufficient to require that the matter be placed on a ballot. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 95 - 39 Determining that the Petition Entitled, "City Cap on Building New Homes" is Insufficient and directing the City Clerk -Treasurer to deliver a copy of the petition, together with a written statement of its defects to the sponsoring committee. Option No. 1 c s- . c a r' 1)1 CTTY CAP ON BUILDING NEW HOMES WE, THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTERS (MAY BE REGISTERED AT THE TIME OF VOTING) OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, REQUEST THAT AN ORDINANCE BE PLACED ON A CITY BALLOT. IF THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT IS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY `,'OTE, IT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 31 DAYS AFTER -VOTING IS COMPLETED. THIS ORDINANCE CANNOT BE REPEALED EXCEPT BY A i\4AJORIT T vOTE OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF LINO LAKES. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 75 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PER YEAR TO BE BUILT IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES. FIFTEEN (15) OF THESE 75 HOMES WILL BE RESERVED FOR RESIDENTS OF THE CITY TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR PROPERTY. THERE IS A LIMIT OF NC) MORE THAN 2 PLATS PER LANDOWNER PER YEAR - - HOWEVER THE REMAINING PROPERTY COULD BE PLATTED INTO LOTS. THE REMAINING BALANCE OF 60 HOMES WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO DEVELOPERS, AS PERMITTED BY CITY BOARDS. IF TIIE 15 RESIDENT PLA FS ARE NOT DISTRIBUTED OR APPLIED FOR BY SEPTEMBER 30TH OF THAT YEAR, THE RESIDENTS (IF ANY) WHO ARE DEVELOPING PLATS, MAY APPLY FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 15 PLATS, BETWEEN THE 1ST MONDAY AND THE 2ND FRIDAY OF OCTOBER. BY FRIDAY OF THE 3RD WEEK OF OCTOBER, THE CITY WILL DIVIDE THE NL Y-It3ER OF REMAINING PLATS BETWEEN RESIDENT APPLICANTS. IN THE CASE OF UNEQUAL DIVISION, THE ODD LOT WILL GO TO THE EARLIEST APPLICANT. IF ANY OF THE 15 PLATS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENT DEVELOPMENT ARE NOT ASSIGNED BY THE 4TH WEEK OF OCTOBER, THOSE REMAINING PLATS MAY BE USED BY DEVELOPERS, AS PERMITTED BY CITY BOARDS. THIS DOES NOT APPLY IN CASES OF EMERGENCIES (FIRE. TORNADO, ETC.). HOMES CAN BE REBUILT AND NOT COUNTED IN THE CAP. WE, THE : - LLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS, ARE SOLELN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIRCULATION OF THIS PE 111 ION. `e ./Z >r* '?7,5 - 7� � i/ 3. -Ad7c d J ti,1/4,(14-ala //U / 4 6q , A0z.bn )/o/ Nthi 6. \11,1A !AVIA"' F 1/ 7. 8. 9 10. 1' itey /'iiv' AGENDA ITEM 3C STAFF ORIGINATOR Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer DATE March 21, 1995 TOPIC Consideration of Petition Titled "Improved Criteria on Notification" Attached you will find the first page of a petition delivered to my office on February 22, 1995 at 5:00 P.M. This petition was delivered with the previously mentioned petitions titled "Conflict of Interest" and "City Cap on Building New Homes". This petition contains 201 qualifying signatures. As outlined in the previous "green sheets", 292 signatures are required to make an initiative or referendum petition sufficient and allow such petition to be placed on the next scheduled election ballot. At least 582 signatures are required to allow an initiative or referendum petition to be placed on a ballot at a special election. The attached petition is not sufficient to require that the matter be placed on a ballot. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 95 - 40 Determining that the Petition` Entitled, "Improved Criteria on Notification" is Insufficient and directing the City Clerk -Treasurer to deliver a copy of the petition, together with a written statement of its defects to the sponsoring committee. Option No. 2 (h G IMPROVED CRITERIA ON NOTIFICATION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTERS (MAY BE REGISTERED AT THE TIME OF VOTING) OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES. REQUEST THAT AN ORDINANCE BE PLACED ON A CITY BALLOT. IF THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT IS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY VOTE. IT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 31 DAYS AFTER VOTING IS COMPLETED. THIS ORDINANCE CANNOT BE REPEALED EXCEPT BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF LINO LAKES. IT STATES THAT : 1. ALL PROPERTY OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS LOCATED WITHIN 600 FEET - - AND IN THE CASE OF, ALL LAKESHORE PROPERTY OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS - - WHO ARE AFFECTED BY ANY CHANGES TO: (A) MUS A (\MIETROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA) BOUNDARIES, ADDITIONS SUBTRACTIONS. (B) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES, (C) ZONING CHANGES OR UPDATES - - SHALL BE NOTIFIED AS STATED IN t 3 AND F4 BELOW. 2. `P ROPER;THE O VNERS LE OCCUPANTS, DESCRIBED BY THE .ABOVE CRITERIA, SHALL BE INVOLVED IN THE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS, BY Hr \� :�•1�_ OF 1 . BLI{.. _A_I?ING `CJ, ON AN t OI' THE ABOVE PROPOSED CHANGES. 3. (A) A CLEAR AND CONCISE MAP. WITH ROAD AND STREET DESCRIPTIONS OF THE AREA TO BE CHANGED, SHALL BE INCLUDED IN ALL MAILINGS, AND IN THE CITY LEGAL NEWSPAPER. THIS NOTICE SHALL BE PLACED TWICE IN THE CITY LEGAL NPwSPaPER AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. 3. (B) A WRI1'1 EN NOTICE SHALL BE SENT TO ALL OWNERS/OCCUPANTS BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. I~AILURE BY PROPERTY OWNERS/OCCUPANTS TO RECEIVE SUCH NOTIFICATION SHALL NOT INVALIDATE THE PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED THIS GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT OF NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE. THE CITY WILL RETAIN PROOF OF ALL ATTEMPTS. 4. AS LONG AS ANY GIVEN ITEM STAYS ACTIVE AT THE SAME BOARD LEVEL, 60 DAYS SHALL BE ALLOWED BEFORE ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION MUST BE MADE AGAIN, BY THE ABOVE MEANS LISTED IN 43. WE, T ' FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS, ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIRCULATION OF THIS PETITION. O. i .4 '/ . �ny� 7peZi4 8. ( / P�ji ( G t <lyiO0 e__&i/c1 STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE TOPIC March 24, 1995 4 PUBLIC HEARING, Vacation of Dra Rohavic Oaks 2nd Addition nage Easement, The vacation of a drainage easement through Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, Rohavic Oaks 2nd Addition is necessary to clear the title for these two properties. The easement was originally recorded as the southwesterly 15 feet of Lot 17, Block 2, Rohavic Oaks which was subsequently replatted as a portion of the Rohavic Oaks 2nd Addition. The original easement was never vacation when the property was replatted. The City has published notice of a Public Hearing to consider the vacation of this easement as required by the City Code. We would, therefore, recommend adoption of the attached Resolution which vacates this easement,. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 95-38 Return to staff for further consideration Option CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 95-38 RESOLUTION VACATION A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, ROHAVIC OAKS SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, a 15 foot wide drainage easement was recorded over the southwesterly border of Lot 17, Block 2, Rohavic Oaks at the time the plat was recorded, and WHEREAS, this portion of Rohavic Oaks has been replatted into Lot 5 and Lot 6, Rohavic Oaks Second Addition and proper drainage easements were recorded over Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block 2, Rohavic Oaks Second Addition at the time the plat was recorded, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 27, 1995 before the City Council in the Council Chambers after due published notice on March 14 and 21, 1995 and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, it appears that it will be for the best interest of the City to vacate this easement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota that a 15 foot wide drainage easement over the southwesterly border of Lot 17, Block 2, Rohavic Oaks is hereby vacated. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of March, 1995. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer ROHAVIC OAKS CITY OF LINO LAKES - COUNTY OF ANOKA (--77,5•e• 414v,./' .//fv• .5:41/4" .c/1 • ecf&Se—f-rk_._ .L//re1,41 NORTH 4.\\ 806 — — 2..712.00 Fad' 0.'00 en,' 16 2.10.44,9 492,Yl/E - — -2.1:24k9 _L — -es.o.ev o"" 11 /1- 22000 tr• 1° 0.44,W0e\, o'ca90 12 14 ,Y6499:,/f1.0"/Y 230.00 19c200 13 .001 32. AV.V.4 Ale o/ .401.4 A/06'1.4 S000'06 372. ,4,18.07v9 -fry • fi v / je ( • 0 Gitoon ae0-' A /99.05. 15 nwe'sir.fp-ir eoo.eP +.1 %_ \ -44 \ "to% -LI cr. \ 9,17610 - - -ireese• - - 9 3/1.16' /ow's-a-JP-Jr eos:oo 30 Fohao'c Ocdcs 2 ROHAVIC OAKS 'SE City of Lino Lakes; An©k • - ncc nor//i I;.le o{ flee /v(4 of sk/4 o('sec, 9/, r,,3/, R,P2 •S° fie /lee of'51. 4(.0I Waite r Works Pro erf reP,:._. /n Bat p ofDeeda �9t 3lE V Agfa 1/'19"E tir Va.calc% liralp ��+/O17ue fo.o,. ,),-Th? 0.a1 P5. -or"— fin", 96-- �, / i. • ,44N. y e�c b /42.. 9/ k 'A9y. fie¢`_ --. _.. ---- r"_ i-''Nor/!R/a/ e I' Roadway Vre corqed 4 &DA'sda,.petfi>{' M/see//ageous; 04e. f rs090gvA0 rJ "'• AJC, HITT { ▪ 5 -5-/y cv�er o1' Ca/ P , 8/b 2 Rehov,e; --- pax ri/6'i'd/ d KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Peter V. Rosenthal a single person, David A. Vickers, a single person and pane L. Hayiisch and Rebecca •�• Haylisch, husband and wife, owners of the following described property situated In the State of Hinnesota and County of Anoka to wit: That part of Tha City of St. Paul Water Board right-of-way in the Nnrf- _' AGENDA ITEM 5 A STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE Marchf3, 1995 TOPIC cui 0-Y kctei-62z 95-4-C, Contractor Property Developers Inc, (CPDC) Centerville Road & Co. Road J., Conditional Use Permit for Advertising Sign, PUBLIC HEARING This case involves a request by CPDC to install an advertising sign for the Pheasant Hills Preserve development on a piece of property located just north/west of the intersection of Co. Rd. J. and Centerville Road. The property is Zoned Rural and according to the City Sign Ordinance 9-84, Section III, Subdivision 2. Sign Requirement District: "Advertising Signs. Allowed by Conditional Use and Subd. 14. Real Estate Development signs or construction site signs may be erected providing they do not exceed one hundred (100) square feet of area, are not more than fifteen (15) feet above grade, and not within one hundred (100) feet of an existing residential structure." The proposed sign is an 8' x 4/ (32 square feet) non -illuminated advertising sign. The property owner, North Oaks Company or L. w. Hill Jr., have provided the City will a letter indicating that they have given permission to CPDC to install the advertising sign on the site indicated. The consent was given for one year with a probable continuation after that period. The north/west corner of Co. Rd. J. and Centerville Road is approximately 950' from the nearest single family residence (the Donlin Residence) and 250' from the structure on the north/east corner of Co. Rd. J. and Centerville Road which is being used at this time as a storage building. Staff would recommend approval of the advertising with the following conditions: 1. The sign is construction t0 withstand a of 30 P.S.F. sign is located at least 5/ from any property line. the sign is allowed. 4. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with the proper function or interpretation of any traffic sign or signal. 5. The sign shall be maintained in good condition and the areas around them kept free from debris, bushes, high weeds, and from anything else which would be an eyesore or nuisance. The surface of the sign must be repainted at least once every two (2) years or whenever necessary as determined by the City Zoning Official to prevent the sign surface from becoming unkempt in appearance. 6. The permit owner shall be responsible for all of the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, including the liability for expense of removal and maintenance incurred by the City. 7. A sign permit shall be obtained from the City Building Official p1 Q �)J RC2 ' The anning nd Zoning Board have reviewedthis request and recommended approval with the conditions listed above. OPTIONS 1. Approve Permit with conditions outlined above. 2. Deny Permit RECOMMENDATION Option 1 4 ft. Pheasant Hills directionfal signage County 'J' and Centerville Rd. (1\1, -,.-to,,.. ,,_ : . r 8 ft. Color logo TI Executive Home Sites 1112 miles, then left on Birch St. 4 X 4 Posts February 17, Ms. Mary Kay Wyland Planning Coordinator City of Lino Lakes 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Dear Ms. Wyland: RECEIVED RICHARD E LEONARD President FEB 2 1 1995 TERRY DAVERN Sales Manager gp5 nF t_ LAKES I was asked by Scherer Brothers to send you a note which in effect gives consent to Scherer Brothers to place one of their signs on lands owned by North Oaks Company or L. W. Hill, Jr. This land specifically is on the west side of Centerville Road just north of County Road J. I believe this is within the corporate municipal boundary lines of Lino Lakes. I believe we have consented to allow the sign to stay up for one year and probably will agree to continuation after that period. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Very_tru yours, ichar Preside REL/mjl c: L. Sampson and ONE PLEASANT LAKE ROAD • NORTH OAKS, MINNESOTA 5512.7 • (612) 484-3361 A Choice Resicientidl Community 5}AE RN`AN t_NK� P. LLt • L 0 011E},1_ ATTER LAKE INO- LAKES, t�0\Ori` w odd even! l:s3 o OF C I R C L E PINES HOUSE NUMBERING SYSTEM O AGENDA ITEM 5 B STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE March 24, 1995 TOPIC (A) .- / „art • Sessl�,v� Vt.* ka--E-- Shoreland Management Ordinance First Reading Ordinance No. 04-95 Minnesota Statutes has mandated that the City update their existing (1983) Shoreland Management Ordinance. The purpose of the Ordinance is to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. These shorelands can be described as an area roughly 1000' from the ordinary high water mark of the protected waters listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Ordinance. A Model Ordinance was provided by the DNR and intended to be used as a guide. The DNR allows communities to pursue flexibility from the State Model Ordinance to address condi ions unique to the City,- Qt's `"S ' $3 or\o&--\ ( j -A� e b(ekO,; l , 0(v. Doe_ (hod ( ► : pos City Staff has worked closely with DNR Staff in developing the 1A- f attached ordinance and have received a favorable response to ourirnue 4 - request for flexibility. This flexibility was requested in order to b maintain sustainable growth within the City and relates to the J11,51, following areas. wwti0 Land Use Designations Lot Size Density Impervious Surface Coverage Building Heights Sanitary Sewer Connection Shoreland Setback for Uses without Water Oriented Needs SoM1 moo- na1�)` V44- ( tX r `$3 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: The City has requested the Land Use Designations to compare with our base zoning districts., LOT SIZE: Lot area and width standards are significantly less restrictive than the state standards. We have requested standards that relate again to our base zoning district (10,800 sq. ft. area for R-1 non -riparian lots, 20,000 sq. ft. for riparian lots while the DNR Model requested 15,000 sq. ft. area for non -riparian and 20,000 sq. ft. for riparian). Flexibility was requested due to the short supply of buildable land resulting from the high percentage of state right-of-way, county park, wetlands and lakes within the City. As a condition of approval for this flexibility request, the DNR has asked that our ordinance include a statement which prohibits total district -wide density from being exceeded. We have included such a provision. DENSITY: The DNR Model provided a complicated tier arrangement for calculating density for multi -family developments. The City has proposed a standard calling for 5,000 square feet for townhomes and 2,900 square feet for apartments, per unit. The DNR has approved this flexibility request due to our more stringent requirements on water quality, general performance standards, and the local water management plan. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: The DNR Model called for impervious surface limits of 25% across the board. We have requested a limit of 30% for single family and low density development, 35% for medium/high density development, and 60% for commercial. Due to our performance standards and local water management plan, the DNR has agreed to this flexibility request. BUILDING HEIGHT: The City is requesting a 36' height limit which is consistent with similar requests from other communities in the Metro Area. The DNR Model suggests a 25' limit. They have agreed to the 36' limit. SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION: The DNR Model required a connection to sanitary sewer within one-year, if available. This requirement runs contrary to our City Charter and they have agreed to its exclusion. SHORELAND SETBACK FOR USES W/O WATER ORIENTED NEEDS: The DNR Model required a double setback for commercial uses without water oriented needs. This would have rendered commercial properties along Lake Drive unbuildable. They have agreed to waive this requirement. Attached for Council information is a memo from our Planning Consultant, Al Brixius, which outlines in detail our request for flexibility. The information outlined above is a brief summary of that information. The Planning and Zoning Board held two Public Hearings and a Special Work Session to discuss this ordinance. They have considered the comments of concerned citizens and input from City Staff and the DNR. Their recommendation was to approve the ordinance as submitted. OPTIONS' :_> ................................. ................................. 1. Approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 4-95 2. Return to staff for further consideration RECOMMENDATION Option 1 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 CHAPTER 1102 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY ORDINANCE 1102.01 Statutory Authorization and Policy 1102.02 General Provisions 1102.03 Definitions 1102.04 Administration 1102.05 Shoreland Overlay District 1102.06 Shoreland Overlay District Uses 1102.07 Zoning and Water Supply/Sanitary Provisions 1102.08 Nonconformities 1102.09 Shoreland Alterations 1102.10 Special Provisions for Commercial, Industrial, Public/Semipublic, Agricultural, Forestry and Extractive Uses and Mining of Metallic Minerals and Peat 1102.11 Water Supply and Sewage Treatment 1102.12 Subdivision/Platting Provisions 1102.13 Planned Development Overlays (PDOS) 1102.01 Statutory Authorization and Policy Subdivision 1. Statutory Authorization. Local government units are required to adopt shoreland management ordinances in Minnesota Statutes 103F.201 to 103F.221. This Shoreland Overlay District Ordinance is adopted pursuant to these authorizations and policies and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. Subd. 2. Policies. The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. The responsibility for the management of shoreland areas is hereby recognized by the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota. 1102.02 General Provisions Subdivision 1. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the shorelands of the public water bodies as classified in 1102.05 of this ordinance and as shown on the Official Zoning Map of the City of Lino Lakes as being located within the Shoreland Overlay District. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland may, at the discretion of the City, be exempt from this ordinance. Page 1 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 Subd. 2. Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and locations of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste treatment systems; the grading and filling of any shoreland area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. Subd. 3 Enforcement. The Zoning Administrator is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Violations of this ordinance can occur regardless of whether or not a permit is required for a regulated activity pursuant to 1102.04, Subd. 1 of this ordinance. Subd. 4. Interpretation. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes. The approximate boundaries of the Shoreland Overlay District are indicated on the Official Zoning Map of the City of Lino Lakes, and attachments thereto. Exact determination of the boundaries will be made by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters. Subd. 5. Severability. If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. Subd. 6. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this ordinance are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law, ordinance, statute, resolution, or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive, or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 1102.03 Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. For the purpose of this ordinance, the words "must" and "shall" are mandatory and not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally. Subdivision 1. Accessory structure or facility. "Accessory structure" or "facility" means any building or improvement subordinate to a principal use which, because of the nature of its use, can reasonable be located at or greater than normal structure setbacks. Subd. 2. Bluff. "Bluff" means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over Page 2 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): A. Part of all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; B. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the waterbody. Subd. 3. Bluff impact zone. "Bluff impact zone" means a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. Subd. 4. Boathouse. "Boathouse" means an accessory structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats and boating equipment. Subd. 5. Building line. "Building line" means a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Subd. 6. Clear Cutting. "Clear cutting" means the removal of an entire stand of trees. Subd. 7. Resort planned development overlay. "Resort planned development overlays" are typically uses that provide transient, short-term lodging spaces, rooms, or parcels and their operations are essentially service-oriented. For example, hotel/motel accommodations, resorts, recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily service-oriented activities are resort planned unit developments. Subd. 8. Commercial use. "Commercial use" means the principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental, or trade of products, goods, and services. Subd. 9. Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. Subd. 10. Conditional use. "Conditional use" means a land use or development as defined by ordinance that would not be appropriate generally but may be allowed with appropriate restrictions as provided by official controls upon a finding that certain conditions as detailed in the official zoning ordinance exist, the use or development conforms to the comprehensive land use plan of the community, and the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Subd. 11. Deck. "Deck" means a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site and at any point extending more than three feet above the ground. Subd. 12. Dwelling site. "Dwelling site" means a designated location for residential use Page 3 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 by one or more persons using temporary or movable shelter, including camping and recreational vehicle sites. Subd. 13. Dwelling unit. "Dwelling unit" means any structure or portion of a structure or other shelter designed as short- or long-term living quarters for one or more persons, including rental or timeshare accommodations such as motel, hotel, and resort rooms and cabins. Subd. 14. Extractive use. "Extractive use" means the use of land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals, other nonmetallic minerals, and peat not regulated under Minnesota Statutes, sections 9.44 to 9.51. Subd. 15. Forest land conversion. "Forest land conversion" means the clear cutting of forested land to prepare for a new land use other than reestablishment of a subsequent forest stand. Subd. 16. Hardship. "Hardship" means the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under terms of the official controls. Subd. 17. Height of building. "Height of building" means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest gable of a pitch or hipped roof. Subd. 18. Industrial use. "Industrial use" means the use of land or buildings for the production, manufacture, warehousing, storage, or transfer of goods, products, commodities, or other wholesale items. Subd. 19. Intensive vegetation clearing. "Intensive vegetation clearing" means the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. Subd. 20. Lot. "Lot" means a designated parcel, tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, to be used developed or built upon as a unit. Subd. 21. Lot width. "Lot width" means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. Subd. 22. Nonconforming Use. "Nonconforming use" means any legal use, structure or parcel of land already in existence, recorded, or authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments thereto that would not have been permitted to become established under the terms of the official controls as now written, if the official controls had been in effect prior to the date it was established, recorded or authorized. Page 4 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 Subd. 23. Open Space. Undeveloped land of the subdivided property providing visual expanses and recreational areas clear of obstructions other than natural vegetation, or structures directly related to the use and enjoyment of these spaces. Open spaces may include natural habitats, places for neighborhood recreation, and pedestrian corridors. Subd. 24.. Ordinary high water level. "Ordinary high water level" means the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. Subd. 25. Planned development overlay. "Planned development overlay" means a type of development characterized by a unified site design for a number of dwelling units or dwelling sites on a parcel, whether for sale, rent, or lease, and also usually involving clustering of these units or sites to provide areas of common open space, density increase, and a mix of structure types and land uses. These developments may be organized and operated as condominiums, time-share condominiums, cooperatives, full fee ownership, commercial enterprises, or any combination of these, or cluster subdivisions of dwelling units, residential condominiums, townhouses, apartment buildings, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, resorts, hotels, motels, and conversions of structures and land uses to these uses. Subd. 26. Public waters. "Public waters" means any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 105.37, subdivisions 14 and 15. Subd. 27. Residential planned development overlay. "Residential planned development overlay" means a use where the nature of residency is nontransient and the major or primary focus of the development is not service-oriented. For example, residential apartments, manufactured home parks, time-share condominiums, townhouses, cooperatives, and full fee ownership residences would be considered as residential planned development overlays. To qualify as a residential planned development overlay, a development must contain at least five dwelling units or sites. Subd. 28. Semipublic use. "Semipublic use" means the use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. Subd. 29. Sensitive resource management. "Sensitive resource management" means the preservation and management of areas unsuitable for development in their natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expansive soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special protection. Subd. 30. Setback. "Setback" means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, road, highway, property line, or other facility. Page 5 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 Subd. 31. Sewage treatment system. "Sewage treatment system" means a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in Section 1102.11 of this ordinance. Subd. 32. Sewer system. "Sewer system" means pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. Subd. 33. Shore impact zone. "Shore impact zone" means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. Subd. 34. Shoreland. "Shoreland" means land located within 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lakes and land located within 300 feet from the streams classified in Section 1102.05 or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the Comissioner. Subd. 35. Significant historic site. "Significant historic site" means any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 307.08. An historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are automatically considered to be significant historic sites. Subd. 36. Steep slope. "Steep slope" means land where development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more that are not bluffs. Subd. 37. Structure. "Structure" means any building or appurtenance, including decks: mobile homes, docks and boat launches, except aerial or underground utility lines, such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph, gas lines, towers, poles, and other supporting facilities. Subd. 38. Subdivision. "Subdivision" means land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent, or lease, including planned developments overlays. Subd. 39. Surface water -oriented commercial use. "Surface water -oriented commercial use" means the use of land for commercial purposes, where access to and use of a surface water Page 6 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business. Marinas, resorts, and restaurants with transient docking facilities are examples of such use. Subd. 40. Water -oriented accessory structure or facility. "Water -oriented accessory structure or facility" means a small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonable needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. 1102.04 Administration. Subdivision 1. Permits Required A. Permit Required. A building permit is required for the construction of buildings or building additions (including such related activities as construction of decks and signs), the installation and/or alteration of sewage treatment systems, and a grading permit for those grading and filling activities not exempted by Section 1102.09 of this ordinance. Application for a permit shall be made to the Zoning Administrator on forms provided. The application shall include the necessary information so that the Zoning Administrator can determine the site's suitability for the intended use and that a compliant sewage treatment system will be provided. B. A building permit authorizing an addition to an existing structure shall stipulate that an identified nonconforming sewage treatment system, as defined in Section 1102.11, shall be reconstructed or replaced in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 2. Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The Zoning Administrator shall issue a certificate of zoning compliance for each activity requiring a permit as specified in 1102.04, Subd. 1 of this ordinance. This certificate will specify that the use of land conforms to the requirements of this ordinance. Any use, arrangement, or construction at variance with that authorized by permit shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and shall be punishable as provided in 1102.02, Subd. 3 of this ordinance. Subd. 3. Variances. A. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statues, Chapter 462, as applicable. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this ordinance. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. In considering a variance request, the zoning Administrator must also consider whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the variance, whether the property is used seasonally or year-round, whether the variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations, and the characteristics of development on adjacent properties. Page 7 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 B. The City Council shall hear and decide requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it has adopted for the conduct of business in Section 5, Subd. 7 of the City Zoning Ordinance. When a variance is approved after the Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the approved variance required in 1102.04, Subd. 4B shall also include the City Council's summary of the public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of the variance. C. For existing developments, the applications for variance must clearly demonstrate whether a conforming sewage treatment system is present for the intended use of the property. The variance, if issued, must require reconstruction of a nonconforming sewage treatment system. Subd. 4. Notification to the Department of Natural Resources A. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses in the Shoreland Overlay District must be sent to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources or the Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices of hearing to consider proposed subdivision/plats must include copies of the subdivision/plat. B. A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses in the Flood Plain or Shoreland Management Districts must be sent to the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten (10) days of final action. 1102.05 Shoreland Overlay District Subdivision 1. Establishment of Shoreland Overlay District. The public waters of the City of Lino Lakes have been classified consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300. The Shoreland Overlay District for the waterbodies listed below is that land within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level of the lakes, and 300 feet from a river or stream as shown on the Official Zoning Map. A. Natural Environment Lakes Protected Water Inventory I.D.# Unnamed 2-1 Peltier Lake 2-4 George Watch Lake 2-5 Marshan Lake 2-7 Rice Lake 2-8 Wards Lake 2-10 Sherman Lake 2-11 Cedar Lake 2-12 Page 8 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 Amelia Lake 2-14 Rondeau Lake 2-15 Wilkinson Lake 62-43 B. Recreational Development Lakes Protected Water Inventory I.D.# Otter Lake 2-3 Centerville Lake 2-6 Reshanau Lake 2-9 Baldwin Lake 2-13 C. General Development Lake Protected Water Inventory I.D.# Bald Eagle Lake 62-2 Protected Watercourse D. Tributary Rivers and Streams Legal Description Rice Creek From Basin 740 to Basin 13 Hardwood Creek From T31N, R22W, Sect. 12 to Basin 4 Subd. 2. Establishment of Official Zoning Map. The Official Zoning Map, together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The attached material shall include the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Anoka County. The Official Zoning Map shall be on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 3. Land Use District Descriptions. A. Criteria for Designation. The land use districts in B below and the delineation of a land use district's boundaries on the Official Zoning Map, must be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive land use plan. B. Land Use District Descriptions. The land use districts and the allowable land uses therein for the given classifications of waterbodies, shall be properly delineated on the Official Zoning Map for the shorelands of the City of Lino Lakes. The designated land use districts shall be in conformance with the criteria specified in Minnesota Regulation, Part 6120.3200, Subp. 3. 1102.06 Shoreland Overlay District Uses Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in the Shoreland Overlay District are those uses allowed and regulated by the applicable underlying zoning district as indicated on the Page 9 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 Official Zoning Map of the City of Lino Lakes. Subd. 2. Conditional Uses. A. The conditional uses in the Shoreland Overlay District are those uses allowed and regulated on a conditional basis by the applicable underlying zoning district as indicated on the Official Zoning Map of the City of Lino Lakes. B. Boathouses. C. Evaluation Criteria. A thorough evaluation of the waterbody and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: 1. the prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction in accordance with Chapter 1101 and 1105 of the City Code; 2. the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; 3. the site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and 4. the types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. D. Conditions attached to conditional use permits. The City of Lino Lakes, upon consideration of the criteria listed above and the purposes of this ordinance, shall attach such conditions to the issuance of the conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance and Section 5, Subd. 5 of the City Zoning Ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level; 2 limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the requirement that additional vegetation be planted; and 3. special provisions for the location, design, and use of structures, watercraft launching and docking areas, and vehicle parking areas. E. The City Council shall hear and decide applications for conditional uses permissible under this ordinance in accordance with Conditional Use Permit approval process of the City Code. Subd. 3. Permitted Accessory Uses. Page 10 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 A. The permitted accessory uses in the Shoreland Overlay District are those uses allowed and regulated as accessory uses by the applicable underlying zoning district as indicated on the Official Zoning Map of the City of Lino Lakes. B. Water -oriented accessory structures are permitted when constructed in accordance with the design criteria of Section 1102.07, Subd. 2B. C. Dock and boat launches are permitted provided they are constructed on the same lot as the principal structure. Subd. 4. Prohibited Uses. Any uses which are not permitted or conditional uses as regulated by the applicable underlying zoning district as indicated on the Official Zoning Map are not permitted. 1102.07 Zoning and Water Supply/Sanitary Provisions Subdivision 1. Lot Area and Width Standards. The following standards shall apply to all lots within the Shoreland Overlay District provided that the resulting total development density in the shoreland area does not exceed the total City-wide shoreland density allowed based on State of Minnesota shoreland standards. The City, in its evaluation of any development, shall evaluate the proposed development in light of the development capacity of the City-wide Shoreland Overlay District. Where the requirements of the underlying zoning district are more or less restrictive than those set forth herein, the more restrictive standards shall apply. A. Residential (R-1, R -1X, R-2, R-3, R-4) Zoning Districts. 1. Lot Area Per Unit a. Unsewered* NE RD GD T 10 acres 10 acres 10 acres 10 Acres b. Sewered Abutting Single Family 20,000 20,000 20,000 Two Family/ Duplex 8,775 8,775 8,775 Triplex/Quad/ Townhome 6,000 6,000 6,000 c. Sewer Non -Abutting Single Family 10,800 10,800 10,800 Two Family/ Duplex 8,775 8,775 8,775 Triplex/Quad/ Townhome 5,000 5,000 5,000 2. Lot Width/Base Lot*** Page 11 ** ** DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 a. Unsewered* 330 330 330 330 b. Sewered Abutting Single Family 80 80 80 80 Two Family/ Duplex 130 130 130 130 Triplex/Quad/ Townhome 130 130 130 130 c. Sewered Non -Abutting Single Family 80 80 80 130 Two Family/ Duplex 130 130 130 130 Triplex/Quad/ Townhome 130 130 130 130 B. Commercial and Industrial (NB, LB, GB, CB, SC, LI, GI) Zoning Districts. 1. Lot Area a. Unsewered NE RD GD T 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre b. Sewered Abutting Commercial 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre Industrial 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre c. Sewered Non -Abutting Commercial ** Industrial 1 acre 2. Lot Widths*** ** 1 acre ** 1 acre 1 acre a. Unsewered Commercial 100 100 100 100 Industrial 150 150 150 150 b. Sewered Abutting Commercial 100 100 100 100 Industrial 150 150 150 150 c. Sewered Non -Abutting Commercial ** ** ** ** Industrial 150 150 150 150 Page 12 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 * Lot size requirement in unsewered area are delineated in Section 4, Subdivision 17 and Section 6, Subdivisions 2 and 3. ** Lot area and width requirements along rivers in sewered areas and commercial zoning districts in sewered areas will be delineated by the standards of the base zoning districts. *** Lot widths shall be measured at both the front building setback line and at the setback from the ordinary high water level. C. Additional Special Provisions. 1. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters and outside existing watercourses can be used to meet the lot area standards. 2. The shoreland lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and the building setback line. 3. All single family, two family, triplex, quadraminium, townhouse, commercial and industrial subdivisions must provide a grading and drainage plan for review and approval of the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. The grading and drainage plan shall include: a. Compliance for the impervious surface standards of the respective zoning district. b. The subdivision or lot development shall provide for the collection and treatment of storm water in compliance with the Lino Lakes local Storm Water Management Plan if determined that the site improvements will result in increased runoff directly entering a public water. All grading and drainage plans shall require review and approval by the City Engineer and the Rice Creek Watershed District. c. Measures to be taken for the treatment of storm water runoff and/or prevention of storm water from directly entering a public water. The measures may include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Appurtenances as sedimentation basins, debris basins, desilting basins or silt traps. 2. Installation of debris guards and microsilt basins on storm sewer inlets. 3. Use where necessary, oil skimming devices or sump catch basins. 4. Direct drainage away from the lake and into pervious, grassed, yards through site grading, use of gutters and downspouts. Page 13 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 5. Construct sidewalks and driveways of partially pervious raised materials such as decking which has natural earth or other previous material beneath or between the planking. 6. Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration, e.g. sand and gravel under impervious materials with adjacent infiltration swales graded to lead into them. 7. Install berms, water bars, or terraces which temporarily detain water before dispersing it into pervious area. 4. Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed the following percentages of lot area: NE RD GD R Single Family Residential 30% 30% 30% 30% Two Family/Duplex 30% 30% 30% 30% Triplex/Quad/Townhomes 35 % 35 % 35 % 35 % Commercial/Industrial 60% 60% 60% 60% 5. Medium density residential,commercial, and industrial structures, parking areas, and other facilities shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, or color, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening shall be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided. 6. Accessory structures and facilities shall meet the required principal structure setback and shall be centralized. 7. Multiple family developments shall contain open space meeting the following criteria: a. At least thirty-five (35) percent of the total development area shall be preserved as open space. b. Dwelling units or sites, land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or structures are developed areas and shall not be included in the computation of minimum open space. c. Open space shall include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries. d. The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, shall be included as open space. At least fifty (50) percent of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least seventy (70) percent of the shore impact Page 14 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 zone area of new developments shall be preserved in its natural or existing state. 8. Residential subdivisions exceeding those permitted by the lot area standards of Section 1102.07 can only be allowed if designed and approved as a residential planned unit development under Section 1102.13 of this Ordinance. Subd. 2. Placement, Design, and Height of Structures. A. Placement of Structures on Lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows. 1. Structure and On-site Sewage System Setbacks (in feet) from Ordinary High Water Level. Sewage Classes of Structures Treatment Public Waters Unsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural Environment 150 150 150 Recreational Development 100 75 75 General Development 75 50 50 Rivers and Streams 100 50 75 One water -oriented accessory structure exclusive of one dock and lake access per individual lot, designed in accordance with Section 1102.07, Subd. 2B of this ordinance may be set back a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. 2. Additional Structure Setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the water body: Setback From: Setback (in feet) a. top of bluff 30 b. unplatted cemetery; 50 c. right-of-way line of federal, state, 40 or county highway; and d. right-of-way line of a town road, 30 Page 15 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 public street or other roads or streets not classified. 3. Uses Without Water -oriented Needs. Uses without water -oriented needs must be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. 4. Exceptions to Structure Setback Requirements. a. Accessory structures may be located in the front yard of lakeshore properties upon approval of a riparian lot variance. B. Design Criteria for Structures. 1. High Water Elevations. a. Structures must be placed with the lowest floor three feet above the (OHW) Ordinary High Water Level in accordance with the Local Water Management Plan for the City of Lino Lakes. b. Water -oriented structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in the Local Water Management Plan if the structure is constructed of flood -resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind - driven waves and debris. 2. Water -oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one water -oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in 1102.07, Subd. 2A of this ordinance if this water -oriented structure complies with the following provisions: a. the structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. Detached decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point; b. the setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten (10) feet; c. the structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions; d. the roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed or used as a storage area; Page 16 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 e. the structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and f. within the shoreland areas of general development and recreational development waterbodies, water -oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage or related boating and water -oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area up to 400 square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline. 3. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements: a. stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open -space recreational properties and planned development overlays; b. landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open -space recreational properties and planned development overlays; c. canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings; d. stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion; e. stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf -on conditions, whenever practical; and f. facilities such as ramps, lifts, mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subitems (1) to (5) or complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. 4. Significant Historic Sites. No structure may be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented in a public repository. 5. Steep Slopes. The Zoning Administrator must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions must be Page 17 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf -on vegetation. C. Height of Structures. All structures shall not exceed 36' in height, except churches and nonresidential agricultural structures. 1102.08 Nonconformities. All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue, but they will be managed according to applicable state statutes and other regulations of the City of Lino Lakes for the subjects of alterations and additions, repair after damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use; except that the following standards will also apply in the Shoreland Overlay District. Subdivision 1. Construction on nonconforming lots of record. A. Lots of record in the Office of the County Recorder prior to the date of enactment of this ordinance which do not meet the requirements of 1102.07, Subd. 1 may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot size requirements provided: 1. such use is permitted in the underlying zoning district, 2. the lot is and has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard, 3. the lot was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time, 4. all other dimensional requirements are complied with insofar as practical, and 5. sewage treatment and setback requirements of this ordinance are met. B. A variance from setback requirements must be obtained before any use or building permit is issued for a lot. In evaluating the variance, the City Council shall consider sewage treatment and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lot and shall deny the variance if adequate facilities cannot be provided. C. If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the requirements of Section 1102.07, Subd. 1 of this ordinance the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. The lot must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the requirements of Section 1102.07 of this ordinance as much as possible. Subd. 2. Additions/expansions to nonconforming structures. A. All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of this ordinance. Any Page 18 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to 1102.04, Subd. 3. B. Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level if all of the following criteria and standards are met: 1. the structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; 2. a thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure; 3. the deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not exceed 15 percent of the existing setback of the structure from the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than 30 feet, whichever is more restrictive; and 4. the deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. Subd. 3. Nonconforming sewage treatment systems. A. A sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of Section 1102.11 of this ordinance must be upgraded, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system's improper setback from the ordinary high water level. B. The governing body of the City of Lino Lakes has by formal resolution notified the commissioner of its program to identify nonconforming sewage treatment systems. The City of Lino Lakes will require upgrading or replacement of any nonconforming system identified by this program within a reasonable period of time which will not exceed 2 years. Sewage systems installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under Minnesota Statues, section 103F.211, in effect at the time of installation may be considered as conforming unless they are determined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, or other deep disposal method, or systems with less soils treatment area separation above groundwater than required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Chapter 7080 for design of on-site sewage treatment systems shall be considered nonconforming. 1102.09 Shoreland Alterations. Alterations of vegetation and topography in the Shoreland Overlay District will be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Subdivision 1. Vegetation Alterations. Page 19 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 A. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, uses permitted in the underlying zoning district and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by 1102.09, Subd. 3 of this ordinance are exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow. B. Removal or alteration of natural vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as regulated in Section 1102.10, shall be restricted to prevent erosion into protected waters, to consume nutrients in the soil, and to preserve shoreland aesthetic. Removal of natural vegetation in the Shoreland Overlay District is allowed subject to the following standards: 1. Clear cutting of natural vegetation is prohibited. 2. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water -oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: a. the screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions, is not substantially reduced; b. along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; c. the above provision is not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. 3. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project is completed to retard surface runoff and soil erosion. 4. The provisions of this section shall not apply to permitted uses which normally require the removal of natural vegetation. Subd. 2. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. A. Grading, filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, driveways and other uses permitted in the underlying zoning district under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, the grading and filling standards in this Section must be incorporated into the issuance of permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways. B. Public roads and parking areas are regulated by Section 1102.09, Subd. 3 of this ordinance. C. Notwithstanding Items A and B above, a grading and filling permit, in accordance Page 20 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 with Section 4, Subd. 33 of the City Zoning Ordinance, will be required for: 1. the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within the shore impact zone; and 2. the movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material per acre. D. The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: 1. Grading or filling in any wetland must be evaluated to determine the extent of impact to the functions and values of the wetland area in accordance with Section 1104 of the City Code. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other local, state, or federal agencies such as a watershed district, a local governmental unit, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant will be so advised. 2. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible; 3. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the Anoka County Soil and Water Conservation District and the United States Soil Conservation Service; 4. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and must not create finished sloped of 30 percent or greater; 5. Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of the waterbodies described in 1002.05, Subd. 1B must first be authorized by the Commissioner under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245; 6. Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are necessary to allow a defined permitted accessory or conditional use within the underlying zoning district and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties; and 7. Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline Page 21 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. E. Connections to public. waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, must be controlled by local shoreland controls. Permission for excavations may be given only after the Commissioner has approved the proposed connection to public waters. Subd. 3. Placement And Design of Roads, Driveways, and Parking Areas. A. Public and private roads and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan. B. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within shore impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. C. Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access -related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of 1102.09, Subd 2 of this ordinance must be met. Subd. 4. Stormwater Management. A. Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed the impervious surface percentage of lot area outlined in Section 1102.07 C4 of this ordinance. B. When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters. C. Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. D. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to Page 22 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and man- made materials and facilities. Residential, commercial and industrial subdivisions and site plans shall provide for the collection and treatment of storm water in compliance with the City Storm Water Management Plan if determined that the site improvements will result in increased runoff directly entering a public water. All grading and drainage plans shall require review and approval by the City Engineer and the Rice Creek Watershed District. E. When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that they are designed and installed consistent with the Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan. F. Newly constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. 1102.10 Special Provisions for Commercial, Industrial, Public/Semipublic, Agricultural, Forestry and Extractive Uses and Mining of Metallic Minerals and Peat. Subdivision 1. Standards for Commercial, Industrial, Public and Semipublic Uses. Surface water -oriented commercial uses and industrial, public, or semipublic uses with similar needs to have access to and use of public waters may be located on parcels or lots with frontage on public waters. Those uses with water -oriented needs must meet the following standards: A. in addition to meeting impervious coverage limits, setbacks, and other zoning standards in this ordinance, the uses must be designed to incorporate topographic and vegetative screening of parking areas and structures; B. uses that require short-term watercraft mooring for patrons must centralize these facilities and design them to avoid obstructions of navigation and to be the minimum size necessary to meet the need; and C. uses that depend on patrons arriving by watercraft may use signs and lighting to convey needed information to the public, subject to the following standards: 1. No advertising signs or supporting facilities for signs may be placed in or upon public waters. Signs conveying information or safety messages may be placed in or on public waters by a public authority or under a permit issued by the Anoka County Sheriff; 2. Signs may be placed, when necessary, within the shore impact zone if they are designed and sized to be the minimum necessary to convey needed information. They must only convey the location and name of the establishment and the general types of goods or services available. The signs must not contain other detailed information such as product brands and prices, must not be located higher than ten feet above the ground, and must not exceed 32 square feet in size. If illuminated by artificial lights, the lights must be shielded or directed to prevent Page 23 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 illumination out across public waters; and 3. Other outside lighting may be located within the shore impact zone or over public waters if it is used primarily to illuminate potential safety hazards and is shielded or otherwise directed to prevent illumination out across public waters. This does not preclude use of navigational lights. Subd. 2. Agriculture Use Standards. A. General cultivation farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting are permitted uses if steep slopes and shore impact zones are maintained in permanent vegetation or operated under an approved conservation plan consistent with the Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan, as provided by a qualified individual or agency. The shore impact zone for parcels with permitted agricultural land uses is equal to a line parallel to and 50 feet from the ordinary high water level. B. Animal feedlots must meet the following standards: 1. new feedlots must not be located in the shoreland of watercourses and must meet a minimum setback of 300 feet from the ordinary high water level of all public waters basins; and 2. modifications or expansions to existing feedlots that are located within 300 feet of the ordinary high water level are allowed if they do not further encroach into the existing ordinary high water level setback. Subd. 3. Forest Management Standards. The harvesting of timber and associated reforestation must be conducted consistent with the provisions of the Minnesota Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment -Forestry and the provisions of Water Quality in Forest Management "Best Management Practices in Minnesota." Subd. 4. Extractive Use Standards. A. Site Development and Restoration Plan. An extractive use site development and restoration plan must be developed, approved, and followed over the course of operation of the site. The plan must address dust, noise, possible pollutant discharges, hours and duration of operation, and anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations. It must also identify actions to be taken during operation to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, particularly erosion, and must clearly explain how the site will be rehabilitated after extractive activities end. B. Setbacks for Processing Machinery. Processing machinery must be located consistent with setback standards for structures from ordinary high water levels of public waters. Subd. 5. Mining of Metallic Minerals and Peat. Mining of metallic minerals and peat, Page 24 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 93.44 to 93.51, shall be a permitted use provided the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 93.44 to 93.51 are satisfied. 1102.11 Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Subdivision 1. Water Supply. Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed standards for water quality of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Subd. 2. Sewage treatment. Any premises used for human occupancy must be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment as follows: A. Publicly -owned sewer systems must be used in accordance with Chapter 402 of the City Code. Any new buildings used for human habitation or human occupancy, including businesses, located on property adjacent to a sewer main, or in a block through which the system extends, shall be connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system. B. All private sewage treatment systems must meet or exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for individual sewage treatment systems contained in the document titled, "Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards, Chapter 7080", a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. C. On-site sewage treatment systems must be set back from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the setbacks contained in 1102.07 of this ordinance. D. All proposed sites for individual sewage treatment systems shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in subitems 1-4. If the determination of a site's suitability cannot be made with publicly available, existing information, it shall then be the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient soil borings and percolation tests from on- site field investigations. Evaluation criteria: 1. depth to the highest known on calculated ground water table or bedrock; 2. soil conditions, properties and permeability; 3. slope; and 4. the existence of lowlands, local surface depressions, and rock outcrops. E. Nonconforming sewage treatment systems shall be regulated and upgraded in accordance with section 1102.08, Subd. 3 of this ordinance. 1102.12 Subdivision/Platting Provisions Page 25 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 Subdivision 1. Land suitability. Each lot created through subdivision, including planned development overlays authorized under 1102.13 of this ordinance, must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration. Suitability analysis by the City Council shall consider susceptibility to flooding, existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, near -shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water-based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. Subd. 2. Consistency with other controls. Subdivisions must conform to all official controls of this community. A subdivision will not be approved where a later variance from one or more standards in official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended purpose. In areas not served by publicly owned sewer and water systems, a subdivision will not be approved unless domestic water supply is available and a sewage treatment system consistent with Sections 1102.07, Subd. 2 and 1102.11 can be provided for every lot. Each lot shall meet the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements of Section 1102.07, Subd. 1 including at least a minimum contiguous lawn area, that is free of limiting factors sufficient for the construction of two standard soil treatment systems. Lots that would require use of holding tanks shall not be approved. 1102.13 Shoreland Planned Development Overlay Subdivision 1. Types of PDO's Permissible. Shoreland Planned Development Overlays as defined in Section 1102.03 of this Ordinance are allowed for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. Subd. 2. Processing of Shoreland PDO's. Planned Development Overlays shall be processed as a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 5, Subd. 5 and Section 6, Subd. 20 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance as well as the performance standards outlined herein. Subd. 3. Application for a PDO. The application for a PDO/CUP must submit the following documents in addition to documents required by Section 5, Subd. 5 and Section 6, Subd. 5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, prior to final action being taken on the application request: A. A site plan and/or plat for the project showing locations of property boundaries, surface water features, existing and proposed structures and other facilities, land alterations, sewage treatment and water supply systems where public systems will not be provided, and topographic contours at ten (10) foot intervals or less. When a PDO is a combined commercial: and residential development, the site plan and/or plat must indicate and distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential, commercial or a combination of the two. B. A property owners association agreement (for residential PDO's) with mandatory Page 26 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 membership, and all in accordance with the requirements of Section 1102.13, Subd. 6 of this ordinance. C. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that: 1. properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional buildings, beaching of watercraft, and construction of commercial buildings in residential PDO's; and 2. ensure the long-term preservation and maintenance of open space in accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in Section 1102.13, Subd. 6 of this ordinance. D. When necessary, a master plan/drawing describing the project and the floor plan for all commercial structures to be occupied. E. Those additional documents as requested by the City of Lino Lakes that are necessary to explain how the PDO will be designed and will function. Subd. 4. Site "Suitable Area" Evaluation. Suitable area for development within a shoreland planned overlay districts (PDOs) shall exclude all wetland, watercourses, land below the ordinary high water level of public waters, public street rights-of-way, and public parks. This suitable area and the proposed project are subject to PDO performance standards governing density and design. A. All PDOs must have access to public sanitary sewer and water. B. Lot area and width standards. The following lot are per unit standards shall apply to all PDOs within the Shoreland Overlay District provided that the resulting total development density in the shoreland area does not exceed the total City-wide shoreland density allowed based on State of Minnesota shoreland standards. The City, in its evaluation of any PDO, shall evaluate the proposed PDO density in light of the development capacity of the City-wide Shoreland Overlay District. Where the requirements of the underlying zoning district are more or less restrictive than those set forth herein, the more restrictive standards shall apply. 1. Residential (R-3, R-4 Zoning Districts) NE RD GD T a. Lot Area: Townhomes 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Apartments/ Condominiums 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 b. Lot Width: Townhomes 150 130 130 130 Page 27 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 Apartments/ Condominiums 150 130 130 130 c. Setbacks: 1. OHWL 200 feet 2. Setback from Streets: a. Right -of -Way Line of Federal, State or County Highway 40 feet b. Local Street 30 feet 3. Side Yard Setback 20 feet 4. Setback Between Buildings on Multiple Building Site 35 feet 5. Bluff Setback 50 feet C. Maintenance and Administration Requirements. 1. Before final approval of a planned development overlay, adequate provisions must be developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and functioning of the development. 2. Open Space Preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long-term preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections: a. Commercial uses prohibited (for residential PDO's). b. Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance prohibited. c. Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials prohibited. d. Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft prohibited. 3. Development Organization and Functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established, when applicable, all residential planned unit developments must use an owners association with the following features: a. Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchasers. b. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can become liens on units or sites. Page 28 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 c. Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions. d. The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities. D. Open Space Requirements. Planned development overlays must contain open space meeting of the following criteria: 1. At least fifty (50) percent of the total project area must be preserved as open space. 2. Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or structures, except water -oriented accessory structures or facilities are developed areas and shall not be included in the computation of minimum open space. 3. Open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries. 4. Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of dwelling units or sites, by guests staying in commercial dwelling units or site, and by the general public. 5. Open space must not include commercial facilities or uses, but may contain water -oriented accessory structures or facilities. 6. The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, must be preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means. 7. The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, must be included as open space. For residential PDO's, at least fifty (50) percent of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least seventy (70) percent of the shore impacts zone area of new developments must be preserved in its natural or existing state. For commercial PDO's, at least fifty (50) percent of the shore impact zone must be preserved in its natural state. E. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management. Erosion control and stormwater management plans must be developed and the PDO must: 1. Be designed, and the construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length of time or bare ground exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or other Page 29 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans must be in accordance with the Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan and approved by the City Council. 2. Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and qualities of stormwater runoff. Impervious surface coverage must not exceed thirty-five (35) percent with an approved stormwater management plan and consistency with Section 1102.09. F. Centralization and Design of Facilities. Centralization and design of facilities and structures must be done according to the following standards: 1. Planned development overlays must be connected to publicly owned water supply and sewer systems. 2. Dwelling units or sites must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification, setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation above the surface water features, and maximum height. 3. Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps, must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Said shared lake access must be approved by the City Council. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or docking of watercraft must not exceed one (1) for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier (notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an existing commercially used harbor). Launching ramp facilities including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers. 4. Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed form public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the City Council, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening must be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided. 5. Accessory structures and facilities, except water -oriented accessory structures, must meet the required principal structural setbacks and must be centralized. 6. Water -oriented accessory structures and facilities may be allowed if they meet or exceed design standards contained in Section 1102.07, Subd. 2 of this ordinance and are centralized. Page 30 DRAFT Revised 1/5/95, 3/1/95, 3/24/95 Subd. 7. Conversions. The City of Lino Lakes may allow existing resorts or other land uses and facilities to be converted to residential planned unit developments if all of the following standards are met: A. Proposed conversions must be initially evaluated using the same procedures for residential planned development overlays involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the development and these standards must be identified. B. Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage, open space, and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the conditional use permit. C. Shore impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of the conversion. These improvements must include, where applicable, the following: 1. Removal of extraneous buildings, docks, or other facilities that no longer need to be located in shore impact zones. 2. Remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of buildings and other facilities as viewed from the water. 3. If existing dwelling units are located in shore impacts zones, conditions shall be attached to approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial alterations. The conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible, to other locations, meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced. D. Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in Section 1102.13, Subd. 5 may be allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the future. Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring seasonal use, improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment systems, or other means. Effective Date. This ordinance will take effect and be in force after its passage and official publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this day of , 1995. ATTEST; Marilyn G. Anderson, City Clerk Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Page 31 LINO LAKES REQUEST FOR SHORELAND REGULATION FLEXIBILITY JANUARY 1995 INTRODUCTION Lino Lakes is mandated to update its Shoreland Ordinance to carry out the intent of the Minnesota Department of Resources' State -Wide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas". The purpose is to preserve the quality and user enjoyment of the local lakes. The City agrees with the intent of the shoreland regulations, however, wishes to pursue flexibility from some of the shoreland standards to allow the City to maintain housing diversity and a sustainable level of growth. In this regard, the City of Lino Lakes has requested flexibility from shoreland standards in the following areas: 1. Lakes and wetlands designated as shoreland protected. 2. Land use designations. 3. Lot size. 4. Residential density. 5. Impervious surface coverage. The City's request for flexibility is based on the following background technical data. This information is presented to demonstrate the need for flexibility in specific areas of the shoreland regulations. The request will also illustrate how Lino Lakes proposes to address each flexibility item through its Zoning Ordinance. CURRENT SHORELAND REGULATIONS In 1983, Lino Lakes adopted its current shoreland regulations. This existing Shoreland Ordinance incorporated flexibility from DNR standards in the following area: a. Establishment of Shoreland Overlay District. The 1983 Lino Lakes shoreland regulations were applicable to 15 protected lakes. The proposed new Shoreland Ordinance expands the protected water bodies to include unnamed lake (2-1) and three tributary rivers and streams. While the DNR has identified a number of protected wetlands for inclusion into the Shoreland Overlay District, the City requests a more limited application as described on page 9 of the proposed ordinance. The basis for this flexibility request is that the protected wetlands are regulated by the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act and local development regulations which protect from the intrusion of development. These protected wetlands offer no surface water use. As such, the protection of recreational use of the wetlands is limited. The City is requesting Shoreland Overlay District consistent with the previously approved 1983 shoreland regulations. b. Land Uses. Permitted land uses within the Shoreland Overlay District were governed solely by the underlying base zoning district. The City is requesting these provisions be maintained in the proposed Shoreland Ordinance. c. Lot Area Provision/Density. In areas where sanitary sewer is available, the City adopted lot area standards for single family homes and density standards for multiple family development consistent with base zoning standards. The single family lot sizes for sewered areas are 20,000 square feet for riparian lots and 10,800 square feet for non - riparian lots. Multiple family densities are governed by base zoning districts ranging from 5 units per acre within the R-2 District to 15 units per acre in the R-4 Zoning District. These development densities are greater than those presented by the State Model Ordinance. Currently the City is requesting density standards that are more restrictive than the current local shoreland standards but less restrictive than the 1994 State standards. In exchange for the flexibility, the City is proposing more restrictive provisions on open space, setback, and storm water management. d. Impervious Surface Coverage. The current local Shoreland Ordinance does not include a maximum impervious surface standard for sewered urban development. The State Model Ordinance suggest a maximum impervious surface standard of 25 percent of total lot area regardless of land use type. The City is requesting variable impervious surface coverage rates ranging from 30 percent for single family to 60 percent for commercial and industrial properties. These impervious surface standards are more reflective of actual urban development characteristics for various land use types. Again, these standards would be more restrictive than the current City Shoreland Ordinance but more flexible than State standards. e. Other Performance Standards. The current Shoreland Ordinance lacks many of the other performance standards proposed in the State regulations. The City is prepared to incorporate most of these additional development standards which will assist in protecting and preserving the City lake resources. The shoreland regulations will be more restrictive than the current regulations. However, the existing City shoreland regulations establish some precedent for Lino Lakes development occurring in shoreland areas. The flexibility requests are -requested to allow for sustainable growth. 2 BASIS FOR FLEXIBILITY REQUESTS The State Model Ordinance establishes base zoning standards intended to be imposed on a state-wide basis. These regulations give no attention to the unique development constraints of the individual cities within the State. In recognizing that it was impractical to have a single shoreland ordinance applicable to all Minnesota communities, the State allows communities to pursue flexibility from the State Model Ordinance to address conditions unique to the City. As previously discussed, the current Lino Lakes Ordinance adopted in 1983 provides the City a degree of regulatory flexibility to maintain sustainable growth to deal with the development constraints inherent in the City of Lino Lakes. The blanket implementation of stricter ordinances in areas of lot size, density, and impervious surface would serve to reduce the development potential of the remaining buildable land, impacting the City both physically and financially. The following sections outline the physical and regulatory constraints that impact Lino Lakes and serve as a basis for the City shoreland flexibility requests. Buildable Land In January 1995, the City estimated that of the 21,365 acres within the corporate boundaries of Lino Lakes, only 45 percent or 9,695 acres are considered developable due to the regional park, interstate highways, National Wetland Inventory Wetlands and City lakes (see Table A). As noted above, physical characteristics inherent in the City of Lino Lakes limit the supply of buildable land and have resulted in very fragmented development patterns. The application of the stricter State shoreland lot area and multiple family density restrictions will further reduce the development potential of the City's remaining buildable land within the shoreland areas. TABLE A AVAILABLE BUILDABLE LAND SUPPLY IN LINO LAKES Total City -Wide Acreage 21,365 100.0%- State 00.0%State Right -of -Way 560 2.60 County Park 2,440 11.4 Total NWI Wetlands/Lakes 8,670 40.696 Remaining Buildable Land 3 9,695 45.4,1 1991 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT The 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act significantly changed the rules for development. This act's primary purpose is to regulate development in a manner that results in no net loss in wetland acreage. This requires urban development to design subdivisions that: 1) avoid wetlands; 2) minimize impact if some intrusion on the wetland is necessary; and 3) mitigate wetlands that are impacted. Due to the extent of wetlands in Lino Lakes, the Conservation Act has significantly impacted the supply of buildable land, development densities, and development patterns in the City. The City survey of nine subdivisions design in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act reveals that actual delineated wetlands exceeded NWI wetlands by approximately 50 percent. The application of this ratio of actual wetland significantly reduces the supply of buildable land even further. Plat TABLE B COMPARISON OF ACTUAL WETLAND DELINEATIONS TO NWI MAPS Ratio of Actual Actual Wetlands Acres Gross Wetland NWI Based to NWI Based Area Acres Wetland Acres Wetland Acres Country Lake Estates 33 2.49 .89 2.80 Oaks of Lino 9 4.81 2.45 1.96 Fox Trace 25 3.28 1.02 3.22 Pine Ridge II 10 .99 1.11 .89 Pine Ridge III 10 .69 1.02 .68 Trappers Crossing 72 14.86 3.06 4.86 Quail Ridge 38 15.80 14.38 1.10 Behm's Century Farm 93 40.64 23.26 1.75 Clearwater Creek Phase I and II 120 39.40 34.70 1.14 TOTAL 410 122.96 81.89 1.50 4 DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES The aforementioned Wetlands Act, along with local zoning, subdivision, floodplain regulations which serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas of the City, have significantly reduced the development densities that have occurred in Lino Lakes in the following ways: 1. The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act applies to all wetlands. As a result, it has removed development potential from land that may have previously been developed. This reduces the supply of buildable land within a subdivision. 2. Subdivisions that must integrate wetlands into the lot layout frequently lose density due to irregular shapes of the wetland resulting in oversized lots. 3. The City has zoning/subdivision performance standards (Zoning Section 4.5.3, Subdivision Section 1001.08, Subd. 6.4, attached) requiring the residential lot areas to be exclusive of water courses mandates larger lots in areas of wetlands, floodplains and environmentally sensitive areas. 4. In addition to Section 4.53 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Lino Lakes Floodplain Ordinance Section 5 requires: "No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the City of Lino Lakes for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the Floodplain District shall contain a building site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two (2) feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation." A survey of ten subdivisions (Table C) developed in accordance with the City regulations and the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act reveals that the residential densities are much lower than the density standards allowed in the base zoning districts. After the consideration of the wetlands as physical constraints, recent subdivisions produced a gross density of 1.4 units per acre and a net density of 2.1 units per buildable acre. The densities result in average lot sizes ranging 20,742 square feet to 31,114 square feet. The current wetland regulations and local zoning regulations demonstrate that even with single family lot sizes flexibility being requested, the average residential densities in single family subdivisions will be comparable to State shoreland standards. 5 TABLE C RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT DENSITIES 1993 - 1994 Net Gross Densities Upland Density (Lots/Acre Zoning Plat Acres Acres Lots (Lots/Acre) of Upland) Designation Country Lake Estates 33 30.51 53 1.61 1.74 R-1 Oaks of Lino 9 4.19 9 1.00 2.15 R-1 Fox Trace 25 21.72 55 2.20 2.53 R-1 Pine Ridge II 10 9.01 18 1,80 2.00 R -1X Pine Ridge III 10 9.31 19 1.90 2.04 R -1X Trappers Crossing 72 57.14 115 1.60 2.01 R -1X Quail Ridge 38 22.20 40 1.05 1.80 R -1X Pheasant Hills I -VI 120 60.00 125 1.,04 2.08 R -1X Behm's Century Farm 93 52.36 153 1.65 2.92 R-1 Clearwater Creek Phase I and II 120 80.60 154 1.28 1.91 R-1 TOTAL 530 347.04 741 1.40 2.14 REGIONAL PARK Within the City of Lino Lakes is the 2,440 acre Chain of Lakes Regional Park. This regional facility provides recreational benefits to population well beyond the corporate limits of Lino Lakes. However, the establishment of this regional park significantly impacted the City by removing developable land from the City's control, reducing available tax base, and establishing a physical barrier that has contributed to the City's fragmented development pattern and service area. The regional park includes shoreline on nine lakes in Lino Lakes. The regional park will prevent development within its boundaries preserving the natural character of the lake it abuts. Table D shows that the nine lakes either within or abutting the park have approximately 167,800 linear feet of shoreland including islands, of which 58,600 linear feet or 35 percent of shoreline is located outside the regional park under private ownership. The proposed development regulation flexibility is being requested to allow urban growth in the remaining shoreland areas outside the park. This flexibility will help to establish tax base and critical mass to allow sustainable growth. Lake Baldwin Rice Reshanau Marshan George Watch Centerville Peltier Wards Sherman TOTALS TABLE D LAKE SHORELINE IMPACTED BY REGIONAL PARR Lake Class RD NE RD NE NE RD NE NE NE Surrounding Zoning R -1/R-6 R-1/R-1X/GB R -1/R -1X R -1/R -2/R -2/R-4 R-1/Centerville R/Centerville R -X R-X/R-1X Linear Linear Shoreland Shoreland Including Outside Islands Park Percent (Feet) (Feet) of Totals 12,300 22,000 18,000 17,500 30,600 22,400* 36,900* 4,500 3,600 167,800 3,300 7,200 17,000 3,200 13,200* 11,600** 2,000 1,100 27.0 33.0 94.0 18.0 0 58.0 31.0 44.0 30.5 58,600 35.0 * Only 1,400 linear feet of Centerville Lake shoreline outside the park is in Lino Lakes. The balance is within the City of Centerville. ** Only 5,300 linear feet of Peltier Lake shoreline outside the park is in Lino Lakes. The balance is within the City of Centerville. 7 MULTIPLE FAMILY FLEXIBILITY The City is requesting lot size and density flexibility to accommodate multiple family development. Housing diversity that provides a full range of affordable housing type is an objective encouraged both locally and by the Metropolitan Council. The State shoreland lot size and density standards suggested for medium density housing and high density residential PUD runs contrary to residential densities that are typical for the urban housing types and the affordable housing objective of the Metropolitan Council. Lino Lakes is requesting to establish lot area per unit standards based on the type of housing units. The housing densities are typical of urban community standards. In exchange for the flexibility, the City will be adopting additional provisions governing setbacks, impervious surface, drainage and storm water management, and erosion control. Additionally, the geographic application of the multiple family flexibility will be limited as illustrated in Table E. The R-2, R- 3 and R-4 Zoning Districts accommodate multiple family residential development. These districts have a combined land area of approximately 65.6 acres or only 1.4 percent of Lino Lakes total land within the Shoreland Overlay District. The majority of this multiple family zoning is located between Highway 49 and the west shore of Marshan Lake. The R-6 Zoning District is a mobile home park zoning district. This zoning district contains 17.9 acres or .4 percent of the City's shoreland area. Located along the east side of Baldwin Lake, this R-6 District is fully developed. These districts have been long established and under the current Shoreland Ordinance, would have developed at densities consistent with the base zoning. The adoption of the new State regulations would significantly reduce the potential development densities of these parcels. Table E illustrates the limited exposure the requested multiple family lot size and density flexibility would have in Lino Lakes. Any future zoning change to expand these zoning classifications within a shoreland area would be subject to DNR review. 8 TABLE E SHORELAND DISTRICT BREAKDOWN BY ZONING Percent District Acres of Total R 2,718.7 59.8 R -X 493.6 10.8 R-1 806.0 17.7 R -1X 227.2 5.0 R-2 18.6 .4 R-3 24.3 .5 R-4 22.7 .5 R-6 17.9 .4 R-7 0 0 R -BR 80.4 1.8 NB 0 0 LB 0 0 SC 0 0 GB 52.2 1.2 LI 78.5 1.7 GI 8.2 .2 PSP* 1.7 .0 TOTAL 4,550.0 100.0 PSP District allotment does not include regional park preserve INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL FLEXIBILITY The City of Lino Lakes has several areas within the proposed shoreland areas zoned for commercial and industrial land uses. These zoning districts are generally located along State Highway 49 or in close proximity to the City's two interstate interchanges. From a land use and market perspective, these zoning classifications appear to be reasonable. The City is requesting regulatory flexibility in terms of sewered lot size and impervious surface standards to accommodate a reasonable level of urban development. In exchange for the flexibility, the City is proposing to adopt the State's more stringent requirements on shoreland screening, setbacks, storm water management, erosion control, and setbacks. 9 The geographic implications of this flexibility is also limited. The City only has 52.2 acres of commercial zoned land within the designated shoreland areas (see Table E). This represents only 1.2 percent of the City's total Shoreland Overlay District. The City has 86.70 acres or 1.9 percent of the Shoreland Overlay District zoned industrial. The industrial zoned land is not directly abutting any lake surface. CITY CHARTER Lino Lakes is a charter city. The City Charter allows residents to refuse assessments for infrastructure improvements until such time as they made connection to the utility. This unique charter provision limits the City in its future utility planning and places the burden of costs for utility extension on the potential developments. The implications of reducing densities, as suggested by the State shoreland regulations, would reduce the critical mass of a developments falling within 1,000 feet of any protected lake or wetland necessary to make development projects financially feasible. Thus, the imposition of lower residential development densities in the City's shoreland areas compounds a pre-existing development obstacle. The fact that developers must bear both the cost of infrastructure improvements and comply with reduced development densities discounts the marketability of the City's developable shoreland areas. Obviously, this lies contrary to the City's development objectives of escalating the City's tax base and promoting infill orderly development. CONCLUSION The City agrees with the purpose and intent of the Shoreland Regulations and is willing to incorporate most of the State Shoreland Regulations into its local ordinance to protect and preserve its lake sources. However, the City is requesting flexibility in select areas of the Shoreland Regulations to accommodate sustained growth. We believe that the aforementioned physical and regulating constraints faced by the City are unique to Lino Lakes and warrant consideration of flexibility. The geographic application of the proposed flexibility will be limited to only 4.9 percent of the City Shoreland Overlay District. Additionally, Lino Lakes' current development regulations, the Local Water Management Plan and proposed adoption of the new shoreland performance standards reflect the City's commitment to the protection of the local lake resources by alternative performance standards. 10 (2) Rural Districts: (A) Home occupations carried on in the R and R -X Districts and on lots which are ten (10) acres in size or larger may be allowed to operate within the principal structure or permitted accessory structure. (B) Permitted agricultural uses in the R and R1X Districts (and when found to be in conformance with all other provisions of this Ordinance) need not meet the provisions of this subdivision. Subd. 5. Lot Provisions. (1) Any lot of record existing at the effective date of this ordinance may be used for the erection of a structure if it conforms with the use regulations of the district in which it is located provided it satisfies all other appropriate provisions of this Ordinance and has frontage on a public right-of-way. (2) More than one principal structure per lot may be allowed in planned developments, and any zoning district except R-1, R -1X, R-2, R-7 and NB zones provided that all performance standards and appropriate provisions of this ordinance are met for the designated land use zoning district. (3) The minimum lot area and width requirements established in this ordinance shall be as follows: A. For zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of less than 10 acres. "X" square feet. This minimum lot area requirement excludes all areas within the lot which are platted as street right-of-way or is below the 100 year flood elevation". B. For zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres or more. "X" acres. Up to twenty (20) percent of this minimum lot area requirements may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights-of-way or is below the 100 year flood elevation. EXHIBIT A - ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT (SECTION 4 SUBD. 5(3)) Subd. 5_ Blocks. (1) Length. The maximum length of blocks shall be 1,500 feet and the minimum length 400 feet. Blocks over 900 feet long may require pedestrianways at least 10 feet wide at their approximate center. The use of additional pedestrianways to schools, parks, and other destinations may be required. (2) Arrangement. A block shall be so designed as to provide two tiers of lots unless it adjoins a railroad or an arterial where it may have a single tier of lots. Subd. 6. Lots. (1) Location. All lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street. (2) Size. The lot dimensions and areas shall comply with the requirements specified in the zoning chapter. (3) Side lot lines. Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines. (4) Watercourses. Watercourses shall be contained within abutting lots. Watercourses shall be protected by easement to the anticipated high water level (as detemined by the City). Lots with easements protecting watercourses shall have sufficient dimensions and area above the normal water levels (as determined by the City) to equal or exceed the minimums specified in the zoning chapter for the district in which the lots are located. In addition, the diminsions of the easements protecting watercourses shall be no more than 10 feet less than the minimium lot dimensions required for the zoning district. (Amended by Ordinance No. 18-90 passed December 10, 1990.) (5) Grading for drainage. Lots shall be graded so as to provide drainage away from building locations. (6) Natural features. In the subdividing of any land, every effort shall be made to preserve all natural features, such as tree growth, watercourses, wetlands, historic spots, or similar conditions. (7) Lot remnants. All remnants of, lots below minimum size remaining after subdividing of a larger EXHIBIT B - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT (SECTION 1001.08 SUBD. 6(4)) STAFF ORIGINATOR DATE TOPIC AGENDA ITER 5 C Mary Kay Wyland March 1995 FIRST READING, Ordinance Na. 0395 Amending City Sign Ordinance The attached ordinance is intended to allow advertising signs only within} the City's Rural Zoning Districts. This ordinance revision is consistent with directives contained within the 1990 I -35E and 1-35W Interchange Study. Staff would recommend adoption of the First Reading of No. 03-95. Approve first reading of Ordinance No. 03-95 Return to staff for further consideration DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT Council Member introduced the following Ordinance and moved its adoption. CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA ORDINANCE NO. 95 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE (SIGN REGULATIONS) REPEALING ADVERTISING SIGNS WITHIN THE SC, GB, LI AND GI ZONING DISTRICTS. 1 \ • j1 � r„ i' c rcw ter The CityCouncil of the Cityof Lino Lakes ordains: �' s R (r Sectio Section 3, Subd. 2.2 (Residential District Sign Requirements) is amended to add the following: E. Advertising Signs: Advertising signs, as defined by Section 2, Subd. 6 of this Ordinance, are prohibited in the R1, R -1X, R3, R4, R6, and R7 Zoning Districts. Section 2. Section 3, Subd. 3.2 (LB District Sign Requirements) is amended to add the following: E. Advertising Signs: Advertising signs, as defined by Section 2, Subd. 6 of this Ordinance, are prohibited in the LB Zoning District. Section 3. Section 3, Subd. 4.2 (NB District Sign Requirements) is amended to add the following: D. Advertising Signs: Advertising signs, as defined by Section 2, Subd. 6 of this Ordinance, are prohibited in the NB Zoning District. Section 4. Section 3, Subd. 5.2.0 (SC District Advertising Sign Requirements) is amended to read as follows: C. Advertising Signs: Advertising signs, as defined by Section 2, Subd. 6 of this Ordinance, are prohibited in the SC Zoning District. Section 5. Section 3, Subd. 6.2.D (GB and PSP District Advertising Sign Requirements) is amended to read as follows: D. Advertising Signs: Advertising signs, as defined by Section 2, Subd. 6 of this Ordinance, are prohibited in the GB and PSP Zoning Districts. Section 6. Section 3, Subd. 7.2.0 (L -I and G -I District Advertising Sign Requirements) is amended to read as follows: C. Advertising Signs: Advertising signs, as defined by Section 2, Subd. 6 of this Ordinance, are prohibited in the LI and GI Zoning Districts. p 3 Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of 1995. ATTEST: BY: Marilyn Anderson, City Clerk CITY OF LINO LAKES BY: Vernon Reinert, Mayor AGENDA ITEM 5 D STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Nyland DATE March 24, 1995 TOPIC FINAL PLAT, Woods of Baldwin Lake 2nd Addition The Council may recall approving the preliminary plat for the Woods of Baldwin Lake 2nd Addition at their October 24, 1994. The property is Zoned R -1X and contains 12 lots. Utilities will be provided to serve the subdivision. The City Attorney has reviewed the title work and a development agreement and financial guarantees are in place. Staff would recommend approval of the Final Plat as submitted. 1. Approve Final Plat as submitted. 2. Return to staff for further consideration Option 1 WOODS OF BALDWIN LAKE City of Lino Lakes County of Ana White Pine Road Aritro]'W N 11E'22.0. W (D..4 - /800°- - BD.OD- - 400.41 — N88'22'l!"W L__ LAKES PARA" N ANOKA COUNTY S RVEY.R DRAWN REVISED REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. SEP. 1974 NOV. 1978 MAR.I980 SEP. 1981 DEC .1982 JULY 1985 DEC. 1985 1/4 REVISED REV. REV REV. REV. REV. REV. JAN. 1987 MAY 1988 AUG. 1989 FEB. 1991 FEB. 1992 FEB. 1993 MAY 1994 SCALE 1"= I500' REVISED REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. 1/2 MILE 3/4 NOV. 1994 LOCATION MAP CE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 8, 1995 meeting as submitted and was supported by Tom Mesich. Johnson and Herr abstained, 3 ayes - 0 nays. Motion carried. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann noted a change to the agenda regarding item VI. B, will become an Action Item and will be noted at V. C. Ed Schones requested a Discussion Item be added regarding Work Session. Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann indicated this item would become VI. B. Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve the agenda as amended and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. OPEN MIKE: Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting opened at 6:39 p.m. Chair Pro -tem at this time asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Planning and Zoning Board regarding any issues not already on the agenda. Mr. Mesich read a letter from Ms. Sharon Lane regarding the February 27, 1995 meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council. Mr. Mesich indicated he concurred with her feeling that the right to develop property is a "right", but a request for rezoning is not a "right", but merely requests which, after due process, may be allowed or may be denied. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted aye. Motion carried. Open Mike portion was closed at 6:43 p.m. V. PLANNING ITEMS: A. 95-4-C, PUBLIC HEARING, Contractor Property Developers Inc., Pheasant Hills Preserve, Conditional Use Permit for Advertising Sign. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed this case which involves a request by Contractor Property Developers Inc, to install an advertising sign for the Pheasant Hills Preserve development on a piece of property located just north/west of the intersection of County Road J. and Centerville Road. The property is Zoned Rural and according to the City Sign Ordinance 9-84 a Conditional Use Permit is required for any advertising sign. Planning Coordinator Wyland indicated staff would recommend approval of the advertising sign as submitted with the following conditions: 1. The sign construction is to withstand windload pressure of 30 P.S.F. 2. The sign is located at least five feet from any property line. 3. No illumination of the sign is allowed. 4. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with the proper function or interpretation of any traffic sign or signal. 5. The sign shall be maintained in good condition and the areas around them kept free from debris, bushes, high weeds, and from anything else which would be an eyesore or nuisance. The surface of the sign must be repainted at least once every two (2) years or whenever necessary as determined by the City Zoning Official to prevent the sign surface from becoming unkept in appearance. 6. The permit owner shall be responsible for all of the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, including the liability for expense of removal and maintenance incurred by the City. 7. A sign permit shall be obtained from the City Building Official. Mr. Schones inquired if there is a way to prevent smaller signs from being attached to this sign. Ms. Wyland indicated this would be an enforcement issue. Mr. Brixius also indicated if the Board desired, they could add restrictions in an additional condition. Chair Pro -tem inquired if restricting smaller signs, would just move those type of signs to stakes around the large sign. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to OPEN the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted aye. The motion carried. Ms. Amy Donlin, neighbor to the project, indicated her concern was that additional billboards would be put in. Ms. Wyland noted there is a provision in the ordinance 2 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 requiring additional signs to be at least 750 feet from each other. Ms. Donlin also inquired if the sign would become permanent. The applicant indicated the sign would only be needed until the sites are sold, and they anticipated that to occur within one year. Mr. Mesich inquired if there could be a two year maximum for the sign. Ms. Wyland indicated the application could be reviewed in two years. Mr. Schones inquired if the review should be in one year. Ms. Wyland did not feel that would be practical. Mr. Johnson inquired if there is any provisions regarding removal after a certain percentage of the sites had been sold. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be a good condition, due to the sign becoming unnecessary after a certain point in development. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to CLOSE the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted aye. The motion carried. Mr. Mesich asked if a restriction of two years or a certain percentage of development could be added to an approval. Mr. Brixius indicated a time limit would not be associated to the Conditional Use, but a percentage would better suit a Conditional Use since the sign would not be necessary after say 90% of the sites had been sold. Mr. Mesich indicated he would like to add condition number eight as such: 8. The Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed in two years with the availability of an extension, unless 90% of the sites have been sold at which time the Conditional Use Permit is void. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to approve application 95-4-C Contractor Property Developers Inc., Conditional Use Permit for Advertising Sign, Pheasant Hills Preserve with the stated eight conditions and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Shoreland Management Ordinance Mr. Brixius reviewed the revised Shoreland Ordinance and the flexibilities requested of the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Brixius indicated the Department of Natural Resources representative, Mr. Tom Hovey stated the flexibilities requested were reasonable. Mr. Brixius indicated Mr. 3 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Hovey made additional comments in a letter dated March 8, 1995. Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann inquired if the Department of Natural Resources will review all Planned Development Overlays. Mr. Brixius indicated only for those Planned Development Overlays where a building would house more than four units, and any variances, rezoning would be reviewed by the Departmental of Natural Resources. Mr. Schones inquired if the district wide density includes the park. Mr. Brixius indicated the park is included. Mr. Brixius indicated the changes requested by Mr. Hovey are easily met. Mr. Brixius indicated the revised ordinance will allow more local control and will be more restrictive. Mr. Mesich inquired if there is verbiage to assure density issues. Mr. Brixius indicated the City will add this. Mr. J.P. Hutchins, 8274 Stagecoach, indicated on page 15, the 35% open space. Mr. Brixius indicated he had brought this issue up to the DNR, the confusion is what constitutes open space. Mr. Brixius noted the area along a driveway would not contribute to open space, but a continuous area intended for recreational use would; therefore, the flexibility in the numbers. Mr. Brixius indicated this does not allow any flexibility in the amount of impervious surface, the maximum amount is still 65% of the lot. Mr. Hutchins indicated on page 32, on top of page, number two; it does not seem to apply to our situation, "... of any tier". Mr. Brixius indicated he agreed, and this would be changed. Mr. Brixius noted that a definition of open space will be added to the Ordinance. Ms. Donlin indicated concern for comments of losing buildable areas around the lakes. She indicated she would like to see a 200 foot setback from any wetland, to provide a corridor system for the wildlife. Ms. Donlin inquired as to what was a deleted unnamed lake. Mr. Brixius indicated basically there was a list of lakes provided by the DNR and in our first draft we included some that were not required to be included. These lakes will still be protected under the 1991 wetland conservation rules, however. Ms. Donlin indicated concern for the 40 foot setback from highways for structures, suggested at least 50 foot. Mr. 4 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Brixius indicated the local requirement is 40 foot, if changed, the local ordinance should be changed. Ms. Donlin encouraged the Board to wait for comments from the 20/20 Vision program, she did not want to discredit the efforts of staff, but indicated residents might have ideas not mentioned previously. Mr. Brixius indicated staff is fulfilling a mandate to establish this ordinance, if in the future there are comments from the city, there could be amendments. Mr. Alan DeMotts, indicated ifa state statute is referred to, the statute should be included in the resolution for the resident to review. Mr. DeMotts referred to page 11, subd. C, referencing dock location. He indicated residents who live near the lake should be given an opportunity to build a dock. Mr. DeMotts did not agree with the fact a house would have to be built in order to have a dock. Mr. Schones indicated if an outlot is owned by a number of individuals, a dock could not be built unless a home is built. Mr. Brixius indicated this is correct. Mr. Mesich inquired if this is in the model ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated no, this was drafted to be consistent with the access ordinances in the city currently. Chair Pro -tem inquired if there is a home association, could there be a common dock. Mr. Brixius indicated through a Planned Development Overlay, that could be established. Mr. Brixius indicated the previous ordinance was silent to this, so it would have been prohibited. Mr. Brixius indicated previous agreements would be grandfathered -in, but new developments would be required to follow the ordinance. Mr. DeMotts indicated a Planned Development Overlay and access should be required by every developer. Mr. Brixius indicated it may not be appropriate for every lake to have a common access, it would not be prudent for the city to require this. Mr. DeMotts referred to page 27, there is a typographical error the subdivision should read 1102 instead of 1002. Mr. DeMotts noted page 29, inquired if all Planned Development Overlays are required to connect to water and sewer. Mr. Brixius indicated this to be correct. Mr. DeMotts inquired if this would include a home already on 5 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 the lake. Mr. Brixius indicated a Planned Development Overlay would be in reference to a multi -family unit development. Mr. DeMotts referring to page 30, inquired if no businesses were allowed. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be in regards to businesses in the designated open space, the city does not want business in a residential Planned Development Overlay. This would not preclude businesses along the lake. Mr. Mike Treus, 675 Shadow Court, inquired as to the appropriate use of the lakes, he wondered if this was experimenting with the lakes. He inquired as to the objective of the Shoreland Ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated the objective of the ordinance is basically to protect the use, the water quality, storm water control and user enjoyment of lake surface. That is why setback requirements, performance standards of the storm drainage, and vegetation removal are stressed in the ordinance. Mr. Treus inquired why the city is wanting to deviate from the model ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated the density surrounding the lakes is a factor, the application of flexibility is very limited. He noted the flexibility requested by Lino Lakes is not unique, other cities have requested even more aggressive flexibilities. The DNR realizes not every city is the same. Mr. Treus inquired if preserving the lakes is a goal, is development not risky. Mr. Brixius indicated the flexibility is requested because only 35% of the shoreland is developable. Mr. Brixius noted if there was not adequate protection the DNR would not have approved the flexibility. Mr. Treus indicated he preferred following the DNR model ordinance. Ms. Donlin indicated regarding quality of the lakes, is there a way to establish the size of motors allowed on the lakes. Mr. Brixius noted this issue would be addressed by a policing issue and would pertain to zoning. Bill Johnson made a MOTION to CLOSE the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Johnson noted a correction on page 30 under paragraph three, line three, it should state "Association", not "Associate". 6 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Mr. Mesich inquired as to the verbiage for the motion. Mr. Brixius indicated the motion should include the corrections of public testimony and subject to comments of Mr. Hovey's letter of March 8, 1995. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to adopt the Shoreland Management Ordinance as revised, subject to comments made by Mr. Tom Hovey in his March 8, 1995 letter; and was supported by Bill Johnson. Ed Schones indicated he was impressed by Mr. Hovey's letter and the good comments of the public. He indicated concern for the comments of the 20/20 Vision program, but was confident those concerns will be heard and can be added if necessary. Guy Herr indicated concern regarding future development, would DNR approval be required for any rezoning. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be correct, and also the need for public hearing, Comprehensive Plan amendment, Planning and Zoning approval, City Council approval then the approval of the DNR. Chair Pro -tem commended the staff at the good job they did regarding the drafting of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Bill Johnson noted the rising concern for the wetlands in the last 20 years, he believes the citizens and the city will be sensitive to the preservation of the natural wetlands. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Mr. Brixius reviewed a revised draft amendment to the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance which would make an allowance for advertising signs only within the City's Rural Zoning Districts. Mr. Mesich inquired if church dinner signs would be allowed along the road. Mr. Brixius indicated it is not an allowed use. Ms. Wyland noted it is a matter of enforcement of the ordinance. Ed Schones made a MOTION to adopt the amendment to the Sign Ordinance and was supported by Guy Herr. 4 voted aye, 1 opposed; Tom Mesich was opposed. Motion carried. Mr. Brixius requested for the record the reason for Mr. Mesich's opposition. Mr. Mesich indicated he would like to see further definition as to what type of signs are allowed, it seemed to him that the city was prohibiting many signs. Mr. Brixius indicated it is in the best interest of the city to restrict signage. Mr. Mesich 7 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 indicated perhaps he would feel more comfortable with additional verbiage. VI. DISCUSSION: A. Behm's Century Farms Phase I & II, Rezoning Planned Development Overlay, Preliminary Plat, MUSA exchange. Mr. Brixius briefly updated the Board on the concept plan provided by Behm's Century Farms. Mr. John Johnson indicated the information presented was for the Board's general information and inquired if there was any items of concern that could be addressed before the next meeting. Mr. Mesich inquired as to the sewer and water, does the city pay for this improvement up front and then collect later for the cost. Mr. Powell indicated the assessments generated by the first phase would pay for that improvement. Mr. Powell indicated timing might be an issue, where a bond might be necessary for a short term. Mr. Powell noted the developer would be responsible to pay for the improvements in the first phase. He indicated the funding for the improvements for the additional phases, should be reimbursed within one year. Mr. Mesich inquired as to the total amount of lots on the site. Mr. John Johnson indicated a total of approximately 160 plus 10 or 12 additional lots. Mr. Bill Johnson inquired as to the lots in the airpark. Mr. John Johnson indicated an agreement with the Airpark Association has been established. Mr. Uhde indicated it was important to note, the airpark requested the additional lots. Mr. Bill Johnson inquired as to the street connection at Thomas. Mr. John Johnson indicated there is a problem because of a large culvert, currently discussion are being held with the Watershed District. B. Discussion regarding Work Sessions Ed Schones requested that written notification and an agenda be provided prior to work sessions. He indicated 7:30 a.m. meetings sometimes precluded him from attending. Ms. Wyland indicated these items will be addressed when scheduling the next work session. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Tom Mesich made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. All voted aye. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. 8 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 8, 1995 meeting as submitted and was supported by Tom Mesich. Johnson and Herr abstained, 3 ayes - 0 nays. Motion carried. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann noted a change to the agenda regarding item VI. B, will become an Action Item and will be noted at V. C. Ed Schones requested a Discussion Item be added regarding Work Session. Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann indicated this item would become VI. B. Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve the agenda as amended and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. OPEN MIKE: Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting opened at 6:39 p.m. Chair Pro -tem at this time asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Planning and Zoning Board regarding any issues not already on the agenda. Mr. Mesich read a letter from Ms. Sharon Lane regarding the February 27, 1995 meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council. Mr. Mesich indicated he concurred with her feeling that the right to develop property is a "right", but a request for rezoning is not a "right", but merely requests which, after due process, may be allowed or may be denied. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted aye. Motion carried. Open Mike portion was closed at 6:43 p.m. V. PLANNING ITEMS: A. 95-4-C, PUBLIC HEARING, Contractor Property Developers Inc., Pheasant Hills Preserve, Conditional Use Permit for Advertising Sign. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed this case which involves a request by Contractor Property Developers Inc, to install an advertising sign for the Pheasant Hills Preserve development on a piece of property located just north/west of the intersection of County Road J. and Centerville Road. The property is Zoned Rural and according to the City Sign Ordinance 9-84 a Conditional Use Permit is required for any advertising sign. Planning Coordinator Wyland indicated staff would recommend approval of the advertising sign as submitted with the following conditions: 1. The sign construction is to withstand windload pressure of 30 P.S.F. 2. The sign is located at least five feet from any property line. 3. No illumination of the sign is allowed. 4. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with the proper function or interpretation of any traffic sign or signal. 5. The sign shall be maintained in good condition and the areas around them kept free from debris, bushes, high weeds, and from anything else which would be an eyesore or nuisance. The surface of the sign must be repainted at least once every two (2) years or whenever necessary as determined by the City Zoning Official to prevent the sign surface from becoming unkept in appearance. 6. The permit owner shall be responsible for all of the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, including the liability for expense of removal and maintenance incurred by the City. 7. A sign permit shall be obtained from the City Building Official. Mr. Schones inquired if there is a way to prevent smaller signs from being attached to this sign. Ms. Wyland indicated this would be an enforcement issue. Mr. Brixius also indicated if the Board desired, they could add restrictions in an additional condition. Chair Pro -tem inquired if restricting smaller signs, would just move those type of signs to stakes around the large sign. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to OPEN the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted aye. The motion carried. Ms. Amy Donlin, neighbor to the project, indicated her concern was that additional billboards would be put in. Ms. Wyland noted there is a provision in the ordinance 2 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 requiring additional signs to be at least 750 feet from each other. Ms. Donlin also inquired if the sign would become permanent. The applicant indicated the sign would only be needed until the sites are sold, and they anticipated that to occur within one year. Mr. Mesich inquired if there could be a two year maximum for the sign. Ms. Wyland indicated the application could be reviewed in two years. Mr. Schones inquired if the review should be in one year. Ms. Wyland did not feel that would be practical. Mr. Johnson inquired if there is any provisions regarding removal after a certain percentage of the sites had been sold. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be a good condition, due to the sign becoming unnecessary after a certain point in development. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to CLOSE the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted aye. The motion carried. Mr. Mesich asked if a restriction of two years or a certain percentage of development could be added to an approval. Mr. Brixius indicated a time limit would not be associated to the Conditional Use, but a percentage would better suit a Conditional Use since the sign would not be necessary after say 90% of the sites had been sold. Mr. Mesich indicated he would like to add condition number eight as such: 8. The Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed in two years with the availability of an extension, unless 90% of the sites have been sold at which time the Conditional Use Permit is void. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to approve application 95-4-C Contractor Property Developers Inc., Conditional Use Permit for Advertising Sign, Pheasant Hills Preserve with the stated eight conditions and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Shoreland Management Ordinance Mr. Brixius reviewed the revised Shoreland Ordinance and the flexibilities requested of the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Brixius indicated the Department of Natural Resources representative, Mr. Tom Hovey stated the flexibilities requested were reasonable. Mr. Brixius indicated Mr. 3 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Hovey made additional comments in a letter dated March 8, 1995. Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann inquired if the Department of Natural Resources will review all Planned Development Overlays. Mr. Brixius indicated only for those Planned Development Overlays where a building would house more than four units, and any variances, rezoning would be reviewed by the Departmental of Natural Resources. Mr. Schones inquired if the district wide density includes the park. Mr. Brixius indicated the park is included. Mr. Brixius indicated the changes requested by Mr. Hovey are easily met. Mr. Brixius indicated the revised ordinance will allow more local control and will be more restrictive. Mr. Mesich inquired if there is verbiage to assure density issues. Mr. Brixius indicated the City will add this. Mr. J.P. Hutchins, 8274 Stagecoach, indicated on page 15, the 35% open space. Mr. Brixius indicated he had brought this issue up to the DNR, the confusion is what constitutes open space. Mr. Brixius noted the area along a driveway would not contribute to open space, but a continuous area intended for recreational use would; therefore, the flexibility in the numbers. Mr. Brixius indicated this does not allow any flexibility in the amount of impervious surface, the maximum amount is still 65% of the lot. Mr. Hutchins indicated on page 32, on top of page, number two; it does not seem to apply to our situation, "... of any tier". Mr. Brixius indicated he agreed, and this would be changed. Mr. Brixius noted that a definition of open space will be added to the Ordinance. Ms. Donlin indicated concern for comments of losing buildable areas around the lakes. She indicated she would like to see a 200 foot setback from any wetland, to provide a corridor system for the wildlife. Ms. Donlin inquired as to what was a deleted unnamed lake. Mr. Brixius indicated basically there was a list of lakes provided by the DNR and in our first draft we included some that were not required to be included. These lakes will still be protected under the 1991 wetland conservation rules, however. Ms. Donlin indicated concern for the 40 foot setback from highways for structures, suggested at least 50 foot. Mr. 4 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Brixius indicated the local requirement is 40 foot, if changed, the local ordinance should be changed. Ms. Donlin encouraged the Board to wait for comments from the 20/20 Vision program, she did not want to discredit the efforts of staff, but indicated residents might have ideas not mentioned previously. Mr. Brixius indicated staff is fulfilling a mandate to establish this ordinance, if in the future there are comments from the city, there could be amendments. Mr. Alan DeMotts, indicated if a state statute is referred to, the statute should be included in the resolution for the resident to review. Mr. DeMotts referred to page 11, subd. C, referencing dock location. He indicated residents who live near the lake should be given an opportunity to build a dock. Mr. DeMotts did not agree with the fact a house would have to be built in order to have a dock. Mr. Schones indicated if an outlot is owned by a number of individuals, a dock could not be built unless a home is built. Mr. Brixius indicated this is correct. Mr. Mesich inquired if this is in the model ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated no, this was drafted to be consistent with the access ordinances in the city currently. Chair Pro -tem inquired if there is a home association, could there be a common dock. Mr. Brixius indicated through a Planned Development Overlay, that could be established. Mr. Brixius indicated the previous ordinance was silent to this, so it would have been prohibited. Mr. Brixius indicated previous agreements would be grandfathered -in, but new developments would be required to follow the ordinance. Mr. DeMotts indicated a Planned Development Overlay and access should be required by every developer. Mr. Brixius indicated it may not be appropriate for every lake to have a common access, it would not be prudent for the city to require this. Mr. DeMotts referred to page 27, there is a typographical error the subdivision should read 1102 instead of 1002. Mr. DeMotts noted page 29, inquired if all Planned Development Overlays are required to connect to water and sewer. Mr. Brixius indicated this to be correct. Mr. DeMotts inquired if this would include a home already on 5 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 the lake. Mr. Brixius indicated a Planned Development Overlay would be in reference to a multi -family unit development. Mr. DeMotts referring to page 30, inquired if no businesses were allowed. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be in regards to businesses in the designated open space, the city does not want business in a residential Planned Development Overlay. This would not preclude businesses along the lake. Mr. Mike Treus, 675 Shadow Court, inquired as to the appropriate use of the lakes, he wondered if this was experimenting with the lakes. He inquired as to the objective of the Shoreland Ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated the objective of the ordinance is basically to protect the use, the water quality, storm water control and user enjoyment of lake surface. That is why setback requirements, performance standards of the storm drainage, and vegetation removal are stressed in the ordinance. Mr. Treus inquired why the city is wanting to deviate from the model ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated the density surrounding the lakes is a factor, the application of flexibility is very limited. He noted the flexibility requested by Lino Lakes is not unique, other cities have requested even more aggressive flexibilities. The DNR realizes not every city is the same. Mr. Treus inquired if preserving the lakes is a goal, is development not risky. Mr. Brixius indicated the flexibility is requested because only 35% of the shoreland is developable. Mr. Brixius noted if there was not adequate protection the DNR would not have approved the flexibility. Mr. Treus indicated he preferred following the DNR model ordinance. Ms. Donlin indicated regarding quality of the lakes, is there a way to establish the size of motors allowed on the lakes. Mr. Brixius noted this issue would be addressed by a policing issue and would pertain to zoning. Bill Johnson made a MOTION to CLOSE the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Johnson noted a correction on page 30 under paragraph three, line three, it should state "Association", not "Associate". 6 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Mr. Mesich inquired as to the verbiage for the motion. Mr. Brixius indicated the motion should include the corrections of public testimony and subject to comments of Mr. Hovey's letter of March 8, 1995. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to adopt the Shoreland Management Ordinance as revised, subject to comments made by Mr. Tom Hovey in his March 8, 1995 letter; and was supported by Bill Johnson. Ed Schones indicated he was impressed by Mr. Hovey's letter and the good comments of the public. He indicated concern for the comments of the 20/20 Vision program, but was confident those concerns will be heard and can be added if necessary. Guy Herr indicated concern regarding future development, would DNR approval be required for any rezoning. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be correct, and also the need for public hearing, Comprehensive Plan amendment, Planning and Zoning approval, City Council approval then the approval of the DNR. Chair Pro -tem commended the staff at the good job they did regarding the drafting of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Bill Johnson noted the rising concern for the wetlands in the last 20 years, he believes the citizens and the city will be sensitive to the preservation of the natural wetlands. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Mr. Brixius reviewed a revised draft amendment to the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance which would make an allowance for advertising signs only within the City's Rural Zoning Districts. Mr. Mesich inquired if church dinner signs would be allowed along the road. Mr. Brixius indicated it is not an allowed use. Ms. Wyland noted it is a matter of enforcement of the ordinance. Ed Schones made a MOTION to adopt the amendment to the Sign Ordinance and was supported by Guy Herr. 4 voted aye, 1 opposed; Tom Mesich was opposed. Motion carried. Mr. Brixius requested for the record the reason for Mr. Mesich's opposition. Mr. Mesich indicated he would like to see further definition as to what type of signs are allowed, it seemed to him that the city was prohibiting many signs. Mr. Brixius indicated it is in the best interest of the city to restrict signage. Mr. Mesich T PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 indicated perhaps he would feel more comfortable with additional verbiage. VI. DISCUSSION: A. Behm's Century Farms Phase I & II, Rezoning Planned Development Overlay, Preliminary Plat, MUSA exchange. Mr. Brixius briefly updated the Board on the concept plan provided by Behm's Century Farms. Mr. John Johnson indicated the information presented was for the Board's general information and inquired if there was any items of concern that could be addressed before the next meeting. Mr. Mesich inquired as to the sewer and water, does the city pay for this improvement up front and then collect later for the cost. Mr. Powell indicated the assessments generated by the first phase would pay for that improvement. Mr. Powell indicated timing might be an issue, where a bond might be necessary for a short term. Mr. Powell noted the developer would be responsible to pay for the improvements in the first phase. He indicated the funding for the improvements for the additional phases, should be reimbursed within one year. Mr. Mesich inquired as to the total amount of lots on the site. Mr. John Johnson indicated a total of approximately 160 plus 10 or 12 additional lots. Mr. Bill Johnson inquired as to the lots in the airpark. Mr. John Johnson indicated an agreement with the Airpark Association has been established. Mr. Uhde indicated it was important to note, the airpark requested the additional lots. Mr. Bill Johnson inquired as to the street connection at Thomas. Mr. John Johnson indicated there is a problem because of a large culvert, currently discussion are being held with the Watershed District. B. Discussion regarding Work Sessions Ed Schones requested that written notification and an agenda be provided prior to work sessions. He indicated 7:30 a.m. meetings sometimes precluded him from attending. Ms. Wyland indicated these items will be addressed when scheduling the next work session. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Tom Mesich made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. All voted aye. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. 8 AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR John Powell, Acting City Engineer DATE March 24. 1995 TOPIC Resolution No. 95-30 Woods of Baldwin Lake - Second Addition Ordering the Improvement BACKGROUND: In response to a petition received by the City from the property owners within this subdivision, a Feasibility Report for utility and street improvements was prepared. This Feasibility Report was presented at a public hearing before the City Council on February 27, 1995. The property owners have also submitted a request to waive 50 days of the 60 day waiting period as provided in Section 8,06 of the Lino Lakes City Charter which allows the City to order the improvement at this time. OPTIONS: 1. Approve Resolution No. 95-30. 2. Return the matter to staff for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 1 - Approve Resolution No. 95-30 Ordering the Improvement of the Woods of Baldwin Lake Second Addition. Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 95-30 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT OF WOODS OF BALDWIN LAKE - SECOND ADDITION. WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 23rd day of January, 1995, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Woods of Baldwin Lake - Second Addition, and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 27th day of February, 1995, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, and WHEREAS, a petition signed by 100% of the property owners proposed to be assessed for these improvements has been received requesting that 50 days of the 60 day waiting period as per Section 8.06 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be waived, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 23rd day of January, 1995. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of March, 1995. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STAFF ORIGINATOR DATE AGENDA ITEM 6B John Powell. Acting City Engineer TOPIC March 24, 1995 Resolution No. 95-31 Woods of Baldwin Lake - Second Addition Approve Plans and Specifications and Order Advertisement for Bids BACKGROUND: This project includes utility and roadway improvements to serve the Woods of Baldwin Lake - Second Addition subdivision. The Plans and Specifications for this project were ordered by the City Council on February 27, 1995. A copy of the advertisement for bids has been forwarded to the legal newspapers contingent upon the City Council's approval of this resolution. OPTIONS: 1. Approve Resolution No. 95-31. 2. Return the matter to staff for further review. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 1 - Approve Resolution No. 95-31 Approving Plans and SpecificatiOns and Ordering the Advertisement for Bids for the Woods of Baldwin Lake - Second Addition Improvements. Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 95-31 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE WOODS OF BALDWIN LAKE - SECOND ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on February 27, 1995, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the Woods of Baldwin lake - Second Addition Improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published to two days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened and bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10:00 A.M. on Monday, April 24, 1995 at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, April 24, 1995 in the Council Chambers. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given the opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of March, 1995. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AGENDA ITEM 6C STAFF ORIGINATOR John Powell. Acting City Engineer DATE March 24. 1995 TOPIC Resolution No. 95-36 Country Lakes Estates - Phase 2 Approve Plans and Specifications and Order Advertisement for Bids BACKGROUND: The Country Lakes Estates project includes a total of 53 lots. The first phase of the project, the western 25 lots, was bid in 1994. The construction of the Phase 1 improvements will be completed this Spring. Phase 2 of Country Lakes Estates includes the eastern 28 lots of the subdivision. All of the construction activity included in Phase 2 is within the limits of the subdivision with the exception of the Deerwood Lane roadway connection to Birch Street. A copy of the advertisement for bids has been forwarded to the legal newspapers contingent upon City Council's approval of this resolution. OPTIONS: 1. Approve Resolution No. 95-36. 2. Return the matter to staff for further review. RECOMMENpATION: Option No. 1 - Approve Resolution No. 95-36 Approving Plans and Specifications and ordering the Advertisement for Bids for Phase 2 of the Country Lakes Estates Improvements. Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 95-36 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE COUNTRY LAKES ESTATES - PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on August 9, 1993, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the Country Lakes Estates - Phase 2 Improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published to two days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened and bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10:00 A.M. on Monday, April 24, 1995 at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, April 24, 1995 in the Council Chambers. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given the opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of March, 1995. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STAFF ORIGINATOR DATE AGENDA ITEM 6D John Powell, Acting City Engineer TOPIC BACKGROUND: This improvement consists of installation of a 12" trunk watermain along the east side of Hodgson Road (T.H. 49) from Linda Avenue to the north side of Birch Street (CSAH 10). Installation of a trunk watermain in this area is consistent with the 1991 Comprehensive Water Study and is necessary to provide adequate water service to the new Fox Trace Subdivision. This project also brings the City of Lino Lakes water system closer to the southwest area of the City currently served from the Shoreview water system through a temporary agreement with Shoreview. The original plan which was considered by the City Council has been revised to reflect the State's agreement to allow the City more working space adjacent to the Trunk Highway 49 roadway. The State of Minnesota also plans to place a bituminoub overlay on Trunk Highway 49 this summer but their activity should begin after the City has completed the watermain project. March 24, 1995 Resolution No, 95-37 Hodgson Road Trunk Watermain Improvements Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids - A copy of the advertisement for bids has been forwarded to the Iegai contingent upon City Council's approval of this resolution. 1. Approve Resolution No. 95-37. 2. Return the matter to staff for further review. RECOMMENDATION: wspapers Option No.1 - Approve Resolution No. 95-37 Approving Plans and Specifications and ordering the Advertisement for Bids for the Hodgson Road Trunk Watermain project. Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 95-37 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE HODGSON ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on June 13, 1994, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the Hodgson Road Trunk Watermain Improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published to two days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened and bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10:00 A.M. on Monday, April 24, 1995 at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, April 24, 1995 in the Council Chambers. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given the opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of March, 1995. Vemon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AGENDA ITEM 7A STAFP ORIGINATOR Bill Hawkins, City Attorney DATE March 21, 1995 TOPIC Consideration of Accepting Easement from Vivian Hanson, Hodgson Road Watermain Improvement An easement from Mrs. Hanson was approved by the City Council earlier this year. Because the legal description in the easement document was found to be in error, another easement document has been prepared with the proper legal description. The easement runs the front of the property where Rehbein Transit is located. 1. Adopt a motion accepting the easement as presented. 2. Return matter to staff for further information. Option No. 1 EASEMENT GRANT THIS EASEMENT, made this /day of 79-,,a,,e , 1995, by Vivian E. Hanson, Trustee, UDT, Dated: June 23, 1992, Grantor, to the City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation, Grantee, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota. WITNESSETH, that Vivian E. Hanson, Trustee for value received does hereby dedicate to the City of Lino Lakes a permanent and temporary easement over the land located within the City of Lino Lakes, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, described as follows: A permanent easement for drainage and utility purposes over the West ten (10) feet of the following described property: The North 496.75 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, except East 517 feet of North 450 feet thereof. Together with a temporary easement for construction purposes to terminate on October 1, 1995 over the West 80 feet of the North 496.75 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, except East 517 feet of North 450 feet thereof. The City of Lino Lakes further makes the following covenants to Grantor(s): 1. The City of Lino Lakes shall pay to Vivian E. Hanson, Trustee, UDT, Dated: June 23, 1992, the sum of Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eighty and no/100 ($9,280.00) Dollars as and for the permanent and temporary easements. State Deed Tax Due: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Vivian E. Hanson, Trustee has caused these presents to be executed or have set her hands the day and- year first above written. PRESENCE OF;-) BARBARA E LONGERBONE NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA ANOKA COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 06-284e Vivian E. Hanson, Trustee STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) ss. On this 20 T"day of 995, before me, a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Vivian E. Hanson, Trustee, UDT, Dated: June 23, 1992, to me known to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and she executed the same as her free act and deed. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Lino Lakes, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, has accepted on , 19, the above described easement in this document. Dated: , 1995 CITY OF LINO LAKES Figl E LONGERBONE NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA ANOKA COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 05-28-96 This instrument was drafted by: William G. Hawkins and Associates 299 Coon Rapids Blvd., #101 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 By Clerk AGENDA ITEM 8 STAFF ORIGINATOR Randy Schumacher DATE March 22, 1995 TOPIC Public Hearing to redesignate a portion of the 1994-1995 Community Development Block Grant Funds. Approve Resolution 95-34. Resolution 94-06 designated $9,700.00 to the City's Therapeutic Recreation Program. As of March 1995, there remains an unused balance of $8,811.93 and it has been determined that a majority of these funds will not be used. The City may redesignate all or a portion of the remaining Therapeutic Recreation dollars towards another qualifying plan. The public hearing has been set to take input on qualifying programs. .ommendation of staff to redesignate $5,000.00 of 1994-1995 Therapeutic e€ation dollars to the City's growth study (Land Use/Economic Development/Impact Study) to be spent before December 31, 1995. The request for redesignation will go to the Anoka County Review Board on April 27, and the Anoka County Board on May 9, 1995, for approval. App rt ve resolution 95-34 redesignating 1994-1995 CDBG funds from the Therapeutic Recreation Programto the City's Growth Study(Land Use/Economic Development/tmpact Study). Send back to staff for further considerations. Recommend option 1 Council member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NUMBER 95-34 RESOLUTION REDESIGNATING A PORTION OF THE 1994-1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS. Whereas, resolution 94-06 designated $9,700.00 to the City's ongoing Therapeutic Recreation Program and, Whereas, there remains an unused balance as of March 1995, of 58,811.93 in the Therapeutic Recreation area and, Whereas, it has been determined that a majority of these funds will not be used and, Whereas, the City may redesignate all or a portion of the remaining Therapeutic Recreation dollars towards another qualifying program and, Whereas, it is the recommendation of the City to redesignate $5,000.00 towards the City's ongoing Growth Study(Land Use, Economic Development/impact Study). Now therefore be it resolved, that $5,000.00 be redesignated from the 1994-1995 Therapeutic Recreation Program to the City's ongoing Growth Study (Land Use/ Economic Development/Impact Study) to be spent before December 31, 1995. Adopted by the City Council of Lino Lakes this 27th day of March, 1995 Vernon F. Reinert,Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Where upon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AGENDA ITEM 9 STAFF ORIGINATOR Randy Schumacher DATE 03/27/95 TOPIC Resolution 95-27 Amending the 1994 Budget Certain revenues and expenditures have either exceeded or fell short of aii►ticipated budget amounts. The 1994 budget should be amended to reflect closer to actual figures. Please see the attached summary and detail budget amendment sheets. 1. Amend budget per resolution 95-27 Council member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 95-27 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1994 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, certain revenues have either exceeded or fell short of anticipated budget amounts and, WHEREAS, certain expenditures have either exceeded or fell short of anticipated budget amounts and, WHEREAS, it has been recommended that the 1994 budget be amended to reflect closer to actual figures and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1994 General Fund budget be amended accordingly effective December 1994 (Please see attached schedule). Adopted by the City Council of Lino Lakes this 27th day of March, 1995. Vernon. F. Reinert - Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk Treasurer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Where upon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted: General Fund Revenue Summary Taxes Business Licences Non Business Licenses and Permits State Revenues City Revenues County Revenues(Solid Waste) Charges For Sevices Fines Interest on Investments Donations Refunds and Reimbursments Cable TV Fixed Assets(SaIe of Equipment) 1994 Budget 1,955,862 20,220 507,550 235,445 30,000 41,303 370,069 80,000 50,000 0 37,000 15,000 10,000 1994 Amended Adjustment Budget 6,742 (4,090) (138,569) 2,236 31,734 (11,710) (18,932) (7,546) (5,647) 6,262 (8,426) 1,335 (7,394) 1,962,604 16,130 368,981 237,681 61,734 29,593 351,137 72,454 44,353 6,262 28,574 16,335 2,606 Total General Fund Revenues 3,352,449 (154,005) 3,198,444 Revenues items to be Amended: Amended 1994 1994 Budget Adjustment Budget TAXES TAXFORFIETS TOTAL TAXES 0 6,742 6,742 6,742 BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS TAVERN 9,000 (3,000) 6,000 GAMBLING TAX - DONATION 1,500 (1,090) 410 TOTAL BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS (4,090) NON -BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS BUILDING PERMITS 261,000 (84,322) 176,678 PLAN INSPECTIONS FEES 150,000 (53,554) 96,446 PLUMBING PERMITS 27,000 (9,488) 17,512 SEWER HOOK-UP 25,000 (9,225) 15,775 SEPTIC PERMITS 1,000 1,480 2,480 MECHANICAL PERMITS 12,500 (2,228) 10,272 SIGN PERMITS 3,000 1,048 4,048 OVERWEIGHT PERMITS 7,000 17,720 24,720 TOTAL NON -BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS (138,569) STATE REVENUE MSA ROADS 80,000 5,187 85,187 OTHER STATE REVENUE 10,000 (2,951) 7,049 TOTAL STATE REVENUE 2,236 CITY REVENUES TOTAL CITY REVENUES COUNTY REVENUES ANOKA COUNTY SOLID WASTE TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES 30,000 31,734 61,734 31,734 35,803 (11,710) 24,093 (11,710) GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 7,500 (3,137) 4,363 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE 50,000 12,204 62,204 PUBLIC WORKS FEES 0 4,187 4,187 CITY ENGINEERING/PLANNINGFEES 127,300 (32,186) 95,114 TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES (18,932) FINES AND FORFEITS FINES TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITS INVESTMENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS TOTAL INVESTMENTS DONATIONS DONATIONS FROM ORGANIZATIONS TOTAL DONATIONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 80,000 (7,546) 72,454 (7,546) 50,000 (5,647) 44,353 (5,647) 0 6,262 6,262 6,262 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 25,000 (12,606) 12,394 REFUNDS FROM TREES 12,000 4,180 16,180 TOTAL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS (8,426) CABLE TV CABLE TV TOTAL CABLE TV FIXED ASSETS SALE OF FIXED ASSETS TOTAL FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ADJUSTMENT 15,000 1,335 16,335 1,335 10,000 (7,394) 2,606 (7,394) (160,747) 1 Total 1994 Revenue Budget 3,352,449 (154,005) 3,198,4441 2- 1994 1994 Amended General Fund Expenditure Summary Budget Adjustment Budget Cable TV 1,423 0 1,423 Economic Development 110,316 (14,181) 96,135 Mayor and Council 49,522 0 49,522 Elections and Voters Registration 7,511 2,046 9,557 Administration 335,554 11,690 347,244 Assessor 33,107 5,939 39,046 Legal Printing 14,985 0 14,985 Consultants 156,829 27,363 184,192 Engineering/Planning 182,842 (40,380) 142,462 Planning and Zoning Board 5,513 0 5,513 Government Buildings 221,593 (21,500) 200,093 Charter Commission 1,350 0 1,350 Police Department 770,962 13,073 784,035 Fire Department 236,266 0 236,266 Building Inspections 92,156 8,128 100,284 Civil Defense 4,200 0 4,200 Animal Control 2,807 0 2,807 Streets 588,486 (59,662) 528,824 Solid Waste Abatement 44,421 (6,500) 37,921 Parks Department 269,404 17,366 286,770 Recreation Department 73,903 6,128 80,031 Park Board Members 4,139 0 4,139 Forestry Department 57,199 (15,554) 41,645 Others 87,961 (87,961) 0 Total General Fund Expenditures 3,352,449 (154,005) 3,198,444 Expenditure Items to be Amended: Amended 1994 1994 Budget Adjustmenl Budget Economic Development 101 Salaries 64,074 730 64,804 121 PERA 2,871 33 2,904 122 FICA 4,902 56 4,958 300 Professional Services 28,000 (15,000) 13,000 Total Econ Development (14,181) Elections 101 Salaries 6,000 1,890 7,890 122 FICA 460 156 616 Total Elections 2,046 Administration 101 Salaries 237,475 3,192 240,667 121 PERA 10,753 277 11,030 122 FICA 18,438 532 18,970 106 Other Salaries 1,000 7,689 8,689 Total Administration 11,690 Assessor 400 Contract 33,107 5,939 39,046 Total Assessor 5,939 Consultants 301 Municipal Attorney 40,000 1,363 41,363 303 Criminal Attorney 55,000 13,000 68,000 307 Growth Study 0 5,000 5,000 310 Other Consultants 7,250 8,000 15,250 Total Consultants 27,363 Planning 101 Salaries 121 PERA 122 FICA 131 Health 133,386 (32,040) 101,346 6,200 (1,992) 4,208 10,600 (3,349) 7,251 16,632 (3,000) 13,632 Total Planning (40,380) Government Buildings 211 Maintenance Supplies 9,700 (2,000) 7,700 311 Sales Tax 7,096 (4,000) 3,096 381 Electricity 18,380 (1,500) 16,880 383 Heat 7,990 (2,000) 5,990 500 Capital Outlay 69,196 (12,000) 57,196 Total Government Buildings (21,500) Police Department 101 Salaries 478,798 24,978 503,776 106 Other Salaries 21,118 (11,018) 10,100 121 PERA 54,000 2,927 56,927 122 FICA 8,300 732 9,032 151 Workers Compensation 32,732 (4,546) 28,186 Total Police 13,073 4 Expenditure Items to be Amended: Amended 1994 1994 Budget Adjustment Budget Building Inspections 101 Salaries 60,189 9,032 69,221 121 PERA 2,719 405 3,124 122 FICA 4,643 691 5,334 330 Travel 3,000 (2,000) 1,000 Total Building Inspections 8,128 Streets 101 Salaries 157,761 21,478 179,239 106 Other Salaries 14,300 (4,000) 10,300 121 PERA 8,179 2,321 10,500 122 FICA 15,061 4,039 19,100 200 Office Supplies 3,900 (2,500) 1,400 212 Fuels 12,800 (4,000) 8,800 221 Shop Parts 30,000 (9,000) 21,000 223 Street Signs 10,900 (3,000) 7,900 311 Sales Tax 13,189 (5,000) 8,189 330 Travel and Tuition 5,100 (3,000) 2,100 401 Materials for Roads 109,300 (54,000) 55,300 402 Contracted Street Repaii 79,000 (3,000) 76,000 Total Streets (59,662) Solid Waste 106 Other Salaries 3,072 (2,500) 572 400 Contracted Services 12,640 (4,000) 8,640 Total Solid Waste (6,500) Parks 101 Salaries 112,674 21,976 134,650 121 PERA 5,458 1,582 7,040 122 FICA 10,892 808 11,700 211 Maintenance Supplies 18,348 (5,000) 13,348 410 Rented Equipment 5,980 (2,000) 3,980 Total Parks 17,366 Recreation 101 Salaries 24,000 10,123 34,123 106 Other Salaries 21,477 (5,000) 16,477 121 PERA 1,100 500 1,600 122 FICA 3,500 505 4,005 Total Recreation 6,128 Forestry 101 Salaries 30,118 (10,813) 19,305 121 PERA 1,400 (1,015) 385 122 FICA 2,345 (1,726) 619 400 Contracted Services 3,000 (2,000) 1,000 Total Foresty Contingency Reserve Salaries Reserve Total Contingency Total Adjustment (15,554) 40,000 (40,000) 0 47,961 (47,961) 0 (87,961) (154,005) Total 1994 Expenditure Budget 3,352,449 (154,005) 3,198,444 5 AGENDA ITEM 10A STAFF ORIGINATOR Randy Schumacher, C.A. DATE March 20, 1995 TOPIC Consideration of a Letter From Fairview Hospitals Attached is a letter from Fairview Hospitals asking the City to help identify potential candidates for the Operational Board of Directors to oversee the operations of District Memorial Hospital. Please review the letter and then present your nomination for a position on this Board. I have contacted Yvonne Henrich about this matter.. To this point, not many candidates have been identified and she is becoming concerned. 1. Approve a motion nominating one or more persons for the Operational Board of Directors. 2. Take no action. 3. Refer the matter to staff for further information. Council decision. 0 0 CI 0 Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Ser 'ices March 6, 1995 Randy Shumaker Administrator City of Lino Lakes 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 2450 Riverside Avenue Minneapolis, MN 5545.4-H95 6/2-6'2-6300 Fax 6/2-672-6303 RE: FAIRVIEW DMH BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEARCH PROCESS Dear Randy: As you may be aware, on January 3, 1995 Fairview Hospital & Health Care Services assumed responsibility for the operation of District Memorial Hospital in Forest Lake. In addition to a relationship with District Memorial Hospital, Fairview also finalized a relationship with Chisago Health Services earlier in 1994. Fairview's involvement in the health care community in Forest Lake and Chisago is an exciting step forward towards the development of a fully integrated regional health care system. A key component to Fairview's development of a regional health care system will be the creation of a new regionally focused medical center. The new medical center will consolidate the operations of both Chisago Lakes Hospital in Chisago City and District Memorial Hospital in Forest Lake. In the interim, approximately two to three years, Fairview will continue to operate both Chisago Lakes Hospital and District Memorial Hospital as acute care facilities. As a part of the lease agreement with the hospital district board in Forest Lake, Fairview will establish an operational board of directors to oversee the operations of District Memorial Hospital. The operational board will be made up of nine individuals including three community members and a physician. The purpose of my letter is to ask for your assistance in identifying potential candidates for the community member positions. In your leadership role in the community, you come in contact with a variety of people who may be the kind of individuals interested in community service. Based upon your knowledge, we are asking for your personal recommendation of individuals that would be potential candidates for the DMH operational board. I have attached a copy of the criteria which will be used to select the three community members to serve on the DMH operational board. We are contacting _ a variety of organizations and individuals to identify potential candidates for these positions. We are asking your assistance in identifying individuals that you may feel meet the attached qualifications. We hope to generate a list of potential candidates within the next two weeks. The nominating committee of the DMH operating board will then begin the process of contacting potential candidates to identify their level of interest and ultimately make final recommendations for appointment to the DMH board, and to Fairview. Again, we are ye it assistance. as a com l �1 ity leader identifying i, requesting � %L '._-, in potentlal candidates. At this point, we are requesting that you not contact those individuals you would like to recommend. We believe to make the process work best, that contact is best made by the nominating committee. Please forward the names of any suggested candidates to Yvonne Henrich, chair Fairview District Memorial Hospital operating board at District Memorial Hospital, 246 1 lth Avenue, Forest Lake MN 55025, or call Yvonne at 426-3013. If you have any questions about this process or our request, please feel free to contact Yvonne or me. You can contact me at 257-8485. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this very important process. Sincerely, S5,c(04— W j99412 -0/V042 -v./ Scott Wordelman Senior Vice President FAIRVIEW DIVISIONAL BOARD DIS 1'RICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOREST LAKE, MN 01/23/95 CRITERIA FOR MEMBERSHIP 1. Visibility in the communities served by DMH and a demonstrated ability to effectively communicate. Characteristics to meet this include someone who is approachable, accessible, and communicates with people in the community. De; �nJ4Yated track record of community im,Vl`''eiii.'. nt. 3. Awareness of and/or an ability to learn about issues affecting health care in the region. 4. Willingness to accept the governance role as defined within the Fairview divisional policies. 5. Support for the regional vision and plan and the ability and willingness to contribute to its implementation. 6. Supportive of the mission and values of Fairview. 7. Comfort with the transitional role that the DMH board will fill. 8. Ability to work well with others in a team setting. 9. Willingness to comply with the Faiview Conflict of Interest Policy. 10. Acceptance of the need for confidentiality of DMH and Fairview business plans and other sensitive information that will be a part of the board's work from time to time. Willingness to enter into a confidentiality agreement with Fairview. 11. Willingness to contribute time and to participate in educational efforts. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A mix of ages, genders, appropriate cultural mix and geographic distribution will also be considered in the selection process. The committee also feels that the board will need ties to the local and Twin Cities business community. Initial terms will be for one year. AGENDA ITEA4 10B STAFF ORIGINATOR Randy Schumacher, City Administrator DATE ' 23 March 1995 TOPIC City Clerk Compensation Adjustment Please find attached minutes from the 11 October 1993 Council meeting at which time compensation levels were being discussed for the City Clerk Treasurer. A motion was made at this meeting that the clerk's 1993 compensation level be tied to the outcome of the Lino Lakes Management Association (LIMA) contract. Historically, the City Clerk and Building Inspector had been comparably compensated. Accordingly, Iwould recommend a $1,610.00 lump sum non -base adjustment be awarded to the City Clerk: (Inspector 1993 Adjustment - $2,601.00) (Clerk 1993 Adjustment - $ 990.00) $1,610.00 Award the City Clerk a non -base lump sum adjustment of $1,610.0 Award another amount. 19, COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 11, 1993 these are the only boards that have been receiving compensation. Mr. Schumacher recommended that this policy continue. As the City grows, the work of these two (2) boards has increased and additional meetings have been scheduled. Mr. Schumacher explained that staff has prepared ordinances adjusting the compensation based on a survey of cities of similar size and in the approximate same state of growth. The quarterly compensation would be $50.00 per month based on attendance with the chairman of each board receiving $75.00 per month. Previously, the boards were receiving an extra $10.00 per quarter if the member attended all three (3) meetings in that quarter. This provision has been eliminated. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt the first reading of Ordinance No. 93 - 20 and Ordinance No. 93 - 21. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Recommendation on City Clerk -Treasurer Salary Increase for 1993 - Mr. Schumacher explained that two (2) positions not represented by any bargaining unit have not been adjusted for 1993. These two (2) positions are the Clerk -Treasurer and the Accountant III. At their September 29, 1993 meeting the Ways and Means Committee discussed the review and corresponding salary adjustment for the City Clerk -Treasurer. The Committee considered salary survey information submitted by the City Clerk -Treasurer and reviewed the position. Based on that information, the Ways and Means Committee recommended a 5% adjustment to the 1992 base salary and a 3% adjustment to the 1993 base salary. Additionally, recognizing that the establishment of the Management Association may skew this positions place on the 100% All Employee Line for Pay Equity compliance, this committee further recommended that the Clerk - Treasurer's increase be tied to the average percentage increase of this groups base salary to a maximum of $2,000.00 additional compensation. Council Member Kuether asked if the $2,000.00. is a total adjustment. Mr. Schumacher said no, it will be an additional amount based upon the settlement with the Management Association. Council Member Kuether asked if the adjustment is a bonus or an adjustment to the base salary. Mr. Schumacher explained that the base salary would be adjusted. Council Member Neal asked what the Stanton Report is. Mr. Schumacher explained. Council Member Bergeson noted that there is a great amount of good information in the report, however, the problem is trying to determine the cities to compare with Lino PAGE 12 1 COUNCIL MEETING Lakes. OCTOBER 11, 1993 Council Member Kuether felt that Lino Lakes should be compared to cities at the same stage of development. She noted that the employees at Lino Lakes work harder because of all of the - development and should not be compared to cities that are fully developed Council Member Kuether moved to approve the Ways and Means Committee recommendation for the Clerk -Treasurer as submitted. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Recommendation on Accountant III Salary Increase for 1993 - Mr. Schumacher explained that the Accountant III is also not represented by a labor organization and has not had a 1993 -salary adjustment. At their September 29th meeting, the Ways and Means Committee discussed the review and corresponding salary adjustment for this position. The Committee considered salary survey information submitted by the Accountant III and reviewed the position. Based on the information, the Ways and Means Committee recommended a 3% adjustment for 1992, a 3% adjustment for 1993 and a 9% adjustment for additional responsibilities, finance department reorganizations, and external market considerations. Mr. Schumacher noted that the Accounting Department is now down to two (2) persons. There will be a delay in hiring a replacement for the Accounts Payable Clerk until the new accounting software is completely installed and it is determined exactly what type of replacement will be needed. Council Member Bergeson noted that as in the case of the Clerk - Treasurer, the adjustments have been for cost of living and changes in responsibilities. There were no merit raise considerations. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt the recommendation of the Ways and Means Committee for the Accountant III position. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ATTORNEY'S REPORT William Boop vs. the City of Lino Lakes - Mr. Hawkins presented a brief background on this litigation. Mr. Boop is contending that the City is negligent in enforcing the City ordinances regarding a septic system failure on the neighbors property. He contends PAGE 13 AGENDA ITEM 11A STAFF ORIGINATOR Marilyn Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer DATE March 21, 1995 TOPIC Consideration of a Gambling License Request from the Dead Broke Saddle Club The Dead Broke Saddle Club applied for a Lino Lakes Gambling License which was considered at the last City Council meeting. The City Council denied the request because this organization did not meet the requirements of the Gambling Ordinance. The Dead Broke Saddle Club has again applied for a Lino Lakes Gambling License to become effective August 1, 1995. This organization will meet one of the Gambling Ordinance requirements on that date and will be eligible for a Gambling License. I have discussed this matter with the City Attorney because it appears that the Gambling Ordinance does not specificallyaddress ii whether the City Council can approve a license for a futu date. If the City Council approved the license at this time, h could the City Council be sure that the conditions are met at a time the license is to become effective? The City Attorney has suggested that the City Council may approve the Gambling License at this time with the stipulation that the Dead Broke Saddle Club provide an affidavit to the Clerk -Treasurer on or before August 1, 1995 which would verify the names, addresses and membership dates of at least 15 Lino Lakes residents. Since it appears that the City Council has two (2) options, they may wish to discuss the matter with the City Attorney during the Council meeting. 1. Approve the Gambling License for the Dead Broke Saddle Club effective August 1, 1995. Gambling License for Dead Broke Saddle Club Page -2- 2. Deny the Gambling License for the Dead Broke Saddle Club and suggest that they re -apply at the time they are eligible for a license. ........................................................... RECOMMENDATION; Council decision. LG202 (05/26/94) Minnesota Lawful Gambling LEASE AGREEMENT Property Owner/Lessor`Infortnation Y Name of Legal Owner of Property Street Address Z' 0(17 AA 50/1 Name of Lessor Street Address (This may or may not be the same as the Legg Owner of the Property) / n ,ter 3idc4ILe Name of Leased Premises 7 c i✓G67 Aloe s G4 Street Address City Zip Daytime Phone 4 (7)ys'/2�� City Zip Daytime Phone /70(C'2) `fs City 6-007 /710 ffs Zip ,/ Daytime Phone 55" (ci-)'x`35' - YY�gs✓' Name of Lessee (Name of Organization Leasing the premises) Gambling Activity and Rent Information - .!; GCB License # of Organization —038c ' Daytime Phone (aZ) 7Z Type of gambling activity that will be conducted at this gambling premises (Check all that apply to this gambling premises) Q Bingo ,j„cfritaffles Paddlewheels Pull -tabs Q Tipboards Rent Information (See Rule 7861.0060, Subp 2D) Indicate the rents paid by your organization to the lessor: Class A and C premises permits pay rent per bingo occasion: Rent for bingo and all other gambling activities conducted during that bingo occasion may not exceed: $200 for up to 6,000 square feet 5300 for up to 12,000 square feet, and 5400 for more than 12,000 square feet. Rent to be paid per bingo occasion 5 Class B and D premises permits pay rent per month: Rent for forms of lawful gambling activity other than bingo may not exceed a maximum of 51000 per month. Rent to be paid per month s / cry Rent may not be based on a percentage of receipts from lawful gambling, or attendance at a bingo occasion . An organization may not pay rent to itself or to any of its affiliates for space used for the conduct of lawful gambling. Effective Date for Amended Lease Agreements B / / /��-' Please list the effective date on which the amendments to the original lease will take place. List dimensions of all areas leased by your�organization for gambling activity on this premises: �( The leased areas are: V feet by (53 feet for a total of 7 square feet. feet by feet for a total of square feet feet by feet far a tntal of square feet. feet by feet for a total of square feet. Combined total square footage Submit a sketch (drawing) of the gambling premises. This must show the location of your organizations leased areas for the conduct of lawful gambling including areas leased for storage of your gambling product on this gambling premises. Be sure to write the dimensions of the leased areas on the sketch. THE DIMENSIONS ON THE SKETCH MUST BE THE SAME AS ABOVE. Times and Days of Bingo Occasions (for Class A or C premises permits). If you checked bingo activity above, you must fill in the bingo days and times below. Circle a.m. or p.m. after each beginning and ending time. A bingo occasion must continue for at least 1-1/2 hours (90 minutes) but cannot exceed four (4) consecutive hours and at least 15 bingo games must be held at each occasion. An organization (as a whole) may not conduct more then seven (7) bingo occasions each week. Begins At: (a.m./p.m.) Ends At: (a.m./p.m.) On Day of Week Begins At: (a.m./pm.) Ends At (a.m./p.m.) On Day of Week Begins At: (a.m./p.m.) Ends At: (a.mJp.m.) On Day of Week Begins At: (a.m./p.m.) Ends At: (a.m./p.m) On Day of Week Begins At: (a.m./p.m.) Ends At: (a.m./p.m.) On Day of Week Begins At: (a.m./p.m.) Ends At: (a.m./p.m.) On Day of Week Begins At: (a.m./p.m.) Ends At: (a.m./p.m.) On Day of Week By agreeing to the terms of this lease, it is mutually agreed that: *When leasing from a licensed bingo hall, the lessor must be legal owner of the property. 'The owner of the property or the lessor may not manage gambling at the premises. The lessor of the premises, his or her immediate family, and any agents or employees of the lessee may not participate as players in the conduct of lawful gambling on the leased premises. 'The lessor and the lessee do not have a direct or indirect financial interest in the distribution or manufacture of gambling LG202 (08/26/94) equipment. 'The lessor of the premises will allow the Board or agents of thc Board'Ohc Commissioner of Public Safety or agents of the commissioner, or the Commissioner of Revenue or agents of the comrttissioner, and law enforcement personnel to inspect the premises at any reasonable time, and permit the organization'to_cdnduct lawful gambling at the premises according to the terms of this 'case. The lessor may not impose any conditions on the organization regarding distributors of gambling equipment, services, or the use of profits. The organization must obtain an organization license, gambling manager license and a premises permit from the Gambling Control Board. The organization will be responsible for complying with the laws and rules of lawful gambling. 'The term of the lease shall be concurrent with the pr:.mises permit. 'The organization must have, at the gambling premises, a current inventory of gambling equipment, a sketch with dimensions of the premises available for review, and a clear physical separation or divider between the lessees gambling equipment and the lessor's business equipment. •The organization will be responsible for ensuring that the lessor's business activities are not conducted on thc leased premises. •The lease shall be terminated immediately for any illegal gambling violations occurring on the premises. *The lessor of the premises shall provide the lessee access to the licensed premises during any time reasonable and necessary to conduct lawful gambling on the premises and as agreed upon in this lease. *The lessor shall not modify, terminate or refuse to renew this lease in whole or in part because the organization reported to a state or local law enforcement authority or the Board the occurrence at the site of illegal gambling activity in which the organization did not participate. •(Write in any other conditions or restrictions that will be included as part of the lease. Attach additional sheets if necessary) _ �. ori at e l boo Q r�� s xy.. o 076,251.44.52:!\ \\ he t• �� .'c S' C'l�s,�� >I •• Setex—ec S S )\,3 �� cNYtPmOa\ Ob L\ 01) 61-\(-fA \ C��ncl t This lease is the total and only asreernent tween the lessor and the organization conducting lawful gambling activities. There is no other agreement and no other consideration required between the parties as to the lawful gambling and other matters related to this lease. Any changes in this lease must be submitted to thc Gambling Control Board within 10 days of the change. Signature of Lessor Date Signature of Organization Official (lessee) Date I . ji.Y� -r � .,�/ Title of Lessor Signatory Cel `ec,C( / I&SI,Ste_ Titre of Lessee Signatory 6 ({s �J A copy of this lease and a sketch, with dimensions must be submitted with the premises permit application, premises permit application renewal or when any changes in the lease agreement occur. Pu suant to Minn. Stat 13.04, Subd. 2 you are hereby-iiifom,ed that the information requested on this fore will be used by the Gambling Control Board to detecmme your qualifications to be involved in kwful gambling activities in Minnesota, and to assist the Gambling Control Board in conducting a background investigation arm_ You have the right to refuse to supply the information requested. However. if you refuse to supply this information, the Gambling Control Board may not be able to determine your qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue you a license. if you apply the information requested, the Gambling Control Board will be able to process your application. Upon receiving a lawful gambling hcnse, as application data presided by you will become public data. Prior to receiving a license, the application information (with the exception of year name and addles; which are public) is considered private data on individuals and will be avalble only to the following: Gambling Control Board members, staff of the Gambling Control Board whose wale assignmad requires that they have access to the imfomution, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. die Minnesota Arany General, the Minnesota Commissioners of Administration, Fnarae, and Revalue. the Minnesota Learn itive Auditor. iniad and international gambling regulatory agencies. parties to judicial proceedings pursuant to mat cede, other individuals or agencies that may be specifically authorized by estate statute or federal law to have access to such information, individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of the information after this Notice was given. Hearing impaired individuals using a TDD may call the Minnesota Relay Service at 1-800-627-3329. This publication will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request AGENDA ITEM 118 STAFF ORIGINATOR Marilyn Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer DATE March 20, 1995 TOPIC Consideration of Resolution No. 95 - 35 Correcting the 1995 Assessment I have discovered several errors in the 1995 assessment rolls. Since, property tax statements have already been calculated and mailed to the property owners, the only remedy is to abate the wrong assessments and place the assessments on the correct properties. The errors involve Property Identification Numbers (PIN's) , not the actual calculation of the assessment. This means that some properties were assessed when they should not have been assessed and some properties were not assessed when they should have been assessed. 1 Adoption of Resolution No. 95 - 35 will correct the errors.' I have notified the property owners affected by these errors. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 95 - 35. 2. Return matter to staff for further information. Option No. MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Tesch, Assistant to the City Administrator FROM: Marilyn Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer DATE: March 20, 1995 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 95 - 35 Correcting the 1995 Assessment I have added the above described item to the agenda for March 27, 1995. I have discovered several errors in the assessment. Since the tax statements have already been calculated and mailed to the property owners, the only remedy is to abate the wrong assessments and place the assessment on the right properties. The errors occurred when our two (2) consulting engineering companies picked up the wrong Property Identification Numbers (PIN's) from the list of PIN supplied by the County. I do not believe that we should "belabor" the issue since it is the first time such an error has occurred. Mr. Powell is aware of the problem and will followup on the situation. Once the City Council acts on Resolution No. 95 - 35, I will forward a certified copy of the resolution to the Auditor's office. They will mail corrected property tax statements to the affected residents. Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 95 - 35 RESOLUTION ABATING 1995 INSTALLMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PIN. 27-31-22-13-0004, 27-31-22-13-0005, 29-31-22-32-0022, 29-31-32- 0023, AND 29-31-22-41-0015 AND PLACING ASSESSMENT OF PROPER PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS. WHEREAS: an assessment was certified to the above listed parcels for 1995, and WHEREAS: it has come to the attention of staff that these assessments were applied to the wrong Property Identification Numbers, and WHEREAS: the City Council has met and has considered the request to abate the 1995 installment of special assessment on the above listed parcels, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the 1995 installment and all future years installments for Special Assessment Fund No. 82348 on property described as PIN. 27-31-22-13-0004 and PIN. 27-31-22-13-0005 including penalties and interest, if any, are hereby abated. The special assessment applied to the previously mentioned PIN's shall be applied to PIN. 27-31-22-12-0004 and PIN. 27- 31-22- 12-0005. (Please correct the computer listings to show the correct Property Identification Numbers.) 2. That the 1995 installment and all future years installments for Special Assessment Fund No. 82349 on property described as PIN. 27-31-22-13-0004 and PIN. 27-31-22-13-0005 including penalties and interest, if any, are hereby abated. The special assessment applied to the previously mentioned PIN's shall be applied to PIN. 27-31-22-12-0004 and PIN. 27-31-22- 12-0005. (Please correct the computer listings to show the correct Property Identification Numbers.) 3. That the 1995 installment and all future years installments for Special Assessment Fund No. 82350 on property described as PIN. 27-31-22-13-0004 and PIN. 27-31-22-13-0005 including penalties and interest, if any, are hereby abated. The special assessment applied to the previously mentioned PIN's shall be applied to PIN. 27-31-22-12-0004 and PIN. 27-31-22- 12-0005. (Please correct the computer listings to show the correct Property Identification Numbers.) 4. That the 1995 installment and all future years installments RESOLUTION NO. 95 - 35 Page -2- for Special Assessment Fund No. 82354 on property described as PIN. 29-31-22-32-0022 and PIN. 29-31-22-32-0023 including penalties and interest, if any, are hereby abated. The special assessment applied to the previously mentioned PIN's shall be applied to PIN. 28-31-22-32-0022 and PIN. 28-31-22- 32-0023. (Please correct the computer listings to show the correct Property Identification Numbers.) 5. That the 1995 installment and all future years installments for Special Assessment Fund No. 82355 on property described as PIN. 29-31-22-32-0022 and PIN. 29-31-22-32-0023 including penalties and interest, if any, are hereby abated. The special assessment applied to the previously mentioned PIN's shall be applied to PIN. 28-31-22-32-0022 and PIN. 28-31-22- 32-0023. (Please correct the computer listings to show the correct Property Identification Numbers.) 6. That the 1995 installment and all future years installments for Special Assessment Fund No. 82356 on property described as PIN. 29-31-22-41-0015 be corrected as follows: Initial Principal be correct to read $602.40, not $1,921.69 and Annual plus Interest be corrected to read $86.01, not $274.37. 7. The City Clerk -Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Anoka County, Minnesota for abatement and correction. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of March, 1995. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STAFF ORIGINATOR DATE TOPIC BACKGROUND: AGENDA NO. 12A Marilyn Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer August 25, 1995 Consideration of Accepting Trail Easemen for Lot 2, Block 1, Park Grove MacMay Homes, Inc. purchased Lot 2, Block 1, Park Grove. Prior to construction of a new home, the lot was surveyed so that the house could be located properly on the lot. The survey indicated that the trail had meandered onto the lot. This created a problem for the lot owner and for the City. To correct the problem, a quit claim deed has been prepared giving the City an easement over the north two (2) feet of the lot. OPTIONS: 1. Adopt a motion approving the quit claim deed. 2. Return to staff for further information. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 1 Form No. 31-M —QUIT CLAIM DEED Corporation or Partnership to Corporation or Partnership Minnesota Unito Conveyancing Blanks (1970) Miller -Davis Co. Minneapolis No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. ,19 County Auditor by Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: S Date: 19 (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Mac -May Homes, Inc. , a corporat ion under the laws of Minnesota , Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to the City of Lino Lakes . Grantee, a Municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota , real property in Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: A permanent easement for trail purposes over the following described property: The North 2 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Park Grove, Anoka County, Minnesota. THE SELLER CERTIFIES THAT THE SELLER DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY WELLS ON THE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY. (if more space is needed, continue on back) together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF 61111 -4'3-- ss '3-- ss By y Homes, Inc. Its Presi en t Its The foregoing was acknowledged before me this g T day of c -z,1.7 by Rrnrp McFachran and ,1955 the Prpsidenr and of Mac -May Homes, Inc. under the laws of Minnegara NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) MARILYN S. ANDERSON NOTARY moue - MINNESOTA My Oommliske Expkea 01.31.2000 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS), William G. Hawkins and Associates 299 Coon Rapids Blvd., #/101 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 ,a cnrpnrAtinn , on behalf of the corporation SIGNAT E OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT Tax Statements for the real property described In this instrument should be sent to (Include name and address of Grantee),