HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-2010 Council Minutes (2) CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 6, 2010
APPROVED
CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3
4 DATE : December 6, 2010
5 TIME STARTED : 5:35 p.m.
6 TIME ENDED : 7:35 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: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Director of Administration Dan
13 Tesch; Community Development Director Mike Grochala; Director of Public Safety Kent
14 Strege; City Engineer Jim Studenski; Director of Finance Al Rolek; City Planner Jeff
15 Smyser; City Clerk Julie Bartell
16
17 Special Legislative Guests- State Senator Roger Chamberlain (District 53) and State
18 Representative-Elect Linda Runbeck (District 53A) addressed the council.
19
20 Senator Chamberlain remarked that he has been involved in the organizing and training
21 that is going on for the upcoming legislative session. He is asking the council about their
22 thoughts in regard to what he can do that will benefit the city of Lino Lakes. He's heard
23 concern from the council already about state mandates. The state is looking at a large
24 budgetary deficit and he recognizes that it will take leadership to face that challenge. The
25 Republican caucus is working to reduce the number of committees and that could save up
26 to $750,000. That's an example of the new direction; budget reform is a goal along with
27 growing the state's economy. He encourages council members to contact him at any time
28 with ideas or questions and would welcome their visits to the capitol.
29
30 Representative-Elect Linda Runbeck noted her experience in the area of property taxes
31 and that she will chair the property tax committee in the House. There are issues out
32 there such as local government aid(LGA)that perhaps need to be challenged. She has
33 been encouraged with news that cities are working toward sharing service functions
34 (police as example), allowing them to do things better for less; an important move since
35 funding is not likely to be increasing. She is also anticipating discussion of tax increment
36 financing and green acres legislation. The area of property taxation needs a hard look.
37 She thanked the council for their work in keeping the city budget down.
38
39 The mayor remarked that he'll be watching with interest how the legislature deals with
40 the state deficit. A council member suggested that the hope is that the legislators will be
41 able to work together to get things done. The council thanked Mr. Chamberlain and Ms.
42 Runbeck for coming.
43
44 1. Weekly Progress Report—the council received the report in their packet.
1
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 6, 2010
APPROVED
45 2. Code of Conduct- Administration Director Tesch reported that the council
46 recently added conflict of interest language to its own code of conduct. The council
47 asked about similar language for city boards and commissions and the ordinance
48 amendment presented would add the language to the city code. It was confirmed that the
49 language doesn't apply to the charter commission but since the commission has been
50 working on the matter, staff was directed to inform the commission of the council's work.
51 3. Off-Road Vehicle Riding Facility in R-1 Zone—City Planner Smyser noted that
52 this matter was previously discussed at the November 22, 2010 council meeting. The
53 background is that the city has received complaints about the impact of an off-road
54 riding/racing facility that is located on private property in an R-1 zoning district. Upon
55 hearing of the complaints, staff reviewed the zoning ordinance and worked with the city
56 attorney to develop a determination that the use isn't appropriate in an R-1 district. That
57 determination is being challenged by the owners of the property(with the riding track on
58 it). The zoning ordinance states that the council can make a determination when"a
59 proposed use is neither specifically allowed nor denied" as is the case with this use. Mr.
60 Smyser added that a question was posed during the previous discussion of this matter
61 about whether or not this is a zoning issue or a nuisance issue. He offered that the same
62 question could be posed to most zoning issues since it strikes to the very question of why
63 zoning regulations exist. He noted that there are interested area residents present at the
64 meeting tonight.
65 Mayor Reinert remarked that the use (riding track) is clearly a use that doesn't belong in a
`,. 66 residential area even though the current situation exists on a rather large piece of land.
67 He noted that this matter could have ended with passage of the determining resolution at
68 the last council meeting but the council was interested in seeing if something could be
69 worked out. It would have to be worked out so that the use isn't bothering others, clearly
70 not the present case. The property owners (of the track)were asked to speak with
71 neighbors and see what could possibly be done.
72
73 Noel Foster, son of the track property owner indicated that he spoke with the Papp family
74 (who spoke at the council meeting)but wasn't able to reach others. He didn't get a
75 positive response and, while he understands that neighbors want to use their improved
76 properties, he has some concern about his own rights to use his family's property. He is
77 willing to put in a sound berm in certain areas and also add mufflers to the bikes. In
78 addition he would limit riding times in a way that would be a conditional use. He
79 continues to be open to communication with the neighbors and has always honored
80 requests to not use the facility at certain times. He is still also concerned that the motor
81 bikes are being treated differently than other motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles that
82 are not banned in the city.
83 The council discussed with Mr. Foster the improvements that have occurred to the track
84 over the past 10-12 years. Mr. Foster suggested that while there may be more use now,
85 there were certainly more people using it in the past. It was noted by the council that they
86 wanted to find a way to make this work for everyone because they recognize that the
2
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 6, 2010
APPROVED
87 Fosters value this use and have some rights, but when the activity causes others to not be
L 88 able to enjoy their property, that crosses a line.
89 Bruce Papp, Aspen Lane, told the council that he respects that his neighbors,the Fosters,
90 want to have this activity for their family. For his family, however, the activity has
91 caused an enormous amount of noise and not like a lawn mower as has been suggested.
92 He presented a petition to the council containing more than 100 signatures; the petition
93 urges the council to not allow dirt bike facilities in residential areas. Mr. Papp added that
94 the activity in question doesn't last five minutes as the Fosters have suggested but rather
95 the bikes are run frequently and for a long time. The noise they make echoes throughout
96 the area. While he totally respects that they want to do this, he doesn't feel it should be
97 allowed in a residential area. He also will not be threatened into not speaking up on the
98 matter.
99 Sherry L, Aspen Lane, reported to the council that the noise from the track is a problem in
100 the neighborhood and she fears that berms would just make it worse. It is most disruptive
101 during the summer months, both the track and the motors. She came to live in the area
102 seeking peace and tranquility and this is interfering with her enjoyment of her home. She
103 concurs that the noise is constant and frequent.
104 The mayor noted that the council doesn't vote at work sessions but rather wanted to bring
105 people together this evening for an open discussion. It appears now that the track is
106 creating too much of a nuisance. While the council wanted to go the extra mile,
L 107 sometimes there isn't a compromise possible.
108 The council concurred that they would consider the resolution making a determination at
109 the next council meeting(December 13).
110 4. Dangerous Dog Ordinance—Public Safety Director Strege updated the council
111 on the dangerous dog situation. A disposition agreement has been drafted and proposed
112 that would require that the dangerous dog be removed from the state. The proposed
113 agreement was reviewed and Chief Strege noted that he spoke with the dog owner who
114 seems to be in agreement, however,the city attorney recently indicated there may be
115 some changes necessary to the agreement before it is considered for approval. Chief
116 Stege added that December 13 is still the time frame for concluding the matter.
117 The mayor suggested that the disposition agreement should be considered the city's final
118 offer. He doesn't feel there is room for any negotiation on it and he doesn't want
119 discussions to linger. He suggests that the city set a date for destruction of the dog and if
120 the owner wants to sign and remove the dog there is a deadline in place.
121 The council also discussed a council member's request to change the animal control
122 ordinance so that once a dog is deemed dangerous the dog is seized immediately to ensure
123 the public's safety. City Administrator Karlson indicated that the city attorney will be
124 reviewing the ordinance in its entirety and will make recommendations for council
L 125 consideration.
3
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 6, 2010
APPROVED
126
127 Review Regular Agenda Items - There were no changes to the regular Council agenda.
128
129 The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
130
131 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
132 December 13, 2010.
133
134
135
136
137 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff ' -in- , Mayor
138
4