HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2010 Council Minutes CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 5,2010
APPROVED
CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3
4 DATE : April 5, 2010
5 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m.
6 TIME ENDED : 9:25 p.m.
7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Gallup, O'Donnell,
8 Rafferty,Roeser and Mayor Reinert
9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None
10
11
12 Staff members present: Acting Administrator Dan Tesch; Community Development
13 Director Michael Grochala; City Engineer Jim Studenski; City Planner Jeff Smyser;
14 Finance Director Al Rolek; Director of Public Safety Dave Pecchia; City Clerk Julie
15 Bartell.
16
17 1. Anoka County Assessor Linda Weiner,Board of Appeals process—Ms.
18 Weiner, Residential Appraiser, and Mike Ducklow, Principal Appraiser, of the Anoka
19 County Assessor's Office were present. Ms. Weiner presented the council with the 2010
20 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, County Assessor's Report and explained that
21 the purpose of the hearing is to hear from citizens on the subject of their valuation or
22 classification—not taxes or to discuss a prior year valuation. There have been fewer calls
23 than usual for this year's hearing, and even a couple calls from persons concerned that
24 their valuation is too low. When she is able to speak with individuals ahead of the
25 hearing, she advises them to bring sales comparison information. Ms. Weiner reviewed
26 the technique that is used to set values and also sales information for the vicinity.
27
28 Mr. Ducklow reviewed general information on commercial/industrial valuations in the
29 city, noting that the classification as a whole is being lowered.
30
31 The council heard an explanation of the local process compared to the "Open Book"
32 meeting held at the county level. Cities may opt out of having a local process and
33 actually must do so if there is not a council member who has received the required
34 training for the process. It was noted that if there is a local process in place, individuals
35 must first attend that hearing before they are eligible to move to the county level.
36
37 2. CSAH 34 (Birch Street) Corridor Study Discussion (cont'd from 3/1/10) -
38 Community Development Director Grochala recalled that Anoka County and SRF
39 Consulting Group staff presented the elements of the draft corridor plan and proposed
40 implementation phases at the council's February 1, 2010 work session. Again the overall
41 objectives of the study are to improve safety, mobility and coordinate land use and
42 transportation decisions for the corridor. The study establishes the main
43 intersections/points along the corridor. Staff recognizes that the council expressed some
44 concerns about some corridor design elements presented in the study. In order to address
1
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 5, 2010
APPROVED
45 those issues and to work toward a completed study, staff is requesting further council
L 46 discussion of certain plan elements. Those are:
47
48 - Are painted turn lanes at major intersections acceptable?
49 -Are the proposed signal locations acceptable?
50 - Is the proposed ultimate design from Centerville Rd to 20th Av acceptable?
51 - Are the planned backage roads/local connections acceptable?
52 - Are medians constructed at signals(with turn lane) locations acceptable?
53 -Is a four-lane roadway without median and/or painted median acceptable?
54 -Are there any changes to the proposed landscaping/trail elements?
55
56 It was noted by a council member that this is a situation where improvements for the
57 corridor are wanted but there are some distinct problems with the study—elements such
58 as right-in/right-out only. Something more workable in the short term is probably the
59 answer; it must be the right balance of safety to convenience. The council offered
60 feedback on each of the questions.
61
62 Director Grochala also revisited the council's request for a possible referendum to
63 consider traffic signal projects for the intersections of Ware Road/Birch Street and Lake
64 Drive/Main Street. With this year's change that moves the primary election date up,the
65 deadline for submitting a referendum has become August 19. Staff would need to get
66 signal justification studies underway if the council is serious about the referendum.
67 Regarding county participation in a project,they use a cost sharing formula based on
L 68 county road involvement; the cost justification study would provide data. The council
69 indicated they would like to move forward with a question to the citizens;the up- front
70 costs such as the study could be rolled into the project(s), if approved. The council
71 recommended that the Charter Commission be informed and also discussed possibilities
72 for public communication efforts.
73
74 3. Review of Ordinance Requirements for Accessory Structures—City Planner
75 Smyser recalled that the council directed staff to report on options, other than a variance,
76 relative to the city's regulations on accessory structures. A variance request has been
77 submitted for the property at 1288 Main Street to allow the addition of an accessory
78 structure for horse training; the council recognized that a variance is not the best way to
79 address this situation and instead will be reviewing overall regulations in place. Mr.
80 Smyser explained the criteria used to determine the number of accessory buildings
81 allowed on properties in the city. He explained the history of how the regulations came
82 into place (a development regulations task force made recommendations). The council
83 could review the criteria, remembering that there must be some regulation of structures,
84 and decide if change is needed. He added that the accessory structure maximum
85 considers only square footage of the property, not zoning designation. Some options for
86 change are to base allowances on a percentage of square footage, or use a stepped
87 percentage system. Any change would first be presented to the Planning&Zoning Board
88 for a public hearing and that's group's review and recommendation.
89
2
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 5, 2010
APPROVED
90 When the council asked how often the regulations come up, staff said probably a couple
91 times a year, many times having to do with individuals wanting to construct facilities
92 such as a pole barn. The council was also informed that the city's regulations (accessory
93 structure allowances) are pretty average compared with like cities.
94
95 The staff report included seven questions posed to the council; the questions (and
96 answers) are as follows:
97
98 1. Are the current regulations too restrictive? The regulations should be reviewed(5
99 acres and under shouldn't be changed).
100
101 2. Can another option based on percentage of lot size allow a more evenly applied
102 ordinance? Percentage options should be considered; in some cases, the jumps based
103 strictly on percentage are either too much or too little of a change.
104
105 3. When defining the Accessory Structure area calculation, should"lot size"be defined
106 differently than current policy?
107
108 4. Should the number of accessory structures be increased from the current
109 requirements? The regulations should be reviewed.
110
111 5. Should construction requirements be altered, specifically in regard to fabric structures?
112 No changes sought in construction requirements.
`- 113
114 6. Is the city interested in expanding temporary uses, and as a result accounting for that
115 expansion by regulating temporary structures? Staff explained that there isn't an
116 allowance for temporary structures such as tents (except as associated with special
117 events); the council did not request a change. However a council member suggested that
118 the city should be somewhat open minded about temporary uses considering the current
119 economic difficulties and the possibility of things developing into a more permanent
120 business.
121
122 7. Should this (as presented in staff report) interpretation of the ordinance be made
123 official with language added to the ordinance confirming"Agriculture, Gardening and
124 Sod Farming"includes stand-alone agricultural buildings? And if so, should there be size
125 limitation or other regulations added for those structures? Staff explained the
126 implications of the current code and the state building code that dictates that the building
127 proposed at 1288 Main Street will require a building permit. If the applicants were to
128 open the facility to the public (riding lessons), that would also require a conditional use
129 permit. It was confirmed that the applicants will proceed on a dual track to obtain a
130 building permit and at the same time await the city's consideration of their situation on
131 allowable accessory buildings.
132
133 Staff will prepare some draft amendments reflecting the council's directions and present
3
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 5, 2010
APPROVED
134 that information to the Planning and Zoning Board for a public hearing and consideration
135 in May.
136
137 4. 2010 Budget— 1st Quarter Review -—Finance Director Rolek reviewed the
138 written report noting that the first quarter of the year is normally less active. Much
139 revenue information is not yet available but historically this year looks better than last.
140 On expenditures, they are pretty typical and are spread throughout the year. Mr. Rolek
141 does not see any"red flags"that should cause concern for the council at this point.
142 The council continues to be interested in doing an organization-wide evaluation, most
143 likely with the assistance of a consultant. It is important to recognize there are
144 challenges ahead,to plan for them and to make sure the city is in a good position.
145
146 The responses to Council Member O'Donnell's budget suggestions were included in the
147 written information given to the council. They were identified as mainly 2011 ideas and
148 it was recommended that they be held for future budget discussions.
149
150 5. Refunding of G.O. Improvement& Utility Bonds, Series 2004A-—Finance
151 Director Rolek explained that staff is recommending that the refunding of these bonds is
152 appropriate at this time because there will be adequate costs savings achieved. The
153 refunding proposal has been put together by Springsted, Inc. and is explained in the staff
154 report. This item will appear on Monday evening's council agenda.
155
156 Regular Agenda Items -The council reviewed the agenda for the upcoming council
157 meeting on Monday,April 12. There were no changes to the agenda
158
159 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
160
161 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
162 April 26, 2010.
163
164
165 •
166
167 Julianne B 11, City Cler i ert, ayor
168
4