HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2022 Council Work Session Minutes CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3
4 DATE : November 7,2022
5 TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m.
6 TIME ENDED : 10:15 p.m.
7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Stoesz,Lyden (part),
8 Ruhland, Cavegn and Mayor Rafferty
9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None
10 Staff members present: City Administrator Sarah Cotton; Finance Director Hannah
11 Lynch; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; City Planner Katie Larsen;
12 Director of Public Safety John Swenson; Public Services Director Rick DeGardner;
13 Rookery Activity Center Manager Lisa Lamey
14 1. Woods Edge/Silver Creek Equity Purchase Agreement—Community
15 Development Director Grochala reported. The council has previously authorized
16 execution of a purchase agreement with this group for land that the City owns in the area
17 across from City Hall. A price and terms of purchase were established, including a
18 requirement for construction of retail or restaurant prior to or concurrent with
19 construction of residential. At this point the group has not been able to come up with a
20 retail commitment and they are coming upon the deadline for doing so. They request an
21 amendment to allow them to move forward on the multi-family component and that
22 would allow them to continue seeking commercial on the site for three years after which,
23 if none is secured,they could move to residential development. Mr. Grochala introduced
24 representatives of Silver Creek Equity who provided information on the elements of
25 residential development they hope to develop. They spoke on the difficulty of securing a
26 restaurant in the current economy and the proposal they have developed that would allow
27 them to move forward. Option one would be to end the contract based on the inability to
28 locate a commercial element; option two would be to move forward with an amendment
29 to the contract. High level architectural renderings were shown as well as two site plan
30 options.
31
32 Councilmember Cavegn received more information on the restaurants that were
33 approached and the rationale for not moving ahead, such as high expense building,post
34 COVID economy. The developers are uncertain of the timing of economic changes in
35 the future but would like a window to continue those discussions. Councilmember
36 Cavegn said he could support moving ahead with the first residential development but
37 would have difficult removing commercial completely—this is the downtown that the
38 City envisioned.
39
40 Councilmember Ruhland said he's okay with amending the contractual obligation. He
41 doesn't like the look of a four-story building next to the street. He would also like some
42 type of commitment to commercial long term.
43
44 Councilmember Lyden noted that he has had concern with this development concept
1
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
45 including financials since he's viewed it. Further this land is designated mixed use.
46 Change in the economy(interest rates) is not a good enough reason for him to change the
47 use. The developer noted that they were prepared to drop the contract based on their
48 inability to produce the commercial element;the option is what could move things
49 forward.
50
51 Councilmember Stoesz asked about construction scheduling in order to understand how
52 area residents could be impacted—could an amendment mean it's possible to have
53 construction for 48 months?
54
55 Mayor Rafferty remarked that the property is valuable. He has spoken about his ideas for
56 the property in the past, especially liking a row house concept. He doesn't mind the
57 concept of discussing ways to move forward but he believes the commercial has to be
58 included eventually. The developer spoke to seeing development follow development in
59 other areas and that more rooftops bring the commercial.
60
61 Councilmember Lyden remarked that the City's investment in The Rookery does mean
62 that some land has to remain reserved for expansion of those facilities.
63
64 The council concurred that staff will set up an EDA meeting for the next week to consider
65 an amendment. The developers indicated that they are open to discussing terms.
66 2. Zoning Ordinance Update—Kendra Lindahl and Kevin Shay, Landform
67 (consultants to the project)reviewed a presentation that included information on the
68 following:
69 - City's Comprehensive Plan adopted and this is next step to update;
70 -Review of past consideration of the Planning and Zoning Board(P&Z)and City
71 Council;P&Z has been reviewing and holding hearings on the amendments for more than
72 a year and is recommending removal of the FUD district from the map;
73 - Implementation strategies from the Comp Plan;
74 -Development doesn't happen due to adoption of map changes, but rather it is a
75 precursor to prepare for development;
76 -Extension of sewer and water are indicated;
77 -Parcels proposed to be rezoned as part of this process (types of rezonings and
78 parcels impacted were reviewed);
79 -Review of Future Urban Development(FUD) district intent; would not change
80 uses but would change minimum lot size;
81 -Future council action requested.
2
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
82 The chair of P&Z offered information on the board's action which removed the FUD
83 district. Since the zoning ordinance was already recommended for approval by the board,
84 that element remains in the ordinance.
85 Councilmember Lyden said he supports dropping the FUD district. He noted the area of
86 Centerville Road and Birch Street and a planned residential/commercial district
87 designation; he wonders what that means. The consultant explained that would allow a
88 mix of commercial and residential (multifamily and commercial in that location).
89 Councilmember Lyden remarked that what's lacking in the City are trails that go around
90 lakes; can there be some plans for that? Ms.Lindahl responded that the parks and trails
91 map includes many trail plans including around Cedar Lake.
92
93 Mayor Rafferty said he reviewed the P&Z board hearing audio and concurs with the
94 removal of the FUD district.
95
96 Ms. Lindahl explained that the council should watch for an updated map and information
97 in their packet for the upcoming council meeting.
98 3. Watermark PUD Concept Plan for Amendment#4-Land Use Plan—City
99 Planner Larsen introduced a representative of Lennar builders. She reviewed a
100 presentation that included information on the following:
101 - Concept plan is a high level discussion and in this case of an amendment to the
102 original agreement for the land use plan;
103 - The developer feels the amendment is needed to match current housing demands;
104 no change in number of housing units proposed;
105 - Review of the Watermark plans; amendment proposed to north end of the project
106 and to convert certain types of lots to a different product, including introduction of
107 some 45 foot lots but with an increase in public open space;
108 - Chart shown comparing features of different types of housing;
109 - Staff analysis of proposed changes and staff comments;
110 - No architectural changes;
111 - Planning&Zoning(P&Z)Board comments reviewed; lack of general support for
112 45 foot lots; general support for tot lot and dog park;
113 - Garage Size—former standard or newly adopted would apply?
114
115 Staff developed a suggestion after the P&Z meeting which was reviewed with the council.
116
117 Mayor Rafferty said he isn't big on the townhomes where proposed and he doesn't
118 support the 45 foot lot.
119
120 Councilmember Cavegn said he is okay with the townhomes but doesn't like the small
121 lots. He reviewed with staff the green/open space that is currently included in the plan.
122
123 Councilmember Ruhland said he is not in favor of the smaller lots. The Lennar
124 representative asked for clarification—is it just the 45 lot size the council opposes or any
125 reduction in size? The representative added that there have been many impacts on the
3
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
126 housing market since 2016 when these plans were proposed;the villa product has become
127 expensive to develop. The representative added that the villas don't serve the families
128 well that they are hearing from and who are interested in the Forest Lake school district.
129 The 45 foot lots would be limited to 13 in number. Planner Larsen pointed out that some
130 of the requested changes are not related to lot size.
131
132 Mayor Rafferty noted that he isn't necessarily supportive of more townhomes and he
133 doesn't see how they fit better for a family.
134
135 Councilmember Lyden said he concurs with the Mayor on the townhomes. He likes the
136 villa product that the builder has already produced. He asked the developer
137 representative how Lennar feels about the staff recommendation. Councilmember Lyden
138 noted that the back yards of some of their product built already have a very sloped back
139 yard; will that continue with the new homes? The developer representative explained that
140 a slope usually relates to water and grading needs.
141
142 Points made by the developer in support of the changes:
143 - The staff recommendation would not fully meet what they feel are good changes;
144 - The townhomes they've built sold very well;
145 - The townhomes added would be about half what is proposed/built on the east
146 side;
147 - Price point for townhomes is approximately$350,000;
148 - The proposal includes more open space.
149
150 Staff summarized that the council isn't supportive of smaller lot sizes but there may be
151 support for swapping out some of the housing styles (from villa to Heritage and Venture).
152 The council discussed the possibility of allowing 50 foot lots instead of the 45 foot lots
153 proposed. The developer suggested that would limit them to no two car garage option.
154 Council asked if all the 50 foot lots would be right next to each other and heard that the
155 planning and what fits where will dictate locations. Councilmember Cavegn said he
156 would be more open to the idea of a 50 foot lot if they were disbursed.
157
158 The council was divided on the change to townhomes. They will give the developer an
159 opportunity to come back having received the council's comments.
160
161 4. Pavement Management Report(PMR)Update—City Engineer Hankee
162 reviewed her written staff report that included information on:
163 - PMR provides valuable information to guide the City's street work programs;
164 - A quarter of the City is inspected(out of 105 miles total);
165 - Condition map is created based on data collection;
166 - City's overall condition is 75, a good number however there have been some steps
167 taken to improve conditions that are just 10-15 years effective;
168 - Marginal roadways should be watched because if ignored they can slip into a
169 much more expensive fix category.
170
4
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
171 Councilmember Stoesz asked about the rating number for Anoka County and Ms. Hankee
172 said she would research and provide that information.
173
174 The report was provided for informational purposes.
175
176 5. Public Services Department Mechanic Position-Public Services Director
177 DeGardner reviewed his written report requesting addition of a full time Mechanic
178 position in the Public Services Department. The rationale for hiring includes:
179 - Retirement of individual who assisted with mechanical services;
180 - The need for two full time mechanics;
181 - One person can be gone leaving a real gap;
182 - Outsourcing is very expensive and inefficient.
183 Director DeGardner reviewed the recommendation for salary.
184
185 Mayor Rafferty commended the mechanic work he's witnessed. He is curious about the
186 level of work that is done in house and what remains outsourced. Mr. DeGardner
187 explained that expertise is present for the larger jobs but sometimes outsourcing is
188 required when staff doesn't have the proper equipment.
189
190 The council was supportive of moving forward with the hiring process.
191 6. Q3 2022 Public Safety Update—Public Safety Director Swenson reviewed the
192 update. The data presented is included in the permanent council packet record. Director
193 Swenson also noted that in the near future he will be asking the council to consider a
194 resolution supporting continuation of bonding authority through Anoka County that
195 provides support for public safety initiatives.
196 7. Rice Creek Watershed District Appointment—City Administrator Cotton
197 reviewed her written report. The process of appointment by the Anoka County Board of
198 Commissioners was explained which includes calling for municipalities to submit
199 qualified nominees for open positions. The City has been approached by Mr. Scott
200 Robinson requesting support for his appointment. Ms. Cotton noted that staff has
201 prepared an appropriate resolution submitting Mr. Robinson's name to be considered with
202 those submitted by other cities.
203
204 The council concurred that they would consider a resolution as suggested.
205
206 8. Appointments to Lino Lakes Advisory Boards and Commissions—City
207 Administrator Cotton reviewed the status of the appointment process. Applications have
208 been submitted but at this point have been received only from incumbents. Ms. Cotton
209 remarked that this would be a good opportunity for interested citizens to apply for these
210 advisory board positions.
211
212 Administrator Cotton said the matter is being presented as informational and to update
213 the council on the process. The council decided to delay setting a time to interview
214 applicants until more applications are received.
5
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
215 9. The Rookery 2023 Budget Overview -Finance Director Lynch reviewed the
216 written report explaining that the budget was originally based on the feasibility study
217 done for the facility. A comparison of what was estimated and is now actual was
218 reviewed and differences explained. She noted the use of ARPA funds that were used
219 and funds set aside in case of deficit which will probably be utilized. She noted the 2022
220 budget deficit which is being tracked. The report also includes assumptions for 2023
221 which portrays a deficit and includes a levy. Ms. Lynch added that the projections did
222 suggest a profit in the second year and if that occurs the funds would be designated to
223 fund reserve for future capital needs.
224
225 Lisa Lamey, Rookery Activity Center Manager, reported on the revenue projections. She
226 explained that staff i s worki ng hard to help the center become ago to for programming
227 activities. Summer camp will be added and is expected to be wel I uti I i zed, I i mi ted
228 probably just by the number facilities can accommodate.
229
230 Ms. Lamey reviewed the sl i des included in the packet.
231 10. Rookery Mural Design Concepts—Lisa Lamey, Rookery Activity Center
232 Manager, reviewed her written report. Current discussions on murals have centered on
233 dressing up the large mural near the entry way. Councilmember Stoesz sought and
234 received funding from the Metro Area Board of Realtors to assist with a project. Staff
235 has worked with Visual Communications again and they have provided three options
236 which were shown to the council.
237
238 The council preferred the mural with the blue (dark)background).
239 11. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council—There were no
240 updates.
241
242 The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
243
244 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
245 November 28, 2022.
246
247
248
249
250 Julianne Bartell, City Cl k Ab Rafferty, Mayor
251
6