HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-2010 Council Minutes (2) CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 26, 2010
APPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3
4 DATE : July 26,2010
5 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m.
6 TIME ENDED : 6:30 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 City Administrator and Director of Administration Dan
13 Tesch; City Attorney Jay Squires; Community Development Director Mike Grochala;
14 Economic Development Coordinator Mary Alice Divine; City Planner Paul Bengtson;
15 City Engineer Jim Studenski; Police Captain Kent Strege; Police Coordinator Karen
16 Anderson; City Clerk Julie Bartell
17
18 Review Regular Council Agenda
19
20 Item 4A,Interim Police Department Reorganization - The council concurred that this
21 item merits some review before it is considered for approval. The council will discuss the
22 matter at the next regular work session.
23
24 Item 6A,KI Auto
25 A) Resolution 10-64 denying a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,Rezoning and
26 Conditional Use Permit allow the addition of an outdoor Automobile sales lot to the
27 existing automobile repair shop at 909 Maple Street -City Planner Bengtson
28 explained that the request before the council comes from the proprietor of KI Auto who is
29 seeking to expand his business by adding a used car function at the repair shop that exists.
30 The city guides the site as low density sewer and it is zoned as rural and both would have
31 to be changed. There is also an entry feature that has been added to the building that does
32 not meet the set back requirements and is considered a non-allowed expansion of a non
33 conforming use. That issue comes forward as a separate resolution from the rezoning
34 question. Regarding a comprehensive plan amendment,the Metropolitan Council would
35 not allow any amendments until the update is finally approved. The rezoning request is
36 for a change to general business but in order to meet the city requirements for that type of
37 a rezoning,the site must be within a MUSA district. Staff is recommending denial of the
38 comp plan amendment,rezoning and conditional use permit request. In addition the
39 findings demanded by state law cannot be met.
40
41 The council questioned if the denial of those requests would damage the applicant's
42 future ability(or increase the costs)to make the same request when the comp plan update
43 is approved and staff suggested that there wouldn't be any negative future impact. The
44 council also heard about the logistics of running water and sewer to the facility, a
L 45 requirement in order to meet the general business zoning category;that would come at
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 26, 2010
APPROVED
46 great expense and the staff reminded the council a rezoning discussion should also
47 include consideration of the location and surrounds. The council also reviewed the entry
48 feature that doesn't meet code. It could be improved to bring it up to code. The second
49 resolution before the council is the variance request for that structure. Mr. Bengtson
50 explained that while staff is recommending denial of the variance request, if the council
51 wished to approve a variance, the resolution could be rewritten with findings to support
52 the action and with conditions that it be brought up to code.
53
54 The applicant, Ivan Kozhokar, addressed the council. He is interested in being a good
55 presence in his neighborhood and the entry structure was installed to improve the facility.
56 He is interested in bringing the structure up to code in order that it can remain.
57
58 City Attorney Squires noted that the Supreme Court very recently issued an opinion that
59 has changed the standard for issuing variances. They suggest there is no reason to grant a
60 variance unless the property is basically unusable without the variance. That should be a
61 consideration and probably requires some review before the council could consider
62 granting a variance. A council member confirmed that there is not a way to achieve code
63 compliance without a variance (it does not meet setback requirements).
64
65 The council concurred that the work toward an appropriate variance request should be
66 continued by staff. The comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning request will be
67 acted upon separately.
L 68
69 Item 8A, Consider Resolution No. 10-68,English as the Official Language of the
70 City of Lino Lakes—City Attorney Squires provided the council with two versions of a
71 resolution. He had received a draft resolution from Acting Administrator Tesch that
72 would make English the official language of the city. He reviewed that resolution and
73 provided comments that resulted in some changes to the resolution. Since that initial
74 review, Mr. Squires indicated that he has done more research in the area. He noted the
75 number of states that have laws that relate to this issue. There are two types of laws, one
76 being more symbolic and the other more direct/prohibitory in nature and that includes
77 rules that implement. The versions he has provided he feels are between those two.
78 Regarding challenges on the record, they normally involve constitutional questions
79 including free speech. The council has before them three versions,the first version being
80 the resolution provided in their packet that represents the attorney's initial review. That
81 version was reviewed and it was noted that paragraph two is important in that it indicates
82 that English is the official language for certain official documents. In his research, Mr.
83 Squires noted that while court decisions on this matter have often been related to this
84 area, they also seem to have focused on the official and non-official nature of the
85 documents. So he has proposed language in version two in that paragraph that
86 distinguish a definition of official documents and that they would be taken in English.
87 That seems to be consistent with what he has seen is acceptable in case law. The version
88 three resolution is based on a model ordinance of the organization U.S. English; it was
89 challenged by the Civil Liberties Union but did not reach a decision as they withdrew
90 their challenge. He feels the version has good consistency and some defensible case law
2
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 26, 2010
APPROVED
91 history. In further explaining the difference in the versions, Mr. Squires said that version
92 one, paragraph six, contains language about barring city officials and employees from
93 using a language other than English and the other versions (versions two and three)relate
94 to the same but expand on that by changing the identification from"private"to "non-
95 official"communications and he feels this is preferable in consideration of the court's
96 concerns about free speech impediments. Further the term"official" is defined. He
97 suggests that version three is the best in his opinion and based on current activity in the
98 area that he has reviewed. He also suggested that he understands that the council's focus
99 is intended in the area of cost savings and to being proactive rather than reactive in the
100 area and he has tried to focus the language of the resolutions in that direction. In that
101 same light, he felt it important to set rules in place and at the same time be able to balance
102 those rights of individuals; it sets a clear future policy.
103
104 The council reviewed the versions and comments were made. The council concurred
105 that version three is preferred. They are appreciate of Mr. Squires' work in digging
106 deeper and commend him on bringing forward a resolution that expresses very well the
107 cost saving intentions of the council. When a council member asked, if the resolution
108 were approved,what would change at city hall, Acting Administrator Tesch suggested
109 that if translation of official documents were requested, the resolution would prohibit that
110 service from being provided at any cost to the city. A council member added that a list of
111 free translation services could be put together to use as a resource as long as it is kept
112 clear that those services would include no liability to the city. A council member
113 confirmed that there hadn't actually been any requests for translation services to this
114 point; it was noted that the police department has provided translation services and would
115 continue to do so as a public safety requirement.
116
117 A council member read the exceptions included in the resolution. The city attorney noted
118 that it represents a list developed by the U.S. English organization that is based on
119 experiences of other communities and also somewhat on federal law.
120
121 A council member requested that the resolution be read in its entirety at the council
122 meeting. The city attorney was instructed to repeat his review of how the resolution was
123 developed.
124
125 The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
126
127 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
128 August 9, 2010.
129
130
131 •
132 Imo_ .
133 Julianne Ba ell, City Cle ert,'•ayor
3