Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-13 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday , Ju ne 3, 2013 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. RCWD Consent to Drainage Proceedings Under Watershed Law 2. 74 th Avenue Street Improvements (from Open Mike) 3. 7309 Lake Drive Code Enforcement Update 4. Lino Lakes Assisted Living Development Update 5. Addition of New Agenda Heading 6. 2014 Budget Update and Staff Research Requests 7. Increasing Water Quality and Reducing Water Cost 8. YMCA Bonding Review Regular agenda Adjourn 1 WS – Item 1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 1 Date: June 3, 2013 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Rice Creek Watershed District – Consent to Drainage Proceedings Under Watershed Law Background The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD ) is the ditch authority for County/Judicial Ditches within the district. The RCWD has been working systematically to repair and maintain the ditch system. The District recently began work on the 10 -22 -32 system th at provides drainage to th e northwest quadrant of the City. Under state law the Rice Creek Watershed District may undertake proceedings related to the drainage system in accordance with the Watershed Law (Minnesota Statute Chapter 103D) rather than the Drainage Code (Minnesota S tatutes Chapter 103E) subject to concurrence by the city council where the system is located. This alternative authority was created by the state legislature to simplify the improvement and repair process to more adequately and economically improve and re pair drainage systems in the metropolitan area. In 2011, the City passed Resolution No. 11 -35, cons enting to the use of this authority for the 10 - 22 -32 Ditch system. The RCWD is now requesting City consideration of a resolution consenting to their propos al to use the watershed law authority to finance the repairs on the remaining ditch systems in the City. If they do not get concurrence from each of the City’s, they are forced to stay within the narrow confines of the Drainage Code . C oncurrence with t he use of alternative authority is not an endorsement of any project. A separate legally established procedure is required for any future project. Representatives of the RCWD will be present at the work session to discuss the request. Requested Council Direction Staf f is requesting council consideration to place the RCWD request and attached draft resolution on a future city council meeting agenda. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution No. 1 3 -XX 2. Minn. Statutes 103D .621 2 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION ___________ CONSENT TO CONDUCT DRAINAGE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANOKA COUNTY DITCHES 53 -62, 72, 55 AND 25 AND JUDICIAL DITCH 3 UNDER THE WATERSHED LAW WHEREAS , Rice Creek Watershed District (“RCWD”) is the drainage authority for Anoka County Ditches (ACD) 53 -62, 72, 55 and 25, Ramsey County Ditch (RCD) 8 and Anoka/Washington Judicial Ditch (JD) 3 (the “Drainage Systems”); WHEREAS , RCWD performs repair and maintenance activities on the Drainage Systems, including current repair proceedings for ACD 53 -62 and ACD 55; W HEREAS , Minnesota Statute 103D.621 Subd. 4, grants RCWD the authority to undertake proceedings related to the Drainage Systems in accordance with the Watershed Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D) rather than the Drainage Code (Minnesota Statutes Chapter1 03E), subject to concurrence by city councils and town boards where the Drainage Systems are located; WHEREAS , by Resolution No. 11 -35, on March 14, 2011, the City Council previously consented to the conduct of drainage proceedings for ACD 10 -22 -32 under the Watershed Law; WHEREAS , RCWD has requested concurrence from City of Lino Lakes to conduct the necessary proceedings related to the remaining Drainage Systems in the City of Lino Lakes under the Watershed Law, rather than the Drainage Code; WHEREAS , the purpose of conducting proceedings under the Watershed Law is to provide consistent management of all drainage systems under RCWD management, comprehensive wetland management, and appropriate administration of resource management plans; and WHEREAS , co nducting the proceedings under the Watershed Law will facilitate flexibility in financing the recommended repair option. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lino Lakes City Council, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103D.621 Subd. 4., consent s to the Rice Creek Watershed District’s request to conduct proceedings for Anoka County Ditches 53 -62, 72, 55 and 25, Ramsey County Ditch 8 and Anoka/Washington Judicial Ditch 3 under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. 1 MINNESOT A ST A TUTES 2012 103D.621 103D.621 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. Subdivision 1.Findings.The legislature finds that because of urban growth and development in the metropolitan area problems arise for the improvement and repair of drainage systems which were originally established for the benefit of land used for agriculture.The procedure for improvement and repair of drainage systems now in the metropolitan area should be simplified to more adequately and economically improve and repair drainage systems. Subd.2.Definitions.(a)The terms in this section have the meanings given them in this subdivision. (b)"Drainage system"has the meaning given in section 103E.005,subdivision 12. (c)"W atershed district"means any watershed district established under this chapter ,wholly or partially in a metropolitan county . (d)"Metropolitan county"means any one of the following counties:Anoka,Carver ,Dakota, Hennepin,Ramsey ,Scott,or W ashington. (e)"Metropolitan area"means the combined area of the metropolitan counties. Subd.3.Drainage impr ovements.W ith the concurrence of the governing bodies of the cities and the town boards of the towns where the drainage system is located,the managers of a watershed district where there is a drainage system may improve and repair any drainage system transferred to the watershed district under section 103D.625 by conforming to sections 429.031; 429.041,subdivisions 1 and 2;429.051;429.061;and 429.071. Subd.4.Alternative power .W ith the concurrence of the governing bodies of the cities and the town boards of the towns where the drainage system is located,the managers may improve and repair a drainage system under the power granted to them in this chapter notwithstanding any provision of chapter 103E. Subd.5.Appeal.A person aggrieved by an order for improvement or repair by the managers or by an assessment may appeal as provided in sections 103D.535 and 103D.541. History:1990 c 391 art 4 s 48;1995 c 199 s 36 Copyright ©2012 by the Of fice of the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. WS – Item 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: June 3, 2013 To: City Council From: Jason Wedel Re: 74 th Street Paving Background The City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2013 Mill an d Overlay project at their regular meeting on March 25, 2013. The proposed project area includes Marvy Street and Jon Avenue. These streets are immediately adjacent to 74 th Street which is currently a gravel, minimum maintenance road. The Council direct ed staff to contact the property owners along 74 th Street to determine their interest in having 74 th Street paved. Staff sent letters to all of the property owners that have frontage and driveway access along 74 th Street. Not including the City owned pro perty, there are four property owners that directly access 74 th Street. Two property owners responded that they were in favor of the paving and would be willing to pay some level of assessment. One property owner did not want the street paved and preferr ed to leave it gravel. The final property owner did not provide a response. To move forward with the paving of 74 th Street, the City Council has several options to consider: 1. Obtain assessment waiver agreements from all of the property owners and assess 100% of the cost. 2. Obtain some level of assessment from the property owners that are willing to contribute and have the City provide the balance of the required funds. 3. The City pays 100% of the cost. 4. Complete the paving as a State Statue 429 project. Opt ion 1 doesn’t appear to be feasible due to the one property owner who is opposed to the project. Option 2 will have City Charter implications due to the City paying a portion of the cost and assessing the balance and would likely require a voter referen dum in the fall. This would then push the project into 2014 and eliminate the cost benefit from doing the adjacent Marvy Street and Jon Avenue paving this year. Option 3 would be a policy issue for the City since the City has not paid for the initial p aving of any streets within the City previously. An example would be Pine Street which was just paved a couple years ago and was assessed 100% to the adjacent property owners. Option 4 could be a possibility if we are able to prove the benefit to the adj acent property owners and assess 100% of the cost. However, a portion of the property along 74 th Street is City owned and therefore it would be responsible for a portion of the assessments. We would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would trigger the City Charter and require a voter referendum. Regardless of the referendum, following the State Statute 429 process would push the paving into 2014 and would eliminate the cost benefit of paving the adjacent Marvy Street and Jon Aven ue this year. Requested Council Direction Staff is looking for City Council direction on how to proceed with this project. WS – Item # 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: June 3, 2013 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: 7309 Lake Drive Code Enforcement – Exterior Storage Background The City Council discussed this issue at the May 5 , 2013 work session. The council requested that the property owner evaluate the business plan for the site and determine if any changes could be made to bring the site into compliance with the zoning code. Staff has not received any additional informatio n at the time this report was written. The property owner stated on May 28, 2013 that he was still waiting for a response from lease of the premises. Staff will provide an update at the meeting is any new information is provided. Requested Council Direc tion Staff is requesting council directio n regarding abatement of the nonconforming use of property located at 7309 Lake Drive. Attachments 1. May 5, 2013 WS Report 2. General Vicinity Map 3. LI Zoning District Use s WS – Item # 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: May 6, 2013 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Exterior Storage – 7309 Lake Drive Background On February 22, 2013 , following receipt of resident complaints , city staff issued a Cease and Desist Order to Pinnacle Point, LLC, owner of property located at 7309 Lake Drive . T he order required the discontinuance of t he use of property for the outdoor storage of shipping containers. Upon further review , the property is also being used for the outdoor storage of construction trailers. The containers and trailer s are being stacked three to four high approximately 30 feet in height across the 5 acre parcel. Outdoor Storage is not allowed a s the principal use of prope rty in the LI, Light Industrial District. Following a brief discussi on with the property owner at the March 25, 2013 council work session , the city council directed that the Cease and Desist Order b e stayed until further discussion could be held on the issue . Policy Review The property in question is guided for industrial u se in the City ’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan establishe s the goal to a ttract and encourage new light industrial, high tech, business and professional services in the City. The plan also establishes a policy to protect designated industrial areas from residential encroachment and marginal land uses that will preclude the hig hest economic use of land available for commercial and light industrial development. T he City ’s Zoning Ordi n ance is the primary tool for implementing the comprehensive plan. The City has two industrial zoning districts – LI, Light Industrial Di strict and the GI, General Industrial District. As noted above , the parcel in question is located in the LI, Light Industrial Distric t. The purpose of the LI District, as defined in the Zoning Ordina nce , is as follows: Purpose. These areas are intended to attract and encour age new light industrial, high -tech business and professional services. These areas have the prerequisites for industrial development, but because of proximity to residential areas or the need to protect certain areas or uses from adverse influences, high development standards will be necessary. LI uses include service industries and industries which manufacture, fabricate, assemble or store, where the process is not likely to create offensive noise, vibrations, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other obje ctionable influences. Generally, these include wholesale, service and light industries which are dependent upon raw materials refined elsewhere. No new land shall be zoned LI, Light Industrial unless the site or area lies within the City’s MUSA and sanitar y sewer and municipal water is available. The existing container and trailer storage business represents an extreme departure from this purpose . Outdoor storage as a principal use is common ly seen as the lowest form of industrial use. I t is a low value use . S torage areas have little to no improvements and therefore generate minimal tax value when compared to a typical industrial facility with building improvements. They also have the effect of making surrounding areas less valuable for development purposes. Once legally established , they are also extremely difficult to eliminate. Staff does acknowledge that land allowed for outdoor storage is in high demand. This is because most cities have eliminated or sev erely restricted the allowance for outdoor storage in their ordi n ances for the reasons listed above. It is fairly common for these types of uses to move to outer ring suburban and rural areas because of lower land values and less restrictive requiremen ts. In 2011 , the City Council initiated a review of our industrial district requirements specifically related to outdoor storage. This review resulted in the amendment of the zoning ordinance to allow additional flexibility for outdoo r storage as an accessory use but stopped short of allowing it as a principal use. T here was some discu ssion at the council work session that the property in question would have little to no other alternative uses if the current container business is disallowed. Staff disagrees with t his statement. The property can be used for any of the uses permitted or allowed by conditional use in the LI, Light Industrial Districts (see attachment). Public sanitary sewer and water utilities are available to service the site. In this case , the property is in no different position than any ot her property located in the City ’s industrial areas. The property may require additional investment , such as connection to municip al servi c es, in order to be sold, but that should not be used as a reason to relax zoning standards for the property. Continued use of the property for outdoor container and trailer storage would require an amendment to the Ci ty Zoning Ordinance. This type of use is not appropriate for the LI, Light Industrial District and staff would not recommend consideration of such a proposal. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council directio n regarding ab atement of the nonconforming use of property located at 7309 Lake Drive. Attachments 1. General Vicinity Map 2. LI Zoning District Use s 1 LI, Light Industrial Zoning District. Permitted Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are permitted uses in the LI District. 1. Beverage production and bottling, including public tours of the facilities and gift shops containing merchandise directly related to the facility. 2. Building material sales. 3. Carpet and rug cleaning. 4. Community gardens operated by the city. 5. Construction -related businesses, including shops and offices for plumbing, heating, glazi ng, painting, paper hanging, roofing, ventilating, electrical, carpentry, welding, landscaping, excavating, general contracting and similar uses, including contractor storage of equipment and building materials if enclosed within a building, but not stora ge yards. 6. Feed and seed sales. 7. Greenhouses, nurseries. 8. Laundry, dry cleaning or dying plant. 9. Manufacturing or assembly of a wide variety of products that produces no exterior noise, glare, fumes, noxious products, by -products, or wastes , or creates other objectionable impact on the environment, including the generation of large volumes of traffic. 10. Mass transit terminals. 11. Office business —clinic and general. 12. Radio and television stations. 13. Recreational business conta ined entirely within the principal building. 14. Research laboratories 15. Trade or Business schools. 16. Warehousing and distribution facilities, but not including truck freight trucking terminal or mini self -storage facilities per Section 1, Subd. 2.B of this Ordinance. 17. Wholesale businesses/showrooms. 2 Conditional Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are conditional uses in the LI District. These uses require a conditional use permit based on criteria and pr ocedures outlined in Section 2, Subd. 2. of this Ordinance. 1. Automobile and truck repair provided that: a. All painting must be conducted in an approved paint booth per Section 3, Subd. H. b. All flammable materials, including liquids and rags, shal l conform with the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. c. All outside storage shall be prohibited except the storage of customer vehicles waiting for repair. 2. Commercial and Public Radio and Television Transmitting Antennas, and Public Utility Microwave Antennas greater than forty -five (45) feet in height and less than two hundred (200) feet in height as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 14 of this Ordinance. 3. Commercial Kennels, provided that: a. The applicable provisions of C hapter 503 are determined to be satisfied. b. Cages, enclosures and housing facilities shall be at least five hundred (500) feet from any residential property line. c. An enclosed indoor or exterior exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the per iodic exercising of animals boarded at the kennel. Exterior exercise areas shall be enclosed by an eight (8) foot high solid fence. d. All animals shall be housed indoors for overnight boarding. 4. Mini self -storage facilities provided that: a. No si ngle building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length. b. If an “on -premises” caretaker dwelling unit is provided on site, construction of said dwelling unit shall conform to all design standard regulations for multiple family dwelli ng units of the Minnesota State Building Code. c. No retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, repair, or other such activity other than storage is to occur within the mini self -storage facility. 5. Open and outdoor storage (not outdoor sales lots) as an accessory use provided that: 3 a. The designated storage area shall comply with all building setback requirements for the district. Outside storage is prohibited between the principal structure and any public right -of -way. b. The storage area is landscap ed and screened from view of adjacent uses and public rights -of -way via a fence and greenbelt planting strip, in accordance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q.6 of this Ordinance. c. The entire storage area is fenced and secured in an appropriate manner. d. The storage area is blacktopped or concrete surfaced, unless an alternative wear - resistant material is determined by the City Engineer to be suitable to control dust and drainage and is specifically approved by the City Council. e. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required for conformity to this Ordinance and is not located in the front yard. f. The property shall not abut I -35W or I -35E. g. The ratio of storage area to building footprint shall not exceed 2.5:1. h. All parking, loading and truck staging activities shall occur on site. On -street parking and loading associated with the use is prohibited. i. Storage shall not include material considered hazardous under Federal or State Environmental Law. 6. Veterinary Hospitals provided that: a. All areas in which animals are confined are located indoors and are properly soundproofed from adjacent properties. b. Animal carcasses are properly disposed of in a manner not utilizing on -site garbage facilities or incineration and the carcasses are properly refrigerated during periods prior to disposal. c. An indoor animal kennel is permitted as a use accessory to the veterinary hospital provided that: 1) The number of animals boarded shall not exceed forty (40). 2) An enclosed indoor or exterior exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the periodic exercising of animals boarded at the kennel. Exterior exercise areas shall be limited to a maximum of twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. 4 3) A ventilation system shall be designed so that no odors or organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air and will be capable of completely exchanging internal air at a rate of at least twice per hour. Air temperature must be maintained between 6 0 and 75 degrees Fah renheit. 4 ) A room separate from the kennel area shall be provided of sufficient size to adequately separate animals that are sick or injured from healthy animals. 5) Indoor animal kennel floors and walls shall be made of non -porous m aterials or sealed concrete to make it non -porous. 6) Animal wastes shall be flushed down an existing sanitary sewer system or enclosed in a container of sufficient construction to eliminate odors and organisms and shall be properly disposed of at least once a day. d. The appropriate license is obtained from the City and the conditions of Chapter 503 relating to the keeping of animals are satisfactorily met. e. All State Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for such facil ities are met WS – Item # 4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 4 Date: June 3, 2013 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Lino Lakes Assisted Living Update Background The City has been working with Lino Lakes Assisted Living to facilitate expansion of their existing facility on a portion of the Legacy at Woods Edge property. The City has previously agreed to the purchase of the property and corresponding conveyance to the the owners for the expansion. The City has also approved the Final Plat and Final Plan for the property. City staff and the City Engineer, WSB and Associates have also been working with the applicant to meet the stormwater management requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The RCWD requirements have changed since the original approval of the Legacy development and require additional stormwater treatment that was not originally anticipated . We are currently working with the developer on a variance application for submittal to the watershed district for their consideration in June. Staff is also working with the developer on a possible modification to the site plan to change the location of the access drive onto Town Center Parkway. The current plan calls for a new access on the southeast side of the propert y. This access is located approximately 5 feet from a neighboring property access point and requires the relocation of City utilities, a street light, and disturbance to the existing roadway. The existing access to the east was originally intended to se rve both the Assisted Living site and the adjacent townhome property. The joint access was not considered with the approved plans because the city did not own the property. With the approval of the special legislation the City will soon hold fee title to the abutting property and would be in a position to grant an access easement in favor of the Assisted Living property. This would allow the driveway to be shifted and avoid the expense and disturbance associated with creating a new access point. Req uested Council Direction Staff is seeking council interest in providing an access easement across adjacent property. Attachments 1. Site Map WS – Item # 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 8 Date: June 3, 2013 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: YMCA Bonding Background Council members Stoesz and Rafferty requested that the City’s agreement with the YMCA fo r financing be placed on the work session agenda for discussion. The city first endorsed financial support for the YMCA in 1999 by agreeing to provided land, infrastructure and $1.5 million in construction funding. A development agreement with the YMCA was first entered into in 2005. Following contin ued discussions an amended agreement was approved by the City Council in 2006 providing $2,350,000 in construction funding. A copy of the report and authorizing resolutions from the March 13, 2006 City Cou ncil meeting is attached . Requested Council Direction No action required. Attachments 1. March 13, 2006 City Council YMCA Agenda Item.