HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-2009 Council Minutes CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 2, 2009
APPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 WORK SESSION MINUTES
3
4 DATE : March 2, 2009
5 TIME STARTED : 5:40 p.m.
6 TIME ENDED : 10:00 p.m.
7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members O'Donnell,
8 Reinert, Stoltz and Mayor Bergeson
9 MEMBERS ABSENT : Council Member Gallup
10
11
12 Staff members present: City Administrator, Gordon Heitke; Community Development
13 Director, Mike Grochala; City Planner, Paul Bengtson; Chief of Police, Dave Pecchia
14 1. Anoka County Airport Extension—Present was Berry Rice, 662 Fox Road in
15 Lino Lakes, and Kathy Jaconich (sp), 10644 Sanctuary Drive (Blaine)who identified
16 themselves as representing concerned citizens of the north metro. They provided the
17 council with handouts John Olson, Anoka County, Public Services Division, was also
18 present. Mr. Rice noted his concern about the amount of air traffic and noise he
19 experienced at his home during the recent Republican Convention. Through research he
20 found out that there is a proposal before the county to expand the airport runway.
21 Concerned citizens have approached Anoka County on this matter and have found that
22 Key Air has hired a lobbyist to assist with the expansion approval process. An expansion
23 to the runway would mean that larger planes could use the airport and that would mean a
."" 24 more disruptive level of noise. A picture was shown that indicated noise impact by
25 comparison to other noises. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and Anoka
26 County are saying that there is nothing going on with this proposal at this time. The
27 possibility out there, however, is that they could change the definition of a"minor
28 airport"thus allowing a longer runway, or to change the airport from intermediate status
29 also allowing an extension of the runway all the way to 8,000 feet (not on the table right
30 now but would be allowed). The most recent upgrade to the runway(a year ago)brought
31 it to its current 5,000 feet and was touted as a safety issue. Ms. Jaconich provided
32 information(by overhead projection) comparing an airport that had about 1,000 feet
33 added to its runway(Waterbury-Oxford Airport in Connecticut). Information for the
34 study was accumulated through a Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) Part 150
35 Study. The information includes operational data and study of noise levels generally and
36 in some specific areas, as well as a public input element. Study results include findings
37 that jets increased their usage more than 90% over the five year expansion period
38 (meaning older planes were replaced by jets). Noise contour maps are also developed as
39 part of this kind of study. She noted that the resulting mitigation considerations are quite
40 conservative and, in the case of Lino Lakes and its distance from the facility, there would
41 probably be no consideration even though, as Mr. Rice has stated, there are already noise
42 impacts. There are obviously quality of life and property value issues that arise.
43 A council member asked how the approval process works and Mr. Rice explained that, as
,..r 44 he understands, the process beings with a request to MAC that would then go to the
1
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 2, 2009
APPROVED
45 Legislature. There would probably be some federal funding involved with a match
46 required.
47 Mr. Olson added that he is not disputing the information being presented by the residents.
48 Officially, Anoka County Airport is a MAC reliever airport and it is completely under the
49 authority of MAC; the county's involvement is through a lease of property. While the
50 county has no position because the issue isn't officially at hand, they will continue to
51 attend and participate in discussions as requested.
52 Mr. Rice and Ms. Jaconich suggested that even though MAC and Anoka County are
53 denying there is activity in the area of an expansion request, citizens should let their
54 concerns be known to officials on this important issue. They believe that local entities
55 may also want to engage in this issue before it becomes a crisis. A group of entities (such
56 as a north metro league of cities) should be formed and a lobbyist hired to work on this
57 daunting task. There are strong property value issues involved that will impact cities.
58 They do not see this as a job creation situation since expansion of the airport would
59 probably just mean a swap with the current jobs.
60 When asked about positions taken by other cities in the area, Mr. Rice explained that he
61 has presented to officials in Shoreview and Mounds View. Blaine has a resolution on file
62 from years back opposing expansion. The council offered thanks for the very
63 comprehensive presentation. One council member noted that the residential nature of the
64 city of Lino Lakes would naturally lend the city to opposing airport expansion. Another
65 member suggested, as a first step, forming a council resolution stating an opinion
66 opposed to airport expansion. The council members present concurred; they would like
67 to have a resolution on the March 23 council agenda(with an opportunity to review it at
68 the pre-council work session).
69 2. John DeHaven, 612 Birch St,property subdivision—Administrator Heitke
70 recalled that Mr. DeHaven had approached the council contesting expenditures related to
71 his escrow account for the city review of a minor subdivision application. Mr. DeHaven
72 believes he has been overcharged and is requesting reimbursement of some charges
73 relative to staff and city attorney work. At the council's direction,the city attorney has
74 reviewed the charges and responded to Mr. DeHaven's concern.
75 Mr. DeHaven suggested that he has given staff the opportunity to respond but it was
76 refused and he is concerned that information being presented is not accurate. His escrow
77 money has essentially been stolen. Now there is a response from the city's new attorney
78 who has never been involved. He believes this is a moral issue.
79 A council member suggested that it is time to reach a solution to this issue. It is
80 recognized that Mr. DeHaven brought forward an issue that challenged the city to make a
81 change in process and the council directed staff to proceed with preparing a way for that
82 change. It has been clear that staff spent a good amount of time working on that change.
83 Since Mr. DeHaven has concern about legal fees as well and the council isn't as familiar
2
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 2, 2009
APPROVED
84 with Mr. Baumgartner's work, a compromise could be to reduce those legal fees while
85 still charging for staff time.
86 A council member recommended recognizing the "trail blazing" aspect that occurred here
87 and that there could have been more time necessary because this is the first time through;
88 and others may benefit from this work in the future. With that in mind, the city should
89 reduce the charges by$315.
90 The council concurred that they would consider a resolution on their March 23 council
91 agenda authorizing a refund to Mr. DeHaven but there should be some findings relative to
92 this case so it isn't precedent setting. It needs to be clear that there will be charges to
93 individuals in the future.
94 Item 6A(Regular Council Agenda) Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
95 Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for 909 Maple Street to allow for outdoor
96 sales lot-Planner Bengtson explained that the site was approved for a conditional use
97 permit in 1983. The applicant would like to continue the body shop activities and add a
98 car sales lot. In order to do that the applicant requests a change in land use to
99 commercial, a zoning change to general business and a conditional use permit designation
100 to allow a car sales lot. The council has received maps indicating area zoning. The
101 Planning &Zoning Board discussion is relayed in the report also. The current
102 comprehensive plan designates the area in question as residential but the proposed update
103 would change it to commercial. Staff's concern, however, is that the Metropolitan
104 Council will not consider a comp plan amendment until the 2030 Plan has been reviewed
105 and approved by the council. Staff's recommendation therefore would be to follow the
106 direction recommended by the Met Council and not submit an amendment request. The
107 current zoning on the property is rural and the auto body shop is a conditional use that
108 would not be allowed today. The site is also surrounded by two areas guided as
109 residential. Staff is therefore recommending denial of the request for a zoning change.
110 On the conditional use permit, staff will be updating conditions that aren't currently being
111 met regardless of the outcome of this request. The Planning &Zoning Board reviewed
112 the request, heard comments at the public hearing and ultimately voted unanimously to
113 recommend denial of all three requests. Staff has prepared a resolution denying all three
114 requests, including findings, based on the information presented
115 Neighborhood representative Kevin Hedgers, 862 Maple Street, addressed the council.
116 He confirmed that the council received the information (including PowerPoint) that was
117 presented to the P &Z Board. This is a property value and safety issue to the residents.
118 They would like all three requests to be denied.
119 Applicant Ivan Kozhokar addressed the council. He is thankful for the patience of his
120 neighbors through this process. Improvements to his business will be helpful to the city
121 and will also be an improvement over current/past uses on Maple Street. He is also
122 interested in improving an adjacent site.
3
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 2, 2009
APPROVED
123 The council reviewed the area in perspective of the proposed comp plan update and more
124 information was received on what is envisioned in the area.
125 The applicant was advised that he may want to speak with staff about what would be
126 required to expand the business onto the adjacent lot before he actually purchases the
127 property.
128 The council will consider the matter at the upcoming council meeting.
129 3. Police Department Annual Report - Police Chief Pecchia presented the council
130 with a draft annual report that was reviewed and discussed. He highlighted the low Part 1
131 and Part 2 crime rate in the city(lowest in the area), the value of volunteer hours and
132 community oriented policing, involvement in the gang strike force, and succession
133 training. He reviewed the organizational structure and department plans into the future.
134 He noted how problems at the Lakewood Apartments were effectively addressed through
135 the crime free multi housing program. The many police programs that will be continued
136 were noted and are listed in the report. He noted that the council should watch the city's
137 website for maps providing useful information to citizens. Council members are
138 encouraged to contact the chief with any questions or comments. The report will be
139 presented again at the upcoming regular council meeting.
140 4. Strategic Planning Process—This item was removed from the agenda.
141 5. Comprehensive Plan Update—Community Development Director Grochala
142 noted that the council requested more information on possible ordinance amendments to
143 reflect past directions (to control what the city doesn't want to happen). More
144 clarification on that request is needed by staff. He provided the council with updated
145 maps: land use and staging(based on group meeting with the Comp Plan Advisory Panel
146 discussion pulling out previously developed sewer areas), and density(showing the
147 council areas that are being discussed for the next ten years). Basically, the only change
148 in the new plan is adding the North Oaks piece, the Robinson farms site and the Main St.
149 site.
150 Staff anticipates setting a public hearing on the Plan before the Planning and Zoning
151 Board in April.
152 A council member suggested that there was discussion at the group meeting that indicates
153 a desire for change in the 32% density number. The council member suggested he has a
154 desire to contest that number with the Metropolitan Council because the city otherwise
155 will be penalized for how it has developed to this point. To follow through on that, there
156 should be an alternative proposal. Staff questioned whether the challenge is on density
157 or on affordability and the council member responded that the two are linked because of
158 property values—you can't get affordability without density.
159 A council member noted that the approach of utilizing city regulations (ordinances)to
160 guide still seems like the best approach.
4
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 2, 2009
APPROVED
161 Staff suggested that there are different approaches—you can mandate or encourage.
162 They will seek some models of what has been done elsewhere. The council recalled that
163 one direction given by the council is to have affordability provided throughout the city
164 and not concentrated. The council will have time to work on local regulations even after
165 a Plan is submitted to the Met Council, before it comes back to the council for final
166 approval. In the meantime, a moratorium could be considered.
167 6. City Code Update Project—This item was removed from the agenda. It will be
168 discussed at the April work session.
169 7. Review of Regular Council Meeting Agenda—There were no changes to the
170 council agenda.
171 The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
172 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council meeting held on March 23,
173 2009.
174
175
176
177 . . 1" �:.� !•:tom
178 Julianne Ba 11, City Cle Jo /erges• , Mayor
179
5