Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2017 Council Work Session MinutesCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 2, 2017 APPROVED 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE : October 2, 2017 5 TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 9:55 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, 8 Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 10 11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Safety Director John 12 Swenson; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; Finance Director Sarah 13 Cotton; Public Services Director Rick DeGardner; City Planner Katie Larsen; City 14 Engineer Diane Hankee; City Clerk Julie Bartell. 15 16 1. City of Columbus Asphalt Plant Update - Community Development Director 17 Grochala reviewed his written report and specifically information on the site of the 18 proposed development. He displayed an aerial view of the vicinity, pointing out 19 activities and uses in the area of the proposed plant. He explained the timeline for 20 receipt of an application by the City of Columbus. The traffic impacts are mainly to 21 Anoka County roadways and so the county has reviewed the proposal and submitted their 22 requirements. The Columbus City Council and Planning Commission have jointly 23 discussed the project. There was a citizen petition submitted requesting an 24 environmental assessment worksheet. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has 25 since determined that no worksheet is required. The site is currently zoned light 26 industrial and a rezoning would be required to heavy rezoning; a zoning text amendment 27 is being considered that would not require a rezoning for the development. The 28 Columbus council will be considering that text amendment in the coming weeks, and 29 vote on it at the earliest on November 8. If the text amendment were to go through, a 30 proposal for the project will follow. Mr. Grochala noted receipt of a plant evaluation 31 submitted by Running Aces Casino and Racetrack prepared by a professional real estate 32 consultant and indicating negative issues relating to the proposed development. Mr. 33 Grochala noted that the City of Columbus obviously has authority over land within its 34 boundaries; the City of Lino Lakes' purview would mainly lie in the need for screening 35 and traffic issues. A formal letter could be submitted identifying the city's concerns. 36 37 Council Member Kusterman confirmed that no utility connection through the City would 38 be required; Mr. Grochala added that the development is proposed to include a septic 39 system. The council discussed the resident feedback from the City of Columbus. 40 41 Mayor Reinert asked if there will be 500 trucks trips created each day and Mr. Grochala 42 reviewed the County traffic analysis that indicates about 300 trips on a high use day. 43 Mayor Reinert noted that it seems that a majority of the traffic would head south (through 44 Lino Lakes) from the plant. 45 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 2, 2017 APPROVED 46 Mayor Reinert remarked that the City doesn't have a say in this and it seems as if the City 47 of Columbus is tailoring their rules for the development; he feels the City of Lino Lakes 48 will be negatively impacted based on the plans. He asked how important this issue is to 49 the City Council and how would they like to act. 50 51 Council Member Maher remarked that the council has a duty to advocate for citizens and 52 in this case it seems as if speaking up is about all the council can do. She feels that some 53 of the issue is just change and that it is hard but the pain eases over time. 54 55 Council Member Kusterman suggested that the situation calls for exercising diplomacy; 56 try to show the City of Columbus why this is a bad idea, now and in the future. He 57 suggests that council members attend the upcoming Columbus meeting. Council Member 58 Kusterman also questioned staff about the findings of the Running Aces commissioned 59 study — does it indicate any argument appropriate to this situation? 60 61 Community Development Director Grochala said he recommends, if the council feels 62 strongly, that the City send another letter to the City of Columbus noting the variety of 63 concerns that the City has. 64 65 Council Member Manthey remarked that he is heavily against the proposal and is 66 surprised that the City of Columbus is willing to go against their own established plans 67 and welcome this plant. He'd like to combine efforts with the City of Centerville to 68 bring a unified voice to an opinion that will be sent to Columbus. He sees a huge impact 69 to the property up there and he'd like to see the City do whatever it can. 70 71 Council Member Rafferty said he is stagnant on the idea; this involves a county road that 72 makes things difficult to argue. He wonders if speaking with the Anoka County 73 Commissioner would help. 74 75 Mayor Reinert asked about the possibility of instituting restrictions in this city on such 76 things as truck traffic, mirroring what the City of Columbus is doing. Director Grochala 77 remarked that it could be difficult because that city's conditions are related to issuance of 78 a conditional use permit. 79 80 The council concurred on a staff direction to prepare a letter to the City of Columbus 81 laying out the City's concerns. That letter will be circulated among the council members 82 prior to being sent. 83 84 2. Centerville Road/CR J Intersection Change Evaluation (ICE) — City Engineer 85 Hankee introduced Chuck Rickert, WSB & Associates, who reviewed a presentation on 86 the study of Ash Street. Points made: 87 - Intersection of Ash Street and Centerville Road needs attention; 88 - Coordination among impacted cities and the county is necessary and is used to identify 89 issues and concerns; 90 - The report looked at existing conditions and found turn issues; looked at future 2 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 2, 2017 APPROVED 91 conditions with the possibility of build and no -build and the concept of best traffic 92 control: 93 - Operations analysis indicates that an all -way stop would not work, a traffic signal is 94 moderately recommended, and a roundabout receives the best mark. 95 96 The report recommends a roundabout as it represents the safest of the options. The 97 Mayor noted that the report indicates either a roundabout or a signal would work. Mayor 98 Reinert asked what body will decide on the traffic control and Mr. Rickert said all four 99 bodies of government will have a say in the matter. Mayor Reinert asked Public Safety too Director Swenson for his opinion and he reported that roundabouts are safer, traffic 101 signals create worse accidents, so he prefers the roundabout. 102 103 The council concurred to accept the report and indicated a preference for a roundabout. 104 105 3. Traffic Safety Review Process and Procedures Policy — Chuck Rickert, WSB 106 & Associates, noted that the city's traffic committee has been established and functioning 107 for some time. The purpose of the group is to come together to review traffic matters. 108 The group has discussed development of a policy that could be used for matters that come 109 up. That proposed policy is before the council and it includes: 110 111 - the city's engineer's responsibility is primary; 112 - the policy covers requests from residents, the city council, the traffic committee 113 itself or staff, 114 - items to be considered: speed limit (under established guidelines), stop signs, 115 warning signs, crosswalks, and traffic calming. 116 117 Engineer Hankee indicated that staff is requesting that the council formally adopt the 118 policy. She added that the traffic group has already been using the policy unofficially 119 and has found it to be very workable and useful in providing information to the public. 120 Public Safety Director Swenson added that the policy provides clarity to staff as well as 121 the public who can be directed to a written document to promote understanding; it also 122 provides consistency. 123 124 Mayor Reinert asked how development of the policy was funded and Ms. Hankee 125 explained it was essentially developed under the general engineering services retainer. 126 Mr. Rickert explained that it contains policies developed for and by other cities and so 127 some content was not created but was already in place. 128 129 Council Member Manthey noted the sidewalk at Lino Lakes Elementary and he wonders 130 how this policy could impact that situation. Community Development Director Grochala 131 added that the County basically directed the changes at that location; the policy would 132 support that change. 133 134 The council concurred to consider adoption of the policy at the next regular council 135 meeting. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 2, 2017 APPROVED 136 137 4. Comprehensive Plan, Transportation — Chuck Rickert, WSB & Associates, 138 noted the report included in the packet. The discussion coming forward is based on 139 discussion about issue areas that are included in the report (i.e. automated vehicles, 140 changes in management techniques, flashing arrows on traffic signals). Birch Street was 141 a big topic of discussion and he noted that Anoka County has a process related to that 142 street and improvements in its five year plan. Mr. Rickert also mentioned pedestrian 143 improvements and the northern bypass. Moving forward staff will continue working on 144 developing a forecast model for 2040 (in conjunction with Anoka County). This is an 145 update and is provided to keep the council informed on the Comprehensive Plan process. 146 147 5. West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Project Update - City Engineer Hankee 148 explained the experience of the recent open house. Council Member Rafferty was in 149 attendance. 150 151 Council Member Rafferty indicated that he engaged with a few residents who had 152 questions. He feels that Community Development Director Grochala and WSB staff did 153 an excellent job in fielding questions and providing information. 154 155 6. Watermark Update- City Planner Larsen reviewed her written report. She 156 presented information on the proposed development, including the types of homes 157 proposed and a comparison to the previous proposal. 158 159 Mayor Reinert remarked that it was a two year process to get to a Mattamy proposal and 160 now this is a new prospect. 161 162 Ms. Larsen remarked that change can be anticipated within any ten year development. 163 164 Ms. Larsen continued with information on: Land area comparison, zoning, subdivision 165 ordinance, comprehensive plan compliance, final plat extension (to be considered at the 166 coming council meeting), and the recommendation of staff and the Planning and Zoning 167 Board. 168 169 Mayor Reinert discussed with staff the issue of when park and other amenity 170 development was to occur with the past proposal and the current. Ms. Larsen and 171 Community Development Director Grochala concurred that the previous plan may have 172 moved slower than expected on their development of the park, etc.; it's a situation that is 173 more evident with the current plans and costs coming together. The new developer says 174 they would like to start from the south and work toward the north, including development 175 of the amenities as the project moves forward. 176 177 Council Member Manthey remarked that the council is in a situation where they must 178 look fresh at this development proposal without consideration of past promises. He 179 asked the developer representatives to explain their assurances. 180 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 2, 2017 APPROVED 181 Joe Jablonski, Lennar Homes, explained that they were originally thinking that they could 182 take off on this development much quicker but understood from council discussions that 183 more work was needed, perhaps with bigger phases. They realize at this point in the 184 calendar that there won't be anything started in 2017. They are looking now at starting 185 in spring of 2018, beginning at the south where utility connection will be available. They 186 prefer to introduce as many products as they can at one time so they would initially offer 187 townhomes and perhaps two types of single family. Overall he feels the land use 188 proposed changes very little from the previous development proposal. He also talked 189 about the evolution that could occur; four years from now the market may not be calling 190 for the single level they've included in plans so a change would then be needed; but it 191 would be one that the council will hear about. Mr. Jablonski added that he feels it is 192 unfair to Lennar to be held to promises of the past proposal; they have a product and 193 process and they follow it. 194 195 Mayor Reinert remarked that this development is the largest number of homes in a 196 development ever considered for the city so it merits careful consideration. He feels the 197 master planned development is a benefit to the city and it doesn't have to be the previous 198 proposal but it does need to fit this city. There also remains the situation that Lennar 199 will not own all the land at once so things could be chopped up. He believes the council 200 wants to work with the new developer and get it together. 201 202 Planner Larsen noted that the first phase is not just townhomes and Mr. Jablonski showed 203 on a map what they'd consider a first phase in 2018 and that would include three types of 204 product. The developer is asking for a comfort level on the sizes proposed. She also 205 pointed out the change in regard to not having a sales center developed at an entrance to 206 the development. Staff is requesting the council consider this at a higher level with the 207 realization that the details will keep coming as the development evolves. 208 209 Council Member Rafferty noted that the park proposed seems to be smaller. Ms. Larsen 210 pointed out three parks proposed. Council Member Rafferty asked about details for a 211 gateway and Mr. Jablonski indicated that they are reviewing options with staff and 212 believe they can accommodate something similar to the Mattamy proposal. 213 214 Planner Larsen explained that the development stage plan contains many details (based on 215 the previous proposal) and it is approved and remains in place. Changes will be council 216 reviewed. 217 218 Council Member Kusterman reviewed his position. He understands that this is one piece 219 proposed by a reputable builder. There is some risk but it is the way that development 220 comes forward. Staff and the advisory board have done their review and made 221 recommendations so he is able to consciously move forward. The alternative is that the 222 council makes it so hard for a developer that they walk. 223 224 Mayor Reinert instructed staff to provide council members with the entire development CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 2, 2017 APPROVED 225 stage plan. The change reviewed will be on the next council agenda for consideration of 226 approval. 227 228 7. Woods Edge Development Interest — Community Development Director 229 Grochala noted the approximately nine acres left in the Woods Edge development area. 230 They have an interested buyer for the purpose of developing a senior community. He 231 explained that the original plan calls for mixed use and certainly commercial in that first 232 block. Staff is working with the interested party and they (the developer) feel they can 233 address the city's needs. Staff would like to know if the proposal is a consideration for 234 the council before proceeding with the concept. Some concerns: existing uses of the 235 same type, public safety needs, and commitment to commercial down the line. He will 236 also be seeking review of the city's Economic Development Advisory Committee. 237 238 The mayor recalled the original plans for the area, calling for this area to be a sort of 239 entrance to the area. It was confirmed that the proposer doesn't have experience in 240 development of commercial. Staff directed to continue the conversation and see what 241 more specific discussion develops. Council Member Rafferty indicated that he isn't in 242 favor of another senior facility at this time. 243 244 8. 2017 Telecommunications Right -of -Way User Amendments- Administrator 245 Karlson reviewed his written report. He noted a new telecommunications technology 246 that could be made available to residential properties by use of city right of way and 247 facilities such as poles. There has been state legislation that allows the siting of the 248 hardware. It is highly recommended that the city adopt an ordinance regulating the 249 installation of this equipment. The city currently has a general public right/of/way 250 ordinance. The city can charge for use based on actual costs. Administrator Karlson 251 noted that he will be getting more information. 252 253 Council Member Maher explained that the legal work in developing an ordinance is being 254 offered through North Metro TV and that would keep the costs to each city low. 255 256 Administrator Karlson said he personally opposed the state legislation that put this into 257 place but it passed and the city is now required to accommodate the facilities. There are 258 unknowns such as what will the antennas look like. 259 260 Mayor Reinert suggested that the city doesn't seem to have enough information yet but 261 doesn't want to ignore the prospects of it either. Administrator Karlson said this is an 262 informational item at this point; he will continue to follow the matter. 263 264 9. Vehicle Replacement Policy Update - Council Member Rafferty said he wants 265 clarification on the policy specifics. Staff has provided information on the policy 266 developed in April. He understood, noting past council minutes, that the policy was to 267 be considered for all fleet vehicles. 268 269 Council Member Manthey recalled that the example at the time the policy was discussed CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 2, 2017 APPROVED 270 was police and fire vehicles so that is what occurred to him. Mayor Reinert said he was 271 thinking about vehicles within a range, excluding something like a street sweeper. 272 Primarily it was a public safety vehicle discussion. 273 274 Mayor Reinert said he would entertain a discussion about public works vehicles and a 275 policy or guidelines for them. The Public Services Director would have to be involved in 276 that discussion. 277 278 Council Member Rafferty pointed out a specific situation where a Public Services Ford 279 Escape was sold for a certain price, at a certain mileage and after a certain amount of time 280 of use. He feels that there should be more discussion. 281 282 Mayor Reinert reiterated the basic policy of five years or 100,000 miles. 283 284 9a. RFP for Engineering Services — Mayor Reinert remarked that his request for this 285 item actually related to RFPs for various services, not specifically engineering. He is 286 suggesting that the council have that conversation. Reviewing contracts through an RFP 287 process has traditionally served to bring forward better deals. 288 289 Administrator Karlson provided the council with a list of RFP plans and reviewed said 290 list. 291 292 Mayor Reinert recalled good results from past RFPs. It can bring forward a result that 293 confirms that the current services are right and come at the best cost. Council Member 294 Maher noted that it's appropriate for the city to pay attention. 295 296 Mayor Reinert suggested that the IT services should be reviewed next year. Administrator 297 Karlson remarked that the city would probably have to hire someone to assist with an 298 RFP process for that type of service because it is so far reaching. Mayor Reinert 299 suggested a review of Metro INet services by their staff first, including a comparison of 300 their services/costs with the market. 301 302 Staff and the council identified the Agent for Property/Liability/WC as the first RFP and 303 then the financial advisor review. Then to follow Civil Attorney and engineering. 304 305 Council Member Kusterman noted that some services aren't strictly a commodity 306 situation; they are services that are harder to measure. Also he noted that each RFP costs 307 money to prepare and somewhere that cost is charged. The City should be convinced on 308 the front end that there is value to be gained in the process. 309 310 Council Member Rafferty remarked that public contracts come with a special obligation. 311 312 4. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council 313 314 VLAWMO — Council Member Rafferty noted that fees are being discussed and there will 0 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 CITY COUNCIL WORD SESSION APPROVED October 2, 2017 be a slight up tick impacting those Lino Lakes properties that fall within the VLAWMO area. 11. Monthly Progress Report — Administrator Karlson provided the following updates: - White Bear Lake Lawsuit — the DNR has announced that they will appeal the recent decision; - Video Upgrade Project— Supplies coming in a few weeks but programmers not available quite that soon. He's expecting action in November and completion by December. 12. Review Regular Agenda — The agenda was reviewed and there were no changes. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on October 24, 2016. Bartel�Ci,�Ie 8