HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-13 Council Packet
Updated Aug. 30, 2013
WORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Tuesday,September 3, 2013
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Community Room (not televised)
5:30 P.M.
1. 7309 Lake Drive, Exterior Storage
2.Emmerich PUD Concept Plan
3. Accessory Building Requirements
4. Snowmobile Trail at Lake St. & Main St.
5. Temporary Signs
6. Wireless Communications Update, Rick DeGardner
7. Salt Storage Shelter Project, Rick DeGardner
8. Upgrade of Financial Software
9. 2014 Budget
10.Centennial Fire District Budget
11.Charter Commission Minute Services
12.Monthly Progress Report
Review Regular Agenda
Adjourn
WS –Item#1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No.1
Date:
September 3, 2013
To:
City Council
From:
Michael Grochala
Re:
7309 Lake DriveCode Enforcement –Exterior Storage
Background
The City Council discussed this issue at the May5, 2013, June 3, 2013and August 5,
2013work sessions.At May meeting 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.
As discussed at the June meeting staff received a letter from Mobile Mini, Inc., dated
May 29, 2013. Mobile Miniis the lessee of the site. The letter did not include any
proposed change to the site operations but rather contended that they should be allowed
to remain as a legal nonconforming use.
Staff reviewed the letter and their stated position with the City Attorney. A response
letter was sent on July 16, 2013 from Joe Langel, City Attorney reiterating that the use of
the property for outside storage is not grandfathered in. The letter provided 14 days to
provide us with information on how they intend to modify the use to bring it into
compliance with the zoning ordinance.
At the August 5 work session the reiterated lack of interest in amendingthe zoning
ordinance and directed staff to continue code enforcement activities. On August 6, 2013
staff met with the property owner, a representative from Mobile Mini, and representatives
from Lorenz Bus Service, a prospective buyer of the property. Noresolution to the issue
was reached at the meeting. Mobile Mini indicated they would review their situation and
possibly request and extension of time to allow for further review of options.
The property owner has since requested an opportunity to speakto the council directly
regarding this matter.
Staff has not received any additionalinformation from the lessee or the property owner.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting City Council direction on the code enforcement issue.
Attachments
1.Mobile Mini Letter dated May 29, 2013
2.Joe Langel letter dated July 16, 2013
3.May 6, 2013 WS Report
4.General Vicinity Map
5.
LI Zoning District Uses
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.
The order required the discontinuance of the 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 trailers are being stacked three to four
high approximately 30 feet in height across the 5 acre parcel. Outdoor Storage is not
allowed as the principal use of property in the LI, Light Industrial District.
Following a brief discussion with the property owner at the March 25, 2013 council work
session, the city council directed that the Cease and Desist Order be stayed until further
discussion could be held on the issue.
Policy Review
The property in question is guided for industrial use in the City
The plan establishes the goal to attract 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 highest economic use of land available for commercial and light
industrial development.
The Citys Zoning Ordinance is the primary tool for implementing the comprehensive
plan. The City has two industrial zoning districts LI, Light Industrial District and the
GI, General Industrial District. As noted above, the parcel in question is located in the
LI, Light Industrial District. The purpose of the LI District, as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance, is as follows:
Purpose.
These areas are intended to attract and encourage 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
objectionable 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
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 commonly seen as the lowest form of
industrial use. It is a low value use. Storage 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 severely restricted the
allowance for outdoor storage in their ordinances 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 requirements.
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 outdoor storage as an accessory use
but stopped short of allowing it as a principal use.
There was some discussion 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 this 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 other property located in the
Citys industrial areas. The property may require additional investment, such as
connection to municipal services, 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 City 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 direction regarding abatement of the nonconforming use of
property located at 7309 Lake Drive.
Attachments
1.General Vicinity Map
2.LI Zoning District Uses
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, glazing,
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
storage 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 businessclinic and general.
12. Radio and television stations.
13. Recreational business contained 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.
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 procedures 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, shall 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 Chapter 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
periodic 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 single building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length.
-
dwelling unit shall conform to all design standard regulations for multiple family
dwelling 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:
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 landscaped 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.
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 60 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
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 materials 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 facilities are met
WS –Item#2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No.2
Date:
September 3, 2013
To:
City Council
From:
Katie Larsen, City Planner
Re:
Emmerich PUD Concept Plan
Background
At the August 26, 2013 Council Work Session, Council requested this agenda item be
moved to the September meeting to allow more time for review and discussion.
The applicant, AJE Companies, submitted a Land Use Application for a PUD Concept
Plan Review for a residential subdivision located in the southeast quadrantof the City. It
contains 5 parcels totaling approximately 75 gross acres and consists of a residential
density mix of single family lots, townhomes and an age restricted multi-family
residence. The applicant had previously submitted a Concept Plan #1 butis requesting
review of the submitted Concept Plan #2.
UseConcept Plan #2
Single Family Lots163 units
Townhomes41 units
Age Restricted Units57-66 units
TOTAL UNITS261-270 units
Gross Acres75.5 acres
Open Space & Park22 acres
Net Acres53.5acres
Street ROW11.3 acres
Density4.88 to 5.05 DU per Acre
Note: There are some minor discrepancies in information between the Concept Plan and
application narrative in terms of density.
ZONING AND LAND USE
Current ZoningR, Rural
Current Land UseAgricultural and Rural Residential
Medium Density Residential
Future Land Use per CP
(4.0 to 5.9 DU per acre)
MUSA2020 District
1A=2008-2015 (north ½)
Utility Staging Area
1B=2015-2020 (south ½)
To accommodate the proposed mixed density residentialdevelopment the property will
need to be rezoned to Planned Unit Development.
The proposed project will also require a City Council resolution to amend the five (5)
year Utility Staging Area boundaries since the site spans two different areas (1A and 1B).
Per the City’s Comprehensive Plan, medium density residential development allows for
residential development at 4.0 to 5.9 dwelling units per acre. The concept plan is
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s guided land use and density.
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE
DirectionZoningCurrent Land UseFuture Land Use
LI, Light City of Centerville & City of Centerville &
North
IndustrialAgriculturalIndustrial
SouthR, RuralAgriculturalUrban Reserve
R-1, Single I35 E &Single Family Low Density
East
Family ResResidentialResidential
Low and Medium
WestR, RuralRural Residential
Density Residential
ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS
The property will be rezoned to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate a
mix of residential densities. Lot widths for the single family units are 70 feet (85 feet for
corner lots) and lot depths are 125-130 feet.
Street B is considered a minor collector street and 40 foot setbacks will apply. Additional
provisions for future deck constructionshall be incorporated into plans which meet
required setbacks.
The project proposes single family lots generally consistent with the R-2, Two Family
Residence District. Residential home construction shall meet those requirements. No
information was provided regarding the proposed townhome residences.
The single family homes will also be subject to the garage and building façade
architectural requirements contained in the R-2 district standards as follows:
Garages.All single family dwellings shall have a double garage and shall comply
with the following:
a.Compliance with the Building Type and Construction Standards of
Section 3. Subdivision 4.B, and
b.All garages, except side or rear loaded garages, shall not protrude forward
of the front wall of the house, unless the house includes a front porch that
is unenclosed, a minimum of 8 feet in depth, and extends across 100
percent of the front façade of the house. The garage shall then not
protrude forward of the front porch, and
c.If the garage door faces the street, the length of the garage wall facing the
street shall not be greater than fifty percent (50%) of the length of the
entire front facade of the structure; except on houses that comply with all
of the following conditions:
1)The second floor livingspace extends over the two-car portion of the
garage; and
2)The garage doors are decorative and have a strip of windows; and
3)Garages in excess of two stalls shall be broken up so the additional stalls
are recessed four feet from the main garage façade; and
4)Garage width does not exceed 32 feet.
Landscaping
Boulevard trees are required at the rate of 1 tree per 70 linear feet of road frontage. Open
areas shall be landscaped in accordance with City standards. . Landscape screening and
th
buffers shall be installed along 20Avenue and I-35E in accordance with City standards.
Noise mitigation techniques along I-35E near townhomes shall be required
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The development is located in Planning District 3 and is guided for medium density
residential development.
The Resource Management System Plan identifies the following needs in the area:
Future neighborhood park
th
Designated bike route along CSAH 54 (20Avenue)
Trails
Greenway system
The proposed plan appears to address these elements. A preliminary survey finds no
threatened or endangered species on the property or in the immediate vicinity. A 20 acre
greenway corridor and park are proposed along the southeastern quadrant of the site
adjacent to an existing drainage channel. It appears that the park can be expanded to the
north in the future; however staff is still reviewing the size and configuration.
Resource management recommendations for the area include a greenway system along
the southeast quadrant of the site which coincides with the existing floodplain, drainage
ditch and wetland areas.
ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR)
The site is within the 2005 I-35E Corridor AUAR and is subject to the AUAR mitigation
plan. The proposed development is consistent with development Scenario 1 for medium
density residential. Please see Attachment 9 for a copy of the AUAR Mitigation Plan
Summary.
FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT
The southeast quadrant of the site is located within a designated Zone A flood plain
district. The applicant shallbe responsible for verifying the base flood elevations, and
demonstrating how the proposed floodplain fill areas will be mitigated on site. Both the
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and the City have specific permitting processes
for floodplain fill.Additionally, a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) will need to be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) for any alterations to the floodplain.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY
Per the Comprehensive Plan (page 3-27), an annual average of 230 units per year over
each 5 year phasing period not to exceed 345 units in any 1 year is allowed. At the end
of the 5 year phasing period unallocated units will be averaged out over the next 5 years.
A phasing plan may berequired to insure consistency with this requirement.
SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS
A PUD Development Stage Plan and Final Plan application are required. The PUD
ordinance details development requirements. It is also recommended that a neighborhood
meeting be held with adjacent property owners. Staff’s preliminary design comments are
as follows:
Blocks
Pedestrian ways are provided to break up long blocks and connect lots with open
space.
Lots
The single family lots are 70 feet in width (85 feet corner) and 125-130 feet in
depth.
Lot areas shall consist of buildable land exclusive of utility transmission or water
course easements.
Wetlands require 10 foot buffer.
The proposed age restricted apartment is isolated among the single family lots. A
location near the townhomes and open space would lend to a natural transition
from low to high density development.
Streets & Alleys
th
CSAH 54 (20Avenue) is an “A” Minor Arterial-Reliever and Cedar Street W is a local
road. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for a minor collector road extending
north-south through the development. Street A provides one access point onto CSAH 54
th
(20Avenue) and the second access shall be provided at either Cedar Street (north) or
Birch Street (south). Care shouldbe taken in the design and layout of Street B to
minimize the likelihood of cut through traffic from Birch Street to growing commercial
areas north of the site. Street A is located consistent with the access spacing proposed in
the 35E Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). Additionally, the following items
should be taken into consideration:
Street A & B shall be 32 feet wide.
Other streets will be allowed at 28 feet wide.
Sidewalk shall be installed along one side of Street A.
Street B shall be completed from Street A to Street F and full 60 feet of right of
way will need to be provided for that portion of Street B extending north of Street
A.
th
A turn lane off of 20Avenue will be required subject to review by Anoka
County.
A traffic study will be required as part of the development application.
Build Out Plan
A build out plan (ghost plat) illustrating a proposed future street system and land use (i.e.
single family, townhomes, etc.) for adjacent parcels shall be required.
Easements
A private power line easement exists across the northwestern tip of the development.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided in accordance with the subdivision
regulations. Easements will be placed along all property lines, around wetlands and
stormwater ponding areas.
Storm Water Management
The drainage divide cuts the site diagonally. Most of the surface water flows to
Clearwater Creek. A small portion flows to Amelia Lake. The concept plans shows
several ponding areas throughout the development. Astorm water management plan that
meets or exceeds the requirements of Rice Creek Watershed District shall be prepared.
It would be beneficial to employ a stormwater treatment-train design that uses
BMP's that can reduce volume and filter stormwater throughout the proposed
development.
One (1) foot contours are required.
Rear yard drainage swales that exceed more than four lots in length will require a
rear yard catch basin.
The wetland delineation that is shown has expired and will need to be updated.
A Rice Creek Watershed District permit will be required. We recommend
beginning discussion with the district as soon as possible.
Public Utilities
The subject site is located in Sanitary Sewer District 3 (Sub-district 3C) and is served by
a MCES Interceptor 76-51, a 24-inch gravity sewer in Cedar Street The gravity sewer
main is located approximately 400 feet to the east of the north boundary of the
development and is adequate in size for development of the site. The trunk sanitary
sewer main will extend from the existing MCES interceptor south on Street B into the
development.
th
The subject site is served by a 16 inch trunk watermain located in CSAH 54 (20
Avenue) and Cedar Street. The trunk watermain will extend from Cedar Street south
along Street B to the proposed future extension of Birch Street and then west on Birch
th
Street to 20Avenue.
Public Land Dedication
The City will require a combination of land dedication and cash in lieu of land. A per
unit fee will be charge against all units in the plat. The value of land proposed for
dedication will be subtracted from this amount.
Tree Preservation
A tree survey and preservation plan shall be submitted. There are a few small tree stands
specifically on the southwestern corner of the site that will need to be evaluated.
Requested Council Direction
The City’s review and comments on the concept plan’s relation to the Comprehensive
Plan and development regulations do not grant any rights to the applicant to development
the property as depicted by the concept plan.
The Environmental Board reviewed the concept plan on July 31, 2013 and the Planning
& Zoning Board reviewed the plan on August 14, 2013. Overall general comments were
in favor of submitting a PUD Development Stage/Preliminary Plat application.
Staff is seeking Council’s overall general comments related to:
Density
Mix of housing types
General subdivision layout
Attachments
1.Site Location Map
2.Aerial Map
3.Existing Site Conditions Map
4.Applicant Narrative
5.Concept Plan #2
6.Examples ofSingle Family Homes
7.Environmental Coordinator Memo dated August 8, 2013
8.RCWD Email Comments dated July 24, 2013
9.AUAR Mitigation Plan
Environmental
Memo
To:Katie Larsen
From:Marty Asleson
Date:August 8, 2013
Re:Environmental Board Recommendations for AJE Companies, Inc., Sketch
Plan Review
The following recommendations were made by the Lino Lakes Environmental Board
onJuly 31, 2013concerning the Sketch Plan of AJE Companies proposed in Section
25:
A ditch drains wetland through this property. It may be beneficial to the
developer and the city to investigate wetland restoration. Restoration may
allow for credits that could be generated to allow for wetland impacts that
might occur to create an internal loop to proposed high-density housing in the
SE corner. This would allow for immediate development of the proposed
high-density housing into the medium density housing proposed for the site.
The site includes floodplain in the SE corner. This will need to be defined with
the project design.
Sound barrier/noise attenuation from the freeway should be incorporated into
the design for housing.
AUAR concerns must be addressed
Screening will be needed on the west and north sides.
Page 1
·
·
·
AUAR MITIGATION PLAN SUMMARY
The following list is intended to summarize, in the form of a list, the mitigation strategies
required or recommended by the AUAR. This summary may seem lengthy at 11pages.
However, the complete mitigation plan is 29 pages long.This summary list is intended as
an aide, a shortcut, and is not to be considered the complete list of requirements for
development in the 4660-acre AUAR area. In order to understand the mitigation
strategies, potential developers should spend timereading the AUAR, especially the
mitigation plan. In addition, all applicable zoning, subdivision, and other requirements
apply.
I11.F,W,ESR
TEM ISHILDLIFECOLOGICALLY ENSITIVE ESOURCES
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
11.1Implement the Conservation Design Framework (CDF, see Figure 10-3), which
includes conservation of “Core” and “Outlier” habitat areas, buffering these
natural resources, and establishing greenway corridors throughout the AUAR area
to provide connectivity for ecological and wildlife corridors, regional stormwater
collection and conveyance, and passive recreational opportunities.
Implementing the CDF within a Proposed Development Project Site
To achieve the objectives outlined in the CDF, the City will require future
project proposers to do twothings simultaneously:
1)plan for ecological stormwater management and natural resource
conservation within thedevelopment project site, and
2)provide land, finances, and/or construction activities to implement
components of the CDF.
Conservation development design and/or low impact development design
principles will be required ofnew developments with an emphasis on
ecological stormwater management and natural resourceconservation. The
stormwater and conservation components of individual developments must
integratewith the CDF.
A management plan and stewardship fund will be required to ensure long-
term perpetuation of the publicvalues conserved or restored in the natural
open space and in the ecological stormwater managementsystem of the CDF.
Ecological education, provided by the developer, may be required for a
specificdevelopment project (e.g., educational pamphlets, signage, Home
Owner Association workshops, etc.).
1
11.2Add the “Core” and “Outlier” habitat areas to the City’s Parks, Natural Open
Space/Greenways, and Trail System Plan map.
11.3Require public land dedication of priority natural open space areas through the
subdivision process.
11.4Require that cash in lieu of public land dedication for subdivisions within the
AUAR area be spent within the AUAR area to purchase, restore, and/or maintain
priority natural open space areas.
11.5Consider provisions for conserving “Other” habitat areas (see Figure 10-2) during
the development review process.
11.6Establish mechanisms for ecological restoration, management, stewardship, and
education.
11.7Provide for turtle and other wildlife passage by continuing to require
surmountable curbing in new residential developments and encouraging
ecologically sensitive site design.
11.8Consult with the DNR and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine
appropriate mitigation strategies for activities near the Bald Eagle’s nests within
the AUAR area before development occurs within the vicinity of the nests,
including reviewing recommended disturbance limit guidelines developed by the
DNR.
11.9Continue to enforce the Peltier Lake No-Wake Zone ordinance and establish
buffers to protect the Peltier Lake Heron Rookery.
11.10Require rare plant surveys, by qualified personnel, prior to development in
wetland areas.
11.11Encourage ecologically sensitive design and construction practices for the
proposed northerly bypass.
2
I12.WR:W
TEM ATER ESOURCESETLANDS
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
12.1Delineate wetlands in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual andclassify wetlands according to Wetlands of the United
States (Circular 39) and Wetlands andDeepwater Habitats of the United States.
12.2Follow sequencing process of wetland avoidance, minimization, rectification, and
mitigation asoutlined in the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) if wetlands area
altered.
12.3Apply for applicable wetland permits to obtain authorization for wetland
alterations under WCAand Section 404 prior to project construction if
development activities will impact a jurisdictionalwetland.
12.4Mitigate areas of wetland impacts according to the requirements of the Wetland
Conservation Act.
12.5Submit wetland permit applications and replacement plans, as appropriate, to the
MinnesotaBoard of Water and Soil Resources, Rice Creek Watershed District,
and the City of Lino Lakes.
12.6Follow the requirements for wetland alterations delineated by the Rice Creek
Watershed District(RCWD).
12.7Minimize or avoid totally anyfilling of public waters through careful design.
I13.WU
TEM ATER SE
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
13.1Monitor water usage and do not permit new development to proceed if it exceeds
the capacity of the water supply and distribution system.
13.2Construct the water supply and distribution system in accordance with Minnesota
Department of Health standards and with the goals, policies, and
recommendations set forth in the city’s Comprehensive Water System Plan.
13.3As necessary, amend the city’s Comprehensive Water System Plan and Capital
Improvement Plan to be consistent with an future amendments or updates to the
3
Comprehensive Plan that would necessitate expansions or alterations to the water
system.
13.4Prepare a Wellhead Protection Plan amendment for new wells and follow the
adopted wellhead protection plans for Lino Lakes and Centerville.
13.5Require abandoned private wells to be sealed in compliance with the Minnesota
Department of Health regulations.
13.6Require that the installationof any private individual wells be constructed and
installed in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health regulations
(Minnesota Well Code).
13.7Continue to implement the City’s adopted water conservation policies which are
intended to attenuate peak water demands throughout the City.
I15.WSU
TEM ATER URFACE SE
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
15.1Consider restricting individual lake access and dock construction along public and
private shorelands by encouraging the use of clustered access and dock facilities.
I16ES
TEM ROSION AND EDIMENTATION
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
16.1 Require project proposers to acquire NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for
Construction Activity from the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork.
16.2 Require project proposers to meet the erosion and sediment control regulations in all
applicable regulations, ordinances and rules of the city and MPCA, and Rice Creek
Watershed District.
16.3 Require project proposers to minimize runoff, improve the quality of runoff, and
provide erosion control through BMPs and other low impact development techniques.
including:
Reduce impervious surfaces (e.g., use narrow roads, efficient road layout,
permeable pavement);
4
Break up impervious surfaces to allow opportunities for infiltration;
Use ecological stormwater management techniques, such as vegetated swales,
infiltration systems, and biofilter wetlands;
Provide energy dissipation and outfall stabilization; and
Establish and maintain vegetated buffers around aquatic resources.
16.4 Provide construction oversight to ensure designed sediment and erosion control
measures are being implemented.
16.5 Implement the Conservation Design Framework (CDF, Figure 10-3).
which is designed to help mitigate erosion and sedimentation caused by surface
water runoff. Components of the CDF that help mitigate erosion and
sedimentation include conservation of natural open spaces, buffering, and an
ecological stormwater management system.
I17WQ:SWR
TEM ATER UALITYURFACE ATER UNOFF
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
17.1Work with project proposers to establish a regional stormwater management
system within the Conservation Design Framework (CDF, see Figure 10-3) that
consists of vegetated swales, wet prairies, and wetlands oriented in series to
effectively retard runoff rates, reduce stormwater volume, and enhance water
quality.
17.2Work with project proposers to disperse collection, conveyance, and management
of stormwater runoff as much as possible throughout the AUAR site through the
use of bio-swales, rain gardens, and infiltration areas.
17.3Require stormwater management systems to be developed in accordance with
Rice Creek Watershed District Rules.
17.4Require project proposers to design stormwater management areas (SMAs) to
support native vegetation and maintain runoff rates at or below pre-development
conditions.
17.5Require project proposers to design stormwater management systems that can
achieve proposed conditions runoff volumes that are no less than 80% and no
greater than 150% of existing conditions runoff volumes.
17.6Encourage project proposers to use techniques that produce no net increases in
total phosphorus content of proposed conditions runoff relative to existing
conditions runoff.
17.7Require project proposers to provide detailed topographic information with a
contour interval of 1-foot and drain tile mapping.
5
17.8Require project proposers to disperse outflow from stormwater management
facilities to prevent erosion and failure of outlet structures. Make attempts to
simulate sheet flow at these locations as opposed to concentrated flows.
17.9Require project proposers to use conservation development design and/or low
impact development techniques, and ecological stormwater management
techniques.
17.10Require project proposers to limit the amount and connectedness of impervious
surfaces and direct runoff into vegetated landscape areas including swales,
prairies, and other infiltration.
17.11Require project proposers to use stormwater management techniques that
encourage infiltration of stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, whenever
possible, to maximize the infiltration potential of the site.
Sizing criteria for SMAs are designed to support large infiltrating surfaces or
wetland complexes. To create conditions appropriate for these two types of
stormwater management features, SMAs within the AUAR area must have:
no more than 20% of their surface area as permanent open water; the
remaining surface area of each SMA shall contain mesic prairie or wet
prairie plant communities to maximize the infiltration and water quality
treatment capacities of the system.
design high water levels (100-Year) less than or equal to 2.5 feet above the
normal water level or lowest outlet invert.
side slopes that are less than or equal to 6:1, horizontal to vertical, and a
10:1 safety bench at the normal water level per RCWD requirements.
The following is a list of additional stormwater management
recommendations:
Adhere to surface area recommendations for stormwater management
(Figure 17-3).
During site design, follow low impact development practices, such as
increased open space, disconnected and minimized impervious surfaces,
capitalizing on high infiltration capacity soils, and dispersed stormwater
management.
In residential development areas, use of a combination of side and rear lot
drainage easements that are no-mow zones planted with formal or
informal native landscaping. The rear lot areas would be designed for
infiltration, and side lot areas would be designed for effective drainage and
conveyance of water from around foundations to ensure no standing water
remains adjacent to the houses.
Route driveway, sidewalk and gutter downspout waters into rain gardens
and infiltration areas. This can be accomplished without compromising
6
safe and effective drainage and dewatering needs around foundations and
road subgrades.
Route road runoff into parkway and road ROW swales, rain gardens, and
infiltration areas.
Route parking lot runoff into bio-swales, parking lot islands, and other
suitable locations that support infiltration.
I18WQ:W
TEMATER UALITYASTEWATER
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
18.1Monitor wastewater flows and not permit new development to proceed if it
exceeds the capacity of the wastewater system.
18.2Construct the major infrastructure improvements needed to expand the capacity of
the wastewater system (i.e. lift stations, forcemains, and upgrades to the existing
systems) in accordance with the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Capital
Improvement Plan.
18.3Adequately phase capacity improvements.
18.4Amend the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Capital Improvement Plan to
be consistent with any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would
necessitate expansions or alterations to the sanitary sewer system and regional
capacity needs.
I19SGC
TEM OIL AND ROUNDWATER ONTAMINATION
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
19.1Require the removal of all tanks and associated underground piping in accordance
with applicable state and federal laws.
19.2Require that any party that may discover residual petroleum contamination shall
follow state law and report the information to the MPCA for further investigation
and potential remediation.
7
I21T
TEM RANSPORTATION
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
21.1Create a monitoring program thatclosely evaluates traffic impacts from proposed
developments within the AUAR area.
21.2Implement traffic mitigation measures as development occurs within the AUAR
area. Specific mitigation measures for the three development scenarios are
discussed in Item 21 and depicted on Figures 21-8, 21-9, and 21-10.These
mitigation measures improve overall traffic operations for the respective
development scenarios. The improvements are intended to represent the
minimum level of infrastructure investment thatwould be needed to meet
acceptable level of service standards. Additional roadway and non-motorized
improvements, beyond the minimum level, may be identified to accommodate
specific development needs that are identified within the AUAR area.” Primary
improvements, regardless of land use scenario, include:
21.2.1.Develop frontage road system in compliance with local, county and state
access management guidelines to serve local and regional traffic.
21.2.2Work with appropriate road authorities to reconstruct and provide
additional capacity for CSAH 21.
21.2.3Work with appropriate road authorities to construct Northerly Bypass with
new interchanges at I-35W and I-35E (80th Street East) to improve traffic
operations and access to and within the AUAR area. As recommended by
FHWA and Mn/DOT, a phasing plan should be established to construct
each piece of the Northerly Connector as it becomes necessary to maintain
the serviceability of the transportation system.
Phase Improvement
1.CSAH 14, I-35W to I-35E (funded and programmed for construction)
2.CSAH 14, I-35E Interchange
th
3.CR 140 (80Street )/I-35E Interchange
4.CSAH 14 across Peltier Lake (Northerly Bypass/Connector)
5.CSAH 14/I-35W Interchange
As part of these improvements, the following steps should be taken as the
opportunity is presented:
Inclusion of the northerly bypass and proposed interchanges in future
transportation and comprehensive plans
Preservation of right of way through official mapping or other process
Right of way dedication through the platting process
8
21.3Require a traffic impact analysis for all development projects within the AUAR
area. The traffic impact analysis will assist the City and other road authorities in
determining the appropriate mitigation measures that are required to mitigate
impacts of a specific development proposal.
21.4Work with appropriate road authorities to mitigate the impact of the additional
traffic on the on the regional system, specifically Interstates 35W and 35E, by
reconstructing each to provide a six-lane cross-section consistent with the
recommendations outlined in the I-35 IRC. It should be noted that it was
determined that an expansion will be necessary even without the development
scenarios used in this analysis. As the interstates serve a much larger area, the
projected growth of the entire Twin Cities region should warrant expansion by the
year 2030.
21.5Prioritize alternative travel modes within the AUAR study area and require
project proposers to address alternative travel modes (e.g., buses, bicyclists, and
pedestrians) by identifying appropriate accommodations.
21.6Consider the need for additional infrastructure improvements (see item #21.2) in
future updates or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Submit the plan
update to the appropriate agencies (i.e., FHWA, MnDOT, Met Council, etc.).
21.7Require project proposers to follow all appropriate guidelines and policies related
to traffic nose and noise walls.
21.8Require that site plans for each of the developments include measures suchas
appropriate setback distances, earthen berms, noise walls, and appropriate site
design to reduce the impact of traffic noise to residential areas.
21.9Continue to require the implementation of the conditions of approval for the Eagle
Brook Church relating to mitigating traffic impacts.
21.10Achieve effective traffic operations within the city by requiring that site plans
make use of access management practices to promote sate, effective traffic flow.
21.11Require project proposers to follow the Anoka County Highway Department
Development Review Process Manual (dated December 2003.)
21.12Continue to coordinate capital improvement programming with applicable
transportation authorities.
9
I25CR
TEM ULTURAL ESOURCES
Mitigation Strategies
The Citywill:
25.1Consult the map that shows areas with a high potential for archaeological sites
when development applications are submitted for review. Given the sensitive
nature of this information, this map cannot be included in the AUAR document,
nor can it be made available to the public. If a development application falls
within an area that is considered to have a high potential for archaeological sites,
the city will require that the following steps and procedures involved in the
identification and analysis of any archaeological sites is followed prior to
development:
Conduct a Phase I archaeological survey within the area of potential effect
(APE). The objective of the archaeological fieldwork is to determine if there
are archaeological sites in the areas identified as having high potential for
such, and define the extent of those sites that may be impacted by
development plans.
Conduct a Phase II archaeological survey. If archaeological resources are
uncovered within the APE that may be eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) a Phase II survey should be conducted.
The objective of the investigation is to determine whether archaeological
resources are eligible for listing on the NRHP.
Plan for avoidance or conduct Phase III data recovery. If a significant
archaeological site is identified that will be impacted by development,
avoidance is recommended. If this is not possible, then a data recovery of the
site should occur.
If human remains are recovered at any time during archaeological
investigation or development, all activities must stop and consultation initiated
with the Office of the State Archaeologist and Minnesota Indian Affairs
Council.
I25.UF
TEM NIQUE ARMLANDS
Mitigation Strategies
The city will:
25.2Consider preservation of agricultural heritage sites by implementing thoughtful
interpretive planning.
10
I27.CP
TEM OMPATIBILITY WITH LANS
Mitigation Strategies
The city will:
27.1Use the information contained in the AUAR during future considerations of
updates or amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Any future consideration of amendments or updates to the
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances would follow the city’s set procedures and
guidelines for such amendments.
27.2Require that tools such as clustering, buffering, and/or screening be incorporated
into future development plans to mitigate potential land use conflicts.
GIT:
ENERAL MPLEMENTATION OOLS
All development must comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan will guide the permitted land use, zoning, utility extensions, and other
development activities.
Approval of future planned unit developments (PUDs), together with the
development agreements, which include specific requirements.
Execution of future developer’s agreements under the City of Lino Lakes’s
subdivision ordinances.
Enforcement of the permitting requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal
agencies.
Update the AUAR in five years, or earlier, if certain conditions or assumptions
change in accordance with Mn Rules 4410.3610, subp. 3.
Enforcement of the City’s premature subdivision regulations (Section 1002-6) to
ensure that adequate public facilities are available to mitigate potential impacts. The
premature subdivision requirements follow:
11
WS –Item#3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No.3
Date:
September 3, 2013
To:
City Council
From:
Katie Larsen, City Planner
Re:
Accessory Buildings
Background
City Councilrequested staff to compile informationregarding the City ordinance and
residential accessory buildings.
Chapter 1007, Section 1, Subd. 2.B. of the zoning ordinance defines the following:
Accessory Building.
A portion of the principal building or a detached
structure on the same lot which is used for an accessory use.
Accessory Use.
A use of land or of a building or portion thereof
customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or
building and located on the same lot with such principal use.
Per Chapter 1007, Section 3,Subd. 4:
Accessory Buildings and Structures.
D.
1.General Provisions.
a.No accessory building or use shall be constructed or
developed on a lot prior to the time of construction of the
principal building to which it is accessory, except in the case
of agricultural buildings on agriculture land as defined by
State Statute 273.13, Section 23, as amended.
b.A building or portion thereof used for an accessory use,
other than home occupation, shall be considered as an
accessory building.
c.No detached accessorybuilding shall be closer to the front
lot line than the principal building or its attached garage
except within the R, R-X, and R-BR Zoning Districts,
provided the accessory building is set back at least one
hundred (100) feet from the street right-of-way.
d.Setbacks for accessory buildings in all districts shall be
determined in accordance with appropriate district
provisions. Location of said accessory buildings shall not
interfere with the future subdivision of the property.
e.Accessory structures may be constructed within public and
private utility and drainage easements provided that:
1)No accessory structure shall be located within a
drainage or utility easement without written
permission of the Zoning Administrator and the filing
of an encroachment agreement.
2)No footings or foundation shall be placed within the
easement.
3)The entire structure, including any base material,
must be designed to be easily moved if deemed
necessary by the city.
4)Removal of an accessory structure or portion thereof
forthe purpose of utilizing the easement shall be at
the property owner’s expense.
f.In Rural and Residential districts, Gazebos that are attached
to the dwelling by a raised deck, porch, or patio shall not be
counted towards the maximum area or number of accessory
structures allowed on a site, so long as the sides of the
gazebo remain at least 50%, though the open areas may be
covered with screens.
g.In Rural and Residential districts, Fabric structures are
considered an accessory structure and are therefore
counted towards the maximum area and number of
accessory structures allowed on a site.
9.Rural and Residential Zoning District Accessory Buildings. The
following summarizes the maximum number, size, and height of
accessory buildings allowedin an individual parcel according to lot
size and residential district. For the purposes of this section, lot
size for metes and bounds properties shall include roadway
easements.
a.Twenty (20) Acres or Greater. (R, R-X, R-BR, R-1, R-1X, R-
EC, and PSP Districts)
1)No maximum combination of accessory building(s)
and garage(s) size requirement.
2)Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable.
3)Fabric or vinyl canopy structures acceptable.
4)No maximum height requirement.
5)One (1) attached garagenot to exceed one thousand
two hundred (1,200)square feet or equal to the size
of the house foundation, whichever is greater.
b.Ten (10) to Less than Twenty (20) Acres.(R, R-X, R-BR, R-
1, R-1X, R-EC, and PSP Districts)
1)The combination of accessory building(s) and
garage(s) shall not exceed the greater of:
a.Ten thousand (10,000) square feet, or
b.1.85% of the lot area, not to exceed fifteen
thousand (15,000) square feet.
2)Total allowable accessory building space shall be
limited to the following:
a.One (1) attached garage and
b.Three (3) detached accessory structures.
3)Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable.
4)Fabric or vinyl canopy structures acceptable.
5)One (1) attached garage not to exceed one thousand
two hundred (1,200)squarefeet or equal to the size
of the house foundation, whichever is greater.
6)Building height shall not exceed base district
requirement.
c.Five (5) to Less than Ten (10) Acres.(R, R-X, R-1, R-1X, R-
EC, and PSP Districts)
1)The combination of accessory buildings and garages
shall not exceed the greater of:
a)Five thousand (5,000) square feet, or
b)2.21% of the lot area, not to exceed ten
thousand (10,000) square feet.
2)Total allowable accessory building space shall be
limited to the following:
a)One (1) attached garage and
b)Three (3) detached accessory structures.
3)Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable.
4)Fabric or vinyl canopy structures acceptable.
5)One (1) attached garage not to exceed one thousand
two hundred (1,200)square feet or equal to the size
of the house foundation, whichever is greater.
6)Building height shall not exceed base district
requirement.
d.Less than Five Acres.(R, R-X, R-1, R-1X, R-EC, R-2, R-3,
R-4, R-6, R-7, and PSP Districts)
1)The combination of accessory buildings and garages
shall not exceed the greater of:
a)One thousand two hundred (1,200) square
feet, or
b)3.75% of the lot area, not to exceed five
thousand (5,000) square feet.
2)Total allowable accessory building space shall be
limited to the following:
a)One (1) attached garage and one (1) detached
structure, or
b)Two (2) detached accessory structures.
3)One (1) attached garage not to exceed one thousand
two hundred (1,200)square feet or equal to ninety
(90) percent of the size of the house foundation,
whichever is greater.
4)Twenty (20) foot maximum height.
5)No metal sheet/panel siding with vertical orientation
except upon tool sheds less than one hundred fifty
(150) square feet in area. Metal horizontal lap siding
is acceptable.
6)Fabric or vinyl canopy structures acceptable.
7)Roof and exterior color and material compatible with
home (except manufactured tool shed).
8)Lots that have shared ownership/membership in the
Lino Airpark may have a three thousand two hundred
(3,200) square foot accessory building as an airplane
hangar provided that:
a)The hangar be earth tone in color.
b)The hangar conform to Building Code
standards for hangar use.
c)The hangar location has direct taxiway access
to the Lino Airpark runway.
SETBACKS
The setbacks for accessory buildings are established per zoning district. A typical R-1,
Single Family Residential District requires a 5 foot side and rear setback. Accessory
buildings are not allowed in the front yard.
PREVIOUS CITY ORDINANCES
The following chart summarizes previous City ordinances related to accessory structures:
YearStructure Size (max.)Height (max.)Number of Structures
Cannot exceed height of
1971None mentioned.None mentioned.
principal building (30 ft)
Tool Shed=120 sfTool Shed= 10 ft< 2.5 acres = 1 tool shed
+ 1 detached garage
Rural Storage= 1,000 sf on All Others = Cannot exceed
parcel size 2.5-10 acresheight of principal building 2.5-10acres = 1 tool
1983(30 ft)shed + 1 detached garage
Rural Storage=1,500 sf on + 1 rural storage
parcel size > 10 acres
> 10 acres = No limit
Combination of attached + detached
Parcel size < 1.25 acres = 1,120 sf20 ft1 attached + 1 detached
or 2 detached
1997Parcel size > 1.25 acres(residential20 ft1 attached + 1 detached
zoned) = 2,020 sfor 2 detached
Parcel size 1.25-2.5 acres (ruralzoned)24 ft1 attached +
= 2,020 sf2 detached
Combination of attached + detached
Parcel size < 5 acres = 1,200 sf or 20 ft1 attached + 1 detached
3.75% of lot area not to exceed 5,000 sfor 2 detached
Parcel size 5-10 acres = 5,000 sf or Shall not exceed base district 1 attached +
Current2.21% of lot area not to exceed 10,000 requirement3 detached
sf
Parcel size 10-20 acres = 10,000 sf or Shall not exceed base district 1 attached +
1.85% of lot area not to exceed 15,000 requirement3 detached
sf
Parcel size > 20 acres = No maximumNo maximumNo limit
Requested Council Direction
Council initiated item.
Attachments
None.
WS Item # 4
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 4
Date:
September
To:
City Council
From:
Michael Grochala
Re:
Snowmobile Trails at Lake Drive & Main
Background
Council members received a request from Bill Prinser, President of the Rice Creek
Snowmobile Association to discuss alternative routes along Main Street and Lake Drive.
The Rice Creek Snowmobile Club operates and grooms snowmobile trails within Anoka
County and specifically Lino Lakes. Snowmobiles are allowed to use public right-of-
way (off-street) for trail use subject to statutory provisions. State law requirements
include a provision that nighttime riders travel in the direction of traffic. Due to limited
space and other obstacles the stretch along Main Street from 35E to Lake Drive has in the
past included a bidirectional trail (both ways on north side of street). A bidirectional trail
requires a permit from Anoka County.
Anoka County issued a temporary permit (1 year) for the bidirectional trail 2 years ago
but no further requests have been made. The trail has been rerouted but the club would
like to review possible modifications with the City. The City has no jurisdiction over
proposed routes along county roads but could provide a letter of support if necessary.
Requested Council Direction
None Required.
Attachments
None.
WS –Item#5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No.5
Date:
September 3, 2013
To:
City Council
From:
Michael Grochala
Re:
Temporary Signs
Background
Council members requested this item be placed on the agenda following a request from
Gethsemane Church.
Staff did initiate a review of the city sign ordinance in December of 2012. A public
hearing was held with the planning and zoning board at that time to collect input from
property owners. The Planning and Zoning Boardfurtherdiscussed options to evaluate at
their February 13, 2013 meeting.
Staff is still working on draft ordinance amendment provisions.
Requested Council Direction
None required.
Attachments
1.February 13, 2013Planning and Zoning Board report
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM 6A
STAFF ORIGINATOR:Michael Grochala
P & ZMEETING DATE:February 13, 2013
REQUEST:Discussion Item –Sign Regulations
APPLICANT:City of Lino Lakes
REVIEW DEADLINE:Not Applicable –City Initiated
BACKGROUND
Following a City Council request to review the City’s temporary sign regulations,the
Planning and Zoning Board held a public forum to solicit comments from area businesses
and institutional uses. Staff also completed a survey of sign regulations for surrounding
communities. Nine (9) individuals brought forth suggestions regarding signage needs. In
general the respondents requested more flexibility in the annual day allowance, location
and duration of temporary sign permits.
Based on these commentsand the Planning and Zoning Board’s discussion,staff has
developed alternativesfor board consideration.
ANALYSIS
Sign regulation is not unique to the City of Lino Lakes. Most cities provide for some
measure of sign regulation for both aesthetic and safetyreasons. The City’s Sign Code is
intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced system of sign control that
accommodates the need for a well-maintained, safe and attractive community, and the
need for effective communications including business identification.
There is no ideal system of sign regulation. Sign requirements can vary from city to city,
although there are generally accepted parameters that communities commonly use. As
shown in the attached sign code summary, the Lino Lakes requirements for both
permanent and temporary signs are generally consistent with surrounding communities.
It should be noted that temporary signs were originally intended to provide relief from the
standard sign requirements for “special” events such as grand openings. The city should
be careful not to expand temporary sign requirements as a substitute for locationor as a
replacement for other advertising devices such as flyers, newspaper ads and the like.
Alternativesfor consideration
1.Eliminate the one perquarter temporary sign permit restriction and provide for a
temporary sign allowanceof90 days annually. This is roughly equivalent to one
week a month. The City currently allows one permit each quarter for a maximum
of 17 days each totaling 68 days. Business owners would determine dates but
display would be limited to a certain periodsuch as no more than 14consecutive
days.
2.Allow for the option of per event permitsoran annual permit. Business would
be allowed to choose the permit that best meets their needs. Owners choosing an
annual permit would need to specify dates in advance. While the annual permit
fee would likely be higher than the single permit fee, the one-time fee would be
less overall than purchasing several individual permits.
The P & Z had inquired about a no fee allowance for non-profits. Staff did
review this with the City Attorney and concluded that there is no basis for this
allowance and that it would constitute a violation of equal protection regulations.
In simpler terms,zoning regulations need to treat similar uses equally.
3.Allow one banner per property as part of base signage. Limit to a maximum of 32
square feet. One sign would be allowed per parcel. Multi-tenantfacilities would
need to be coordinated with owner.Banner would still need to be affixed to the
building as required by current regulations. This provision would essentially
mean an expansion of our maximum wall signage requirements.
4.Increase allowance for wall signage for institutional uses in residential areas.
Staff also suggestsan amendment to allow for both a wall sign and a monument
sign for these uses.The City currently allows one ground sign of 32 sq.ft. orone
wall sign with a maximum size of 50 sq.ft. Staff would recommend 50 sq.ft.for
ground signs and 80 sq.ft.for wall signs.
5.Change limit on wall signage in commercial districts to one per façade limited to
a percentage of the wall surface area.The city currently limits the number of wall
signs to one unless the business fronts 2 streets. In this case a second sign is
allowed. The proposed change would simply allow limited amount of signage on
each wall oriented to each abutting street.
REQUESTED BOARD DIRECTION
Staff is seeking board input on the suggested modifications.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Sign Survey(from December 12 meeting)
WS –Item 8
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item
Date:
September 3, 2013
To:
City Council
From:
Al Rolek
Re:
Upgrading Financial Software
Background
As Council is aware, staff has been in the process of exploring an upgrade to the City’s
financial software system. The current software, a Tyler Technologies Pace product, has
been in use for 15 years. The system, while still functional, utilizes old technology and is
no longer being updated by Tyler.The current system provides our basic accounting,
financial and reporting needs but is limited in flexibility and does a poor job of
integrating with other software products used by the finance staff.
Government accounting and finance applications present a unique set of needs versus
private, for-profit accounting and reporting. For example, where private, for-profit
entities generally account for transactions and report on a full-accrual or cash basis,
governmental accounting must report onboth a full-accrual anda modified accrual basis.
This adds an extra level of complexity to the financial reporting functions that private
business doesn’t require. Because of this, government finance software is specialized to
the degree that many software companies write and market their software applications
exclusively to governmental entities.
The finance software upgrade projecthas been an extensive process which has involved
product research, demonstrations, evaluation, site visits to current customers and follow-
up with the software vendors.While there are many purveyors of government software
applications, staff identified three software vendors that most closely fit the needs and
level of complexity for the City to be included in our search. Upon performing initial
research and demos, the vendor list was narrowed to the two vendorswho were
considered to be the best fits for our needs.
The two vendors, Tyler Technologies and Springbrook, have been offering government
accounting software for many years andhave hundreds of installationsin the small to
mid-size government segmentnationwide.Both vendors offer premises and cloud hosted
solutions, interface with other software used by the city, and fully support their products.
After completing a second round of demos, making site visits to existing users ofthe
software, evaluating the data and site visit results, doing reference checks and compiling
cost and other data, it was staff’s determinationthat upgrading our software with Tyler
Technologies offered the best solution for the City. A score card comparing the
outcomesis as follows:
TylerINCODE V.XSpringbrookV.7
CostX-
Tyler meets City requirements and has a lower short and long-term cost.
FlexibilityXX
Both systems would provide the City with sufficient flexibility for
reporting, down-loading, converting to/from Excel, interfacing with other
products.Tyler offers better customization possibilities.
ConversionX-
While both vendors offers data conversion, Tyler offered conversion of
morehistorical data at a much lower cost. Also, since our current system
is with Tyler they are very familiar with converting to their upgraded
product. In addition, fewer modifications to the current chart of accounts
andutility account structure would be necessary.
SupportX-
Users of the Springbrook system have reported that they offer good
support; however it was also reported that any solutions requiring
additional tech time came at additional cost. Our experience with Tyler
over the last 15years is that they provide excellent support and are very
flexible when technical assistance is needed.
Implementation ScheduleXX
Both vendors offer similar schedules and costs for implementation.
st
Implementation would begin after the 1of the year.
Customer SatisfactionXX
The references we contacted for both vendors were satisfied with the
products and with the customer support. As with any vendor there was
some areas which needed improvement but customers were satisfied
overall. As mentioned above, we have been very satisfied with the Tyler
products and support staff.
Other factors affecting staff’s recommendation is that Tyler offers ‘Perpetual Licensing’.
Once a customer has purchased Incode Version X they may continue to upgrade at any
time to an upgraded version without incurring further licenseor upgradefees. The only
costs at the time of upgrade would be for additional staff training on the new version of
software.
After evaluating the products and the results of research staff has concluded that all
factors considered, Tyler Incode Version X offers the best solution for upgrading our
financial software systems in a Cloud hosted environment. The cost of acquisition and
implementation will be paid from the office equipment replacement fund, which has been
accumulating the funds for this purpose.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is seeking Council authorization to negotiate a contract with Tyler Technologies for
the purchase and implementation of its Incode Version X financial software suitein a
Cloud-hosted environmentto upgrade the City’s current financial software system.
Attachments
Tyler and Springbrook Cost Comparison Spreadsheets
WS –Item 9
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item
Date:
September 3, 2013
To:
City Council
From:
Al Rolek
Re:
2014 Draft Budget Review
Background
The City Council last reviewed the draft 2014budget at its August work session. Since
that time staff has continued to review and refine the draft budget and tax levy. A review
of Xcel charges for the Civic Complex for 2013 has resulted in a sizable credit for the
current budget year. This has lead to an adjustment to the 2014 draft budget, lowering
the electricity budget by $30,000. Additionally,Anoka Countyhas certifiedthe final
debt service levies for 2014 which showsreduced levy needs for the 2006C issue and the
2012A issue totaling$15,285.
If the Council chooses to reduce the overall levy resulting fromthese adjustments the
amount of reduction would be $45,285, bringing the total levy to $8,296,044. The
Council may alternately want to consider adding part or all of the budget adjustment to
the 2014 Contingency or to another area of the budget. The tax levy as presentedis
$80,416 over the 2012/13 Tax Levy; however, the voter-approved levy for the
intersection signalization project, which is first being levied in2014, is $174,943.
Withoutthe addition of the voter-approved levy, the year-over-year tax levy would be
reduced by $94,827.The Council should also be aware that general fund reserves and
other one-time financing sources totaling $287,603 are included in the budget draft.
These resources may not be available for future budget periods.
The MN Department of Revenue has reported the preliminary levy limit for 2013/14 in
the amount of $8,227,259. The amount of the city’s preliminary 2013/14 tax levy, as
presented, subject to the levy limit is $7,098,922, leaving the city’s levy$1,128,337
below the limit.
The Council will also need to consider a date and time in December for holding a public
hearing on the Final 2014 Budget and 2013/14 Tax Levy. This has traditionally been
held on at the first regular meeting in December. Staff is recommending the same for this
year, which will fall on December 9, 2013.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting Council direction for setting the preliminary 2014 tax levy to be
approved on September 9, and set a date and time in December for a public hearing on
the final 2014 Budget and 2013/14 Tax Levy.
Attachments
2014 Estimated Tax Levies
2014 Tax Rate Projection
City of Lino Lakes
2014 Estimated Tax Levy
OriginalRevised
AdoptedAdoptedEstimateEstimateDifference
20122013201420142013-2014
General Fund Levy7,138,640 7,140,310 7,184,372 7,098,922 (41,388)
Special Levy - PERA Contribution54,178 50,228 - - (50,228)
Total Operating Levy*7,192,818 7,190,538 7,184,372 7,098,922 (91,616)
Debt Levy
Certificate of Indebtedness 2009127,617 - - - -
Certificate of Indebtedness 201064,617 64,890 - - (64,890)
Certificate of Indebtedness 201143,365 42,851 43,481 43,481 630
Certificate of Indebtedness 2012- 54,469 53,561 53,561 (908)
Certificate of Indebtedness 2013 70,03470,034 70,034
Taxable G.O. Imp Bond 2003B20,248 23,781 - - (23,781)
G.O. Improvement Refunding Bond 2005B (1) 134,528134,863 155,782 155,782 21,254
G.O. Tax Abatement Bond 2006C (2)235,011 245,511 264,458 255,381 9,870
G.O. CIP Refunding Bond 2006E (3)408,720 459,060 443,940 443,940 (15,120)
G.O. Bond 2012A (Signal Project) (1)- - 181,151 174,943 174,943
Total Debt Levy1,034,441 1,025,090 1,212,407 1,197,122 172,032
Total Levy 8,215,6288,227,259 8,396,779 8,296,044 80,416
(1) Levy result of Voter-Approved Referendum
(2) Levy result of participation in YMCA project
(3) Levy result of Civic Complex Construction.
3
CITY OF LINO LAKES
2014 General Fund Budget/Gap Analysis
Net Tax Capacity Calculation
ActualActualEstimate
201220132014
Taxable Market Value1,640,455,854 1,519,857,242 1,513,455,722
Annual % Change(9.07%)(7.35%)(0.42%)
Total Net Tax Capacity Value17,999,453 16,601,721 16,483,835
Less FD Contribution in Value1,246,881 1,205,912 1,200,833
Less Captured Value for Tax Increment 279,219 234,159 233,173
Total Net Tax Capacity Value16,473,35315,161,65015,049,829
Annual % Change(8.25%)(7.96%)(0.74%)
Total % Change from 2012
(7.96%)(8.64%)
Net Tax Capacity Rate Calculation
201220132014
Total Levy 8,215,6288,227,259 8,296,044
Less FD Distribution 1,161,407 1,124,143 1,119,408
Total Net Levy for Tax Rate7,065,8527,091,4857,176,636
Annual % Change
(6.39%)0.36%1.20%
Total % Change from 2012
0.36%1.57%
Projected City Tax Capacity Rate42.893%46.774%47.686%
LEVY LIMIT GAP
2014 Estimated Levy Subject to the Limit7,098,922
2014 Preliminary Levy Limit8,227,259
Amount Over/(Under) the 2014 Levy Limit(1,128,337)
4
WS –Item#9
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No.9
Date:
September 3, 2013
To:
City Council
From:
Jeff Karlson
Re:
2014 Budget --Schools, Conferences, and TravelExpenditures
Background
During the August 12 budget work session, Mayor Reinertdirected staff to review budget
expenditures for schools, conferences,and traveland report back to the Council how
much is being spent on training and conferences and the value of these expenditures.
The 2013 department budgetstotal $38,300for conferences, seminars, training, and
travel. Following is a breakdown of the 2013 and 2014 training budgets by department:
Department20132014 (Revised)Difference
Administration$ 5,500$ 4,500($1,000)
Finance$ 5,000$ 4,000($1,000)
Community Development$ 6,400$ 6,300($ 100)
Police$15,000$13,000($2,000)
Public Services$ 6,400$ 5,900($ 500)
Total $38,300$34,700($4,600)
The preliminary budget that was presented to the council included reductions totaling
$3,600. After examining each department’s expenditures, I amproposing additional
reductionsof $1,000.
The exposure of cities to lawsuits is one reason for educational and training programs.
Cities deliver a wide range of public services and engage in many regulatory practices to
protect public health and safety, and are often parties to court actions because of our
litigious society. Cities are exposed to greater liability if supervisors and employees are
not property trained.
Tuition and travel expenditures include training that is required for staff to maintain their
licenses, credentials,and certifications. Other expenditures are for learning new skills or
to keep up-to-date with new rulesand regulations.For example, training expenditures for
streets maintenance staff in 2012 was $2,939. The only training not required was a
defensive driving course for snow plows, which greatly benefitted staff. Public works
employees have recently attended educational courses, seminars, workshops,and training
clinics for sweeper and vacuum truck operation, road salt conservation, erosion control,
pesticide application, OSHA regulations, water resources, emerald ash borer, shade trees,
and DOT certification.
Professional associations promote continuing education and certification through
university-sponsoredinstitutes and provide networking opportunities. The annual
conferences typically offer multiple training and development sessions covering a wide
range of relevant topics. The city administrator is a member of the Minnesota
City/County Management Association. The city clerk and deputy clerk are involved with
the Municipal Clerks and Finance Officers Association. The finance directoris active in
the Government Finance Officers Association. The community development director and
city plannerare members of the American Institute of Certified Planners(AICP).
Many conference sessions earn continuing education credits to meet certification
requirements. For example, the Minnesota American Planning Association Annual
Conference provides Michael Grochala and Katie Larsen an opportunity to maintain their
AICP certification requirements. Networking with colleagues is integral and adds much
value at the conferences.
These organizations also offer special workshops and other professional development
training so members can meet the complex challenges of the job andperform at a higher
level. These associations continually work to advance professional and personal
development to enrich the knowledge, practical abilities,and leadership skills of its
members.
The Community Development budget includes training for planning commissioners and
environmental board members.
The Police Department has nearly one-third of the City’s overall training budget.
Approximately ninety percent of the police training budget qualifies for Police Officer
Standards & Training (POST) credits. Licensed officers, including the police chief, must
earn 48POST credits every three years to maintain their license. Since this training is
mandatory, cities are reimbursed for through the State of Minnesota POST Board. So far
this year the City has received a reimbursement of $7,860 from the POST Board.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is seeking further direction from the Council.
WS –Item#11
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No.11
Date:
September 3, 2013
To:
City Council
From:
Julie Bartell
Re:
Charter Commission Minute Services
Background
On March 25, 2013, the council approved the expenditure of city funds for the provision
of minute services for the Lino Lakes Charter Commission. The council authorized the
use of services for two meetings.
TimeSaver minute services were provided at the last Charter Commission meeting on
July 25, 2013. The Commission took action to accept the services as outlined in the
attached letter from Chair Christopher Lyden.
Requested Council Direction
The Charter Commission letter is presented for council review and direction.
Attachments
Letter from Charter Commission Chair (August 1, 2013)
Excerpt of city council minutes of March 25, 2013
Item # 12
MANAGEMENT TEAM’S
September 3, 2013
ItemLast Action TakenStaffStatus
Elmcrest Road improvements5/6/13 –Staff met with Hugo to discuss Michael Hugo is interested, but is
road improvements at Elmcrest & Cedar&Rickwaiting for development
Utility Rate Study4/1/13 –Council discussed feasibility of a RickThis item will be included on
water treatment plant or using a deeper December 2 work session
aquifer to reduce chemical treatment costs
2014 Budget8/12/13 –Staff directed to prepare a JeffStaff report is included on
report explaining the value of conferences tonight’s agenda
and travel expenses
Digital scanning project8/26/13 –Council approved hiring a PT JeffPosition has been posted with
scanner operatoran application closing date of
September 10
7309 Lake Dr. code violation8/5/13 –Staff directed to communicate MichaelStaff report is included on
to property owner that the Council does tonight’s agenda
not support an ordinance change
Labor negotiations8/12/13 Council met in closed session to Sergeants received latest offer
discuss contract terms for the Sergeants Jefffor years 2012-2014; next
mediation session is Sept. 6