Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2022 Council Work Session Minutes CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE : October 3, 2022 5 TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 9:30 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Stoesz,Lyden, Ruhland, 8 Cavegn and Mayor Rafferty 9 MEMBERS ABSENT 10 Staff members present: City Administrator Sarah Cotton; Finance Director Hannah 11 Lynch; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; City Planner Katie Larsen; 12 City Engineer Diane Hankee; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; Public Services 13 Director Rick DeGardner 14 1. Clearwater Creek TIF Plan District 1-14—Community Development Director 15 Grochala and Mikala Huot, Baker Tilly, reported. Mr. Grochala noted that the council 16 has reviewed this proposal at previous meetings. At this time staff is presenting a 17 recommendation that the City authorize tax increment financing assistance to the 18 proposed project in the amount of$2.9 million. 19 20 Ms. Huot reviewed a presentation including a financial analysis on the tax increment plan 21 before the council. She reviewed terms,proposed boundaries of the district,total budget 22 for the project($67 million project), financial needs analysis, and extraordinary site cost 23 estimate, and total request and recommended tax increment financing. Ms. Huot 24 explained the "but for" criteria under which tax increment should be considered,and she 25 also reviewed revenue estimates for the term of the district. The findings supporting 26 establishment of a district were reviewed. 27 28 Councilmember Lyden asked about the annual tax revenue to the City after the district 29 decertifies. Ms. Huot said beginning in 2033, the captured tax capacity would be 30 $415,000 with the City share roughly a third of that;that includes valuation increase 31 consideration. 32 33 Councilmember Stoesz asked what makes this project unique that requires aggregate 34 piers. Community Development Director Grochala explained that the soil conditions 35 require full use of those piers. Councilmember Stoesz asked if job creation can be 36 locked in; Mr. Grochala said there will be a minimum number of jobs (benchmark) 37 created under contract. Ms. Huot added that there are minimums that will be required but 38 the City could increase those. 39 40 Mayor Rafferty asked if there will be some architectural features for these buildings. Mr. 41 Grochala said that process will be included as the project moves ahead;the new zoning 42 regulations could impact those elements. 43 1 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED 44 The council had no further questions and Community Development Director Grochala 45 noted that a public hearing will be held on the subject at the next council meeting, 46 followed by the Economic Development Agency(EDA) meeting to consider the tax 47 increment financing plan. 48 2. Robinson Sod Farm EAW—Community Development Director Grochala 49 reviewed the written staff report outlining the Environment Assessment Worksheet 50 process for the Robinson Farm area. He introduced Alison Harwood of WSB & 51 Associates who has assisted the City on the process. He noted the information gathering 52 nature of the EAW process and the City's role for using the information gained through 53 the document. 54 55 Ms. Harwood reviewed a presentation outlining the EAW process and findings (included 56 in council packet). The City's Environmental Board will be reviewing this subject at 57 their meeting and forwarding any comments to the City Council. 58 59 Councilmember Lyden noted certain communications received on this matter, including 60 from governmental agencies and individuals. He asked about the downside of doing an 61 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) and Ms. Harwood suggested it would be a 62 detailed process that would expand time and expense needed for the project. Staff is not 63 recommending an EIS. Councilmember Lyden noted his interest in seeing development 64 of a real community. 65 66 Mayor Rafferty received confirmation that all comments submitted have received a 67 response, with staff explaining the responses are a part of the official report. 68 69 Councilmember Stoesz asked about infrastructure needs (i.e., sewer, water, broadband) 70 and Director Grochala explained that those are generally considerations covered by the 71 City's comprehensive plan. 72 73 There was no public comments taken but staff was available for questions. 74 75 Mr. Grochala noted that comments of the Environmental Board will be forwarded to the 76 council in their weekly update. 77 78 3. Villas on Vicky, PUD Discussion—City Planner Larsen noted the council's previous 79 review of concept plans related to this proposed development. The goal for the developer 80 is to understand more about the council's interest. 81 82 Planner Larsen reviewed a presentation that included information on the concept 83 (included in packet). Project developer Jon Blattman was present and responded to 84 questions. 85 86 Councilmember Lyden applauded the positive changes coming forward. He confirmed 87 that the community gardens would have a water supply. 2 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED 88 89 The council posed some questions about the roadway radius and size. It was pointed out 90 that this development is at a concept level only so that detail of review is not yet 91 included. 92 93 Councilmember Ruhland expressed support for the changes and the manner in which the 94 developer is responding to council concerns. He asked about including 3 car garages and 95 the developer suggested that could be discussed except for a few fixed sites. 96 97 Councilmember Cavegn said he likes the plan a lot. It gets to the necessary density, set 98 backs are good and it includes some benefit to the community. 99 4. AM Homes PUD Discussion—City Planner Larsen noted that two individuals 100 will be presenting information on a potential (prelude) development of the Leibel 101 property (west of Watermark). 102 103 John Rask of M/I Homes and David Newman of The Bancor Group were present. Mr. 104 Newman explained the nature of The Bancor Group work—they develop communities, 105 not homes. He noted his relationship with John Rask as a high quality builder. Mr. 106 Rask explained M/I Homes background and work. The purpose of addressing the council 107 is to get feedback on housing types, mix and land use. A presentation was reviewed (on 108 file in the council packet). He noted that they are seeking council input on the concept- 109 doing all townhomes or including single family. 110 111 Mayor Rafferty remarked that the homes are nice but the lots are too small. 112 113 Councilmember Stoesz asked why one area is designated as high density. City Planner 114 Larsen explained that it allows the density spread over the entire site. Councilmember 115 Stoesz said he isn't sure he likes that density. 116 117 Councilmember Cavegn asked what other development style could fit into the density 118 requirements of the site? Ms. Larsen suggested a small multi-family and townhouses. 119 Councilmember Cavegn said he likes the look of the cottage homes rather than 120 townhomes and with the zoning that seems to be the option. 121 122 Councilmember Ruhland said he doesn't like the row home look. He wonders if there 123 are other five foot set back areas in the City. Staff noted NorthPointe included some five 124 foot setbacks. 125 126 Community Development Director Grochala commented on the importance of the lot 127 depth of 125 feet being maintained and the ability to require certain architectural 128 standards for buildings on smaller lots. He feels the developers presenting have a good 129 history of good projects including with architecture. 130 131 Mayor Rafferty suggested it would be beneficial to look at other M/I projects. The 3 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED 132 developer will provide a list. 133 134 Councilmember Lyden said he concurs with council comments. He doesn't feel the high 135 density fits in that area of the city. He added that the townhomes in rows is not 136 appropriate. The developer clarified that townhomes will be a part of any development. 137 5. Zoning Ordinance Update—City Planner Katie Larsen and Kevin Shay, 138 Landform, presented a report on the work of the past two or more years to update the 139 zoning ordinance. The mayor noted that a letter was sent out to the public regarding this 140 subject and he'd like a copy. City Planner noted that the letter relates to zoning map 141 changes and it was sent to property owners whose zoning could change; that element,the 142 map changes, will be coming forward at a later date. 143 144 Mr. Shay reviewed the list of proposed updates and amendments (as included in the 145 written staff report). The process relates to implementation of the 2040 Comprehensive 146 Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed all sections over the past year plus. 147 148 Mayor Rafferty remarked that the document is large and he would encourage council 149 members, as they review the information, to reach out to staff with questions. 15o 6. 601 Apollo Drive Retail PDO Amendment—City Planner Larsen reviewed the 151 written staff report and findings. Her presentation is included in the council packet 152 record. The developer was present. The presentation included a review of the land use 153 application, site plan, exterior materials, and agency and board review results. An 154 ordinance amendment(PDO Amendment) and resolutions for PDO amendment and site 155 improvement performance will be brought to the council for consideration. 156 157 When the council asked questions about access in consideration of current conditions, 158 staff reiterated the importance of good planning for access. 159 7. Rookery Scholarship Program—Public Services Director DeGardner reviewed 160 his written staff report recommending establishment of a scholarship program for The 161 Rookery Activity Center. Short term, staff proposes the scholarship program be funded 162 by the City and longer term by a local 5013c group. 163 164 Councilmember Stoesz asked if staff has considered a match program to encourage other 165 businesses to participate and could double the impact. Director DeGardner noted that 166 staff anticipates the program will grow. 167 168 One question that has come up is whether or not the program should be available to 169 people not residing in the city. The council generally expressed that the City's 170 contribution steers this program in the direction of City residents only. 171 172 Councilmember Cavegn remarked that he'd like to see some type of tracking for 173 scholarship membership to make sure people actually use them. 4 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED 174 175 Councilmember Ruhland asked about the possibility of offering discounts to people who 176 work in the City. Director DeGardner explained plans are in place to consider a large 177 employer situation. 178 8. Ordinance No. 03-22, Enacting Ordinance Chapter 619 Regulating Edible 179 Cannabinoid Products—Public Safety Director Swenson reviewed his written staff 180 report. In response to a recent change in state law, cities across the state are putting 181 regulations in place to regulate edible cannabinoid. Staff is bringing forward an 182 ordinance that is heavily based on one enacted by the City of Coon Rapids. The 183 ordinance has been reviewed by staff and the city attorney. 184 185 Director Swenson added that, in looking at violations, penalties and compliance areas, he 186 sees it is important to align other regulatory ordinances (tobacco and liquor); ordinance 187 amendments to accomplish that are being prepared for council consideration. 188 189 Councilmember Stoesz suggested raising the fee for a cannabinoid license. Director 190 Swenson explained that staff set the fee based on other license fees (off-sale intoxicating 191 liquor). If the council wishes to change, the fee schedule will be before the council soon. 192 193 Councilmember Ruhland asked if the City could notify license holders (liquor and 194 tobacco) of the changes proposed. That could impact the timeline for passing the 195 ordinances. 196 197 Councilmember Stoesz suggested adding daycare to the list of operations that cannot be 198 within 1,000 feet of edible cannabinoid sales. 199 9. Anoka County Attorney Funding—Public Safety Director Swenson reviewed 200 the written staff report outlining an opportunity to receive forfeiture funds from the 201 County Attorney's Office. He is proposing the purchase of the equipment outlined in the 202 report. No council action is needed but staff wanted the council to understand the 203 background on the purchases as they show up on the expenditures list. 204 10. 2023 Budget& Tax Levy—Finance Director Lynch noted that she has recently 205 provided the council with a new budget book. There were not many changes but enough 206 that an update was called for; they are outlined in the work session report. These 207 changes were not included in the preliminary budget adopted by the Council in 208 September. 209 210 The council scheduled a special work session for budget review for October 24, 2022, 211 following the regular council meeting that evening. 212 11. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council—There were no 213 updates. 5 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED 214 Community Development Director Grochala polled the council on their availability to 215 attend a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Board to discuss gateway designs. 216 He is proposing October 19th. The council concurred with that date. 217 218 Community Development Director Grochala also spoke on the possibility of scheduling a 219 tour of a water treatment facility in the area. 220 221 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 222 223 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 224 October 24, 2022. 225 226 227 228 t • 229 Ju ' Bartell, City Cle k Rob Rafferty, Mayor 230 231 6