Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/09/2012 Council Packet
EXPANDED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, July 9, 2012 * * * * * * * * * ** 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members O'Donnell, Roeser, Rafferty & Stoesz City Administrator: Jeff Karlson ➢ Call to Order — 6:30 p.m. ➢ Roll Call - Council Members Stoesz, O'Donnell, Roeser & Rafferty, and Mayor Reinert were present ➢ Pledge of Allegiance ➢ Open Mike / Public Comment None ➢ Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items The agenda was approved as presented A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) July 9, 2012 (Check No. 93640 through 93746) in the amount of $93,746; ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 5393 through 5409 & 2012006) in the amount of $11,713.38 Pg 1 -13 B) Consider approval of June 25, 2012 Work Session Minutes Pg 14 -16 C) Consider approval of June 25, 2012 Council Meeting Minutes Pg 17 -20 D) Consider Resolution No. 12 -56, Appointing Election Judges Pg 21 -26 for the 2012 Primary and General Elections E) Consider approval of June 25, 2012 Special Session Minutes F) Consider Resolution No. 12 -61, Approving Peddler License Pg 27 -28 for Edward Zaliagiris Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by O'Donnell, to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1F, as presented, was adopted ;GE DEPARTM T REPOT No Report Council Agenda -2- July 9, 2012 EXPANDED AGENDA ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT' A) Consider approval of Memorandum of Agreement with Rice Creek Watershed District to participate in grant program for deicing system, Jeff Karlson Action Taken: Motion by Roeser, seconded by Stoesz, to approve the Memorandum of Agreement, as presented, was adopted B) Revised Personnel Policy, Jeff Karlson Action Taken: Motion by O'Donnell, seconded by Roeser, to approve the Personnel Policy, as presented, was adopted Pg 29 -43 Pg 44 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT No report PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT No report "O UNITY DEVELOPMENT A) Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 12 -59, Establishing Cartway, Michael Grochala Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Stoesz, to close the public hearing, was adopted B) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 07 -12, Amending Section 8, Industrial Districts of the Zoning Ordinance, Paul Bengtson Action Taken: Motion by Roeser, seconded by O'Donnell, to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 07 -12, as presented, was adopted C) Consider 1St Reading of Ordinance No. 08 -12, Amending Section 3, Landscaping Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Paul Bengtson Action Taken: Motion by Roeser, seconded by Rafferty, to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 07 -12, as presented, was adopted D) Consider Resolution No. 12 -60, Authorizing Preparation of Plans Pg 45 -46 and Specifications, 2012 Surface Water Management Projects, Michael Grochala Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Stoesz, to approve Resolution No. 12 -60, as presented, was adopted Council Agenda -3- EXPANDED AGENDA UNFINISHED BUSINESS None None July 9, 2012 Adjournment 4. Wednesday, July 11 Ak Thursday, July 12 Monday, July 23 ilk Monday, July 23 Monday, July 23 Community Calendar — A Look Ahead July 9, 2012 through July 23, 2012 6:30 pm, Council Chambers 6:30 pm, Community Room 5:30 pm, Community Room 6:30 pm, Council Chambers following Council Mfg Planning & Zoning Charter Commission Council Work Session City Council Meeting Special Work Session • • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, July 9, 2012 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members O'Donnell, Roeser, Rafferty & Stoesz City Administrator: Jeff Karlson ➢ Call to Order and Roll Call ➢ Pledge of Allegiance ➢ Open Mike / Public Comment ➢ Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items F. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: Pg 1 -13 i) July 9, 2012 (Check No. 93640 through 93746) in the amount of $93,746; ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 5393 through 5409 & 2012006) in the amount of $11,713.38 B) Consider approval of June 2, 2012 Work Session Minutes Pg 14 -16 C) Consider approval of June A, 2012 Council Meeting Minutes Pg 17 -20 D) Consider Resolution No. 12 -56, Appointing Election Judges Pg 21 -26 for the 2012 Primary and General Elections E) Consider approval of June 2* 2012 Special Session Minutes to follow F) Consider Resolution No. 12 -61, Approving Peddler License Pg 27 -28 for Edward Zaliagiris 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT No Report 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider approval of Memorandum of Agreement with Pg 29 -43 Rice Creek Watershed District to participate in grant program for deicing system, Jeff Karlson B) Revised Personnel Policy, Jeff Karlson Pg 44 Council Agenda -2- July 9, 2012 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT No report PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT No report . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT A) Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 12 -59, Establishing to follow Cartway, Michael Grochala B) Consider 1St Reading of Ordinance No. 07 -12, Amending to follow Section 8, Industrial Districts of the Zoning Ordinance, Paul Bengtson C) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 08 -12, Amending Section 3, Landscaping Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Paul Bengtson to follow D) Consider Resolution No. 12 -60, Authorizing Preparation of Plans Pg 45 -46 and Specifications, 2012 Surface Water Management Projects, Michael Grochala UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment -41- Wednesday, July 11 Monday, July 23 4- Monday, July 23 Community Calendar — A Look Ahead July 9, 2012 through July 23, 2012 6:30 pm, Council Chambers 5:30 pm, Community Room 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Planning & Zoning Council Work Session City Council Meeting • • EXPENDITURES JULY 09, 2012 • CHECK NO. 93640 -93746 $155,098.22 • P1 Dal: 07/02/2012 Time: 12:37:34 Ranges: Vendor #: (A) Invoice #: (A) Entry Journal #: (R) 10321 10344 Trans #: (A) Line #: (A) Due Date: (A) Bank #: (A) City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal Operator: pms Page: 1 Options: Detail / Summary: S Invoice Status: A # of copies: 1 Sort: A Check Over Expend: N • Discount Vendor # Name # of items Net Gross Discount Lost 000200 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSUR, INC. 1 700.28 700.28 .00 .00 000210 AMERICAN FASTENER & SUPPLY, INC. 1 68.45 68.45 .00 .00 007904 AMERICAN LEGAL PUBLISHING CORP 1 275.00 275.00 .00 .00 008258 AMERICAN SOCCER COMPANY, INC. 1 1,429.84 1,429.84 .00 .00 000320 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY, INC. 1 789.06 789.06 .00 .00 000611 PAULA ANDRZEJEWSKI 1 50.00 50.00 .00 .00 000370 ANOKA COUNTY CENTRAL COMMICATIONS 1 1,854.32 1,854.32 .00 .00 000421 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURY DEPT 1 250.00 250.00 .00 .00 007775 BATTERIES PLUS 1 211.95 211.95 .00 .0 000724 BLUE TOW SERVICE, INC. 2 276.47 276.47 .00 .00 008622 BOE, JEREMIAH 1 30.00 30.00 .00 .00 000134 ROBERT BOLDT 1 40.00 40.00 .00 .00 004666 BARBARA BOR 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .00 001265 BOYER TRUCKS, INC. 1 540.08 540.08 .00 .00 900524 LUANN BURGER 1 736.00 736.00 .00 .00 000946 C. P. OFFICE PRODUCTS 1 34.85 34.85 .00 .00 000537 CENTRAL PENSION FUND 1 2,304.00 2,304.00 .00 .00 005032 CENTRAL WOOD PRODUCTS 1 1,758.09 1,758.09 .00 .D0 007776 CENTURYLINK 1 52.39 52.39 .00 .00 001100 CIRCLE PINES POST OFFICE 1 577.06 577.06 .00 .00 004470 COMO LUBE & SUPPLIES, INC. 1 6.41 6.41 .00 .00 900415 CRAIG SEVERSON CONSTRUCTION 2 17,487.00 17,487.00 .00 .00 Date: 07/02/2012 Time: 12:37:34 City of Lino Lakes Operator: pms Page:P 32 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Discount Ilkr# Name # of items Net Gross Discount Lost 000395 MARTHA DEHAVEN 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .00 001301 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MINNESOTA 1 4,361.85 4,361.85 .00 .00 008315 REBECCA DRIESSEN 1 5.00 5.00 .00 .00 008149 NEIL EVENSON 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .00 008627 EVIDENT CRIME SCENE PRODUCTS 1 28.00 28.00 .00 .00 003220 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY, INC. 1 7.58 7.58 .00 .00 001560 FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE, INC. 1 14.19 14.19 .00 .00 008628 FREAM, BRANDON 1 35.00 35.00 .00 .00 008170 GARY CARLSON EQUIPMENT 1 330.37 330.37 .00 .00 008326 JOSEPH S. GIESEMANN 1 133.50 133.50 .00 .00 001480 HAWKINS, INC. 1 8,063.63 8,063.63 .00 .00 004562 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. 1 15.53 15.53 .00 .00 illli34 HEART 6 SOUL 1 33.00 33.00 .00 .00 008630 HECKEL, ANTJE 1 95.00 95.00 .00 .00 008032 STEVEN HEISKARY 1 50.00 50.00 .00 .00 001840 TIM HILLESHEIM 1 205.14 205.14 .00 .00 001859 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7 849.00 849.00 .00 .00 900305 HOMETOWN PIZZA, INC. 1 153.19 153.19 .00 .00 000905 MICHAEL HYDEN 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .00 000758 IMPERIAL HOMES, INC. 1 2,450.00 2,450.00 .00 .00 001971 INFRATECH 3 9,445.08 9,445.08 .00 .00 008631 IVEY, RICHARD 1 5.00 5.00 .00 .00 008271 DONALD LEE JENSEN 1 480.00 480.00 .00 .00 008072 THERESA KLAMAN 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .00 007326 NANCIE KLEBBA 1 50.00 50.00 .00 .00 000511 PERRY LADEN 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .00 8626 LANDMEIER, RYAN 1 15.00 15.00 .00 .00 RA: 07/02/2012 Time: 12:37:34 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal Operator: pms Page: 3 Dis nt Vendor # Name # of items Net Gross Discount 002245 LANG BUILDERS, INC. 3 13,350.00 13,350.00 .00 .00 007701 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO 1 1,142.18 1,142.18 .00 .00 008123 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2 9,481.90 9,481.90 .00 .00 008623 LUND, ANDREYA 1 30.00 30.00 .00 .00 001479 LOU MASONICK 1 50.00 50.00 .00 .00 008224 MEDICA 1 35,804.07 35,804.07 .00 .00 002550 MENARDS, INC. 4 166.10 166.10 .00 .00 002584 METRO SALES INCORPORATED 1 231.20 231.20 .00 .00 002931 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER 3 1,029.66 1,029.66 .00 .00 008021 MN METRO NORTH TOURISM 1 3,704.00 3,704.00 .00 .00 004791 NAC MECHANICAL& ELECTRICAL SERVICES 1 337.50 337.50 .00 .00 003091 NCPERS MINNESOTA 1 368.00 368.00 .00 .00 000106 ROBERT NELSON 1 50.00 50.00 .00 411111.)0 003180 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS, INC. 1 232.53 232.53 .00 001395 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 1 527.65 527.65 .00 .00 008229 O'DAY EQUIPMENT, LLC 1 245.00 245.00 .00 .00 000155 MARY JO O'DEA 1 150.00 150.00 .00 .00 000900 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC. 3 168.82 168.82 .00 .00 008197 MATHEW PAULSON 1 85.20 85.20 .00 .00 003491 PETTY CASH 3. 79.20 79.20 .00 .00 008596 DAN PORTER 1 88.00 88.00 .00 .00 008625 PRIMEAU, PHIL 1 17.50 17.50 .00 .00 008632 RAMSTORF, HEATHER 1 80.00 80.00 .00 .00 008633 REBYL SPORTS, INC. 1 408.90 408.90 .00 .00 003749 REGISTERED ABSTRACTERS, INC. 1 886.24 686.24 .00 .00 000468 RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 1 1,507.45 1,507.45 .00 .00 003789 RIVARD ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 1 345.00 345.00 .00 .00 Date: 07/02/2012 Time: 12:37:35 r # Name City of Lino Lakes Operator: pms Page:P 54 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Discount # of items Net Gross Discount Lost 000623 ROCK GARDENS, INC. 1 35.28 35.28 .00 .00 004609 MICHAEL ROOT 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .00 008634 RUZEK, HEIDI 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .00 008273 CARL A. SAARION 1 624.00 624.00 .00 .00 008618 SCHEELER, LEVI 1 40.00 40.00 .00 .00 003467 SHARPER HOMES, INC. 1 5,950.00 5,950.00 .00 .00 003882 SHRED -IT USA INC. 2 67.51 67.51 .00 .00 008624 SOBOLIK,JAMIE 1 40.00 40.00 .00 .00 008553 DALE STOESZ 1 273.43 273.43 .00 .00 004240 STREICHER'S, INC. 1 154.08 154.08 .00 .00 004340 T.A. SCHIFSKY AND SONS, INC. 3 4,186.72 4,186.72 .00 .00 000913 TAHO SPORTSWEAR, INC. /SATURN SCREENPRINT 2 1,298.00 1,298.00 .00 .00 ,48 TARGET 7 265.61 265.61 .00 .00 008629 TAYLOR, JEFF 1 17.50 17.50 .00 .0D 008620 TITAN MACHINERY 2 520.41 520.41 .00 .00 007662 TOUSLEY COLLISION & GLASS 2 499.94 499.94 .00 .00 002130 PAUL TRALLE 1 75.00 75.00 .00 .00 004850 TRETTEL, MICHELLE 1 5.00 5.00 .00 .00 007480 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST, INC. 1 414.87 414.87 .00 .00 004660 TRACEY URICH 1 182.98 182.98 .00 .00 003465 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 1 73.79 73.79 .00 .00 004730 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER, INC. 1 1,215.19 1,215.19 .00 .00 000174 W. W. GOETSCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 977.88 977.88 .00 .00 008621 WILLIAM J. BODZIAK 1 300.00 300.00 .00 .00 004840 WINNICK SUPPLY, INC. 2 109.86 109.86 .00 .00 004836 SANDIE WOOD 1 21.50 21.50 .00 .00 w 421 WRIGHT /HENNEPIN CO -OP ELECTRIC ASSOC 1 990.00 990.00 .00 .00 dR4i : 07/02/2012 Time: 12:37:35 Vendor # Name City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal Operator: pms Page: 5 Disc unt # of items Net Gross Discount 003250 XCEL ENERGY Grand Totals: 1 9,097.26 9,097.26 .00 .00 137 155,098.22 155,098.22 .00 .00* • Date: 07/02/2012 Time: 12:34:03 Operator: pms Ranges: Page: 1 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Department Report Fund: Dept Id: Program: Vendor #: Invoice #: Schedule Journal #: Bank #: (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (R) 10322 (A) Options: Print Ranges /Options: Y Page on Department: N Department Vendor Name 10347 # of copies: 1 Description Amount MAYOR /COUNCIL R /COUNCIL /COUNCIL MAYOR /COUNCIL MAYOR /COUNCIL MAYOR /COUNCIL MAYOR /COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE ECONOMIC ECONOMIC ECONOMIC ECONOMIC ECONOMIC AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR CENTRAL PENSION FUND DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MN CHILD SUPPORT PAY NCPERS MINNESOTA REGISTERED ABSTRACTE MEDICA DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT MONTHLY INSURANCE PREMIU JULY PREMIUM JUNE CONTRIBUTIONS JULY DENTAL CHILD SUPPORT JULY NCPERS LIFE OVERPAY OF ASSESS 7333 S JULY PREMIUM Total for Department TARGET CORPORATION O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE HILLESHEIM, TIM MENARDS, INC. COMO LUBE & SUPPLIES STOESZ, DALE EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION OIL SEAL FOR THE FLOAT T WHEEL BEARINGS FLOAT TRA REIMBURSE FOOD FOR EMPLO HIGH PERF WHEET STEEL - TRAILER SEARING FLOAT TR REIMBURSEMENT FOR LMC CO Total for Department 401 AMERICAN LEGAL PUBLI RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF MEDICA INTERNET RENEWAL JULY PREMIUM JULY DENTAL JULY PREMIUM JULY PREMIUM Total for Department 402 RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM MEDICA JULY PREMIUM Total for Department 407 RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF MN METRO NORTH TOURI MEDICA JULY PREMIUM JULY DENTAL JULY PREMIUM HAMPTON INN - MAY JULY PREMIUM Total for Department 415 ING & ZONING NELSON, ROBERT 700.28 1,252.64 2,304.00 2,029.00 1,029.66 368.00 886.24 2,125.24 10,695.06* 100.40 41.98 89.95 205.14 12.81 6.41 273.43 730.12* 275.00 18.75 174.64 66.15 2,045.33 2,579.87* 8.45 87.32 63.89 2,732.25 2,891.91* 3.75 38.80 19.22 3,704.00 333.99 4,099.76* 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 50.00 P7 RA: 07/02/2012 Time: 12:34:03 Operator: pms Page: 2 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Department Report Department Vendor Name Description Amount PLANNING & ZONING RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM 7.50 PLANNING & ZONING LADEN, PERRY 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 100.00 PLANNING & ZONING HYDEN, MICHAEL 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 100.00 PLANNING & ZONING DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL 77.60 PLANNING & ZONING MASONICK, LOU 2NDQTR MEETING STIPEND 50.00 PLANNING & ZONING TRALLE, PAUL 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 75.00 PLANNING & ZONING ROOT, MICHAEL 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 100.00 PLANNING & ZONING LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM 16.87 PLANNING & ZONING EVENSON, NEIL 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 100.00 PLANNING & ZONING MEDICA JULY PREMIUM 667.98 Total for Department 416 1,344.95* COMM DEV ANOKA COUNTY TREASUR ANNUAL RENEWAL OF GIS DA 250.00 COMM DEV RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM 7.50 COMM DEV DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL 38.61 COMM DEV NEXTEL COMMUNICATION MONTHLY WIRELESS CHARGES 17.57 COMM DEV LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM 41.42 Total for Department 418 355.30* POLICE TARGET CORPORATION CPR TRAINING TRAIL WATCH 9.20 POLICE TARGET CORPORATION NTU ROUND TABLE MEETING 7.58 POLICE ANOKA COUNTY CENTRAL 2012 ANNUAL MOTOROLA SER 1,854.32 POLICE RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM 108.75 POLICE DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL 974.67 POLICE XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY ELECTRIC CHARGES 3.74 POLICE SHRED -IT USA INC. SHREDDING SERVICES 50.63 POLICE STREICHER'S, INC. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE TERINA 154.08 POLICE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM 508.63 POLICE HEART & SOUL PROCESSING FEE FOR 6/18 33.00 POLICE PAULSON, MATHEW UNIFORM ALLOWANCE MATT P 85.20 POLICE MEDICA JULY PREMIUM 17,463.53 POLICE WILLIAM A. BODZIAK M.HAGERT COURSE FEE 300.00 POLICE EVIDENT CRIME SCENE RED EVIDENCE TAPE 28.00 Total for Department 420 21,581.33* FIRE RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM 11.25 FIRE DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL 77.61 FIRE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM 56.32 FIRE MEDICA uui,Y PREMIUM 1,189.66 Total for Department 421 1,334.84* BUILDING INSPECTIONS RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM 8.62 BUILDING INSPECTIONS DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL 97.02 BUILDING INSPECTIONS NEXTEL COMMUNICATION MONTHLY WIRELESS CHARGES 35.14 BUILDING INSPECTIONS LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM 40.56 BUILDING INSPECTIONS MEDICA JULY PREMIUM 855.67 Total for Department 422 1,037.01* STREETS RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM 26.25 STREETS DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF uULY DENTAL 232.61 Date: 07/02/2012 Time: 12:34:03 Operator: pms • Department Page: 3 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Department Report Vendor Name Description Amount STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET OTT FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS BUILDINGS BUILDINGS BUILDINGS BUILDINGS NEXTEL COMMUNICATION NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS XCEL ENERGY RIVARD ELECTRIC COMP T.A. SCHIFSKY AND SO T.A. SCHIFSKY AND SO VIKING INDUSTRIAL CE WRIGHT /HENNEPIN CO -0 UNITED RENTALS NORTH LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF CENTURYLINK MEDICA MONTHLY WIRELESS CHARGES LK DR /PARK CT & 20TH AVE MONTHLY ELECTRIC CHARGES REPAIR STREET LIGHTS - L AC FINE ASPHALT AC MODIF AC MODIFIED ASPHALT SMALL TOOL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DIAMOND BLADES JULY PREMIUM SIGNAL PHONE CHARGES JULY PREMIUM Total for D AMERICAN FASTENER & RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE BOYER TRUCKS, INC. DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MENARDS, INC. FACTORY MOTOR PARTS PETTY CASH WINNICK SUPPLY, INC. WINNICK SUPPLY, INC. TOUSLEY COLLISION & TOUSLEY COLLISION & LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF BATTERIES PLUS LUBRICATION TECHNOLO LUBRICATION TECHNOLO MEDICA O'DAY EQUIPMENT, LLC TITAN MACHINERY TITAN MACHINERY TAYLOR, JEFF Total for epartment 430 WASHERS, NUTS, WIRE JULY PREMIUM STEEL NUT. UNION #249 DOOR VENTALATION /MO JULY DENTAL CLEANING SUPPLIES STRIP ADHESIVE BRUSH 33 #035 SOLID WIRE STEEL ANGLE, FLAT OUTSID ANTI FREEZE RELAY, MOTOR AND CABLE A JULY PREMIUM 12V LEAD 87NL 10% ETH ULS RED 85 JU1,Y PREMIUM PARTS FOR GAS PUMPS MILL HEAD FOR BLACKTOP P REISSUE OF CH 93210 -LOST COACHES REFUND Department 431 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY C. P. OFFICE PRODUCT FRATTALLONE'S HARDWA HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE BUILDINGS VIKING ELECTRIC SUPP BUILDINGS PETTY CASH BUILDINGS SHRED -IT USA INC. BUILDINGS NAC MECHANICAL& ELEC BUILDINGS CRAIG SEVERSON CONST BUILDINGS CRAIG SEVERSON CONST PAPER FILE BOX, STEP STOOL SENIOR CENTER TOILET PAR MULCH WEED BLOCK, MULCH DP CONT 30A 3P 110 /120V VALVE SHREDDING SERVICES BOILER TRIPPING OUT ON F REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE REPAIRS TO LGE MAINT. EL Total for Department 432 35.14 232.53 4,916.49 345.00 2,507.75 1,678.97 405.06 990.00 414.87 97.58 52.39 1,857.64 13,792.48* 68.45 2.44 36.89 540.08 38.80 36.18 7.58 24.36 57.30 52.56 80.35 419.59 14.12 211.95 6,515.99 2,965.91 855.67 245.00 300.87 219.54 17.50 12,711.13* 789.06 34.85 14.19 83.78 170.96 73.79 6.94 16.88 337.50 3,050.00 14,437.00 19,014.95* P9 IRt60 07/02/2012 Department Time: 12:34:03 Operator: pms Page: 4 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Department Report Vendor Name Description PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS RECREATION RECREATION RECREATION RECREATION RECREATION RECREATION ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE FORESTRY FORESTRY FORESTRY FORESTRY RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL NEXTEL COMMUNICATION MONTHLY WIRELESS CHARGES HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE PADS HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE PAINT HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE RAKE, PAINT, TRAYS, LINE HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE SANDER MENARDS, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES MENARDS, INC. WASHERS, TREATED AG METRO SALES INCORPOR BLACK AND WHITE METER XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY ELECTRIC CHARGES URICH, TRACEY UNIFORM ALLOWANCE VIKING INDUSTRIAL CE PARKS MAINTENANCE CENTRAL WOOD PRODUCT PREMIUM HARDWOOD LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM MEDICA JULY PREMIUM Total for Department 450 RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL NEXTEL COMMUNICATION MONTHL WIRELSS CHARGES METRO SALES INCORPOR BLACK AND WHITE METER LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM MEDICA JULY PREMIUM Total for Department 451 O'DEA, MARY JO DEHAVEN, MARTHA RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR ANDRZEJEWSKI, PAULA DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEXTEL COMMUNICATION BOR, BARBARA KLEBBA, NANCIE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF HEISKARY, STEVEN KLAMAN, THERESA MEDICA Total for 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND JULY PREMIUM 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND JULY DENTAL MONTHLY WIRELESS CHARGES 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND JULY PREMIUM 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND 2ND QTR MEETING STIPEND JULY PREMIUM Department 461 RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM MEDICA JULY PREMIUM Total for Department 462 RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF JULY DENTAL LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM MEDICA JULY PREMIUM Amount 20.64 174.64 257.00 21.39 113.36 355.10 74.96 58.16 58.95 126.75 138.39 182.98 405.06 1,758.09 86.74 2,994.85 6,827.06* 12.00 124.19 17.57 104.45 47.75 839.11 1,145.07* 150.00 100.00 1.31 50.00 13.59 35.35 100.00 50.00 6.83 50.00 100.00 116.90 773.98* 1.13 11.64 5.85 100.19 118.81* 1.31 13.58 6.82 116.90 • • • Date: 07/02/2012 Time 12:34:04 Operator: pms • Department Page: 5 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Department Report Vendor Name Description Amount ADULT SPORTS 0 T SPORTS SPORTS ULT SPORTS FAMILY ACTIVITIES Total for Department 463 Total for Fund 101 BOLDT, ROBERT TRETTEL, MICHELLE DRIESSEN, REBECCA SCHEELER, LEVI BOE, JEREMIAH LUND, ANDREYA SOBOLIK,JAMIE PRIMEAU, PHIL LANDMEIER, RYAN FREAM, BRANDON HECKEL, ANTJE IVEY, RICHARD RAMSTORF, HEATHER RUZEK, HEIDI Total for JENSEN, DONALD LEE SAARION, CARL A. GIESEMANN, JOSEPH S PORTER, DAN COACH REFUND OVERPAYMENT OVERPAID SOCCER REGISTRA COACHES REFUND COACH REFUND COACH REFUND COACHES REFUND COACH REFUND COACH REFUND COACH REFUND WITHDREW OVERPAID FOOTBALL REGIST WITHDREW REFUND FOR ART CAMP Department SPORTS OFFICIAL 26 GAMES SPORTS . SPORTS OFFICIAL SPORTS OFFICIAL Total for Department 202 PETTY CASH JELLO Total for Department 203 SPECIAL EVENTS /TRIPS TARGET CORPORATION SPECIAL EVENTS /TRIPS TARGET CORPORATION SPECIAL EVENTS /TRIPS PETTY CASH YOUTH YOUTH YOUTH YOUTH YOUTH YOUTH YOUTH INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL YOUTH SPORTS YOUTH SPORTS PAYMENT OFFICIAL PAYMENT PAYMENT PLAYGROUND TRAINING SUPP PROGRAM SUPPLIES TIP Total for Department 205 TARGET CORPORATION TARGET CORPORATION TARO SPORTSWEAR, INC PETTY CASH REBYL SPORTS, INC. HOMETOWN PIZZA, INC. BURGER, LUANN POP ZIPLOCK BAGS BASEBALL T'S (121) ICE 87 WHITE T'S BASEBALL CAMP SUMMER SESSION DANCE CLA Total for Department 207 TARO SPORTSWEAR, INC FOOTBALL JERSEYS (186) AMERICAN SOCCER COMP TOURNAMENT SHIN GUARD (2 Total for Department 208 Total for Fund 201 138.61* 101,172.24* 40.00 5.00 5.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 40.00 17.50 15.00 35.00 95.00 5.00 80.00 100.00 537.50* 480.00 624.00 133.50 88.00 1,325.50* 4.96 4.96* 10.36 70.7D 3.00 84.06* 60.47 6.90 410.00 30.73 408.90 153.19 736.00 1,806.19* 888,00 1,429.64 2,317.84* 6,076.05* TER RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR JULY PREMIUM 7.60 P11 LP A2 2 07/02/2012 Time: 12:34:04 Operator: pms Department Page: 6 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Department Report Vendor Name Description Amount WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER CIRCLE PINES POST OF DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEXTEL COMMUNICATION HAWKINS, INC. HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE INFRATECH XCEL ENERGY PETTY CASH HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS VIKING INDUSTRIAL CE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF MEDICA UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE JULY DENTAL MONTHLY WIRELESS CHARGES CHEMICALS SWIVEL, NOZZLE, ADAPTER BLUE MARKING PAINT, FLAG MONTHLY ELECTRIC CHARGES POSTAGE SEAL RETAINER, PLATE WATER OPERATING JULY PREMIUM JULY PREMIUM Total for Department 494 Total for Fund 601 W. W. GOETSCH ASSOCI RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR ROCK GARDENS, INC. CIRCLE PINES POST OF DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEXTEL COMMUNICATION INFRATECH INFRATECH XCEL ENERGY PETTY CASH VIKING INDUSTRIAL CE PARTS AND SERVICE JULY PREMIUM PLAYBOX SAND UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE JULY DENTAL MONTHLY WIRELESS CHARGES MANHOLE HOOK STORM SEWER CATCH BASINS MONTHLY ELECTRIC CHARGES CLIP BOX SEWER OPERATING MAINT. 288.53 78.57 60.85 8,063.63 29.45 259.18 2,413.70 2.80 15.53 202.53 31.68 754.59 12,208.64* 12,208.64* IMPELL 977.88 7.56 35.28 288.53 78.56 69.03 185.90 9,000.00 1,624.94 6.41 202.54 31.75 330.37 754.57 13,593.32* LINCOLN NATIONAL LIF JULY PREMIUM GARY CARLSON EQUIPME ROCK DRILL MEDICA JULY PREMIUM Total for Department 495 Total for Fund 602 BLUE TOW SERVICE, IN 2010 MERC MILAN ICR 1212 BLUE TOW SERVICE, IN 99 CHEV 1500 ICR 1213714 IMPERIAL HOMES, INC. ESCROW RELEASE 6312 RED INC. ESCROW RELEASE 6340 RED LANG BUILDERS, LANG BUILDERS, LANG BUILDERS, SHARPER HOMES, WOOD, SANDIE INC. ESCROW RELEASE INC. ESCROW RELEASE INC. ESCROW RELEASE TITLE TRANSFER Total for Department Total for Fund 801 Grand Total 843 FOX C 878 FOX R 135 ROBIN PD FOR FO 13,593.32* 132.91 143.56 2,450.00 4,450.00 4,450.00 4,450.00 5,950.00 21.50 22,047.97* 22,047.97* 155,098.22* CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT Check Register - FIRE GL Check Issue Dates: 6/19/2012 - 6/30/2012 •ePort Criteria: Page: 1 Jun 29, 2012 10:40AM Report type: Summary GL Check Check Vendor Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Description 06/12 06/29/2012 5393 06/12 06/29/2012 5394 06/12 06/29/2012 5395 06/12 06/29/2012 5396 06/12 06/29/2012 5397 06/12 06/29/2012 5398 06/12 06/29/2012 5399 06/12 06/29/2012 5400 06/12 06/29/2012 5401 06/12 06/29/2012 5402 06/12 06/29/2012 5403 06/12 06/29/2012 5404 06/12 06/29/2012 5405 06/12 06/29/2012 5406 06/12 06/29/2012 5407 06/12 06/29/2012 5408 06/12 06/30/2012 2012006 Grand Totals: • 11565 20353 30040 30500 31008 50121 60050 70578 110300 130840 131500 180550 190850 200150 220200 220250 210300 ASPEN MILLS, INC BLAINE BROTHERS, INC CDW GOVERNMENT, INC CENTURY LINK COMCAST EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TE FISDAP GRAINGER KIRVIDA FIRE, INC MFSCB MY ALARM CENTER, LLC ROSENBAUER MINNESOTA, LL JERRY STREICH THOMAS MOTORS, INC VERIZON WIRELESS VIKING TROPHIES, INC US BANK UNIFORMS U2 MTC COMPUTER CABLE CENTERVILLE PHONE INTERNET STATION 1 2013 FORD VEH SETUP EMS TESTING BLDG SUPPLY ENGINE 11 MTC RECERTIFICATONS STATION 1 MONIORING REPAIR AERIAL 3 MOS CELL PHONE REIMB 2004 F150 BATTERY REPL COMMUNICATIONS STAFKI RECOG /RETIREMENT DP -MAY VISA Check Amount 68.03 899.77 5.45 56.02 101.50 4,446.75 20.00 785.43 1,834.76 260.00 102.04 1,157.52 179.97 226.57 78.06 63.64 1,427.87 11,713.38 • M = Manual Check, V = Void Check P13 i • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DRAFT June 25, 2012 P1 4 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE : June 25, 2012 5 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 6:25 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, 8 Rafferty, Roeser and Mayor Reinert 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 10 11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Services Director Rick 12 DeGardner; Finance Director Al Rolek; Public Safety Director John Swenson; 13 Community Development Director Michael Grochala; City Planner Paul Bengtson; City 14 Clerk Julie Bartell 15 1. Revised Personnel Policy — Council Member Rafferty noted, regarding the section 16 dealing with tuition reimbursement that he'd like to see the section removed or at least 17 tabled for further discussion as he cannot support it as it proposed. City Administrator 18 Karlson responded that he can't recommend that the section be removed from the policy 19 as he believes that would put the city at a competitive disadvantage. 20 The council discussed how much of the policy would actually be covered in union 21 contracts also and Mr. Karlson offered to provide a breakdown of that information. 22 The mayor suggested that staff look at what other cities have in place in the area of tuition 23 reimbursement and the council can consider options at the next work session. 24 25 2. Paperless Council Packets — Council Member Roeser noted that he is trying out the 26 iPad at the upcoming council meeting so he doesn't have a review to report as yet. 27 Council Member Stoesz noted that he heard good things at the League conference from 28 other cities that have gone paperless. 29 30 City Administrator Karlson noted three options for providing equipment to the council 31 members: 1) city purchase and maintain ownership of the equipment; 2) the city provides 32 a monthly stipend for council members to purchase equipment; or 3) the city provides 33 each council member with an up -front payment to provide for their purchase of the 34 equipment. Staff s recommendation is to go with a monthly stipend and for the council 35 members to utilize the city's existing computer purchase program to initially get the 36 equipment. The mayor concurred with Mr. Karlson's recommendation, adding that he 37 believes a $25 per month stipend over two years would be appropriate. A council 38 member pointed out that some members may not have two years remaining on their 39 council service; how would that situation be handled? Mr. Karlson replied that stipends 40 would continue only as long as service and money owed after that point would be the 41 departing council member's responsibility. 42 43 Mr. Karlson will bring an action item forward for council consideration. 44 1 P15 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 25, 2012 DRAFT 45 3. Review Regular Agenda — The council amended the agenda as presented by moving 46 Item 1K to the Administration section of the regular agenda and to delete Item 3A 47 regarding the Revised Personnel Policy. 48 49 Item 5A, Authorizing a Utility Rate Study was reviewed by Public Services Director 50 DeGardner. He noted that the city last studied rates in 2008 so it is appropriate to 51 consider a study at this time. He is recommending that the city contract with Springsted 52 for the rate study and also contract with WSB to provide necessary update information 53 prior to the study. Both of the contracts as proposed were included in his staff report for 54 council review. Council Member Roeser suggested that the contract amount seems high 55 and Mr. DeGardner assured him that it is an appropriate amount for an in -depth study. 56 Council Member Stoesz noted that cities are no longer required to have tiered rate 57 structures; Mr. DeGardner replied that non - tiered could be included in the study but 58 added his opinion that tiers spread charges more fairly. 59 60 The council concurred to proceed with the rate study. 61 62 Item 6Ai and 6Aii, Interim Use Permit for Accessory Outdoor Storage was reviewed by 63 City Planner Bengtson. He noted that the business at 7301 Apollo Court, Lakes Building 64 Components, originally sought the ability to store business materials outside of their 65 building and the council addressed that request by approving an ordinance that allows the 66 storage as an interim use. The owner of the business has applied for an interim use 67 permit and includes in his proposal construction of a fence and additional landscaping to 68 screen the storage. Staff has found that the application meets the city's ordinance 69 requirements and has presented the request to the Planning and Zoning Board where one 70 area resident did appear and speak against the request. The staff report includes certain 71 conditions that are recommended by staff as well as findings for council consideration. 72 73 Mr. Bengtson noted the condition relating to operating hours allowed (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 74 p.m.) and the council discussed the appropriateness of those hours. The mayor suggested 75 that the hours be changed to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The applicant responded that his 76 work shifts begin at 7:00 a.m. so that would create a hardship; he added that the evening 77 hours don't generally include any noisy activity and in fact he doesn't currently need the 78 9:00 p.m. end time but would like to have it available for growth. The mayor suggested a 79 compromise of beginning at 7:30 a.m. Council Member Roeser pointed out that the area 80 sits next to an interstate freeway that generates noise and also that garbage trucks are 81 allowed to work at 7:00 a.m. A council member noted that he didn't hear any concerns 82 about the hours of operation but rather thought there is concern about weekend 83 operations. A majority of the council concurred that the hour limitation will be 7:00 a.m. 84 to 8:00 p.m. The mayor suggested that there could be an adjustment in the future if 85 necessary. 86 87 Mr. Bengtson reviewed the proposed performance agreement with the council. 88 89 The remainder of the council agenda was reviewed. • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 25, 2012 DRAFT 90 91 The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. 92 93 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 94 July 9, 2012. 95 96 97 98 99 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 100 3 P16 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES June 25, 2012 P 1 7 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 4 DATE : June 25, 2012 5 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 7:00 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, Rafferty, 8 Roeser, and Mayor Reinert 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : none 10 11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael 12 Grochala; City Engineer Jason Wedel; Finance Director Al Rolek; Chief of Police John Swenson; and 13 City Clerk Julie Bartell 14 15 PUBLIC COMMENT 16 17 No one was present to address the council regarding a matter not on the agenda. 18 19 SETTING THE AGENDA 20 21 The agenda was amended to change Consent Item 1K to Item 3B, and to remove Item 3A. 22 23 SPECIAL PRESENTATION 24 25 Mayor Reinert and Centennial Fire Chief Jerry Streich presented a plaque to Lino Lakes resident Bob 26 Stafki upon his retirement from the Centennial Fire District. 27 28 CONSENT AGENDA 29 30 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1A, 1E, 1G, 1H, 1I, 1J and 1L as 31 presented. Council Member Stoesz seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 32 33 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1B, 1C and 1D as presented. 34 Council Member Stoesz seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Mayor Reinert 35 abstained from voting. 36 37 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Consent Item 1F as presented. Council Member Stoesz 38 seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Council Member O'Donnell abstained from voting. 39 40 ITEM ACTION 41 42 Consideration of Expenditures: 43 44 i) June 25, 2012 (Check No. 93507 through Approved 45 93639) in the amount of $366,309.60; 1 P18 COUNCIL MINUTES June 25, 2012 DRAFT 46 ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 5316 Approved 47 through 5392) in the amount of $30,523.89 • 48 49 June 4, 2012 Closed Work Session (appraisal) 50 Minutes Approved 51 52 June 4, 2012 Closed Work Session (labor negotiations) 53 Minutes Approved 54 55 June 4, 2012 Work Session Minutes Approved 56 57 Resolution No. 12 -50, Accepting Donation from Twin 58 Cities Gateway for Blue Heron Days Approved 59 60 June 11, 2012 Council Meeting Minutes Approved 61 62 Resolution No. 12 -49, Approving Temporary On -Sale 63 Liquor, Cabaret and Exempt Gambling Permit Applications 64 for St. Joseph's Church Festival Approved 65 66 Resolution No. 12 -52, Approving Temporary On -Sale 67 Liquor and Exempt Gambling Permit Applications for 68 Lino Lakes Lions Approved 69 70 Resolution No. 12 -54, Approving Renewal of Tobacco 71 Licenses Approved 72 73 Authorize not waiving monetary limits on tort liability Approved 74 75 Resolution No. 12 -59, Authorizing agreement to mediate 76 regarding the matter of I- 35E /CSAH 14 Improvement 77 Project Approved 78 79 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 80 81 There was no report from the Finance Department. 82 83 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 84 85 Item 3A, Revised Personnel Policy, had been removed from the agenda. 86 87 3B) Authorization for Centennial Fire District to sell 1991 Ford Rescue Truck for $20,000 - 88 Administrator Karison reported that the city is being asked to authorize the sale of a fire vehicle for 89 $20,000 to the city of Frazee. Centennial Fire District has a replacement vehicle already in line that is Aim 90 available at a very good price. VIP 2 COUNCIL MINUTES June 25, 2012 P 1 9 DRAFT a 91 92 Council Member Rafferty moved to authorize the sale of the truck as proposed. Council Member 93 Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 94 95 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 96 97 There was no report from the Public Safety Department. 98 99 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 100 101 5A) Resolution No. 12 -51, Authorizing a Utility Rate Study — Public Services Director DeGardner 102 explained that the city's last rate analysis was completed in 2008 so it would be appropriate to have 103 an up to date study conducted that would include review of utility data (past and present), volumes, 104 capital improvements, debt service requirements, policies and practices, growth trends and 105 engineering elements of the utility system. He has requested and received a proposal from 106 Springsted, Inc. to conduct such a study. Some pre -study analysis is also being recommended and 107 would be conducted and reported by the city's engineering firm, WSB & Associates. Mr. 108 DeGardner is requesting council authorization to proceed under contract with the study. 109 110 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve Resolution No. 12 -51 as presented. Council Member 111 Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. •112 113 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 114 115 6Ai) Resolution No. 12 -53, Interim Use Permit for Accessory Outdoor Storage, City Planner 116 Bengtson recalled that the council approved an ordinance allowing certain storage with an interim use 117 The business owner at 7301 Apollo Court has applied for a permit that would allow him to 118 store certain building materials outdoors. His application includes a layout of the storage area (shown 119 on an overhead) that includes landscaping and fencing to provide screening. He noted conditions to 120 the permit that are recommended by staff and findings included in the report regarding the 121 application. A public hearing was held on the request at the Planning and Zoning Board with one 122 resident speaking about noise concerns. He noted that the council discussed the request at their work 123 session previous to the council meeting including hours of operation. 124 125 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 12 -53 with an amendment to indicate that 126 hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Council Member O'Donnell seconded the 127 motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. • 128 6Aii Resolution No. 12 -57, Performance Agreement for Lakes Building Components Accessory 129 Storage Yard — City Planner Bengtson reviewed his report outlining the proposed performance 130 agreement linked to the aforementioned interim use permit for outdoor storage. 131 Council Member Stoesz moved to approve Resolution No. 12 -57 as presented. Council Member 132 Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried on unanimous voice vote. 3 P20 COUNCIL MINUTES June 25, 2012 DRAFT 133 6B) Resolution No. 12 -55, Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Construction Contract for the 134 2012 Trail Sealcoat Project - City Engineer Wedel explained that the city's trail system is an asset • 135 and regular maintenance will increase its longevity. Staff is recommending that the city embark on a 136 trail sealcoat project and they have received quotes for services. He recommends approval of the low 137 bid. 138 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 12 -55 as presented. Council Member 139 Stoesz seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 140 6C) Resolution No. 12 -58, Ordering Improvements for the Otter Lake Road Improvement 141 Project - Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the history of the project including a 142 public hearing held in February. For procedural reasons, staff is recommending that the council order 143 the improvement project at this time. This action would not commit the city to proceed with 144 construction of the project but would preserve the ability to do so without beginning the process 145 again. 146 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve Resolution No. 12 -58 as presented. Council Member 147 Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no Unfinished Business. NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business. COMMUNITY CALENDAR 4- Monday, July 2 Wednesday, July 4 Monday, July 9 Monday, July 9 Community Calendar — A Look Ahead June 25, 2012 through July 9, 2012 5:30 pm, Community Room CITY HALL CLOSED 6:30 pm, Council Chambers 5:30 pm, Community Room Council Work Session Independence Day Park Board Council Meeting ADJOURN There being no further business, Council Member Rafferty moved to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. Council Member Stoesz seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting on July 9, 2012. Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 4 • AGENDA ITEM ID STAFF ORIGNINATOR: Jean Viger, Deputy Clerk MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 TOPIC: Consider Resolution 12 -56, Election Judge Approval VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority (3/5 Vote) INTRODUCTION: Attached is the list of Minnesota residents who, if appointed, will be trained to serve as Lino Lakes Election Judges for the 2012 Primary Election on Tuesday, August 14 and /or the General Election on Tuesday, November 6. After City Council approval, the applicants will be selected and assigned to a precinct. • The Anoka County Office of Elections and Registration will conduct training sessions in July and October for all election judges who are appointed to serve. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution 12 -56, accepting the attached list of prospective election judges. • P21 P22 Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 12 -56 APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR AUGUST 14, 2012 PRIMARY & NOVEMBER 6, 2012 GENERAL ELECTION a State Primary will be held on August 14, 2012 and a General Election will be held on November 6, 2012; and pursuant to Minnesota Statute 204B.21, subd. 2, election judges and a head election judge for each precinct in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of that municipality; and pursuant to Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 1, a list of eligible voters was prepared; and the attached list of qualified individuals, if appointed, have agreed to serve as election judges; and pursuant to Minnesota Statute 204B.25, election judges will receive training from the Anoka County Elections and Voter Registration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the named persons on the attached list of qualified individuals are hereby appointed to serve as election judges and head election judges for the 2012 Primary Election and the 2012 General Election if called upon to do so. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 9th day of July, 2012. Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Bartell, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. IP • P23 Judge Board Report, 2012 Presidential Primary Election, Tuesday, August 14, 2012 Lino Lakes P -1 Public Works Building, 1189 Main ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Pamela Jacobson, Head Judge Darlin Kister, Head Judge Mary Ayde, Election Judge Joanne Bucholz, Election Judge Diana Kiffmeyer, Election Judge Todd Lengnick, Election Judge Sylvia Marier, Election Judge Steven Moser, Election Judge Sonya Murray, Election Judge Richard Nelson, Election Judge Mariel Resch, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -2 Juliane Kvalbein, Head Judge Lisa MacNeil, Head Judge Amy Barron, Election Judge Jim Heidemann, Election Judge John Klemaseski, Election Judge Alan Lowles, Election Judge Patrick McCool, Election Judge Charleen Rutz, Election Judge Holly Thomas, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -3 Eileen Couture, Head Judge Bernard Fischbach, Head Judge Rebecca Bilder, Election Judge John Burch, Election Judge Ruth Howard, Election Judge Barbara McGreal, Election Judge Leanne Petyo, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -4 Diane Bergeson, Head Judge Sharon O'Toole, Head Judge Carol Blomberg, Election Judge Deanna Bloomquist, Election Judge Margo Fischbach, Election Judge Anthony Laska, Election Judge Kathryn McCool, Election Judge Jay Peterson, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -5 Colleen Borys, Head Judge Nicole Glowacki, Head Judge Kay Jakubowski, Head Judge Elizabeth Doucette, Election Judge Norma Haglund, Election Judge Arlen Johnson, Election Judge Sue Kennedy, Election Judge Roger Nelson, Election Judge Paul Wagener, Election Judge Centennial Fire Station #2, 7741 Lake Dr., Lino Lakes, MN 55014 St. Joseph's Catholic Church, 171 Elm ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Civic Complex, 600 Town Center PKWY, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Rice Creek Covenant Church, 125 Ash ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55126 Printed: 7/2/2012 3:16 PM Page 1 of 4 P24 Judge Board Report, 2012 Presidential Lino Lakes P -6 Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Sara Hesseltine, Head Judge Betty Utecht, Head Judge Richard Caldecott, Election Judge Patricia Fanone, Election Judge Linda Jensen, Election Judge Kimberii Johnson, Election Judge Dick Mesenburg, Election Judge Jean Miers, Election Judge Kathy Wall, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -7 Rice Lake Elementary School, 575 Birch ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Mary Altstatt, Head Judge Cori Duffy, Head Judge Anthony Fanone, Election Judge Joanne Kell, Election Judge Tammy Lincoln, Election Judge Stephen Minar, Election Judge Michael Utecht, Election Judge • Printed: 7/2/2012 3:16 PM Page 2 of 4 P25 Judge Board Report, 2012 Presidential 410 General Election, Tuesday, November 6, 2012 Lino Lakes P -1 Pamela Jacobson, Head Judge Darlin Kister, Head Judge Mary Ayde, Election Judge Barbara Bor, Election Judge Joanne Bucholz, Election Judge Diana Kiffmeyer, Election Judge Todd Lengnick, Election Judge Sylvia Marier, Election Judge Steven Moser, Election Judge Sonya Murray, Election Judge Richard Nelson, Election Judge Cheryl Nielson, Election Judge Mariel Resch, Election Judge Bernice Salo, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -2 Juliane Kvalbein, Head Judge Lisa MacNeil, Head Judge Amy Barron, Election Judge Jim Heidemann, Election Judge John Klemaseski, Election Judge Alan Lowles, Election Judge Patrick McCool, Election Judge S John Nordlund, Election Judge Clemence Robinson, Election Judge Charleen Rutz, Election Judge Lisa Taran - Maddy, Election Judge Holly Thomas, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -3 Eileen Couture, Head Judge Bernard Fischbach, Head Judge Sally Nelson, Head Judge Rebecca Bilder, Election Judge John Burch, Election Judge Janice Gilbertson, Election Judge Jaclynn Gunn, Election Judge Ruth Howard, Election Judge Leanne Petyo, Election Judge Kaye Warren, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -4 Diane Bergeson, Head Judge Sharon O'Toole, Head Judge Deborah Barnes, Election Judge Carol Blomberg, Election Judge Deanna Bloomquist, Election Judge Margo Fischbach, Election Judge Kathryn McCool, Election Judge Audrey Nelson, Election Judge Jay Peterson, Election Judge Steve Schack, Election Judge • Public Works Building, 1189 Main ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Centennial Fire Station #2, 7741 Lake Dr., Lino Lakes, MN 55014 St. Joseph's Catholic Church, 171 Elm ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Civic Complex, 600 Town Center PKWY, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Printed: 7/2/2012 3:16 PM Page 3 of 4 P26 Judge Board Report, 2012 Presidential Lino Lakes P -5 Rice Creek Covenant Church, 125 Ash ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55126 le Colleen Borys, Head Judge Nicole Glowacki, Head Judge Kay Jakubowski, Head Judge Elizabeth Doucette, Election Judge Norma Haglund, Election Judge Arlen Johnson, Election Judge Sue Kennedy, Election Judge Sharyn Kusterman, Election Judge Roger Nelson, Election Judge Paul Wagener, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -6 Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Sara Hesseltine, Head Judge Betty Utecht, Head Judge Carol Berg, Election Judge Richard Caldecott, Election Judge Carl Elmquist, Election Judge Patricia Fanone, Election Judge Linda Jensen, Election Judge Kimberli Johnson, Election Judge Dick Mesenburg, Election Judge Jean Miers, Election Judge Lyndell Moberg, Election Judge Dorothy Jean Roeser, Election Judge Kathy Wall, Election Judge Lino Lakes P -7 Mary Aitstatt, Head Judge Cori Duffy, Head Judge Charlene Elmquist, Election Judge Anthony Fanone, Election Judge Joanne Kell, Election Judge Josephine Krominga, Election Judge Tammy Lincoln, Election Judge Stephen Minar, Election Judge Michael Utecht, Election Judge Rice Lake Elementary School, 575 Birch ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Printed: 7/2/2012 3:16 PM Page 4 of 4 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION June 25, 2012 P26 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE : June 25, 2012 5 TIME STARTED : 7:15 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 8:30 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, 8 Rafferty, Roeser (arrived at 7:25 p.m.) and 9 Mayor Reinert 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 11 12 13 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Finance Director Al Rolek; 14 Community Development Michael Grochala; Public Safety Director John Swenson; 15 Economic Development Coordinator Mary Divine; Public Services Director Rick 16 DeGardner; City Clerk Julie Bartell 17 18 Financial Impacts on the 2013 City Budget - Finance Director Rolek distributed and 19 reviewed a table indicating possible 2013 budget impacts in the area of expenditures, 20 revenues and other. In the area of expenditures, the personnel impact includes some 21 decisions made already as well as some contract settlement assumptions. In the area of 22 revenues, Mr. Rolek pointed out possible loss of grant funds if certain police grants are 23 not renewed. In the area of franchise fees, discussions are still underway with Centennial 24 Utilities. There are also some cable television fees that have been used as general 25 revenue but that should be redirected for upgrades. The use of fund surplus is a year to 26 year discussion and is of course limited by the threshold set by the council; a special 27 section indicating a fund surplus analysis is included in the table. Mr. Rolek then noted 28 the possible reductions of estimated budget gap figures that are suggestions /ideas for 29 review. When asked about the budget position for 2012, Mr. Rolek noted that the figures 30 are below where he'd like them to be but the city is just getting into the busy season for 31 construction, etc. The mayor called for information on the city's snow plow budget; 32 there was very little need in that area last winter. Mr. Rolek explained that it's difficult to 33 pinpoint where that budget is exactly since funding is spread across several budget areas 34 (i.e. equipment, supplies, overtime). Mayor Reinert asked that staff put together some 35 figures for council review. 36 37 Administrator Karlson noted some potential revenues sources, including utility and 38 franchise fees, grant funding, economic development and lastly, staff reductions, adding 39 that additional staff reductions would probably result in service reductions at some level. 40 The mayor said he continues to urge the city to seek efficiencies through organization. 41 42 The council discussed economic development activity in the city. Economic 43 Development Coordinator Divine noted that new development is slow in the area 44 currently with the focus more on filling in existing areas. Community Development 45 Director Grochala added that staff is meeting with larger builders and he gave an update 1 P27 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION June 25, 2012 DRAFT 46 on those discussions. The builders are honest in explaining that they are following 47 rooftops and traffic and he can see that the areas of the metro that have jobs are growing 48 areas. The mayor suggested that the council is interested in following the city's economic 49 development planning and he recommends that a special meeting be held each month to 50 discuss that topic and specifically to put together goals and how to work for them. He'd 51 like to see information brought forward on the following: 52 What does an average new home bring in for the city? 53 What's the impact of commercial /industrial development? 54 Types of housing that are being built. 55 56 Regarding the Legacy development area, Mayor Reinert suggested that staff meet with 57 Anoka County with the goal of forming options and look for opportunities to get things 58 going. Mr. Rolek pointed out information he distributed that indicates how the city is 59 financing the Legacy costs and noted that it could continue through 2015. 60 61 The council moved back to the budget discussion. At the request of a council member, 62 Mr. Rolek noted that the contingency budgeted for 2012 is $75,000, none of which has 63 been used. Council Member Roeser offered a suggestion to continue to look for third 64 parties to perform services (such as Jani King). Mr. Karlson noted that area city 65 administrators are meeting regularly to discuss collaboration efforts, including in such 66 areas as water utilities and building inspections. Council Member Roeser remarked that 67 the storm water utility may be a discussion that merits a revisit. Council Member Stoesz 68 suggested that the city should be investing more in information technology as a way to 69 greater efficiency; he would at least like to see IT as a separate line item in the budget. 70 71 The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 72 73 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 74 July 9, 2012. 75 76 77 78 79 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 80 2 • • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Julie Bartell, City Clerk MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 TOPIC: Resolution No. 12 -61, Approving a Peddler License for Edward Zaliagiris VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 BACKGROUND Edward Zaliagiris, 1425 Terrace Road, Roseville, has submitted a peddler's license application to the city clerk's office. Mr. Zaliagiris works as an independent contractor for Southwestern Company and plans to travel through the Lino Lakes' neighborhoods going door to door selling educational products. The City has received all the necessary forms required to issue this company a license. The Lino Lakes Police Department has performed the required background check on Mr. Zaliagiris. The application and all other information related to this matter is on file in the city clerk's office for review. RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 12 -61, Approving the issuance of a. Peddler License for the period of July 10, 2012 through August 30, 2012. P27 P28 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 12 -61 Resolution Approving a Peddler License for Edward Zaliagiris WHEREAS, Edward Zaliagiris has submitted a peddlers license application to the city clerk's office requesting authorization to sell educational products door to door; and WHEREAS, Edward Zaliagiris has complied with all of the provisions of Chapter 613 of the Lino Lakes City Code for obtaining the necessary license for a for - profit business; and WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes Police Department has conducted a background check on Mr. Zaliagiris; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota: Mr. Edward Zaliagiris, is hereby authorized to sell services door to door for a period of six - months beginning July 10, 2012 and ending August 30, 2012. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 9th day of July, 2012. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member and was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ATTEST: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor • • • • • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 TOPIC: Approval of Memorandum of Agreement with RCWD VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The City Council is being asked to approve a Memorandum of Agreement with Rice Creek Watershed District to participate in a grant program for the purchase of equipment needed to convert to a salt brine deicing system. BACKGROUND Earlier this year Lino Lakes joined with the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo, and Lexington in applying for grant funding to integrate deicing into its snow removal operations. Deicing involves the application of a liquid brine solution to the road surface before a winter storm event to prevent snow and ice from bonding to the pavement. Last month we were informed that our proposed salt reduction project was approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The grant will pay for about 40 percent of the costs for the deicing program. Of the $36,000 estimated cost for Lino Lakes, the City will receive a grant of $15,097. Lino Lakes' local match is estimated at $18,875. Centerville will be the financial agent for the project. Lino Lakes' cost share will be paid to Centerville when the equipment is invoiced. The City will then be reimbursed from RCWD for the grant portion. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Memorandum of Agreement with Rice Creek Watershed District for participation in its Urban Stormwater Remediation Cost -Share Program. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A — Application Form Exhibit B — RCWD Cost -Share Agreement P29 P30 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT The cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Lino Lakes, Lexington and Hugo are hereinafter referred to as "Cities." WHEREAS, the Cities have determined that the current practice of using sand and salt mixtures on city roads is not the most effective means to control ice, and WHEREAS, the Cities have recognized that using primarily salt in the correct amounts is a better means of providing safe winter roads, and WHEREAS, transitioning to salt alone, without adopting procedures and training for staff, would likely result in excessive use of salt and unnecessarily higher cost, and WHEREAS, deicing salt may accumulate in ponds and lakes, which over time could have an adverse impact on the environment, and WHEREAS, Centerville, on behalf of the cities, has secured a grant from Rice Creek Watershed District (grant application attached as Exhibit A) to implement best management practices for use of road deicing salt, and WHEREAS, the Grant Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit B), among other things, requires documentation and reporting activities for each of the cities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITIES AGREE TO INDIVIDUALLY TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: 1. Each city council will approve participation in the activities envisioned by the grant application in the same manner as if it were a direct party to the grant agreement. 2. Each city will timely pay to the City of Centerville the local share for the equipment it acquires through the grant. 3. Each city will adopt the Minnesota Snow and Ice Control Handbook as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and will direct the appropriate city staff to participate in training from the Handbook. 4. Each city will adopt any required policies and procedures to implement the grant program activities. 5. Each city will keep records of snow and ice events and its use of deicing materials as required in the grant agreement. • • • • • • 6. Each city shall be responsible for its own acts and omissions and those of its officers, employees and agents. However, to simplify the defense of any action the parties may consolidate liability in one or more cities. Under no circumstances, however, shall a city be required to pay on behalf of itself and another city, any amount in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 applicable to any one city. In such cases, the limits of liability for some or all of the cities may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for any city. This agreement will be executed in multiple originals with separate signature page for each city. Approved by the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota this 9th day of July, 2012. ATTEST: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor P31 P32 EXHIBIT A Rice Creek Watershed District 2012 RCWD Urban Stormwater Remediation Cost -Share Program Application Form Supplemental Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Organization (to be named as Grantee): Street Address: 1880 Main Street City, State, Zip: Centerville, MN 55038 Email: dlarson(cz,centervillemn.com SLX Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus CITIES Lexington & Lino Lakes & Hugo 11. PROJECT CONTACTS Project Officer: Dallas Larson Telephone: 651 -429 -3232 Fax: 651 - 429 -8629 Email: dlarson@centervillemn.com Tax Status: Local Unit of Government Website: Financial Officer: Mike Jeziorski Telephone: 651429 -3232 Fax: Email: mjeziorski �?a,centervillemn.com Tax ID #: 41- 1267014 (e.g., local government, non-profit 5O1(c)(3), private business, etc.) IOC. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Sodium Chloride Management Project Location(s) of Project: Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Lexington & Lino Lakes & Hugo City: State: MN County: Anoka County Project Completion Date: December 15, 2013 Project Start Date: June 1, 2012 Project Type (check only those that directly apply): Q Redevelopment Project El Roadway / Street Project 1V. COST-SHARE REQUEST Supplemental Cost -Share Funds Requested: $ Local Matching Contributions: $ 90,000 (cash) $ (in -kind) Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 1551000 Would you be willing to accept cost -share funding in an amount less than requested? OYES E NO Contact us to discuss reduced grant. V. SIGNATURE 01 APPLICANT (An original signature page must be received with this application) 0 Storm Sewer / Stormwater Treatment Project Other Chloride Reduction 65,000 i certify that the information contained within this application is true and accurate. Signature of Executive Director or Project Officer Date Dallas Larson, Admin. Project Officer Name, Title Page 1 of 4 • • • • • • • ,P33 VI. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Include a brief Executive Summary (50 words or less) that summarizes the main goals and activities of the project and the expected environmental outcomes that will be achieved. Identification of the total amount of funds being requested along with the required match must be included in the Executive Summary. The summaries will be used in the grant review process and on the RCWD website, for projects that are funded. If funding is available, the FIVE CITIES intend to begin a process to better manage the use of sodium chloride which is used as a road deicer. There is an environmental concern of long -term increase in the concentration of chloride in our water. This could be detrimental to aquatic plants and fish and in the future could be a detriment to public drinking water supplies. The Five Cities collaborating on this effort represent approximately 30% of the RCWD jurisdictional area. See attached map. Adding City of Hugo increases the area represented to approximately 50% of the RCWD. %1L PROJECT DESCRIPTION & JUSTIFICATION! The project must be located in a subwatershed containing a RCWD Tier 1 or Tier 2 lake, a waterbody with an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study, or a waterbody with a Management Action Plan from RCWD's Southwest Urban Lakes Study. Describe the specific watershed management, water quality or water quantity need(s) that the project will address and its impact on the target water resource within the District. Centerville and Golden Lakes. Also • Name the target waterbody to be improved by this project: ud, Howard, Crossways,Rondeau,Peltier • List and describe the Best Management Practices (BMPs) t okebT ait i�f j c ,Reshanau The Five cities are moving away from the use of sand/salt toward primarily salt for road deicing. The Five Cities will develop /adapt hest management practices for the use of road salt. Specifically grant funds will be used to purchase anti -icing equipment to apply liquid salt - brine in advance of winter storms. This will result in significantly lower overall use of road salt. Additionally, the cities will incorporate training of staff to the policy of using only the minimum salt necessary to provide safe roads following MNDOT guidelines. Communities will provide residents with information on affects of deicing chemicals with suggested steps they can take to reduce impacts of chloride on surface waters. i Descre how Tong -term operation and maintenance of the project will be accomplished. Ongoing costs of operation and maintenance of the program will be covered in the budgets of the Five Cities. Where these procedures have been implemented elsewhere, reduction in the amount of road salt has been significant, thus a savings in the budget for salt can cover the ongoing costs of equipment maintenance and staff training. • If applicable, describe how the project minimizes impervious surface and /or maximizes infiltration. N/A Page 2 of 4 P34 ■ Address how the project relates to and supports existing regional, watershed district or local water resource management plans. RCWD has established a goal of reducing the amount of chloride in water bodies in its jurisdiction. Salt is an emerging environmental issue and the effort by the cities will lead the district toward proactive solutions to the problem. of List all project partners and their respective roles in implementing and /or supporting the project. Centerville is lead applicant and will provide the financial administration of the project and will provide cost match. Circle Pines will provide cost match. Columbus will provide cost match. Lexington will provide cost match. Lino Lakes will provide cost match. Hugo will provide cost match. VEIL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Provide drawings, maps and /or schematics which graphically illustrate the location and conceptual design of the project. (Attach separate sheets.) See Exhibit A Exhibit A is revised to include Hugo IX. POLLUTANT REDUCTION ESTIMATES & OTHER BENEFITS Provide a detailed estimate and description of the anticipated pollutant reduction, stormwater volume reduction, and /or other environmental or natural resource benefits associated with the project. Describe the methods and cite the sources (i.e. P8 model, MN Stormwater Manual, other literature citation, etc.) used to calculate or estimate the pollutant reductions. (NOTE: Mandatory for RCWD to consider your proposal!) See Exhibit B Exhibit B is revised to include Hugo Page 3 of 4 • • • •P35 • X. DETAILED COST ESTIMATE Provide a detailed and reasonable budget that lists each item for which funding is being requested. You must also list the required local matching contributions and their sources. (Attach separate sheets.) See Exhibit A Exhibit A revised to include Hugo EVALUATION Describe the strategy for monitoring and /or evaluating the results or effectiveness of the project, including how success will be defined and measured. Grantee cities will track the amount of salt used on an annual basis as well as the number of snow/ icing events. Good records and management practices will reduce the use of salt (chloride) to the minimum necessary to provide safe roads. Studies in other areas have documented reductions of 25 -70% in chloride volume. Our goal is a reduction of 40 % from what would occur without the grant. See Exhibit B for additional detail. XII. EDUCATION & DEMONSTRATION Demonstrate any potential for education and demonstration and describe what methods will be used to ensure that the purpose and success of the project are made known to the public. • Staff will receive training and annual updates to make sure they follow the best practices for use of salt on roads. Grantee will also develop an education flyer for distribution to our residents to inform them of the environmental concerns of deicing chemicals. Our goal is to have the public follow the same practice ()fusing "just enough" deicing material to keep their property safe. XIIQ. KEY PERSONNEL List the lead personnel on the project including any known sub - contractors that will be working on the project. Please include contact information. The public works director or street superintentant in each city will be responsible for training and implementation of the best management practices for deicing chemicals. The Centerville Finance Director will be responsible for the purchasing and documentation that occurs in each city related to the grant. Operational contacts are contained on the attached Exhibit C. Exhibit C revised to include Hugo Page 4 of 4 • P36 EXHIBIT B RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT COST -SHARE AGREEMENT COST -SHARE AGREEMENT between the Rice Creek Watershed District, 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 611, Blaine, Minnesota 55449 and the Cities of Centerville. RECITALS A. City of Centerville (City) intends to implement a project "Sodium Chloride Management Program" ( "Project "), in partnership with the Cities of Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo, Lexington, and Lino Lakes. B. The Rice Creek Watershed District (District) has a cost -share program for the improvement and remediation of stormwater management systems in developed urban environments. C. In accordance with Program guidelines, the District desires to provide the City cost - share assistance for the Project. THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the District and the City agree as follows: I. CITY RESPONSIBLITIES. A. City Partnership, Equipment schedule and Snow and Ice Operations Plan. The City will submit (1) copies of all memorandums of understanding ( "MOU's ", or equivalent) between the Cities, (2) final equipment schedules, and (2) a Snow and Ice Operations plan, to the District for the Administrator's written approval. B. Construction and Maintenance. The City, through its own personnel and or contractors, will complete the Project in accordance with the approved equipment schedules and plans and operate and maintain the same through the project reporting period. In doing so, the City will comply with all applicable laws and regulations and will be responsible for acquiring all permits, approvals and temporary and permanent rights of access or easement. C. Completion of Construction. The City staff or consulting engineer will certify the completion of Project within 24 months from the effective date of this agreement. The City will submit to the District documentation of Project expenditures and the certification of completion. D. Annual Reports. The City shall submit for review and approval by the District an annual report for each winter season from 2012 -2013 through 2016 -2017 (five years), by June 30th of the following year, detailing the amount and type of salt and /or sand products used by each of 1 • • • • to the six cities' snow and ice control programs during the winter season. This data will be made publicly available by the District for informational and research purposes as it sees fit. Il. DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES. A. Cost -Share Funds. To defray the Project cost to the City, the District will provide the City cost -share assistance in the amount of 50 percent of the Project's eligible costs, as determined by the District, not to exceed $65,000.00. B. Payment Schedule. On District approval of the Project MOU's, equipment schedules and operations plan, certification by the City that it has obtained all necessary permits and approvals, and receipt of the City's issued notice to proceed, the District will disburse 50 percent of the RCWD Board approved cost -share amount to the City. On District receipt of the certification of completion and review of such Project documentation as it may require, the District will disburse the remaining RCWD Board approved funds. C. Contingencies. The District's obligation to provide cost -share funds is contingent on the City's compliance with the terms of this agreement, including but not limited to Project completion in accordance with the District- approved equipment schedules and operations plan within 24 months. The City will return to the District any cost -share funds already received if this condition is not satisfied. III. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Relationship of Parties. Nothing in this agreement creates or establishes a partnership, joint venture or agency relationship between the parties. District review or approval of design plans and specifications, a maintenance plan and any other Project - related documents is solely for the District's own accounting for funds expended. The District has no role in assessing the effectiveness of the Snow and Ice Operations Plan in achieving city operational and safety requirements. As between the District and the City, the City is solely responsible to ensure that the plan it proposes meets all such criteria. Nothing in this agreement creates any right in any third party or affects any immunity, defense or liability limitation enjoyed by either party. B. Employees. The City represents that it has or will secure, at its own expense, all personnel and /or contractors required for the performance of this agreement. No City personnel or contractor will be considered an agent, representative or employee of the District. C. Liability. The City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the District, and its managers, staff and representatives, against any claim, expense or damage, including attorney fees, arising from the performance of this agreement except for claims caused by the District's negligence or the District's failure to perform its obligations under this agreement. D. Assignment or Modification. This agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the City and the District, and their respective successors and assigns. Neither party may assign this agreement without the prior written consent of the other. Any modification of the agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties. 2 P37 P38 E. This agreement is effective as of the date all of the signatures below have been provided. Dated: , 2012 City of Centerville By: Its: Dated: 2012 Rice Creek Watershed District By: Patricia Preiner, President 3 • • • EXHIBIT A - Revised FO O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) M CO O If O7 LC) LC) O O 'CI- M N N N 10 CO O) O) 64 64 64 ER 64 64 64 ER 69 169- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N- M • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0) 0 = 0 EO (0 L.6 IC> N EO lc? 0 M r N Columbus Lexington Circle Pines Lino Lakes EA-ER 6469-646464 64 iER N M 04 0 000,000 O) T 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 - c 0 0 0 000000o t- In O c9 d" LO- LO- N N M CO- c- CO r T 69 ER Efl ER 69641 ER 64 fER O 0 0 t` M O 0 0 r N O O O CO E+) T r N ER ER 169- ER 1 ER 0C 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O EO to 10 T c' ) CO r M T r ER 64 ER Eft 64 ER 69- 64 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N- M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O) O co- co- I.C) I() N co- to O r M r N ER ER EFT 64 Efl 69-64 ER 164 Cer 0 00 0 0 (0 � r 64 Eft 64 ER Y O CD 0 0 f` N O 0 Local Match CO O 0 CO ,,Cr 0) Salt Use -Tons 2010 -2011 Sand Use -tons 2010 -2011 P39 P40 EXHIBIT B- Revised The Six Cities have concluded that use of traditional sand /salt mixtures should be discontinued in favor of a more comprehensive approach to safe winter roads. Some reasons for the decision are in the following information. "Use of sand (abrasives) An old and widely used practice is spreading abrasives, such as sand or cinders, on the roadway. Although abrasives supply some traction for traffic, contain no chlorides, and are more visible than salt, they have many drawbacks: 1. Abrasives do not break the bond between pavement and ice. 2. They can be covered up or mixed with snow and become useless. 3. They can reduce traction on road surfaces after the snow and ice are gone. 4. They can chip paint and pit windshields. 5. They can clog drains and smother roadside vegetation. 6. They may require costly cleanup efforts after a storm or storm season." (Salt Institute, 1985) "Further, a mix of abrasives and chemical will usually be no more effective as an anti -icing treatment during snowstorms than the same amount of chemical placed alone. It even appears that the use of abrasives in the mix can be detrimental to the effectiveness of the chemical. Because of the cost associated with both application and clean -up of roads and drainage facilities, and because of the potential airborne dust problem accompanying their use, abrasives applications should not be a routine operation of an anti -icing program." * *Manual of Practice for an Effective Anti -icing Program, MHWA Snow and ice - covered roadways that have been treated with abrasives provide friction values that are far less than "bare" or "wet" pavement (NCHRP, page 25). Use of salt /abrasives mixes at moderately or much higher application rates than straight chemical, does not lead to corresponding improvements in hard - braking friction or pavement conditions. Comparisons of test and control operations using identical salt /abrasives mixes show that more frequent applications at similar rates also do not lead to corresponding improvements in friction or pavement conditions and even indicate that the more frequent applications can lead to slightly worse conditions (FHWA 1998, Section 7.4.1 on page 208 of the PDF). The Five Cities plan to implement the Minnesota Department of Transportation Field Handbook for Snowplow Operators for Snow and Ice Control. Included in the manual are recommendations for anti -icing and guidelines for use of salt for deicing. The difficulty of transitioning to anti -icing is the cost of equipment needed. That is where the grant funding comes into play. • • • • • Anti-icing has many advantages. • Anti -icing returns road surfaces to normal faster, resulting in fewer accidents and delays. • Anti -icing can reduce airborne dust and salt particulates. • Salt needs moisture to be effective. Applying brine jumpstarts the melting process. • Brine sticks to the road surface. Tt will not be as easily blown off the road by wind or traffic, so material is more efficiently used. • If the storm is delayed, salt residue remains on the road ready to begin work when precipitation begins. • Crews can begin treatment in advance of a storm. Because anti -icing prevents the bonding of snow and ice to pavement, snowfighters have less work to maintain safe roadways as the storm progresses. • Increased efficiency results in use of less deicer and manpower, therefore lowering the cost of maintaining safe road conditions. The use of less deicing materials also minimizes environmental concerns. *Snowfighters Handbook" Published by the Salt Institute, Alexandria Virginia "Anti -icing is often the most cost - effective and environmentally safe practice in certain winter road maintenance situations." *MNDOT Field Handbook for Snowplow Operators Deicing. The Field Handbook for Snowplow Operators has guidelines for applying salt to roads in a manner that maintains the goal of safe roads while also being sensitive to the environment. The Salt Institute "Snowfighters Handbook" suggests application rates of 200 -800 lbs per two -lane mile. Salt requirement estimate. Spreading rates differ based on types of storm, weather conditions and operational procedures. Application rates generally range from 300 to 800 lb per two -lane mile. "Snowfighters Handbook" Published by the Salt Institute, Alexandria, Virginia Rate of Application Coverage Per Cu. Yd. of Per Two -Lane Mile Salt Per Two -Lane Mile 800 Ibs 2 1/2 700 Ibs 2 3/4 600 Ibs 3 500 Ibs 4 400 Ibs 5 300 lbs 6 200 Ibs 10 Our grant application anticipates that the average rate of application of salt when changing from sand /salt mix is approximately 500 lbs per double lane mile and could be much higher if not managed. A report from DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup dated August 16, 2007, indicated average salt application rates of up to 1,300 lbs per lane -mile for one group of its cities. That study estimated that anti - icing practices alone could reduce salt use by 24 %. A follow up report after implementing anti -icing and other measures showed 2010 application rates of 330 -470 pounds per lane mile. Not all of the cities implemented anti -icing and other measures. P41 P42 We believe that the amount of salt can be significantly reduced from the estimated level by implementation of anti -icing and by the additional measures of training staff to manage the use of salt. Some of the grant funds will be used to train staff to follow "The Minnesota Department of Transportation, Field Handbook for Snowplow Operators for Snow and Ice Control." The handbook has detailed guidelines for applying salt based upon the pavement temperatures and weather conditions. The Handbook recommendations vary from 100 to 400 pounds per two -lane mile depending upon the event type and pavement temperature. We believe that implementing anti -icing and by training staff to follow the MNDOT Handbook recommendations, we may be able to reduce the amount of salt that would otherwise be used by approximately 40 %. • • • • • • EXHIBIT C Revised L4 ) O N CD 0) In O O O O j O CD CO _ L7 LC) N- 1 (0 O 10 h- CO N c O C N W O (` • ti 10 M COCO _ -6 O E M 6) W• E o, O Z d co J '> pLpN IiLJ L 0 r--- Ln F y O r O ▪ a Q IC d 0) N co /1 CZ ▪ C▪ O S b 1 0 E� U (0N C0 (h O O CD u - y LO d- LO O d• r O IoI 0 co in U ICI o N J N , O N r ▪ O CL c\J • U C T- in F a(D Z w 0 O N 0 LP << O IX C O co O O o O O N 0 O co N d $ 18.200.00 $ 43,232.15 O L0 r 0 0 O 06 Oj d• O Or CO 6 CD 0) CO N f; O N t.-- d' O cr) Lo O O 6) N N N O C'7 r r b4 O 00 r 0 0 'p r N 1.0 c0 o co V d• 6 in o co N nj EA Responsible Person Miles Paved Streets Z 0) V a a W H ESTIMATE of REDUCTION 40% Number of tons used with Grant Expected Number of Tons Abated (fr Centerville implemented salt only in 2009 -2010 season P43 • • • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 TOPIC: Revised Personnel Policy VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The Council is being asked to adopt the revised Personnel Policy. BACKGROUND The Council discussed the revised Personnel Policy at the May 7, May 29, June 4, and July 2 work sessions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the July 2012 Personnel Policy, which will include any revisions from the July 2 work session. P44 STAFF ORIGINATOR: MEETING DATE: TOPIC: VOTE REQUIRED: INTRODUCTION CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6A Michael Grochala July 9, 2012 Vide IAA1- tr* ;. Consider Resolution No. 12 -59, artway, Otter Lake Drive y The City received a petition from Mr. Adam Johnson, 2055 Otter Lake Drive, to establish a cartway easement to provide access to a landlocked parcel he owns. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 435.37 provides a process for the establishment of a cartway subject to certain minimum criteria. A public hearing is required to provide an opportunity for the petitioner and the owner of the parcel over which the cartway is being established, Oakbrook Peninsula Homeowners Association, to provide testimony. BACKGROUND Minn. Stat. § 435.37 provides that upon petition presented to the city council, by the owner of a tract of land containing at least five acres, who has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others the city council by resolution shall establish a cartway of at least two rods wide (33 feet) connecting the petitioner's land with a public road. On March 26, 2012 the City Council called for a hearing to be held on July 9, 2012 to consider the establishment of a cartway. The approved Resolution No. 12 -29 included the order for Mr. Johnson to personally serve the resolution on the owners and occupants of the land. Mr. Johnson has provided the city with an affidavit of service indicating such service has been made. Copies of the resolution and petition have also been posted at City Hall. Mr. Johnson was also ordered to escrow $5,000 to cover the City's costs. This escrow is in place. In consideration of the cartway request there are 3 issues to be addressed; 1. Whether the threshold requirements for establishing a cartway are met. Those requirements are: a. Petitioner owns a tract of land 5 acres in size; and b. Petitioner has no access to it except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others. 2. Where the cartway should be located. 3. Damages. Issues 1. Have the threshold requirements for a cartway met? Mr. Johnson owns a 9.89 acre parcel. The parcel is separated from his homestead site by a water channel leading to Otter Lake. The only other access to the property is by land owned by adjacent property owners to the north or by property owned by the Oakbrook Peninsula Homeowners Association. This property includes a private street that provides access to the association member's property. 2. Cartway Location. The primary issue is how far down the private drive does Johnson need to go in order to properly access his property. The petition has requested that the cartway cover all of Outlot A, Oakbrook Peninsula, which is the entire length of the road. The petitioner does not need the entire length. The petition also indicates that they will travel approximately 250 feet on the cartway before existing onto the landlocked parcel. As for the width it appears reasonable and logical to simply use the width of the existing roadway surface to the point where Johnson exits the road to get onto his property. 3a. Damages - City. The petitioner has provided a cash escrow to cover all city costs. In the event that the actual costs incurred exceed the escrow amount the petitioner will be required to reimburse the City. A provision should be included in the resolution to require reimbursement. 3b. Damages — Landowners. There is little direct guidance in statute or case law for determining damages. Statute states that "damages means the compensation, if any awarded to the owner of the land..." Similar to a condemnation case the council may take into consideration whether the value of the existing road is reduced by the creation of the cartway, and if so, by how much? It should also be noted that this is intended to be a private cartway, not public. 3c. Damages — Maintenance. The statue requires that the cost of maintaining the cartway "be equitably divided" among all of the parties. The council may take into consideration the following factors: • Frequency of use • Type and weight of the vehicles or equipment; and * The distance traveled on the cartway to the individual's property • Any other factors the council deems relevant The Council will then have to formulate some sort of apportionment. A flat dollar amount per year with an annual escalator may be the easiest for the parties to enforce. RECOMMENDATION The council will need to make a determination regarding the 3 issues based on the testimony received at the hearing, A resolution documenting the findings of fact established by the council will be prepared by staff and the City Attorney following the hearing and Council deliberation. ATTACHMENTS I . Cartway Petition. 2. Cartway Exhibit 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF LINO LAKES In Re the Petition of Adam C. Johnson for the Establishment of a Cartway Pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 435.37 PETITION FOR CARTWAY TO: THE LINO LAKES CITY COUNCIL Your Petitioner respectfully represents and shows as follows: 1. Petitioner's name is Adam C. Johnson. Petitioner is a home and property owner within your jurisdiction. Petitioner's situation involves a landlocked tract of land owned by Petitioner, which contains "at least five acres," and is unreachable except "over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others." Minn. Stat. § 435.37. 2. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 435.37, a petition is hereby made to this City Council for the establishment of an easement for a cartway. 3. Petitioner resides at 2055 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 (the "Home Property"). Petitioner also owns a tract of land of approximately ten (10) acres (the "Landlocked Lot "), but a channel of water flowing into Otter Lake (the "Channel'') separates Petitioner's Home Property from Petitioner's Landlocked Lot. On the Anoka County GIS Department website, the landlocked lot is immediately east of the easternmost edge of Lot 2055, which is Petitioner's Home Lot. The Home Lot is on the west side of the Channel, and the Landlocked Lot is on the east side of the Channel. 4. Petitioner is unable to access the Landlocked Lot except over either the Channel or the lands of others. The applicable Parcel Identification Numbers for Petitioner's property are 36- 31 -22 -32 -0002, 36- 31 -22 -23 -0021, 36- 31 -22 -23 -0029, and 36- 31 -22 -23 -0028. Further, the legal description of Petitioner's property is as follows: That part of Outlot B, OTTER LAKE ESTATES, as corrected by surveyor's certificate filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 858879, lying easterly, southwesterly, southerly, and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeasterly corner of Lot 5, Block 3, said OTTER LAKE ESTATES, thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds East, along the south line of said Outlot B a distance of 256.22 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 4 degrees 18 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 107.14 feet; thence North 29 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 63 feet; thence North 57 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 60 feet; thence North 83 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 62 feet; thence South 46 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 288.47 feet to the south line of the north 971.86 feet of said Outlot B, as measured parallel with the north line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds East, along said south line, a distance of 25.58 feet; thence North 8 degrees 14 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 167.32 feet; thence north 14 degrees 01 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 105.01 feet; thence North 27 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 101.02 feet; thence North 10 degrees 33 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 131.25 feet; thence North 39 degrees 53 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 104.10 feet; thence North 58 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 103.24 feet; thence North 33 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 117.48 feet; thence North 5 degrees 05 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 77.06 feet; thence North 28 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 201.01 feet to a point on the north line of said Outlot B distant 328.94 feet east from the northeast corner thereof, and said line there terminating. AND lying northerly, northeasterly, and easterly of Outlot A, OAK BROOK PENINSULA. That part of Government Lot 7, Section 36, Township 31, Range 22 lying southerly and westerly of Outlot B, O'1`1'ER LAKE ESTATES, as corrected by surveyor's certificate filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 858879, and northeasterly of Outlot A, OAK BROOK PENINSULA. That part of Government Lot 6, Section 36, Township 31, Range 22, lying west of the southerly extension of the east line of Outlot B, 01 FER LAKE ESTATES, as corrected by surveyor's certificate filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 858879, and lying easterly and northerly of Outlot A, OAK BROOK PENINSULA. The Landlocked Lot is located at Parcel Identification Number 36- 31 -22 -23 -0021, and is also connected to PID Number 36- 31 -22 -32 -0002. Both PID Numbers are located on the east -2- side of the Channel. PID Number 36- 31 -22 -23 -0021 is legally described as follows: That part of Outlot B, OTTER LAKE ESTATES, as corrected by surveyor's certificate filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 858879, lying easterly, southwesterly, southerly, and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeasterly corner of Lot 5, Block 3, said 01 1 ER LAKE ESTATES, thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds East, along the south line of said Outlot B a distance of 256.22 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 4 degrees 18 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 107.14 feet; thence North 29 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 63 feet; thence North 57 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 60 feet; thence North 83 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 62 feet; thence South 46 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 288.47 feet to the south line of the north 971.86 feet of said Outlot B, as measured parallel with the north line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds East, along said south line, a distance of 25.58 feet; thence North 8 degrees 14 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 167.32 feet; thence north 14 degrees 01 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 105.01 feet thence North 27 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 101.02 feet; thence North 10 degrees 33 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 131.25 feet; thence North 39 degrees 53 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 104.10 feet; thence North 58 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 103.24 feet; thence North 33 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 117.48 feet; thence North 5 degrees 05 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 77.06 feet; thence North 28 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 201.01 feet to a point on the north line of said Outlot B distant 328.94 feet east from the northeast comer thereof, and said line there terminating. AND lying northerly, northeasterly, and easterly of Outlot A, OAK BROOK PENINSULA. PID Number 36- 31 -22 -32 -0002 is described as follows: THAT PRT OF N 61.50 FT OF GOVT LOT 6 SEC 36 TWP 31 RGE 22 LYG W OF SLY EXTN OF E LINE OF OUTLOT B OTTER LAKE ESTATES & LYG NELY OF A LINE PRLL/W & 30 FT NLY OF FOL DESC LINE, COM AT A PT ON S LINE OFN 1001.86 FT OF GOVT LOT 7 SD SEC 685 FT E OF W -3- LINE THEREOF (SD S LINE HAS AN ASSD BRG OF S 89 DEG 06 MIN 58 SEC E), TH N 0 DEG 53 MIN 02 SEC E 13.70 FT TO POB OF SD LINE, TH S 89 DEG 14 MIN 24 SEC E 70.95 FT, TH SELY 93.50 FT ALG A TAN CUR CONC TO SW HAV A CEN ANG OF 50 DEG 16 MIN & A RAD OF 106.58 FT, TH S 38 DEG 58 MIN 24 SEC E TAN TO SD CUR 109.17 FT, TH SELY 136.39 FT ALG A TAN CUR CONC TO NE HAV A CEN ANG OF 30 DEG 16 MIN RAD OF 258.19 FT, TH S 69 DEG 14 MIN 24 SEC E TAN TO SD CUR 222.50 FT, TH SLY 93.81 FT ALG A TAN CUR CONC TO W HAV CEN ANG OF 70 DEG 12 MIN 15 SEC & RAD OF 76.56 FT, TH ELY 47.12 FT ALG A REV CUR HAV A CEN ANG OF 90 DEG & A RAD OF 30 FT, TH S 89 DEG 02 MIN 09 SEC E TAN TO SD CUR 15 FT & SD LINE THERE TERM, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC. 5. The Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association formerly owned a private roadway, which includes a bridge over the Channel (the "Bridge ") and would connect Petitioner's Home Property with Petitioner's Landlocked Lot. However, individuals who formerly represented, or were members of, the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association have denied Petitioner's requests for access across the Bridge in order to reach Petitioner's Landlocked Lot. Therefore, pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Minn. Stat. § 435.37, this Petition is being made to establish an easement for a cartway over the Bridge that the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association already constructed and formerly privately owned. The legal description of the private roadway is as follows: Outlot A Oak Brook Peninsula and A strip of land 60.00 feet in width over and across the following described property: Outlot B, Otter Lake Estates, according to the recorded plat thereof, Government Lot 7, Section 36, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, excepting therefrom any and all property over and across said 60 foot strip which is located in Government Lot 6 of said Section 36. The Centerline of said strip of land is described as follows: Commencing at a point on the south line of the North 1001.86 feet of said Government Lot 7 distant 685 feet East from the West line of said Government Lot 7, said South line has an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 06 minutes 58 -4- seconds East, thence North 0 degrees 53 minutes 02 seconds East 13.70 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described, Thence South 89 degrees 14 minutes 24 seconds East 70.95 feet, Thence Southeasterly 93.50 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a central angle of 50 degrees 16 minutes and a radius of 106.58 feet, Thence South 38 degrees 58 minutes 24 seconds Fast and tangent to said curve 109.17 feet, Thence Southeasterly 136.39 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast having a central angle of 30 degrees 16 minutes and a radius of 258.19 feet, Thence South 69 degrees 14 minutes 24 seconds East and tangent to said described curve 222.50 feet, Thence Southerly 93.81 feet along a tangential curve concave to the West having a central angle of 70 degrees 12 minutes 15 seconds and a radius of 76.56 feet, Thence Easterly 47.12 feet along a reserve curve having a central angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes and a radius of 30.00 feet; Thence South 89 degrees 02 minutes 09 seconds East and tangent to last described curve 15.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. 6. Alan S Law and Sandra L. Steen -Law conveyed and quitclaimed the above described private roadway to the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association via Quit Claim Deed on May 14, 2003. However, the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association underwent involuntary dissolution on September 20, 2005. Therefore, Petitioner names in this petition the following individuals who have an actual or potential legal interest in the use of the above described private roadway as actual or potential owners of the private roadway. Each of the following individuals was a member of the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association or is owners of, or taxpayers for, land that abuts the private roadway described above. These individuals' names and addresses are as follows: • Jodell Marie Heller, 2155 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 1 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula • Russell Dean Melton. 2150 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 2 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula • Julie A. and Paul G. Schwartz, 2140 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 3 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula • Mark Ronald Smith, 2120 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 4 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula • Alan S. Law And Sandra L. Steen -Law, 2100 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 5 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula 7. In accordance with Subdivision 2 of Minn. Stat. § 435.37, Petitioner will pay Petitioner's equitable portion for the cost of maintenance of the cartway as a "private property owner[] who ha[s] no access to [his] land except by way of the cartway." Minn. Stat.§ 435.37 (2). 8. The following information may assist this City Council in its determination of Petitioner's equitable share of maintenance expenses of the cartway easement over the Bridge in accordance with Subdivision 2 of Minn. Stat.§ 435.37. Petitioner plans to use the cartway easement for year -round walking and seasonal driving. Petitioner will walk over the cartway easement approximately 2 -3 times per week. Petitioner anticipates using the cartway easement for occasional driving purposes during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Petitioner will drive Petitioner's ATV four - wheeler over the cartway easement approximately 1 -2 times per week. Further, Petitioner will drive Petitioner's small tractor over the cartway easement approximately 2 -3 times per year. Petitioner's ATV four - wheeler weighs approximately four hundred (400) pounds, and Petitioner's small tractor weighs approximately nine hundred (900) pounds. Petitioner will travel for approximately two hundred fifty (250) feet on the cartway easement over the Bridge before exiting the cartway easement onto the Landlocked Lot. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays for an Order of the City Council for Lino Lakes as follows: 1. Setting a hearing upon the Cartway Petition at the City Hall in the City of Lino Lakes at a date and time as determined by the Lino Lakes City Council for the purpose of determining: a. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a cartway under Minn. Stat. Section 435.3 7, subd. 1(a); -6- b. If so, whether the cartway should be located where requested and to the width requested, or whether it should be located at an alternate route or of a different width. c. What damages, if any, must the Petitioner pay to affected landowners for the establishment of the cartway; d. What other damages have been incurred or likely will be incurred by the City in connection with the establishment of the cartway; and e. Any other issue or matter that might relate to the cartway petition. 2. Further Ordering that the Petitioner shall a. Cause personal service of this Order and the Cartway Petition to be made upon each owner and occupant of land over which or adjacent to which the proposed cartway would pass, and upon each person whose land would be reasonably expected to be affected by the establishment of the proposed cartway; b. Post a copy of this Order and the Cartway Petition at the City's posting places; c. Accomplish items 3 (a) and (b) at least ten days before the cartway hearing; and d. Submit to the City an affidavit, prior to the hearing, showing that items 3 (a) - (c) have been accomplished. ADAM C. JOHNSON Adam C. Johnson 2055 Otter Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55110 ajobnso8 @gmail.com (651) 442-7259 • • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 TOPIC: Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 12 -59, Establishing Cartway, Otter Lake Drive VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority INTRODUCTION The City received a petition from Mr. Adam Johnson, 2055 Otter Lake Drive, to establish a cartway easement to provide access to a landlocked parcel he owns. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 435.37 provides a process for the establishment of a cartway subject to certain minimum criteria. A public hearing is required to provide an opportunity for the petitioner and the owner of the parcel over which the cartway is being established, Oakbrook Peninsula Homeowners Association, to provide testimony. BACKGROUND Minn. Stat. § 435.37 provides that upon petition presented to the city council, by the owner of a tract of land containing at least five acres, who has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others the city council by resolution shall establish a cartway of at least two rods wide (33 feet) connecting the petitioner's land with a public road. On March 26, 2012 the City Council called for a hearing to be held on July 9, 2012 to consider the establishment of a cartway. The approved Resolution No. 12 -29 included the order for Mr. Johnson to personally serve the resolution on the owners and occupants of the land. Mr. Johnson has provided the city with an affidavit of service indicating such service has been made. Copies of the resolution and petition have also been posted at City Hall. Mr. Johnson was also ordered to escrow $5,000 to cover the City's costs. This escrow is in place. In consideration of the cartway request there are 3 issues to be addressed: 1. Whether the threshold requirements for establishing a cartway are met. Those requirements are: a. Petitioner owns a tract of land 5 acres in size; and b. Petitioner has no access to it except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others. 2. Where the cartway should be located. 3. Damages. Issues 1. Have the threshold requirements for a cartway met? Mr. Johnson owns a 9.89 acre parcel. The parcel is separated from his homestead site by a water channel leading to Otter Lake. The only other access to the property is by land owned by adjacent property owners to the north or by property owned by the Oakbrook Peninsula Homeowners Association. This property includes a private street that provides access to the association member's property. 2. Cartway Location. The primary issue is how far down the private drive does Johnson need to go in order to properly access his property. The petition has requested that the cartway cover all of Outlot A, Oakbrook Peninsula, which is the entire length of the road. The petitioner does not need the entire length. The petition also indicates that they will travel approximately 250 feet on the cartway before existing onto the landlocked parcel. As for the width it appears reasonable and logical to simply use the width of the existing roadway surface to the point where Johnson exits the road to get onto his property. 3a. Damages - City. The petitioner has provided a cash escrow to cover all city costs. In the event that the actual costs incurred exceed the escrow amount the petitioner will be required to reimburse the City. A provision should be included in the resolution to require reimbursement. 3b. Damages — Landowners. There is little direct guidance in statute or case law for determining damages. Statute states that "damages means the compensation, if any awarded to the owner of the land..." Similar to a condemnation case the council may take into consideration whether the value of the existing road is reduced by the creation of the cartway, and if so, by how much? It should also be noted that this is intended to be a private cartway, not public. 3c. Damages — Maintenance. The statue requires that the cost of maintaining the cartway "be equitably divided" among all of the parties. The council may take into consideration the following factors: • Frequency of use • Type and weight of the vehicles or equipment; and • The distance traveled on the cartway to the individual's property • Any other factors the council deems relevant The Council will then have to formulate some sort of apportionment. A flat dollar amount per year with an annual escalator may be the easiest for the parties to enforce. 2 • • • • • • RECOMMENDATION The council will need to make a determination regarding the 3 issues based on the testimony received at the hearing. A resolution documenting the findings of fact established by the council will be prepared by staff and the City Attorney following the hearing and Council deliberation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Cartway Petition. 2. Cartway Exhibit STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF LINO LAKES In Re the Petition of Adam C. Johnson for the Establishment of a Cartway Pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 435.37 PETITION FOR CARTWAY TO: THE LINO LAKES CITY COUNCIL Your Petitioner respectfully represents and shows as follows: 1. Petitioner's name is Adam C. Johnson. Petitioner is a home and property owner within your jurisdiction. Petitioner's situation involves a landlocked tract of land owned by Petitioner, which contains "at least five acres," and is unreachable except "over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others." Minn. Stat. § 435.37. 2. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 435.37, a petition is hereby made to this City Council for the establishment of an easement for a cartway. 3. Petitioner resides at 2055 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 (the "Home Property "). Petitioner also owns a tract of land of approximately ten (10) acres (the "Landlocked Lot "), but a channel of water flowing into Otter Lake (the "Channel ") separates Petitioner's Home Property from Petitioner's Landlocked Lot. On the Anoka County GIS Department website, the landlocked lot is immediately east of the easternmost edge of Lot 2055, which is Petitioner's Home Lot. The Home Lot is on the west side of the Channel, and the Landlocked Lot is on the east side of the Channel. 4. Petitioner is unable to access the Landlocked Lot except over either the Channel or the lands of others. The applicable Parcel Identification Numbers for Petitioner's property are 36- 31 -22 -32 -0002, 36- 31 -22 -23 -0021, 36- 31 -22 -23 -0029, and 36- 31 -22 -23 -0028. Further, the legal description of Petitioner's property is as follows: That part of Outlot B, OTTER LAKE ESTATES, as corrected by surveyor's certificate filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 858879, lying easterly, southwesterly, southerly, and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeasterly corner of Lot 5, Block 3, said OTTER LAKE ESTATES, thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 • • • • • • seconds East, along the south line of said Outlot B a distance of 256.22 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 4 degrees 18 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 107.14 feet; thence North 29 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 63 feet; thence North 57 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 60 feet; thence North 83 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 62 feet; thence South 46 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 288.47 feet to the south line of the north 971.86 feet of said Outlot B, as measured parallel with the north line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds East, along said south line, a distance of 25.58 feet; thence North 8 degrees 14 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 167.32 feet; thence north 14 degrees 01 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 105.01 feet; thence North 27 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 101.02 feet; thence North 10 degrees 33 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 131.25 feet; thence North 39 degrees 53 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 104.10 feet; thence North 58 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 103.24 feet; thence North 33 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 117.48 feet; thence North 5 degrees 05 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 77.06 feet; thence North 28 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 201.01 feet to a point on the north line of said Outlot B distant 328.94 feet east from the northeast corner thereof, and said line there terminating. AND lying northerly, northeasterly, and easterly of Outlot A, OAK BROOK PENINSULA. That part of Government Lot 7, Section 36, Township 31, Range 22 lying southerly and westerly of Outlot B, OTTER LAKE ESTATES, as corrected by surveyor's certificate filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 858879, and northeasterly of Outlot A, OAK BROOK PENINSULA. That part of Government Lot 6, Section 36, Township 31, Range 22, lying west of the southerly extension of the east line of Outlot B, OTTER LAKE ESTATES, as corrected by surveyor's certificate filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 858879, and lying easterly and northerly of Outlot A, OAK BROOK PENINSULA. The Landlocked Lot is located at Parcel Identification Number 36- 31 -22 -23 -0021, and is also connected to PID Number 36- 31 -22 -32 -0002. Both PID Numbers are located on the east -2- side of the Channel. PID Number 36- 31 -22 -23 -0021 is legally described as follows: That part of Outlot B, OTTER LAKE ESTATES, as corrected by surveyor's certificate filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 858879, lying easterly, southwesterly, southerly, and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeasterly corner of Lot 5, Block 3, said OTTER LAKE ESTATES, thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds East, along the south line of said Outlot B a distance of 256.22 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 4 degrees 18 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 107.14 feet; thence North 29 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 63 feet; thence North 57 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 60 feet; thence North 83 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 62 feet; thence South 46 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 288.47 feet to the south line of the north 971.86 feet of said Outlot B, as measured parallel with the north line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds East, along said south line, a distance of 25.58 feet; thence North 8 degrees 14 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 167.32 feet; thence north 14 degrees 01 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 105.01 feet; thence North 27 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 101.02 feet; thence North 10 degrees 33 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 131.25 feet; thence North 39 degrees 53 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 104.10 feet; thence North 58 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 103.24 feet; thence North 33 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 117.48 feet; thence North 5 degrees 05 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 77.06 feet; thence North 28 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 201.01 feet to a point on the north line of said Outlot B distant 328.94 feet east from the northeast corner thereof, and said line there terminating. AND lying northerly, northeasterly, and easterly of Outlot A, OAK BROOK PENINSULA. PID Number 36- 31 -22 -32 -0002 is described as follows: THAT PRT OF N 61.50 FT OF GOVT LOT 6 SEC 36 TWP 31 RGE 22 LYG W OF SLY EXTN OF E LINE OF OUTLOT B OTTER LAKE ESTATES & LYG NELY OF A LINE PRLL/W & 30 FT NLY OF FOL DESC LINE, COM AT A PT ON S LINE OFN 1001.86 FT OF GOVT LOT 7 SD SEC 685 FT E OF W -3- • • • LINE THEREOF (SD S LINE HAS AN ASSD BRG OF S 89 DEG 06 MIN 58 SEC E), TH N 0 DEG 53 MIN 02 SEC E 13.70 FT TO POB OF SD LINE, TH S 89 DEG 14 MIN 24 SEC E 70.95 FT, TH SELY 93.50 FT ALG A TAN CUR CONC TO SW HAV A CEN ANG OF 50 DEG 16 MIN & A RAD OF 106.58 FT, TH S 38 DEG 58 MIN 24 SEC E TAN TO SD CUR 109.17 FT, TH SELY 136.39 FT ALG A TAN CUR CONC TO NE HAV A CEN ANG OF 30 DEG 16 MIN RAD OF 258.19 FT, TH S 69 DEG 14 MIN 24 SEC E TAN TO SD CUR 222.50 FT, TH SLY 93.81 FT ALG A TAN CUR CONC TO W HAV CEN ANG OF 70 DEG 12 MIN 15 SEC & RAD OF 76.56 FT, TH ELY 47.12 FT ALG A REV CUR HAV A CEN ANG OF 90 DEG & A RAD OF 30 FT, TH S 89 DEG 02 MIN 09 SEC E TAN TO SD CUR 15 FT & SD LINE THERE TERM, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC. 5. The Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association formerly owned a private roadway, which includes a bridge over the Channel (the "Bridge ") and would connect Petitioner's Home Property with Petitioner' s Landlocked Lot. However, individuals who formerly represented, or were members of, the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association have denied Petitioner's requests for access across the Bridge in order to reach Petitioner's Landlocked Lot. Therefore, pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Minn Stat. § 435.37, this Petition is being made to establish an • easement for a cartway over the Bridge that the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association already constructed and formerly privately owned. The legal description of the private roadway is as follows: • Outlot A Oak Brook Peninsula and A strip of land 60.00 feet in width over and across the following described property: Outlot B, Otter Lake Estates, according to the recorded plat thereof, Government Lot 7, Section 36, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, excepting therefrom any and all property over and across said 60 foot strip which is located in Government Lot 6 of said Section 36. The Centerline of said strip of land is described as follows: Commencing at a point on the south line of the North 1001.86 feet of said Government Lot 7 distant 685 feet East from the West line of said Government Lot 7, said South line has an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 06 minutes 58 -4- seconds East, thence North 0 degrees 53 minutes 02 seconds East 13.70 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described, Thence South 89 degrees 14 minutes 24 seconds East 70.95 feet, Thence Southeasterly 93.50 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a central angle of 50 degrees 16 minutes and a radius of 106.58 feet, Thence South 38 degrees 58 minutes 24 seconds East and tangent to said curve 109.17 feet, Thence Southeasterly 136.39 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast having a central angle of 30 degrees 16 minutes and a radius of 258.19 feet, Thence South 69 degrees 14 minutes 24 seconds East and tangent to said described curve 222.50 feet, Thence Southerly 93.81 feet along a tangential curve concave to the West having a central angle of 70 degrees 12 minutes 15 seconds and a radius of 76.56 feet, Thence Easterly 47.12 feet along a reserve curve having a central angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes and a radius of 30.00 feet; Thence South 89 degrees 02 minutes 09 seconds East and tangent to last described curve 15.00 feet and said centerline there teiniinating. 6. Alan S. Law and Sandra L. Steen -Law conveyed and quitclaimed the above described private roadway to the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association via Quit Claim Deed on May 14, 2003. However, the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association underwent involuntary dissolution on September 20, 2005. Therefore, Petitioner names in this petition the following individuals who have an actual or potential legal interest in the use of the above described private roadway as actual or potential owners of the private roadway. Each of the following individuals was a member of the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association or is owners of, or taxpayers for, land that abuts the private roadway described above. These individuals' names and addresses are as follows: • Jodell Marie Heller, 2155 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 1 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula • Russell Dean Melton, 2150 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 2 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula -5- • • Julie A. and Paul G. Schwartz, 2140 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 3 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula • Mark Ronald Smith, 2120 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 4 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula • Alan S. Law And Sandra L. Steen -Law, 2100 Otter Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55110 o Lot 5 Block 1 Oak Brook Peninsula 7. In accordance with Subdivision 2 of Minn. Stat. § 435.37, Petitioner will pay Petitioner's equitable portion for the cost of maintenance of the cartway as a "private property owner[] who ha[s] no access to [his] land except by way of the cartway." Minn. Stat.§ 435.37 (2). 8. The following information may assist this City Council in its determination of Petitioner' s equitable share of maintenance expenses of the cartway easement over the Bridge in accordance with Subdivision 2 of Minn. Stat.§ 435.37. Petitioner plans to use the cartway easement for year -round walking and seasonal driving. Petitioner will walk over the cartway easement approximately 2 -3 times per week. Petitioner anticipates using the cartway easement for occasional driving purposes during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Petitioner will drive Petitioner's ATV four - wheeler over the cartway easement approximately 1 -2 times per week. Further, Petitioner will drive Petitioner's small tractor over the cartway easement approximately 2 -3 times per year. Petitioner's ATV four - wheeler weighs approximately four hundred (400) pounds, and Petitioner's small tractor weighs approximately nine hundred (900) pounds. Petitioner will travel for approximately two hundred fifty (250) feet on the cartway easement over the Bridge before exiting the cartway easement onto the Landlocked Lot. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays for an Order of the City Council for Lino Lakes as follows: 1. Setting a hearing upon the Cartway Petition at the City Hall in the City of Lino Lakes at a date and time as determined by the Lino Lakes City Council for the purpose of determining: a. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a cartway under Minn. Stat. Section 435.37, subd. 1(a); -6- b. If so, whether the cartway should be located where requested and to the width requested, or whether it should be located at an alternate route or of a different width. c. What damages, if any, must the Petitioner pay to affected landowners for the establishment of the cartway; d. What other damages have been incurred or likely will be incurred by the City in connection with the establishment of the cartway; and e. Any other issue or matter that might relate to the cartway petition. 2. Further Ordering that the Petitioner shall a. Cause personal service of this Order and the Cartway Petition to be made upon each owner and occupant of land over which or adjacent to which the proposed cartway would pass, and upon each person whose land would be reasonably expected to be affected by the establishment of the proposed cartway; b. Post a copy of this Order and the Cartway Petition at the City's posting places; c. Accomplish items 3 (a) and (b) at least ten days before the cartway hearing; and d. Submit to the City an affidavit, prior to the hearing, showing that items 3 (a) — (c) have been accomplished. ARAM C. JOBINSON Adam C. Johnson 2055 Otter Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55110 ajohnso8 @gmail.com (651) 442 -7259 -7- • • • 0.0175 0.035 Cartway Petition Johnson Property Proposed Cartway c (ou b ,vl+y 7 -1 -(z 400 folsNuti. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Frank Kern et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Marlin Hansen et al., Defendants; Court File No. C3 -91 -3711, Tenth Judicial v District, District Court of Minnesota. Page 1 of 5 This settlement agreement is entered into as of / 15/1r2-- 1r2-- 1991, by Frank and Donna Kern; Frederick and Pamela Gelbmann; John and Linda Elliott; John and Laurie Kinneberg; Ronald and Victoria Zarada; Thomas and Heidi Fitzgerald; Allen and Geraldine Letourneau; and John and Gloria McLean (Plaintiffs); and Marlin H. Hansen; Ronald D. Adamson, Robert R. Adamson, and City of Lino Lakes (Defendants). RRCITALS 1. In order to resolve all claims raised in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and all Counterclaims raised by Defendants, without further expenditures of time and money, the parties have agreed to enter a full settlement of these claims. 2: This settlement agreement expresses a full and complete settlement of all claims raised in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and all Counterclaims raised by Defendants in the following action: Frank Kern et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Marlin Hansen et al., Defendants; Court File No. C3 -91 -3711, Tenth Judicial District, District Court of Minnesota; and all of the pleadings and filings submitted therein. It is understood by the parties that this agreement does not constitute an admission or statement by any party that the other party has acted wrongfully or unlawfully. 3. Each of the undersigned parties to this settlement agreement has had ample opportunity to review the facts and law relevant to any asserted or potential claims; has had the opportunity to consult freely.with counsel of choice and has either done' so or knowingly waived the right to do so; and has agreed to this settlement knowingly and voluntarily without duress or coercion from anytsource. X,s Q4N #f' Swt . AGREEMENTS LS -���� J 1. Ronald and Robert Adamson agree not to extend Otter Lake Drive beyond Oak Brook Peninsula (as depicted in the preliminary .� plat map, revised 8/9/91) (Attachment A). The present cul -de -sac turnar9und at the end of the existing Otter Lake Drive will remain a lbbp in its current form (as depicted in the preliminary plat map).' Ronald and Robert Adamson agree that no more than 5 homes will be built in Oak Brook Peninsula, now or at any time within 15 years of the date of this settlement agreement. Ronald and Robert SEI1LEMENT AGREEMENT. Frank Kern et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Marlin Hansen et al., Defendants; Court File No. C3 -91 -3711, Tenth Judicial District, District Court of Minnesota. Page 2 of 5 Adamson agree that all 18 Plaintiffs will have unrestricted access _ to the private bridge and roadup to and including that portion of ) the road which abuts the easement area referenced in Paragraph 2 j below and which access is necessary to access the easement area. , 2. Ronald and Robert Adamson agree to construct or provide a dock that meets the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's permit specifications, dated August 16, 1991 (Attachment B). Ronald and Robert Adamson agree to grant to all Plaintiffs a non;exolu.sive easement over the private bridge and that part of the private road necessary to access the dock. Marlin Hansen agrees to grant to all Zia intiffs an exclusive easement (described in Attachment C),rupon the filing with the Anoka County Recorder of the plat of Oik Brook Peninsula.' Both easements are for the benefit of each Plaintiffs' current residential property and will _run with those properties. Ronald and Robert Adamson and Marlin Hansen agree to allow the Plaintiffs to improve the exclusive easement area in any manner the Plaintiffs desire. 3. Ronald and Robert Adamson agree rto make any repairs required by the Lino Lakes City Engineer,1as specified in the Development Agreement for Oak Brook Peninsula by and between the City of Lino Lakes and Ronald and Robert Adamson,`for any damage. to Otter Lake Drive which is caused by the construction of the private road, bridge, and /or homes in Oak Brook Peninsula. Ronald' and Robert Adamson agree to make such repairs within 30 days after any repairs are required by the Lino Lakes City Engineer. Ronald and Robert Adamson, and their. successors and assigns, agree to accept responsibility for such repairs regardless of who actually constructs the road, bridge, or homes in Oak Brook Peninsula. Ronald and Robert Adamson agree to make repairs that are equal to the - current condition of the road. '4. Ronald and Robert Adamson acknowledge the legal and binding validity of the Protective Covenants of Otter Lake Estates, as currently on file with Anoka Colanty i-<- ,Ranalirand 015.e°rt.A ,damson agree and acknowledge- .that..,to -.the. _extent they own property in Otter .Lake Estates.,_ then they, and_ their successors and assigns, bec_o me bound ...parties_...tQ_... these covenants.._ b_y__._purchaslrrg� °ari -` ease a it or *operrty in Otter Lake Estates from Marlin Fr'anserr:-- ~------ .- -----� �.. _.. 5. Marlin Hansen acknowledges the legal and binding validity of the Protective Covenants of Otter Lake Estates, as currently on SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Frank Kern et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Marlin Hansen et al., Defendants; Court File No. C3 -91 -3711, Tenth Judicial District, District Court of Minnesota. Page 3 of 5 file with Anoka County. Marlin Hansen agrees to participate with all bound no of phis equal share of the amending t covenants, costsof thisprocess,lcnot1 payment to pa exceed one -tenth of the total costs. 5'a Marlin Hansen agrees to work with the channel association to remove rocks in'the channel that obstruct navigation. 7. The City of Lino Lakes agrees to place two "Children at Play" signs on existing Otter Lake Drive. 8. The Plaintiffs agree not to impede or oppose the development of Oak Brook Peninsula in any manner whatsoever, with the :provision that the development of Oak Brook Peninsula and the construction of the private road and bridge issundertaken consistent with the settlement agreement and all applicable (The Plaintiffs agree to refrain from directly and indirectly -interfering in any way whatsoever with the development of Oak Brook Peninsula. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Protective Covenants, as currently on file with Anoka County, do not prohibit the construction of the bridge across the channel as proposed by Ronald and Robert Adamson (as shown in Attachment D). 9. Ronald and Robert Adamson and Marlin Hansen agree to deliver to the Plaintiffs' attorney, Brent L. Vanderlinden, on or before December 21, 1991, a cashiers' check for $13,000.00 payable to Brent L. Vanderlinden. 10. In consideration of this settlement, the Plaintiffs agree to dismiss with prejudice all claims raised in the amended complaint against Marlin Hansen, Ronald and Robert Adamson, and the City of Lino Lakes; and Marlin Hansen and Ronald and Robert Adamson agree to dismiss with prejudice all counterclaims they have raised. 11. All parties to the settlement agree that if any dispute varseS as to performance under the settlement agreement the parties to,t1e dispute will attempt to resolve it through mediation at Mediation Services for Anoka County,. Coon Rapids, Minnesota, provided that all plaintiffs still residing in Otter Lake Estates must agree by simple majority to pursue such a claim. If the mediation process proves unsuccessful, the parties agree that any aggrieved party may seek to resolve the dispute in Anoka County District Court, with the prevailing party entitled to reasonable SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Frank Kern et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Marlin Hansen et al., Defendants; Court File No. C3 -91 -3711, Tenth Judicial District, District Court of Minnesota. Page 4 of 5 attorneys fees and costs, and punitive damages not to exceed $15,000.00. It is mutually agreed that this settlement agreement will be subject to interpretation pursuant to the laws and statutes of the State of Minnesota. 12. Each party agrees to execute a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice in order to dismiss the following action: Frank Kern et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Marlin Hansen et al., Defendants; Court File No. C3 -91 -3711, Tenth Judicial District, District Court of Minnesota. 13. This settlement agreement is entered into by all parties willingly, knowingly and voluntarily in full settlement of all claims as outlined above and is not to be construed as an admission by any party of the validity'of any such claims. 14. This settlement agreement is irrevocable and binding upon all Parties hereto. 1 .-7 jj� Marlin H. Hansen Ronald •. Adams Robert R. Adamson City f/ Lino Lakes Aft Frederick Gelbmann Elliott . John Kinneberg inda Elliott Laurie Kinneberg Date: %a ` f2 —7' / Date: Date: Date: Date: ! " 3t9 �4l Date: tG Date : /-2-J/-17 Date: f113v,AQ/ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT • - Frank Kern et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Marlin Hansen et al., Defendants; Court File No. C3-91-3711, Tenth Judicial District, District Court of Minnesota. A Mk. IAA /Ike,/ Thomas Fitzge =Id Allen Letourneau .3 hn McLean 4, Date : . /2- 1 By: ATTESTED TO: Page 5 of 5 Victoria Zar da - / '\k<W3A. V7.e Heidi Fitzge 11 eraldine Letourneau Gloria McLean CITY OF LINO LAKES MAYOR CLERK Date: /22-30"?1 Date: 1 Date: /fr/7t/0/ Date: id;,Z 6/97 Date: DOCKING EASEMENT FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Marlin H. Hansen and Ruth M. S. Hansen, husband and wife, Grantors, hereby convey to Thomas Fitzgerald and Heidi I. Fitzgerald (owners of Parcel A, described below); Ronald Zarada and Victoria Zarada (owners of Parcel B, described below); John Elliot and Linda Elliot (owners of Parcel C, described below); John Kinneberg and Laurie .(inneberg (owners of Parcel D, described below); Frank Kern and Donna Kern (owners of Parcel E, described below); Frederick Gelbmann and Pamela Gelbmann (owners of Parcel F, described below); Allan LeTourneau (part owner of Parcel G, described below); Geraldine LeTourneau (part owner of Parcels G and J,, described below); John McLean (part,; owner of Parcel H,, described below) ; Gloria McLean (part • owner; `of Parcels H and I, described below); and Lois Maroney (part'kowner of Parce1657\ described below), Grantees, an exclusive easement for boat docking purposes in real property in Anoka County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to the "Easement Property'"), described as follows: That part of Outlot B, Otter Lake Estates, described as: commencing at a point on the south line of the north 1001,86 feet of said Government Lot 7, Section 366, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota distant 685 feet East from the west line of said Lot 7, said south line having an assumed beam of South 89 degrees 14 minutes 24 seconds East; t e e North 0 degrees 45 minutes 36 seconcig -as 29,00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 14 minutes 24 seconds East 71.00 feet; thence easterly 93.50 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 106.58 feet and a central angle of 50 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds; thence South 36 degrees 58 minutes 24 seconds East along tangent 109.17 feet; thence easterly 32.22 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 258.19 feet and a central angle of 7 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence South 43 degrees 52 minutes 36 •seconds West along a nontangential line 131 feet to the shoreline of Otter,Lake; thence easterly along the shoreline of Otter Lake to the intersection with a line that bears South 16 degrees 44 minutes 36 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 16 degrees 44 minutes 36 seconds East.to the point of beginning. Said easement is for the benefit of and shall run with the title to the real property in Anoka County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the a'Benefitted Property ") described as follows: ek L4;4 Ivy ➢rr (5.0 s Attachment C Page 1 yes 11/14/91 parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel A: Lot 1, B: Lot 2, C: Lot 3, D: Lot 4, Block 3, Block 3, Block 3, Block 3, `Parcel E; Lot 5, Block 3, Parcel F: Lot 1, Block 4, Otter Otter Otter Otter Otter Lake Estates Lake Estates Lake Estates Lake Estates Lake Estates Otter Lake Estates Parcel G: The East 100 feet of South of the North 1001.86 feet 36, Township 31, Range 22. Parcel H: The East 100 feet of South of the North 1031.86 feet 36, Township 31, Range 22. the West 200 feet of Government Lot the West 500 feet of Government Lot lying 7, Section lying 7, Section Parcel I. Outlot A, Otter Lake Estates; AND . That part of Outlot B, OTTER LAKE ESTATES, Anoka County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the center line of the most -Easterly existing channel which crosses said Outlot B in North -South direction except that part of Outlot B, OTTER a LAKE ESTATES, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: t:�, u �oidtza-Beginning at a point .on the South line of the North 1031.86 feet of Government Lot 7, Section 36, Township 31, Range 22 -�cr distant 580 feet East of the West line of said Government 0. l'' U"' Lot 7 as measured parallel with the North line thereof; thence North 89° 56' East (assumed bearing) parallel with the North line of Government Lot 7 a distance of 50 feet; 'thence South parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 7 to the Southerly line thereof; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said Government Lot 7 to the center line of an existing channel Which bears South 16' 56' West from a point on the South line of the North 1031.86 feet of said Government Lot 7 distant 899 feet East of the West line of said4Government Lot 7; thence North 16° 56' East along said center line to its Intersection with the South line of the North 971.86 feet'of said Government Lot 7; thence Westerly parallel with the North line of said Government Lot 7 a distance of 57 feet, more or less, to the Southwesterly line of an existing channel; thence Northwesterly and Southwesterly along the Southwesterly and Southeasterly line of said channel to a point on a line drawn North from the :point of beginning and at right angles to the South line of said North 1031.86 feet; thence South to the point of beginning. Attachment C Page 2 11/14/91 Ul v Julie Bartell From: Michael Grochala Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:12 PM To: Dale Stoesz; Dave_Roeser; Jeff_Reinert; Jeff_O'Donnell; Rob_Rafferty Cc: Jeff Karlson; Julie Bartell Subject: FW: Adam Johnson - cartway petition Attachments: photo.JPG; photo2.JPG; photo3.JPG Information received from the Cartway Petitioner, Mr. Johnson. The images are copies of a settlement agreement related to the development of Oak Brook Peninsula and road /dock easements. The City Attorney is reviewing. Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651 - 982 -2427 651 - 982 -2499 fax michael .grochala @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us Original Message From: Joseph J. Langel [mailto:JJL @ratwiklaw.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:46 PM To: Michael Grochala; Jeff Karlson Subject: FW: Adam Johnson - cartway petition Here's information from Petitioner. Joe Description: Description: logo JOSEPH J. LANGEL 730 Second Ave. S., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Ph. (612) 339 -0060 Fax (612) 339 -0038 1 The information contained in this electronic message may be attorney- client privileged and /or confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this electronic message is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this electronic communication or any attachment thereto is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, you should immediately return it to us and delete the message from your system. Thank you. From: Joseph M. Barnett [mailto:jbarnett @foleymansfield.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:37 PM To: Joseph J. Langel Subject: RE: Adam Johnson - cartway petition Mr. Langel: Attached are three photographs of portions of a settlement agreement and docking easement that my client recently discovered. He will have full copies to present at today's hearing. As you can see, there are no damages to the Association because all members of Otter Lake Estates are permitted to use the private road for the dock. My client merely needs to go left off the private road, instead of to the right to get to the dock. From: Joseph J. Langel [mailto:JJL @ratwiklaw.com] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:31 AM To: Joseph M. Barnett Subject: RE: Adam Johnson - cartway petition Mr. Barnett, I apologize that it has taken so long to get back to you on the briefing issue you raised. If the parties wish, they may submit briefs by noon on Monday, July 9th. The can be sent to me via e-mail. There will be no rebuttal by either side. The briefs will be provided to the Council. The format of the brief is up to you. The other side is not represented by counsel, so I do not expect a formal legal brief, if they submit one at all. 2 Please note that this is voluntary, not required. It may, however, be helpful to outline your client's position on the issues raised in the cartway process, including damages. Let me know if you have any questions. Joe Description: Description: logo JOSEPH J. LANGEL 730 Second Ave. S., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Ph. (612) 339 -0060 Fax (612) 339 -0038 The information contained in this electronic message may be attorney - client privileged and /or confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this electronic message is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this electronic communication or any attachment thereto is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, you should immediately return it to us and delete the message from your system. Thank you. From: Joseph M. Barnett [ mailto :jbarnett @foleymansfield.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:58 AM To: Joseph J. Langel Cc: ajohnso8 @gmail.com Subject: RE: Adam Johnson - cartway petition Do you or the City Council require any briefing on the petition in advance of the hearing? 3 Joseph M. Barnett Partner 250 Marquette Avenue Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 P: 612 - 524 -0428 / F: 612 - 338 -8690 / jbarnett @foleymansfield.com Foley & Mansfield, PLLP < http: / /www.foleymansfield.com /> This message contains confidential information and may be subject to protection by the laws or terms of applicable confidentiality agreements, and is intended only for the message recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e -mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), notify jbarnett @foleymansfield.com immediately and delete this e -mail from your system. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. E -mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be safe, secure, or error -free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender and Foley & Mansfield, PLLP therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e -mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard -copy version. From: Joseph M. Barnett Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:40 AM To: 'Joseph J. Langel' Cc: Adam Johnson (ajohnso8 @gmail.com) Subject: RE: Adam Johnson - cartway petition We will have the Affidavits of Service sent over to the administrator shortly. The affected properties are on notice of the petition and hearing now. As to damages, my client understood that the City was conducting an evaluation, for which he paid $5000 if I recall correctly. Mr. Johnson is of the opinion that there are no real damages because he is merely getting access to his property by an existing bridge. Of course, he understands that a pro -rata share of future maintenance is likely part of the deal. Please confirm that the fee he paid to cover costs includes an evaluation of damages. Will Mr. Johnson have the evaluation performed by the City's engineer /appraiser prior to the hearing? We would request receiving it with sufficient time to obtain an additional opinion, if necessary. From: Joseph J. Langel [mailto:JJL @ratwiklaw.com] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:39 PM 4 To: Joseph M. Barnett Subject: Adam Johnson - cartway petition Mr. Barnett, I am the City Attorney for Lino Lakes. I am following up on your client's cartway petition. Do you have an affidavit of service concerning service of the property owners? Also, could you let me know what kind of evidence of damages, if any, your client intends to submit to the City? I am trying to see how this may play out when it comes back before the Council. Thanks. Joe Description: Description: logo JOSEPH J. LANGEL 730 Second Ave. S., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Ph. (612) 339 -0060 Fax (612) 339 -0038 The information contained in this electronic message may be attorney - client privileged and /or confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this electronic message is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this electronic communication or any attachment thereto is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, you should immediately return it to us and delete the message from your system. Thank you. 5 uM� rn Plaintiffs File No. vs. Marlin Hansen et ale Court of -91- Kinnesota.° Tenth �udcil C3 Page 1 of 5 Defendants al., - District � court . District Zitrainutiticausauzx Frank Kern t This settlement agreement is entered 1991, by Frank and Donna into and Linda Elliott; Kern; Frederick and P °GeI.an; Joh .�. and Linda Thomas John and Laurie Kinneber vela ohn mas and Heidi Fitzgerald; g� Ronald and victoria rald Letourneau; and John and Gloria McLean Allen and Hansen; Ronald D. (Plaintiffs Geraldine Hansen; (Defendants) ,Adamson, Robert R. (Plaintiffs); and of L n H. Adamson, and City of Lino RECITALS 1. In order to resolve all claims raised in the 'Plaintifs' Amended Complaint and all Counterclaims raised by Defendants, o without further expenditures of time and money, the parties agreed to enter a full settlement of these claims. 2. This settlement agreement expresses a full settlement of all claims raised in the Plaintiff Complaint and all Counterclaims raised by Defendants following action: Frank Kern et al. , Plaintiffs, vs. i�rarli et al . , Defendants; Court File No. C3 -91 -3711, Tenth District, District Court of Minnesota; and all of the ale filings submitted therein. It is understood by the p this agreement does not constitute an admission or state party that the other party has acted wrongfully or unlai 3. Each of the undersigned Part ies to this view the facts agreement has had ample opportunity to relevant to any asserted or Potential claims; has opportunity to consult freely with counsel of choice and done l waived the right to do so; and done so or knowingly this settlement knowingly and voluntarily w .thou* coercion from any asource. re" 04 oioso.X4‘ Ronald and Robert Adamson agree yc n►d Oak Brook Peninsula ( as dep . pit revised 8/9/91) (Attac t at the end of the existing depi tsr ts current fora id agr ee g�a� a, n Frank Kern et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Marlin Hansen et al Di estridct t Di tr ct Court of Minnesota. 1: Tenth Juciici Page 2 of Adamson agree that all 18 Plaintiffs will have to the private bridge and road `u unrestricted access the road which abuts the easement area referenced that below and which access is necessary d in Paragraph ion of ry to access the easement area. 2. Ronald and Robert Adamson agree to construct or a dock that meets the Minnesota Department permit specifications of Natural Resource Ronald and Robert Adamson dated August 16, 1991 (Attachment gyp nonexclusive easement r the ree to grant to all Plaintiffs private road necessary private bridge and that e grant i a to all to access the dock. part a the plaintiffs an exclusive easemenHansen ds agrees in Attachment C), upon the filing with the Anoka County Recorder of the in plat of Oak Brook Peninsula. Both easements are for benefit of each Plaintiffs' current residential the run with those properties. Ronald and Robert Adamson and Marlin and will Hansen agree to allow the Plaintiffs to improve the easement area in any manner the Plaintiffs desire. exclusive 3. Ronald and Robert Adamson agree rto make required by the Lino Lakes City Engineer, any repairs Development Agreement for Oak Brook Peninsula by specified City of Lino Lakes and Ronald and Robert Adamson in the Otter Lake Lino Drive Lakes which d is o caused ad b and between o road, bridge, by the constru for any damage to Robert r g , and /or homes in Oak Brook Peninsula. of the private d d' Adamson agree to make such repairs within 30 days of repairs are r Ronald and Robert Adamson, by the Lino Lakes City after and amson, and their. successors y assigns, agree Rtoaace responsibility for such and assigns, agree to constructs the road, repairs regardless of who accept Ronald and Robe , bridge, or homes actually the c Robert Adamson agree to make rep a0� Brook e Peninsula. l current condition of the road. P that are °$� to 4. Ronald and binding validity Robert Adamson acknowledge ::rt1n ding vy of the Protective Covenants of t the leg t and file with Anoka Count star Lakete�t, Lake Estates, acknowledge that to y• Ronald and Robert take then they, and the extent they own property Parties to these their successors and a si in tutee bound Property in Otter Lake Estates covenants by purchasing an aS b'Ot from Marlin Hansen. 5• merlin the Prot Kansan acknowledges the legal and binding ter Lake Estate as �' Date: FOR i7ALUAB Marlin H. Hansen and Ruth M. S. DOCKING EASEMENT Hansen l.E COATSiDERATrUN M 1 Fitz , husband and wife, Grantors, hereby convey to Thomas belorgerald and Heidi r_ Fitzgerald (owners of Parcel A, described described Ronald Zarada and victoria Zarada (owners of Parcel 8, below); John Elliot and Linda Elliot (owners OT Parcel C, described below); John Kinneberg and Laurie Kinneberg (owners of Parcel. D, described below); Frank Kern and Donna Kern (owners of Parcel E, described below); Frederick Gelbmann and Pamela Gelbmann (owners of Parcel F, described below); Allan LeTourneau (part owner of Parcel G, described below); Geraldine LeTourneau (part owner of Parcels G and described below); John McLean (part owner of Parcel H, described below); Gloria McLean (part owner of Parcels H and 1, described below); and Lois Maroney C (part owner of Parcel described below), Grantees, an exclusive - easement for boat docking purposes in real property in Anoka County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to the "Easement Property#), described as follows: That part of Outlot 8, Otter Lake Estates, described as commencing at a point on the south line of the north 1001.86 feet of said Government Lot 7, Section 36, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota distant 685 feet East from the west line of said Lot 7, said south line having an assumed bear •f h 89 •-• ees minutes 24 seconds East; a•e e North 0 degrees 45 minutes 36 secon 20.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 14 minutes 24 seconds East 71.00 feet; thence easterly 93.50 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 106.58 feet and a central angle of 50 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds; thence South 38 degrees 58 minutes 24 seconds East along tangent 109.17 feet; thence easterly 32.22 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 258.19 feet and a central angle of 7 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence South 43 degrees 52 minutes 36 seconds West along a nontangential line 131 feet ± to the shoreline of Otter.Lake; thence easterly along the shoreline of Otter Lake to the intersection with a line that bears South 16 degrees 44 minutes 36 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 16 degrees 44 minutes 6 see East to the point of beginning. ; m i easement is for the benefit of and shall run with the title he real property in Anoka County, Minnesota (hereinafter reed to as the "'Benefitted Property's) described as follows; Julie Bartell From: Michael Grochala Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:42 PM To: Julie Bartell Subject: FW: Cartway petition Attachments: 12 -07 -09 to Lino Lakes City Council.pdf Please distribute to council. Thank You. Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651 - 982 -2427 651 - 982 -2499 fax michael.grochala @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us Original Message From: Jeff Karlson Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 2:05 PM To: Joseph J. Langel (JJL @ratwiklaw.com); Michael Grochala Subject: FW: Cartway petition FYI From: Christopher D. Johnson [ mailto :chris @johnsonandturner.coml Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:10 PM To: Jeff Karlson Cc: David K. Snyder; Julie Schwartz (lakestate @comcast.net) Subject: Cartway petition Mr. Karlson, This firm represents the homeowners' association that owns the private road being considered for a cartway. Dave Snyder from our firm will be at the hearing on behalf of the landowners tonight. Attached is our written position letter and exhibits. I understand that you will be distributing these to councilmembers prior to tonight's meeting. Please confirm that you received this. Thank you, 1 CHRIS D. JOHNSON Attorney chris @johnsonandturner.com P 651.464.7292 1 F 651- 464 -7348 1 www.johnsonandturner.com < http : / /www.johnsonandturner.com /> FOREST LAKE 56 East Broadway Ave 1 Suite 2061 Forest Lake • MN 55025 WOODBURY 539 Bielenberg Drive 1 Suite 2001 Woodbury • MN 55125 LAKE ELMO 12425. 55th Street N1 Lake Elmo- MN 55042 Description: cid :image002.1pg@01CD1BE5.03B9C760 JOHNSON TURNER ALTO amsr AT LAW & wco/^r om cswr�x July 9,202 Lino Lakes city CouncU 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lake, MN 55014 Re: Resolution 12-29 - Petition to Establish Cartway Our File No.: 12-1784'002 Dear Counci( Members: 1. Statement of Background Facts Oak Brook Peninsula is a residential development located in the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota (hereinafter the "City"). A copy of the plat map is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. The Oak Brook Peninsula development contains six parcels of [and, consisting of five residential parcels and an outiot, where the private roadway and bridge are located. The development is heavily wooded and maintained to be private. In fact, the entire development including Otter Lake Drive is private. The homeowners residing in the development occasionally close off the road to enjoy private parties and gatherings. This is among the many benefits of a private road that are enjoyed by the homeowners. The five parcel owners residing in Oak Brook Peninsula formed the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowner's Association ("Association") to maintain the private nature of the development. As part of the original development pian, a bridge over the creek was constructed at great cost to provide access to the private wooded residential area of the development. The Association private[y maintains the bridge and the roadway. In 2009. the Association became aware that Adam C. johnson, who owns property directly bordering the development, was using without permission the private roadway and bridge to access his property The Association did not grant Mr. Johason approval to use their private road for any reason. In the Spring of 2012, the Association became aware that Mr. Johnson had petitioned for a cartway across the private roadway. This letter serves as Oak Brook Peninsula 56 E. Broadway Ave. 4206 / 12425 55th 3TrueTN. / 539 Bielenberg Dr., 4200 / p 65%464.7292 Forest Lake, MN 55025 / Lake Fimo, MN 55842 / Woodbury MN 55125 ' f 651.464.7348 vm'wJnh,snmandtuuxrmm In re Cartway Petition July 9.2Ol2 Page 2 of 9 Homeowners Association's response to In Re the Petition of Adam C. Johnson for the Establishment ofa Cartwayfor the JuEy 9, 2012 hearing upon the petition. 11 Legal Authority of City to Establish a Cartway is Limited to Creation of Public Roads In 2006. the Minnesota legislature significantly curtailed Minnesota Cities' authority to establish cartways by enacting Minn. Stat. §117.012, which states: "Su bdiviSionlPreennption. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special |axv, all condemning authorities, including home rule charter cities and all other political subdivisions of the state. must exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, including all procedures, definitions, remedies, and limitations. Additional procedures, remedies, or Eimitations that do nat deny or diminish the substantive and procedural rights and protections of owners under this chapter may be provided by other law, ordinance, or charter. Subd. 2.Requirement of pubtic use or public purpose. Eminent domain may only be used for a public use or public purpose. Subd. 3.Exce This chapter does not apply to the taking of property under laws relating to drainage or to town roads when those laws themselves expressly provide for the taking and specifically prescribe the procedure. The taking of property for a project undertaken by a watershed district under chapter 103D or for a project undertaken by a drainage authority under chapter 103E may be carried out under the procedure provided by those chapters. Minn. Stat. §ll7I12 (emphasis added[ The authority to create a cartvvay is an exercise of eminent domain authority. Silver v. Ridgeway, 733 N.VV.2d 165, 169 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). This authority refers to the inherent power of the government to take privately-owned property and convert it to public use, provided that the landowner is compensated. Id. This conclusion is supported by caselaw holding that establishment ofacartxvay creates a public road and therefore does not violate the constitutional prohibition against taking private property for a private use. Id. Based on the foregoing relatively recently-enacted law, Cities in Minnesota are now precluded from taking private property from one landowner for the purpose of establishing cartways for the private benefit of another property owner. Minn. StaL § 177.012. subd. 2. In Light of Minn. Stat. § 117.012's preemptive Language, Minn. Stat. §435.]7 now only provides In re [artvvayPetidon July B.ZOl2 Page 3 of 9 the City of Lino Lakes authority to establish a cartway for public use or purpose. In this context, converting the private road into a public road. Given that the City of Lino Lakes has already made a finding in its March 26, 2012 Resolution that lilt is the Council's intention to retain private ownership o[ that driveway. It is not in the public's interest to expend public Funds on the cartway or to make the cartway into a public road", the consideration of this Petitioner necessarily must end here. Unless this taking is for a public use or purpose, as of the 2006 law change, it 5 precluded by Law. Minn. Stat §717.012.subd. 2. If the Cfty chooses to take the property for public use or purpose, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §ll7. 12, subd. 1, the City must follow all procedures naquinedunder80inn.Sta1.[hapter 117. Among those procedures is that the City must make an offer to the Landovvners, supported by an appraisal, and negotiate prior to commencing the taking. Minn. Stat. § 117.036. Such an offer has not yet been made, but must be to establish a baseline against which to compare any ultimate award for the purposes of an award of attorneys fees and costs to the landowners. Minn. Stat. § 117.031. Additionally, the landowners must be reimbursed their appraisal fees up to $5.000.00. Minn. Stat. § 117.036, subd. Z. /|/' Consideration of Creating PublicCartmvay City councils have been granted statutory authority by the legislature to establish public cartxvays. Minn.Stat. § 435.37; Minn. Stat. § 117.012. Any landowner whose land is taken by the city to be converted into a public cartway must be justly compensated for any resulting damages. Slayton Gun Club v. Town Shetek, Murray County, 176 N.VV2d544.566 (Minn. 1970). However, the city is not ultimately responsible for paying damages. Id. The petitioner is responsible for the payment of all damages as a result of the taking of private property to establish a cartway. Id. Statutoriiy, city councils are afforded discretionary power to establish cartways that are at least two rods wide and not more than one-half mile in length. Minn. Stat. §4]5.]7. City councils are mandated to establish a cartway upon a petition if certain circumstances are present. Id. at, subd. 1(a). The threshotd statutory conditions necessitating the establishment of a cartway are two-fold: (1) the tract of land must contain at least five acres and (2) the petitioner must have no other access except over navigable waters or the lands of others. Horton x Township of Helen, G24N.VV2d59l.594(A8inn.[1. App. 2OU1). in re Cartway Petition July 9, 2012 Page Li of 9 Although Mr. Johnson's tract is over five acres in size, he cannot show that he does not have reasonable access to his property. Mr. ohnson's proposed use ofthe petitioned-for cartway is year-round walking and seasonal driving of an ATV four-wheeler and small tractor. Mr. Johnson has, as recently as the past few days, crossed the bridge with tractors and ATV's. Most of the tirne. the creek is only about five feet wide. Currently, it is wider as water is higher in the region. Nevertheless, even the wider creek has not prevented Mr. Johnson from crossing with makeshift bridges. Further, the Association members have estabtished that the creek did not render their similarly- situated properties inaccessible. They built a bridge. Just as the members of the Association have reasonable access to their respective properties, specifically, across the creek, so too could and does Mr. johnson. The cost for Mr. Johnson to construct a bridge over the creek that would be sized sufficiently to allow pedestrian, API and small tractor crossing would be much less expensive and disruptive of other's real property rights than converting the private road to pubhc. Expecting Mr. )ohnson to build his own crossing is a reasonable approach when considering that the alternative is to take the private property of the other and to convert it to public use. Where does this City Council draw the line and protect real property rights. The small creek is not a navigabte water, it is a small impediment to crossing. Like many other real property owners with crossing impediments on their property, such as wet or [ow areas, steep siopes or heavily-wooded patches, Mr. Johnson should be expected to solve his crossing impediment on his [and and without disrupting the quiet enjoyment of other property owners. For that reason, the threshold requirement of no other access is not met and the City is not bound to and should not grant the public cartway. Even if the City Council finds that Mr. Johnson's petition meets the statutory threshold criteria, the City must properly exercise its eminent domain authority and fully compensate the private property owners for the full extent of the conversion of the private roadway into a public road. IV. Scope of Taking The city has been given the statutory authority to select an alternative route other than that petitioned for if "the alternative is deemed by the city counciL to be less disruptive and damaging to the affected landowners and in the public's best interest." /cl.atsubd.l(b). In re Cartway Petition July 9'2OlZ Page 5 of 9 Any cartway established must be both meaningful and reasonable. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Pepin Tp. of Wabasha County, 784N.W0d378. 382 (Minn. 2010). Mr. )ohnson's Petition defines the proposed cartway as the entire private road, however, mentions that his personal intended use would be limited to approximately 250 feet. (Petition.) Given that Mr. Johnson previously used the proposed cartway against the express wishes o[ the Association, it is not reasonable to believe that he would limit himself to the narrow access point at the very westernmost tip of his property that the 250 foot length would achieve, Additiona[Iy, for enforcement purposes, such a limited access point would unnecessarily burden the Association in policing the scope of the cartway, The City has the ability to select an alternate route for the cartway which would be more reasonable in tight of aLt circumstances. The size ofthe cartway must be determined as to a) length and b) width. A. Length of Cartway The current endpoint ofthe public road ends at a cui de sac. This is to assist in the turnaround of vehicles, including targer emergency and snow removal vehicles, If the City elects to make this a public the road, it is not reasonable to have it end at a point that does not a[[ow for the public or large vehic[es to turn around. Accordingly, if any of the road is to become public, the only reasonable endpoint would be the cut de sac at its easternmost point. Accordingly, the cartway's length should be defined as the entire length of the currently-private road, Alternative and less preferably, ifthe City chooses to end the public portion of the road at some point short of the cut de sac, at a nninirnunn, the public portion of the road should extend to the easternmost point of the Petitioner's property (approximately 770 feet), eliminating the difficulty in enforcing trespass issues as he accesses his property. B. Width of Cartway Any suggestion to make a portion, but not the entire width of the roadway public is also simply unreasonable. To limit the public's use of the roadway to the northern side, for example, would cause vehicles to travel in both directions on the same side of the road. It is obviously not feasible to install barriers in the middle of the road to separate the public portion and the private portion and doing so woutd significantly diminish the effectiveness of the roadway. The road is 28 feet wide and the Petitioned-for cartway (the entire outiot) is In re Cartway Petition July 9'2OlZ Page Gof9 60 feet wide. The only reasonable solution is to allow public use of the entire width of the cartway and to define the cartway to include the entire 60 foot wide width of the cartway to a[Iow for snow storage. V. Damages Due to the Association Members Upon the Taking As with any use of eminent domain authority, the Association Members are entitled to damages for the taking. If the City establishes a cartway upon the Association's private road, Mr. Johnson is required to pay damages to the affected Landowners. Minn.Stat. §435.37, subd. 1(c). It is the City's statutory obligation to determine damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Slayton Gun Club u Town ofShetekl76N.VV.2d544,547(&8imn.197O). Because the establishment of a cartway is use of eminent dornain, the measure of damages used is the same as those employed in determining damages in a partial taking. Bruns v. Town Board of Nicollet To, 243 N.W. 7 (Minn. 1932). In a partial taking , ^[]the measure of damages is ordinarilythe difference between the market value o[ the entire tract before the taking and the market vatue of what is left after the taking." Alexandria Lake Area Service Region v. /ohnson.295 N.VV.2d 588, 590 (Minn. 1980). These damages are referred to as severance damages. That can also include other damages such as the cost of restoring the remaining property to a condition that will make it available for use after the taking." Id. In eminent domain proceedings, the cost of improvements can also be included in the damages award. Iowa f]ec Light & Power Co. v. City of Fairmont, 67 N.W.2d L41, 47 (Minn, 1954). On )une 29, 2012' an appraisal was completed by Wendy Walker, MAI, ARA, RPRA. The Appraisal is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Walker divided the valuation impact on the affected property owners into three categories; a) the vatue of the easement being taken, b) the value of the private improvements the City Council is contemplating taking for pubtic use and c) the severance damage - the reduction in value of the remaining property that continues to be owned by the affected property owners, but with a public road instead ofa public road. A. Easement Value The appraisal values the land at $0.50 per square foot or $65.653.00 for the value of the right-of-way being considered for pubLic use. In re Cartway Petition July 9, 2012 Page 7 of 9 B. Private Improvements The total depredated current value of the private improvements that are being considered for public use is55l9.O8O25. C. Severence Damages To undertake m full appraisal nfthe before arid after vatue of each affected property owner would be quite expensive. Given the value of' the private improvements and right of way and the questionable status of whether the City or Petitioner is even willing to pay that price for the Cartway, the Association has asked Ms. VVa|kerto provide an initial valuation impact estimate on the affected properties to quantify the severance damages in this case, Ms. Walker determined that the impact on value of the properties would be approximately 5% if the private road became public, resulting in less control over the road, public use of it and the alteration of nature and character of the private development. Further, if the Petitioner were to allow public hunting or guided hunting on his (and, which is at the gateway of this devetopment, that vatuation impact would increase to approximatety 10%. The following are the currently-assessed values of the respective properties: 2155 Otter Lake Drive 5 451'300 2150 Otter Lake Drive $ 454.400 2140 Otter Lake Drive 5 455,000 2120 Otter Lake Drive 51'139.600 2100 Otter Lake Drive S 764.800 Total 55'265.100 See Exhibit 5 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. A five percent change in value results in a severance damage of 5163,255.00 and a ten percent change in value results in a severance damage of 5326,510.00. If the Council chooses to proceed with the taking, it must obtain an appraisal that contemplates the righ1- xAt the time the development was approved, a previous Lino Lakes City Attorney commented that the development's private road will increase the value of the residential kots See meeting minute from the Lino Lakes City Council meeting dated May 13, 1991 attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by reference. 2 Petitioner is a professional hunting guide. See Exhibit 4 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which is an excerpt from his business'xvebsite. In re Cartway Petition |u\y9,2[O2 Page 8 of 9 of-way, private improvements and the full before and after anaLysis for each parcel. Minn. StaL'5ll7.O36. Nevertheless, based on the appraisal of the affected property owners. it appears that the total value of the taking will be between approximately $747,987.25 (65'652 + 519,080.25 + 163,255) and 5911,242.25(65.652 + 519,080.25 + ]26'510). depending on the issue of public hunting'. Based upon statute, Mr. Johnson must pay the minimum of $747,987.25 in estimated damages before the cartway is opened. Minn. StaL§43537'subd.l(c). As detaiLed above, the present measure of damages is likely to be ioxve, than the actual damages. An appraisal for each of the parcels will need to be completed to fully address the full amount of severance damages in this case. The City also has discretionary authority to require Mr. !ohnson to post a bond or other security for the total estimated damages before the City takes action on the petition. Given the amount of damages, if the City chooses to proceed with the taking for a public cartway, the Association requests that the City Council require that a bond be posted for the current total estimated damages and act upon the petition once a more thorough appraisal is completed by the City pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.036. If Mr. Johnson is unable to post the bond, the Association requests that the City Councit deny the petition. VI. Maintenance ofthe Cartway Once a cartway is established it becomes a public road open to any member of the public to use it. Rask u Town Bd. Ofh/endn/nl 173 Minn. 575 (Minn. 1978). However, construction and maintenance of the cartway is the responsibility of the petitioner. Minn.Stat. §435.37` subd. 1 (d). In this case, the road has already been constructed and is a 3 This taking is analogous to a property with a tennis court or house on it. If the City were to take the tennis court or house for public use by eminent domain, it is reasonable that the city would not only pay for the value of the land beneath the tennis court or house and for the reduction in value of the property losing the tennis court or house, but that the City would also be required to pay the property owner for the value of the private improvement that is the tennis court or house. Sinniiar|y, here in addition to the reduction in the home values that is attributable to being on a public road instead of a private road, the City must also reimburse the property owners for the current value of the privately built roadway, curbs and gutters and other improvements. In re Cartway Petition )uly 9, 2012 Page 9oF9 private improvement that 15 being converted to public use. Accordingly, the value of that private improvement must be included in the responsibility of the Petitioner to construct. Given that cartways are now only to be created as public roads maintained by the City, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 43537, subd. 2 regarding allocation of maintenance costs among the private property owners has been rendered archaic and of no affect. If the City reverses its March 26, 2012 finding and determines that converting this private road to public is in the public's interest, the City of Lino Lakes is to maintain the roadway. Minn. Stat. 5 435.37. VII. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Association respectfully requests that the City of Lino Lakes deny the Petitioned-for cartway on the basis that the property has reasonable access. If the City of Lino Lakes decides to grant the cartway petition for a public road, the Association requests that the City of Uno Lakes require a bond from the Petitioner in an amount no less than $747.987.25. Then, only after the bond has been provided by the Petitioner, the City proceed with the appraisals and negotiation prior to further eminent domain proceedings. Very truly yours, JOHNSON/TURNER P.A. David Snyder Enclosures r-, r. EXHIBIT RESTRICTED USE APPRAISAL REPORT CARTWAY EASEMENT DAMAGES OTTER LAKE DRIVE OAK BROOK HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION LINO LAKES, MN MARKET VALUE ESTIMATE as of JUNE 13, 2012 for OAK BROOK HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION C/O JULIE SCHWARTZ 2140 OTTER LAKE DRIVE WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 By WENDY WALKER, MAI, ARA, RPRA WALKER APPRAISALS 1221 NICOLLET MALL SUITE 700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 Client & Intended User Intended Use Use Restriction Property Owner Property Identification Interest Appraised Date of Valuatiori Purpose of Appraisal Extraordinary Assumptions Scope of Work Present Use Highest & Best Use Conclusion of Value RESTRICTED USE APPRAISAL REPORT Oak Brook Homeowner's Association, Lino Lakes City Council To negotiate the damages created by granling a cartway easement over the subject to an adjoining andowner. This appraisa report can only be fully understood with additiona information in the appraiser's work file. Oak Brook Homeowner's Association Out lot A, Oak Brook Peninsu|n, including the bridge. A cartway easement over the subject property. June 13, 2012 To estimate the damages created by a cartway easement over the subject property. 1. That the roadway is approximately 2,000 feet long, 28 feet wide, plus a 60-foot cul-de-sac (65.847 SF). 2. That the bridge is approximately 100 feet long and 28 feet wide. If these assumptions are not true, the value of the subject property would be different than as estimated in this report. Subject proparty — Vievvedtheoubjectpropertyinthe company of Julie Jeffrey Schwartz, a member of Oak Brook Homeowner's Association on June 13, 2012. Method of Valuation — The sale comparison approach is used to estimate the right-of-way land vaft.'e. The cos approach is used to estimate the vatue of the road and bridge. tmproved private roadway and bridge, Highest and bes use is to provide access and recreation for the 5 single-family homes in Oak Brook Peninsula. A private road can also be used as a hard-surface recreational area for events such as a neighborhood party, skate- boarding, safe bicycling for children, basketball gameo, and road racing (city police say there is no speed limit). $585l0U value ofROW, bridge and Otter Lake Drive plus severance damages to adjoining properties WALKER APPRAISALS 2 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH — UNDERLYING LAND VALUE Comparable sales research Comparable land sales from 2-10 acres without sewer and water were researched on Northstar MLS since January 1, 2011. Sales selected were located in areas of Anoka, Ramsey, and Washington Counties closest to the subject. CITY ADDRESS DATE SALE PRICE ACRES S/SF COMMENTS Columbus XXX Julliard St. NE 12/8/2011 Forest Lake 182xx July Ave. 5, 5/25/2011 Gem Lake xxx Goose Lake Rd. 1/27/2012 Grant 10xxx Manning Ave. 3/29/2011 Grant xxx 80th St. 9/7/2011 Grant xxx Jeffrey Blvd N. 7/28/2011 Grant xxx Jeffrey Blvd N. 10/24/2011 $ 79,172 $ 100,000 S 110,000 $ 95,000 $ 167,500 $ 189,000 $ 212,500 5.68 10 6.62 5 9.11 8.3 10 0,32 Partially wooded, pond in rear. 0,23 Wooded, rolling 0.38 Wooded, rolling 0,44 Wooded, rolling 0.42 Wooded, sloping 0.52 Partially wooded, near Gateway Trail. 0.49 Partially wooded, near Gateway Trail. Discussion of Comparable Sales These seven sales are considered the most similar to the lots in Oak Brook Peninsula. The primary difference is that the Oak Brook lots are generally from 2 to 5 acres, while these sales tend to be slightly larger. The smaller sales that I researched were less similar because they were located further away and more open than the adjoining lots. These lot prices range from $0.23 to $0.52 per square foot. The lowest priced lot is a 10-acre lot in Forest Lake. It is more open than the Oak Brook lots. The highest valued lots are two lots in Grant that are 8.3 and 10-acre lots, across from the Gateway Trail. In my opinion, the proximity of the Gateway Trail is an amenity that would increase lot values similar to the subject's location on Otter Lake. Three lots in Oak Brook have lakeshore frontage and two do not. None of these sales have lakeshore frontage because the road is not located directly on the shoreline. Nevertheless, the lake has a positive impact on land values in the vicinity. Conclusion of Value Based on these comparable sales, it is my opinion that the market value of the underlying land is $.50 per square foot. The right-of-way for Outlot A is 60 feet wide by 2,000 feet long, plus a 60-foot cul-de-sac, for a total of 131,304 square feet. Therefore, the contributory value of the right-of-way is estimated at: 131,304 square feet @ $0.50/SF = $65,652 WALKER APPRAISALS 3 COST APPROACH — ROAD AND BRIDGE VALUES Replacement Cost New The cost new of the subject improvements, the roadway and bridge, were estimated by contacting local public and private engineers, the MN DOT, and Marshall & Swift Estimators. The most relevant data was obtained from Joe MacPherson, the MN DOT State Aid Construction Engineer, Jim Bellefeuille at TKDA Engineers, Mark, the Lakeville City Engineer, Greg Buchal at Larson Engineering, and Aaron Nelson, the Woodbury City Engineer. The estimated replacement costs new are: IMPROVEMENT UNIT COST UNITS COST NEW Marshall & Swift Grading & surplus disposal 4" rock base 0.68 65,847 $ 44,775.96 4" asphalt 1.99 65,847 $ 131,035.53 Concrete curb 6'' $ 10.30 4,314 $ 44,435.75 Storm sewer $ 58.60 2,120 $ 124,232.00 0.32 98,771 $ 31,606.56 Total 4.79 27,356 $ 376,085.80 City Engineers Woodbury $ 160.00 28 wide, concrete curb Lakeville $ 185.00 2,120 $ 392,200.00 32', curb, 1 concrete sidewalk 2,120 $ 339,200.00 MN DOT Long term components 88.50 2,120 $ 187,620.00 Milling & paving 26.50 2,120 $ 56,180.00 Total $ 243,800.00 ROAD COST NEW CONCLUSION 350,000. Bridge Street Lights $ Street signs 3,22500 248.00 391,000.00 9,675.00 248.00 TOTAL COST NEW CONCLUSION 750,923.00 WALKER APPRAISALS Estimate of Roadway Cos New Marshall and Swift estimates a road coristruction cost new of $376,086. This is stighty more than the $339.200 estimted by the City of Woodbury. The City of Lakeville estimated a higher cost of 5392.200, but this was based on a recent estimate for a slightly wider 32-foot road with a sidewalk on one side. The State Aid Engineer at the MN DOT said that their average statewide cost for a 28-foot road with a surmountabe curb and storm sewer was $500,000 per mile, which averages $95 per lineal foot, for a total of $243,800. The MN DOT cost is lower because it is based on a statewide average. In my opinion, the cost new of the subject roadway would be approximately $350'000. This is between the estimates from Marshall & Swift and the City Engineers in Woodbury and Lakeville. Bridge and Lighting Estimates Jim Oellefeuille at TKDA estimated the bridge repacement cost at $336,000 for the construction plus $55,000 for design and geo-technica work, for a total of $391.000. The street tighting and signage nage costs are taken from MarshaU and Swift. Depreciation The MN DOT Engineer said that asphalt road surfaces are designed to last 25 years, though limited street maintenance budgets force them to remain in use longer than that. He sad that the road bed, storm sewer, and curb and gutter would typically last 50 years, He provided these re-paving costs per mile: Milling - $30,000 Paving with asphalt -$110.DOU Total - $140,000 per mile, or $26.50 per lineal foot (28% of total cost new) The subjec property receives si nifinandyleaswuarandtoarthanapub|icnuadway- It is used by only 5 homeowners and their guests. The homeowner's association has never used salt to clear snow and ice off the road, which would greatly increase the expected life of the roadway. Therefore, the life expectancy of the subject's roadway is estimated at 1.5 times the life ofa public road — 75 years for the long term components and 38 years for the asphalt paving. The subject roadway was constructed in 1993 and the homeowners have not re-paved it. They have applied a surface treatment to prolong the life of the asphalt 4 years ago. The depreciation on the subjec roadway is estimated at 25% for the long term components (road bed, curb and gutter sewer) and 50% for the asphalt surface, based upon the 75-year and 38-year life expectancies discussed previously. The asphalt surface component is estimated at 28% of the total road cost, based on the MN DOT discussion previously. The bridge depreciation is estimated at 30% because most of the structure is concrete, but the asphalt surface will have a shorter lifespan, The street lights are estimated to have a useful life of 75 years (25% depreciation), similar to the road bed. The sign is estimated to have a useful life of 40 years (50% depreciation). WALKER APPRAISALS 5 Based on this breakdown, I have allocated the road building costs as follows: COST NEW x Long term m ts $ Asphalt surface Total roadway Bridge Lighting Si gnage 252,000.00 98,000.00 350,000.00 391,000.00 9,675.00 248.00 25% 30% 25% 50% $ 189,000.00 $������—�� $ 124.00 `� TOTAL ~--_`_''______ $ 750,9� • $ � 519,00.25 Cost Approach Conclusion of Value 1 estimate the value ofthe subject property, as depreciated, depreciated, as foliows: Land Value $ 65,652 Improvements $519.080 TOTAL $684,732 TOTAL - ROUNDED `�' ��� ��=' $686,000 Severance Damages to the Adjoining Properties I have not been asked to complete a full appraisal of each adjoining residential property. It is my understanding that the applicant intends to use the cartway to provide for public access to his land east of the bridge. There is no control over how many people will be using this private bridge and roadway and the quiet enjoyment of the property may be significantly changed after the cartway is granted. Oak Brook residents report that this apphcant has previously opened his land to public hunting. If that hunting use expanded, it would further diminish the value of the adjoining homes. In my opinion, a cartway easemen that would not be used to aflow for public hunting land on adjoining and would create severance damages to the adjoining Oak Brook Homeowner's Association properties approximatety 5%. Ifthe applicant is allowed to use his adjoining land for public hunting, believe that severance damages to the adjoining properties would be approximately 1096. WALKER APPRAISALS 6 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Bridge Close up of the bridge. Bridge and private road s gn. Roadway Surmountable curb. Cul-de-sac WALKER APPRAISALS APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION 1 certify that to the best of my knowledge and belef: - the statements of fact contained in this repori are true and correct. - the reported ann|yoeo, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions, - | have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. - | have performed no servioes, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the 3-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. - my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. - my compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the dient. the amount of the value opinkm, the attainment of a stipulated naouk, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use mf this appraisal. - my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were devooped, and this report has been pnapaoad, in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal lnstitute and the Am. Society of Farm Managers and Rurat Appraisers -|havennadeapensona|insperUmnofthepvnpadythedisUheoubjeo of this report. - no one provided significant professional ass stance to the person(s) signing this report. - the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute and the ASFMRA relating to review by their duly authorized representatives. - as of the date of this report, | have completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute and the ASFyNRA. - My contractual arrangement with my client does not authorize the out-of-context quoting from or partial reprinting nf this appraisal report, nor does it permit all or any part of this appraisal report to be disseminated to the general public by the use of the media for public communication without my written consent. 6-29-2012 Wendy Walker, K4A|.ARA.RPRA Date Certifted General Appraiser MN License #4001805, WI License #913 WALKER APPRAISALS 8 STATEMENT OF CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The certification of the appraiser appearing in this appraisal report is subject to the following conditions and to such other specific and limiting conditions as are set forth by the appraiser in the report. 1. The legal description furnished to the appraiser or secured from public records is assumed to be correct. 2. The appraiser assumes no responsibilities for matters legal in character, nor does the appraiser render any opinion as to title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property is appraised as though free and o|emr, and under responsible ownership and competent management. 3. Any sketch in this report is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The appraiser has made no survey of the property and assumes no responsibility in connection with such matters. Unless otherwise noted henain, it is assumed that there are no enoroaohments, zoning violations or restrictions existing on the subject property. 4. |nformatiun, outimnteo, and opinions furnished to the appraiser and contained in this report were obtained from sources considered to be reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no Iiabiuty for them is assumed by the appraiser, 5. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, oubnoi|, or structures which would render it more or less valuable. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions or for the engineering which might be required to discover such factors. 6. It is assumed that the subject property is in full compliance with all applicable fedono|, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 7. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless non-conformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 8. It is assumed that all required |iuenaea, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any |nna|, otate, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any usa on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 9. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report. 10. No environrnental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this appraisal, and the appraiser hereby reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies, research or investigation. 11. The existence of potentially hazardous material used in the construction or maintenance of buildings, such as urea formaldehyde foam insulation and/or the existence of toxic waste, which may or may not be present an the property, has not been considered, The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field if such information is desired. WALKER APPRAISALS 9 12. On all appraisals involving proposed construction subject to satisf obory cumplebon, repairo, or a|b*rotons, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the proposed improvements in a workmanlike manner essentially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted for review to the appraiser, 13. The market value reported herein is based on economic and market conditions which are applicable as of the date of the appraised value. This market value may be the same but also may vary at a later date due to changing market or economic conditions. It is the appraisers opinion that the subject property would sell in an appropriate time period should it be offered on the open real estate market at the date of appraisal at about the appraised value subject to the appraisal assumptions; but a guarantee of such a sale is not mplied or warranted, 14. The disthbudon, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisa( and are invalid if so used. 15, Any value estimates provided in the report appty to the entire propehy, and any proration or division of the total into fractional interests will invalidate the value estimabe, unless such proration or division of interests has been set forth in the report, 16. The appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, |s not required to give further consultation, teadmony or be in attendance in court with reference to the propa�y in question, unless arrangements have testimony, previously made. 17. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed bvthe b�avvuand neQu|at� the Appraisal Institute, with which the appraiser is affiliated. Possession of this n»pod, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of pubtication, 18. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to va}ua, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shalt be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval ofthe appraiser. 19, Acceptance cfand/oruaenfbhisappraioa|repmrtnonatituteeaccephmnoenftheforegoinggen*re| assumptions and limiting conditions. 20. There may be other assumptions and limiting conditions hot mentioned above which are described elsewhere in this appraisal report. WALKER APPRAISALS 10 QUALIFICATIONS QFWENDYWALKER PROFESSIONAL DESJGNATIONS AND LICENSES MA|. Appraisal Institute, designation #121Q2 ARA, Accredited Rural Approiaer, Am. Society of Farm Mgrs. & Rural Appraisers RPRA, Real Property Review Appraiser, Am. Society of Farm Mgrs. & Rural Appraisers Certified General Appraiser, MN License #4OO18O5.VN License #013 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS State of MN, Rea Estate Appraisal Advisory Board member, 2007-2013 North Star Chapter, Appraisal Institute, Board Member 2O0G'2D11. President 2O1U Appraisal Institute, Member of Experience Review Panel since 2006 Appraisal Institute, Leadership Development Advisory Council, 2006, 2007 American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, member MN Assn, of Professional Appraisers (MAPA), President 1995-96, Vice Pres. 1093-94 Independent Community Bankers of MN, member PROPERTY TYPES APPRAISED Land Commercial Agricultural Office buildings Subdivisions Industrial buildings Forestry Of5ce/8Venahouoea Wetlands Restaurants Conservation easements Marinas Utility easements Gas stations/convenience stores Right-of-way easements Shopping centers Gravel lands Golf courses Islands Apartments Commercial sites Retail Railroad corridor Parking lots EXPERIENCE Contract appraisal reviewer for FD|C, state and federal agencies. Review appraisal reports to assure compliance with USPAP, FIRREA and UASFLA. Testfied as an expert witness in U.S. District Court and condemnation hearings. Testified atMN Legislature on appraisal-related |agie|mdnn.2D1Dond2U11. Hennepiri Courity Board of Equalization, Member 1992-95, 1997; Chair 1993-95. Adjudicated property tax appeals for Hennepin County. BUSINESS AFFILIATIONS 1986 to present - Owner Walker Appraisals '3 staff appraisers, G|8analyst 1984 to 1986 — Appraisal Supervisor, MN Departme t of Natural Resources 1978to 1984 — Sr. Realty Speciast, MN DepartmentofNaturaj Resources 1977 to 1978 — Horicon Area Land Agent, WI Department of Natural Resources WALKER APPRAISALS 11 QUALIFICATIONS OF WENDY WALKER EDUCATION University ofWisconsin-Madison: 1974-B.A, Geography; 1QT4-7G- two years graduate study in Real Estate 1984 - M.S., Landscape Architecture Appraisal Institute: successfully completed examinations Course |,A. Residential Vaivadon, Capitalization A & B Standards of Professional Practice, Report Writing, Advanced Applications Appraisal Institute Serninars (recent) Appraising the Appraisal - 2011 USPAP Update - 2010 Commercial Appraisal Engagement & Review - 2010 Appraising Distressed Commercial Real Estate - 2009 Valuation of Conservation Easements —2OO7.2U08 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisftions — 2006, 2007 What Clients Would Like Their Appraisers to Know 2006 Condemnation Appraising - 2005 Appraiser as Expert Witness - 2005 Subdivision Valuation — 2005 Evaluating Commercial Construction — 2005 Evaluating Residential Construction — 2005 Land Valuation — 2004 American Society of Farrn Managers and Rural Apprasers Advanced Rural Appraisal (A-30) 2007 Appraisal Review Under UASFLA(A'38U)-2OUG Conservation Easements — Valuation & Case Studies - 2006 Advanced Appraisal Review (A-35) - 2005 Designed and taught seminar on Appraising Conservation Easements for MN DNR, WI DNR, and Gathering Waters Conservancy PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS Financial Institutions Bank Cherokee Associated Bank Twin City Federal Citizens State Bank Anchor Bank Government Clients MN Dep't. of Natural Resources WI Dep't. of Natural Resources Dakota County City of Minneapolis Natural Resource Conservation Servtce Land Trusts and Non-Profits West Msconsin Land Trust Minnesota Land Trust Kinnickinnic River Land Trust Trust for Public Land Standing Cedars Land Conservancy Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Star Prairie Land Trust MN Parks and Trails Council Conservation Fund The Nature Conservancy Gathering Waters Conservancy WALKER APPRAISALS 12 .',.100M:MMMUOMOMINS COUNCIL MEETING VOTINS ON THE MOTa0N: .771 RT.! • i rt. L1J ur Ration currie.d .unanunousJ.y. 46,„ found.'s the end af tneoe (Smancill. Mather Reinert. moved :prove. Resolution calling for a heaping...on the, RnaRinge.irTrnameht. n.nhjanen eeramrided the motion,: hPtion carried unan7.; N. 47 - 51 can be found at the end of those 47' st Council Member Neal moved to approve Resolution No. 43 - rrinc-1 p:ans and spezifications for PineRidge. Council Ransart seconiled the motion- Motion carried unanimously. consideration of a Varianoe the Ehor land Km.nag.,,mdt Ordi fcr Oak Brook Peninsula, DRB Application No. 90 - 5-5 - Tom Department of Natural Resources (DNR) nae sr-pt a letter to City stating that the City mav wish to verify the 'osation CRo.ter Lahe Drive a it is extended in the Cal: F.:17iTISU subdivision. He askno that U Citv r to v2cper of z-rosoR Ders'neu-e snow th-t the road -wia: M"'P' ttn7. 'aet hion wet,r ;11,-,SW'; Lt :_fors.,atlon tne ihoatcn 'n nes neen aete oo: thrt IF a ohnosh. The wors fx.nctor n&F a allow the street to he tdaced to one ide f '7he Way. This will moa n about 50 'es- nf thr, te len street in nht met tbr, tt-oo o HN 7ine. von. for ted 1 tc bt B ec: s. Mr. exp iped that if a variance is not ev * ....-t, nted end developer as , ced to move the street, there will P,'-'' 3 1 !%---:".'f .- '..-51,4'• lmnact on the surroundLog area than bv grt';np a var1 ance.-7,- ,....0,,..: noted that the street will b .!.--1oc"-t --f::). iess natural -,,,'-o.,,,,tation to act as filner fld to ,zcrsen street. Second, moving: tPe etheet wou.!d eneu-i-ee a,a:tipnal- and fn.' ast'ivity ,,,,nd. ret--,,z1 :*-- evr,r, ,nrre J,es.:etatior. 1.4°1" '4,.'s.'m-..-- aha 1-,i-.---,:,:d weela ;aesdea a eeeanea ce\arae:ental iepas:. , ''--'- no.e..al that. srahthe a vaaienca thahh.cs. t- Ee. th- ' • ;:---. ,...f ,r,tze •.:• '...:.-•e.•,.., ..-•• ••••••••::•.••:-..i.ec. . ..:•......:: -... ''....- . . : 0 .: : .... ...: . . . . . . .. - < 7 . : 1 t ( , ..., -.........s: c.i.-....:---..::•.. :-:.i. / 7 :.... ..• • ..... ....,. ... a ine.... "i5clai":11':it;,,,-.. ..• :.:: .-.e.c.,.......: ....::::.:::,...r.liotion :.:•• -..::.:-.. :::“-2.-.;;;---.--:::- ::•••,. °.'Ioted •,i.)...i.z -.i...s. o.:-. - - - - -. —• ---•,- ---- --,=,-- • - ... ..2 .s...3...nc :...,...• .7),-,+- v.— ,._.,r .t.,!-•„-, ::„.;,•......:. ":„.7:-...,...-,-.... ..-,..- only two , I . VS to :•:•• w--2 f..--rari7-.. ":,!--io:•••-v....-rl.a.-7.-- , :-...7.- 7.. ) Tro-,-•-.• -, -.•-• 7-t...7-.:-.•--:, itt 5..;,:',..= :..' -. . - • •.. :7- •.: • 7 • ,-- 1 "7 ' '.- --. 0 77- :, • T.:plan': i 1 . . - .:., _ f: _ *: .... " ,§•t...1....• : . ....i:.=....- z7., ..... ... .... -..to t T-...... .:1:,•,: ..:.z--'•-• c,-...:-.. _.•• -..:.:.t. :,-,.. .:. ; -- •.. ...•...-1-t ter,' Or, t.he _ -.. • '..... -.7:.'..••.•- •• , :.•• In. . --• that ort el:: the • Tyr 7_ y gen SS- er1= i . a _:_on I",•�3. 90- - the Cc " .. not v's rJc e pIM1. to a._ ♦ fl tena. -1 _ COUNCIL MEETING 6. Tne road aah isidIe whether puthc or: privae• to existin City: seandarads. Council Menhor Eohanen secongog th ration. vaJTINC ON THE MOTION: Rsachnsid...akatadm.of a Manor. SubdavialOm, Kari. Judt,S No. .91-09 -Mt. Miller ekoisihOd that this shasfdared. by: tbe Council at the April 22, 1931 Cssnsil hoe sni the ieupot was demie.d.• Further information. is. availatli2 the mottarsong Mr. Malipt askod the Council to rochc...-46.ar dacision. Mr. Miller explainod that this raqucao.ias......is afoil •I ----a050. tke. .rsogsoot fmom Cheryl. Nelsen. sn .Raise Lake. Drivas',:n 1.990...1.4rp,7+ Coancdi. granted her a oinor sabhivision WIth take stipalat.i..1 • the newly cmortog 'let cannot .ba bui7t. oh ortd1 sowem end wi available to service tho propottya In ad4itiona the lot Alk nostslhans the ptoseht Nelson hoce was se:guinea to haek•v sewer and. wates: as soon as it. was availktSlas It was. hotegStnatathosISgd. p. dosraw ,ao becn...• Present: geOS,fn avnaam ogtgres somtoged on....••ktaa4itWi. cseateg..sgalles to tfle. gascrasuOCivasson foa: Yen idd :Tud°.'.!..s. DLL ..AnSi.lostio .. a. 91-29, Council MegOar naal sesonned. the noso.ons VOTING On THE ECTION: • Motion passed uoanicously. ENGINEER ''S REPORT clution No. 38 - 91 Approving Transfer of Funds. From. and Vatar nnterprise 1.-nd to the Connection an Area charg!,:. Capital Project Tuna for the Lost.Oa-Ha:It of 1.993 on enplainegathat Fdsh sales in s9-c'SC:•:sirl, rosendso frog dtility systsm charges wswlh .:Drns.S.Ch Snnhso io I992..9430,,6-4,,4522C trenlaor-red loss, -11,-Z7C7r,nt- Hunting Guides & Guide Service: Spring Snow Goose, Canada Goose, & Duck Hunts in ... Page 1 of 2 LIR NOM& MN SP M(3 KEY TING REPORTS LINKS CANADA coast & iitavrs 1.1121SION' 1111.11111111511=111=2 651-442-7259 NOW BOOKING MN EAR "Your Guides for an Ultimate Hunting Experience." Specializing in Twin Cities Metro, Rochester & Western MN Guided Waterfowl Hunts Including MISSOURI, SOUTH DAKOTA & MN Guided SPRING SNOW GOOSE HUNTS KRUGER FARMS CERTIFIED ELITE GUIDE 'Tully Insured* rIRST rviGtIT rtIVISHERS crmnincamr *asamaxgoomuaaromio OFWITTER REVIEW Huntthenorth.com's review of our services First Flight Finishers Guide Service specializes in waterfowl hunting throughout Minnesota's metro, Rochester, & Prairie pothole region (i.e. Western MN). We field hunt with Full-Body (& Green Head Gear shells for late season) spreads totaling hundreds of decoys depending on the field. Hunts over water include numerous spinning wing and motion decoys with large spreads. Book today to guarentee your dates. SEE OUR SUMMER UPDATE by clicking on the Hunting Reports link. ****Also, specializing in MO. MN, and SD SPRING SNOW GOOSE HUNTS. Our Missouri, South Dakota. & MN Spring Snow goose spreads total too to over 2 ,000+ decoys. The number of decoys depends on the migration. The majority of our spread consists of Sillosocks & Avery GHG Full-body decoys. Also, we use the most effective decoy available: the Vortexer with the new Sillosock fliers. www.Sillosocks.com MN Daily Rates: $125 Early & Late Metro season (5 honkers/day) $90 Late Rochester season (2 honkers/day) Prime (Regular) Season: $75 Weekday......$90 Weekend day MN Duck & Goose combo hunts: $125 (6 Ducks & 2 honkers/day) MO, SD, & MN SPRING SNOW Goose Hunting Daily Rates: $16o.00 NEW MN U1)UtV G1JII)ED DUCK & or CANADA GOOS/ HUNTS ($zoo per person per day) fittp://www.firstflightfinishers.corn; Missouri and Canada Fall Waterfowl Hunts: $25o EXHIBIT Hunting Guides & Guide Service: Spring Snow Goose, Canada Goose, & Duck Hunts in ... Page 2 of 2 tbsnt.i Norol4cora krogertarovs.com We can accept Paypal (ajohnso8®gmail.com) & thus Major Credit Cards. Gratuity not included* IV" CONTACT C0NTAC INFORMATION: PROFESSIONAL GUIDE Adam Johnson 651442-, FirstFlightFinishers@gmail.com Adam Johnson, 4824 Sharon Lane, White Bear Lake MN 55110 Guided Goose Hunting and Guided Duck Hunting in Minnesota. Missouri, & South Dakota. Guided Spring Snow Goose Hunting in Missouri, South Dakota, Minnesota, & Nebraska. Missouri Spring Snow Goose Hunting Guides. South Dakota Spring Snow Goose Hunting. Guided Spring Snow Goose Hunts. Spring Snow Goose Hunting Guide Service. Best hunting guide service. Snow Goose Hunts, hunting guide service in the midwest, Hunting pictures & videos, Hunting Reports, Hunting Links, Hunting Locations, Spring Snow Goose Guides, Spring Snow Goose Hunting Guide Services, MO spring snow goose hunting guide service, Hunting Guides for blue goose hunting. Duck hunting guides in MN. Rochester goose guides. Hunting guide service in the midwest. Top hunting guides. Minnesota goose hunting guide service. Site Nio,..D http://www.firstflightfinishers.corril 7/9/20] 2 Wacurr°411 Wpb Anoka Conn Property Account Summary Page 1 of 2 Current General In 'Property ID ISitus Address ',Property Description Last Sale Price Last Sale Date Last S le Link ocum !Status Abstract/Tor en ion 13-31-22-3 3/-0004 2155 OTTER LAKE DR • LINO LAKES, MN 5 LOT 1 I3LOCK 1 OAK BROOK PENINSULA 87,500.00 07/13/1 0-0000 Type sition IA Abstract Owner !Owner me OOELL MARIE HE ARRY D SLICK Document Recording Process Dates [Abstract tract Do-uments Have Been Recorded Throu h L s Abstract Documents Have Been Mailed Throu h ITorrens Documents Have Been Reccwded Through 1Torrens Documents Have ailed Throug 06/26/2O12 06/26/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 Active Certificates Of Title 'Type Grtflcate Number Cert ate No Ce F u me Type [o Documen d W hi iTorrens 0 D "Recorded Through" Dates Above 1Recorded Number Date ound 'Property Characteristics [ Lot Size tyear Built Sae'. mate lot size in wise beginning iIRR 11998 the direction the lot races Tax District Information 11,School Dtstrict Number and City Name Fatershed WI-ia t BEAR LAKE LINO LAKES 0 DIS 24 RICE CREEK WATERS ED ax Y 1'2 2011 CassIfication 1A-Residenti& Homestead 1A-Residential Homestead .1 -- 1 !Property Values 1 1Tax Year 16cription !2013 tEs t MarketLand(MKL 12013 2013 2013 Amount' 79,500: 7L8001 4 1, 001 Est Ma ;Taxable mprovement ket (TMTV Vake Prior to Hstd Excl. haps://prtinfo.coanoka.nartus/(2nyzjtnyelearo2554itditnym)!resultaspx 0.00`i 3,877.53 0.00; 3,877.53 0.00 3,9l9.3 0.00 3,919.341 2013 :Est Market (MKTTL) 2012 1Taxable Market (TMTV) 2012 !Market Value Prior to listd Excl. (TMVP) 2012 !Est Market (MKT1-1; 12011 :Taxable Ma-(et (TMTV) 1,2011 .Est Market (MKTTL) Tax Amounts for M1PR Tax Year 'Description ,2012 Qualifying Tax Amount (Tax Bill Line 1) :12012 :Prior Year Qualifying Tax Amount 'Tax BU 2012 12012 Total Tax aunts - Before Payment cial Assessments (Included in Total) ine 2 Pape 2 of 2 451,300 455,900; 455,9_00 455,900i 560,100 560,100: Amount 6,459,33i 7,718.97, 6,483.35 24.02 ir,...yrnent History for Past Three Years ;Date Paid IT x Year 1 Pnncipal 05(14f2012 2012 1 3,241.671 1W13f2011 12011 1 3,877.531 IDS/12/2011 2011 3,877. 110/06/2010 i..._.! ,2010 3,919.34 05/12/2010 2010 j__ 3,919.341 Interests, Penalties and Costs, Amount Paid 0.00; 3,241.67 ]nstalirnents Payable !Tax Year ThstallmentiDue Date ! Principal. Interest, t- 2012 12 [10/15/2012 3,241.681 natties and Costs"Installment Total' Cumulative Due Select to Pay: 0.00! 3,241.68, 3,241.68 linquent Tax Years flax Year installment 'Due Date Principall Interest, Penalties and Costs Installment Total' Cumulative Due S&ect to P NoReordojnl s Developed by Manatron, Inc. @2010 All rights reserved. Version 1.04367.23769 haps:Pprtinfo.co.anoka.mn.ust(2nyzj 11enin2554itdinivrOresultaspx 7/5/2012 Page 1 of 2 Wciumne dr W.,b 444:‘ Anoka County 1 Property Account Summary ICurrent General Information Property ID ISitus Address ;Property Description ;Last Sale Price ;Last Sa L:1st Sale Dacnent Type ;Linked Property Group Position LStatus Abstract/Torrens 2150 OTTER LAKE DR , LINO LAKES, MN 55110-0000 !LOT 2 BLOCK 1 OA BROOK PENINSULA '95,000.00 2 96 Active Abstract iParties Owner RUSSELL DEAN ELTON Document Recordi !Abstract Documents Have [Abstract Documents Have Been Mailed Thrrug at h Ton-ea s Documents Have Been Recorded Through Ton-ens Documents Have Been Mailed Through 06/26/2012 106/26/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 iActive Certificates Of Title Llype ICertificate Number No Certificat Certificate IDocuments Recorded Within 30 Days Of "Recorded Th Type IAbstract/Torrens No Documents Found h" Dates Ab corded mber ecorde Date !Property Characterisi Lot Size Year Built zei Approximate lot size' e t., clock 11996 the di lax District Informa School District Number and Name ;City Name LWatershed WHITE BEAR LAKE SCHOOL DI LAKES RICE CREEK WATERSHED 4 Property ClassI ITax Year 12012 L2011 n Ctasstfica IA-Residential Homestead ential Homestead A- traperty Values lax Year 2013 2013 Description ilst Market Land (MKLND) 2013 Est Market Improvement (MKIMP Taxable Market (TMTV)_ 2013 Market Value Prior to Hstd Excl. (TMVP) 2113 Est Market (MKTTL) 79,500 4, 454,400 454,400 454,4001 https:llprtinfo.co.anoka enm2554itdimvm v Tesultaspx 7/5/2012 a Amount Paid 3,387.60 4,525.70 4,525 9 0.00! 4,625.74; 02001, 4,625.74 ;olect to Pay' 0.00l 3,387.61 3 387.611 0 rest, Pen&ties and Cot Installment Total Cumulative DuSeecttoPay 11 11 ,212 2012 _ 12012 ; 2011 2011 1Taxaole Market (TMTV) Market Value Prior to HsW Excl. (TMVP) Est Mart (XI TO !Taxable Market (TMTV) Est Market (MKITL) Page 2 of 2 476,5001 476,500 476,500 639,800 639,800 fTax Amounts for M1PR :Tax ax Year iDescriotion 1,2012 ;Qualifying Tax Amount (Tax Bill Line 1) 12012 i Prior Year Qualifying Tax Amount (Tax Bill Line 2) 12012 :Total Tax Amounts - Before Payments 2012 Spec Included in Total) Amount 6,751.19 9,015,30 6,775,21 24,02 Pay_nlistc_a fur Past Three Years Date Paid <Tax Year 03/28/2012 '2012 09/29/20 ;2011 Principal ,387.60 4,525,7 4,525.69l 4,625.741 4,625.731 05/02/201 09,13D/2010 /10/2010 12 1. t2010 12010 Interests, Penalties and Co tints Pa able 11Tax 'Year1nstaflnent Due Date 1 Prin 2012 12 5 , ntere 1, Pen ties a d C sts' I nst nt Tot Cumu iv 10/15/201213.367.611 !Delinquent Tax Years ITax Year linstailment Due Date jPrincipal int No Records Found Developed by Manatron, Inc. C12010 At rights reserved. Version 1,0.4367.23769 litips:tiprtinfo.co.anoka.mmus42nyzj .'glemn2554itdimvmYresult.aspx 7/5/2012 C I X`Yea 12012 2011 vex tette Wavier of Anoka Coon few 1 Property Account Summary Pa2e i of 2 Current Genera Information Prop +�rky ID 22 -?1 00 dress Property lJescrption e Pr 2140 OTTER LAKE D ale risen# T inked Pro perty Group ,Role ocument Abstract IA 'Torrens Do cu lTorrens Docurnen anse 3U LIE A SC ARTZ PAUL G SC}3ydARTZ LINO LAKES, MN ROOK PENINSULA -0000 Act T Certi iC No Certiftcates Faun: mentsecord El yPe Ido ©ocuSne Ab ed Through led Throu hiss 30 D 26x'2 26 2012 carotid Through" Dates Above d Number }06/25/20'12 06/25/2012 Found ze in feet. edo if ni DI 24 D A-i2 A ^R a ntl #omad 20 3 '2013 2.0 _. I1n.us/ 21y. 2SS4itdimvrn)se lt«�as 7'512012 2013 IMarket Value Prior to Hstd Excl, (TMVP) !2012 !Market Value Prior to Hstd Excl. (TMVP) .2012 'Taxable Market (TMTV) 2012 Est Market (MKTTL) 2011 Est Market (MKT-IL) 2011 Taxable Market (TMTV) Tax Amounts for M1PR 'Tax Year 'Description !. 2012 lQualifying Tax Amount (Tax Bill Line 1) ,2012 j Prior Year Qualifyino Tax Amount (Tax Bill Line 2) 2012 Total Tax Amounts - Before Payments i 2012 _ .5pecial Assessmen:s (Included in Total) Page 2 o f 2 455,003, 493,900 493,900: 493,900! 5E3,200- 583,200, Amount. 6,997.72! 8,094.73 7,021.74 24,02' ; ,Payment Histomfor past Three Years _ Date Paid 'Tax Year Prinr_ipal Interests, Penalties and Costs Amount Paid 'O5/lS/2032j2012 t 3,510.87 70.21 3,581,0E1 10/13/2011 '2011 4,065.41 C.00; 4,065.41, 05/12/2011 i 2011 4,065,41 0,0 4,065.41 10/14/2010 2010 3,781.66 00O ' 3,761.661 105/14/2010 :2010 3,761.66 i o.olal, 3,761.66i ilastallments Payable I.Tax YearJnstallmentlDue Date Principal, int - !10/15/231.2 '1,510.671 L._ St, P nettles and s 'Installment Totall Cumulative Due.Select to Pay 4 -41 Tr- 0.00! 3,510.67i 3,510.87: .4 iDeli u Tax Y Tax Year I n en !Due Date I Pnacipat Interest, Penalties and Costs! Installment Total!, Cumulative Due:Select to Pay- , No Records Found Developed by Manatron, Inc. @2010 All rights reserved. Version 1.0,4367.23769 hups://prtinfo co.anoka.mn.us42nyzjmygienm2554itdimvm)/resu taspx 7/5/2012 Vkicanw the, Wct, ‘34, Anoka County 11.1m4",,ta Property Account Summary Paae 1 of 2 {Current General Property ID [Situs Address !Property Description iLaSt Sale Pre Last Sale Date iLast Sale Document Ty 'Linked Property Group Position Status a on 136-31-22-31-0007 2120 OTTER LAKE DR , LINO LAKES, MN 55110-1064 LOT 4 LOCK 1 OAK BROOK PENINSULA t 2 4, • :10/ 996 [Abstract/T e s Actve IRole i Owner ;Name IMARK RONALD SMITH iDorument cording Process Dates :Abstract Documents Have Been Recorded Through 06/26/2012 [Abstract Documents Have Been Malted Through 706/26/2012 orrens Documents Have Been Recorded Through 106/25/20 1Torrens Documents 1ove Been Mailed Through 2 2 2 Active Certificates Of Ti 7 [Type ICerti5ca e Nu No Certificates Found ICerti Ica e Date pocuments iType No cu en ed Within 30 Days Of "Recorded Throgh" Date Recorded Number ns Ab ve Reco Date eryChara st Year Built 1997 Lot Sim Approximate lot size in feet, clockwise inning with the direction the lot faces Information School District Number and Narne ICIty Name Watershed AR CH STR 624 [ NO LAKES /RICE CREEK WATERSHED cation Tax Year 2012 2011 Classification 1A- 1A- dentla1 ionestead idential Homestead 130 Propertyyalues ax Year iDescriotion 12013 ,Est Market Land (MKLND) 2013 —1-E-st Market Improvement 12013 ITaxable Market Matet Va ue Prior to Fistd Excl. t.Est Market (MKTTL) VP) o n 320,000i 819,600 1,1 ,6001 1,139,6001 1,139,6t-T10, haps://prtinfo.colinoka.mmus nyzjtnygIenna2554ildirnymY su .aspx 7/5/2012 1 Payment Historyfer Past Three Years ',Date Paid !Tax Year i Principal: , --... I 05/15/2012 ;-- i2012 9,676.121 05/07/2012 12012 9,676.12. 10/04/2011 12011 05/16/2011 i 2011 10,459,96 10/14/2010 2010 i 9,620,53 .1— ,05/15/2010 2010 9,620.521 , 2012 Taxable Market (TMTV) ....____,..,.._ 2012 iMarket Value Prior to Hstd Excl. (TMVP) 2012 ;Est Market (MKTTL) 12011 1Taxable Market (TMTV) 2011 , !Est Market (MKTTL) Tax Amounts for MIP Tax Year IDescription , 2012 Qualifying Tax Amount (Tax Bill Line 1) 2012 I Prior Year Qualifying Tax Amount (Tax Bill Line 2) 2012 !Total Tax Amounts - Before 2012 Spacal Assessments (Included in Total) ents 0,959.96 No Charges are currently doe, Page 2 of 2 1,216,500' 1,216,500 1,370,000 1,370,000, Arnount 19,32522,d„ 20,88163J 19,35225 24.02 nterests, Penalties and Costs: Amount Paid', # 0.00: 9,676.12; 0.00 L 9,676.12, 0-001 — 10,459-96' 0.05T 10,459.96 -6.60., 9,620,53 0.00i 9,620.521 Developed by Manatron, Inc. P2010 Al l rights reserved. Version 1.0.4367.23769 it priinfo.co.anokamn.us/(2nyzjtnyelenm2554itdimvai)/result.aspx 7/512012 Amount 320,000 44-4,830 764,800 7c. ,Ann WriCJInx Aka- of Anoka County htvxna'A Property Account Summary 1Situs Address property Deniiiito I Last Saie P ° 3Lest Sk ot pate Last Salo Document Type j.inked Property Group !Status Abstract/Torrents J • Page 1 of 2 ton 36-31-22-31-0008 2100 01 i hi LAKE DR LINO LAKES, MN 55110-00 0 LOT 5 BLOCK 1 OAK Partes Rce Owner !Owner tion Acv A ct 01 jALAN 5 !SANDRA N ROOK PENINSULA poeume Abstract rdi rumen te een Recorded Through !Abstract Do ume its Nave Been Mailed Through i jTorrens Documents Have Been Recorded Through [Torrens Documents Have Been Mailed Through 106/26/2012 j06/26/2012 '05/25/2012 06/25/2012 !fictive Certificates Of Title [Type jCertificate Numbe No Certificates Found !Certificate Da Documents Recorded Within 30 pays Of "Recorded Through" Dates Above_, JAbstr orrens 1Recorded Number !Recorded cumens Found Property Characteristics Lbt Size 'Year Built RR !,1994 * Lot SJze: Approximate lot size in feet, ciockwtse beginning with the direWor the lot faces ex Dl5trkt Inforn-iat,on istrict Numher and Name Nair Pro Tax Year 2012 12011 ' caton 1A-Residentlal Homestead 11A-Residential Homestead Property Values Tax Year !Description [2013 Est Market 12013 5Es t Market Impmvement !20-13 Taxable Market (714TV) Market Value Prior to Hstd Excl. (TMVP) ND J2013 https://prtinfo,co.anoka.partus/(2nyzjthyglenm2554ildirrirmyres spx 715/2 12 2013 Est Market (micnt)._ 2012 !Taxable Market (TMTV) , 2012 !Market Value Prior to Hstd Excl. (TMVP) !2012 Est Market (micTri.) : 2011 !Taxable Market (TMTV) !,.2011 !Est Market(MKTTL) ilex Amounts for 141pR !Tax Yar Description 2012 iQuaiifying Tax Amount (Tax Bdi Line 1) 12012 IPrior Year Qualifying Tax Amount (Tax Bill 2012 , Total Tax Amounts - Before Payments , ,2012 Special Assmsments (Included M Tota) Payment Histe!y for Past Three years Date Paid .Tax Year 1 Principal ___ 05/07/2012 20:2 ' 6,51643! .09/29/2011 12 11 1 7,696.691 :0-5.10-2/2-011 201 1 7696.681 L09/30/2010 2010 -, 7,422.05 05/10/2010 2030 . 1 7,422.04, 2 Pave 2 of 2 764,800 846,70 146,700 846,-1700 1,030,006j 1.030,0001 Amount ------r 13,009,25 15,357.281 13,033.27 ii,021 Interesm, Penaltim and Costir AmountP&d i 0.001 6,51663 0,667--- 7,696.69' 0,001— 0.00i 7,422.05 0.00! 7,422.04! Developed by Manatron, Inc. ©2010 All nghts reserved. Version 1.0,4367.23769 littps:liprtinfo.co.anoka. musl(2nyzitnyglenm2554ildimyrn)'result.aspx 715/2012 • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: MEETING DATE: TOPIC: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6B Paul Bengtson June 13, 2012 First Reading — Ordinance Number 07 -12 Public Hearing — Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Industrial Zoning Districts VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority INTRODUCTION The City Council engaged the planning consulting company Landform to complete a review of the existing Industrial Zoning Districts within the zoning ordinance and ensure that the standards were consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and ensure a continued quality of development in the city's industrial districts. SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS: P &Z Board / EDAC Discussion Planning & Zoning Board (Public Hearing) City Council Work Session City Council First Reading City Council Second Reading Action Deadline April 16, 2012 June 13, 2012 July 2, 2012 July 9, 2012 July 16, 2012 Staff initiated, no deadlines BACKGROUND Draft language was discussed by the Planning and Zoning Board at the April 16, 2012 meeting, which was held in conjunction with the Economic Development Advisory Committee. The comments made by both the advisory boards were collected by staff and considered for inclusion in the proposed amendment. Kendra Lindahl, of Landform has prepared the draft ordinance language which is attached. A memorandum from Ms. Lindahl explains the process Landform has followed and a summary of the proposed changes. Ms. Lindahl will be presenting the ordinance language. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum from Kendra Lindahl, Landform 2. Ordinance Number 07 -12 P44 s D F O R M From Site to Fir 105 South Fifth Avenue Tel: 612 -252 -9070 Suite 513 Fax: 612 - 252 -9077 Minneapolis, MN 55401 www.fandform.net TO: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: July 3, 2012 for the July 9th City Council Meeting RE: Update to Industrial Zoning District Standards Background Landform was asked by the City of Lino Lakes to review the existing Industrial Zoning district standards in Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the ordinance standards were consistent with the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, that allowed uses were consistent with the City vision, goals and policies and that the development standards were appropriate for the different uses. We have reviewed the 2030 Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance dated October 2011 and the Redevelopment Task Force Workbook. Additionally, prior to preparing these recommendations, we met with staff to understand the issues identified previously by the City (staff, Commissioners and Council members) and we spoke with site selectors and developers to better understand how the Zoning Ordinance standards could affect their decision to locate in a community. Summary of July 2, 2012 City Council Work Session At the July 2nd work Session, the City Council questioned why screening would be required between industrial properties. Staff indicated that the recommendation is included because there are many different types of uses allowed in the industrial district and outside storage should be screened from any adjacent landowner. The City Council directed staff to review the draft language to consider changes to allow some discretion for screening between industrial properties. Following the City Council work session, staff reviewed the ordinance language and is recommending that this screening flexibility be provided in the landscape ordinance section (Section 3, Subd. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance). The Industrial District language for outside storage is drafted to read: 1 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. Landform", SensiblyGreer ` and Site to Finish` are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services LLC. • • 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. The City Council also had some discussion about whether or not to prohibit outside storage adjacent to the interstate, but recommended that the prohibition remain as drafted. Summary of June 13, 2012 P &Z Public Hearing The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on this item on June 13 and voted unanimously to recommend approval with two changes: 1. Modify the draft Manufacturing definition to read as follows: "Manufacturing. An establishment engaged in the indoor manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, packaging or other industrial processing, primarily from previously prepared materials, or the indoor provision of industrial services, where there are few external effects across property lines. This term includes but is not limited to a business engaged in the processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, or packaging of food, textile, leather, wood, paper, chemical, plastic, or metal products." 2. Modify the Research Laboratories definition to read as follows: "Research Laboratories. A use engaged in research and development, testing, assembly, repair, and manufacturing. Examples include research labs in the following industries: biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical instrumentation or supplies, communications and information technology. electronics and instrumentation, and computer hardware and software. Office, warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution of the finished products produced at the site are allowed as part of this use." Revisions to Industrial District Standards (Section 8) 2 July 9, 2012 There was a question at the meeting about why motor fuels stations are no longer allowed in the industrial districts. Staff noted that these types of uses are more retail uses that should be located in commercial zoning districts with convenient road access. Site selectors for those types of businesses are more interested in those retail sites with good access and that frees up industrial and for true industrial uses. There was a question about why the draft language allows outside storage adjacent to residential and continues to prohibit it adjacent to the I- 35E/W. We noted that currently the ordinance prohibits outside storage adjacent to residential and I- 35E/W, but allows it adjacent to residential via an IUP. There are at least two businesses that have outside storage and the city has expressed some desire to allow outside storage for industrial districts to be more business friendly and to bring these existing businesses into compliance. In exchange for more opportunities for outside storage, the City has increased the performance standards, including the setback and screening standards for outside storage. When this issue was discussed at the staff level and at the March 14th workshop, there was a general sense that it was important to preserve the gateway into the City along the interstate and, therefore, outside storage would continue to be prohibited in those areas. After some discussion, the P &Z recommended keeping the language as drafted. Summary of March 14, 2012 Workshop On March 14th joint Planning and Zoning Board /Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting, we presented a summary of proposed changes to the industrial zoning district standards to • ensure consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and ensure a continuation of quality development that meets market demand. At that meeting, there was significant discussion about the proposed change to the outside storage standards. While the majority seemed to be in agreement that this type of use is appropriate in industrial districts, there were a number of concerns about screening and what constitutes effective screening. Furthermore, while there was an acknowledgement of the importance of standards to ensure quality development, there were also comments that the ordinance should not be so restrictive that it discourages quality businesses from locating in Lino Lakes. Consensus was to increase the performance standards in exchange for increased opportunities for outside storage. Many of the concerns related to the standards in the landscape /screening standards in Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, after the meeting, staff prepared an update to those standards for consideration at the June 13th meeting in a separate action. Additionally, the Commissioners suggested that "Research Laboratories" be defined, so we have prepared a definition for consideration. The Commissioners also suggested that Kennels /Pet hotels be added as a conditional use in the Industrial districts. Therefore, we have added "Commercial Kennels" as a conditional use in both industrial districts subject to the same standards used elsewhere in the City Code. Revisions to Industrial District Standards (Section 8) 3 July 9, 2012 • Summary of Proposed Changes We are recommending a number of revisions to the ordinance based on discussions with City staff and our professional experience writing and implementing ordinances. The proposed changes have been shown as deleted text in ctrikethrough, added text in underline in the attached document. Background In our initial meeting with City staff we discussed the City's concerns with the existing Industrial zoning districts and begin discussion of potential changes to help the City implement their vision. The following key issues were discussed: • Non - conforming uses in the Industrial districts • The challenges specific to the Light Industrial area on Lake Drive (e.g. non - conformities, proximity to single family residential, lack of municipal sewer and water, zoning that is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan) • Need to balance property owner rights with the rights of adjacent landowners • Need to analyze the long term goals vs. short term requests • Need to analyze tax impacts for the city as a whole • Importance of Lake Drive as a gateway for the City • Outside storage needs to be clearly addressed, including updated definition of outside storage to address vehicle parking, dumpsters, display areas, etc. It is our understanding that there were some in the City who felt that the existing ordinance may have been overly restrictive and discouraged new businesses from locating in Lino Lakes. Our experience shows that one of the roles of zoning is to protect property rights of existing landowners and businesses by maintaining a standard that ensures quality and maintenance of adjacent properties, which helps to maintain property values. My conversations with site selectors and developers indicate that few buildings are being built on speculation. The only buildings being built are for specific tenants and each tenant has specific Iocational criteria that will drive site selection more that any zoning standards. The general consensus is that businesses are looking for and as close to the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul as possible and those businesses generally will not move out from that core until they can find land that is priced to fit their needs. The supply of industrial land in places like Blaine is diminishing, which will make land in Lino Lakes more appealing. Throughout the metropolitan area, performance standards have been increased and businesses seem to understand this baseline expectation has increased over what might have been acceptable 30 years ago. None of site selectors I spoke to cited Lino Lakes as having an ordinance that was too restrictive, but all noted the importance of flexibility for users. Proposed Revisions One of the significant changes relates to the general format of the Zoning Ordinance. It is our intent to make the Industrial district standards clearer with these updates. However, it should be noted an update to Section 3 (general performance standards) will be required to supplement these updates. The key changes proposed in the LI and GI districts are as follows: Revisions to Industrial District Standards (Section 8) 4 July 9, 2012 • Eliminated motor fuel stations as an allowed use in both the LI and GI zoning districts. We believe that these users should be located on commercial property with convenient access. This will free up the remaining Industrial and for true industrial uses. • Added new permitted uses, such as research laboratories and trade /business schools in both LI and GI and food processing in GI. This is reflective of the current economy and is consistent with the intent of these zoning districts. • Made accessory indoor retail, rental or service activities an accessory use rather than a conditional use permit. This provides more flexibility for landowners and eliminates the time - consuming conditional use permit for these accessory and incidental uses. • Eliminated redundant standards for conditional uses. If the standard is addressed in the general performance standards section of the Zoning Ordinance or the Building Code, there is no reason to repeat those standards and, therefore, they have been eliminated.. We understand that staff plans a future update of the general performance standards in Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance as well. • Added Mini - Storage as a conditional use in the LI district (it was already a conditional use in the GI district). This type of use is commonly located in the light industrial zoning districts and would be compatible with other allowed uses. • Added Commercial Kennels as a conditional use in both the LI and GI districts, subject to the same standards used elsewhere in the City Code. • A number of changes were made to outside storage standards (for outside storage as an accessory use). These changes will allow outside storage accessory to the principal use as an option for more properties in the Industrial zoning districts, but will increase the performance standards for outside storage: o Outside storage areas must be completely enclosed in a fenced area and this area must comply with the structure setbacks for the district. There are currently no setback requirements for outside storage areas. o Outside storage may now be allowed adjacent to residential properties, parks, schools, and businesses provided they meet the structure setback, buffering and other performance standards. The only prohibition that remains in place is abutting interstates, and abutting will no longer mean across a right of way. o Setbacks from residential will be based on the and use classification in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan rather than the Zoning Map classification. o The ratio of outside storage area to building footprint has been eliminated in the GI district and reduced from 3.5:1 to 2.5:1 in the LI district. o Outside storage as a principal use had been eliminated from LI district where it was previously allowed as an interim use permit. Definitions In addition to the changes to the Industrial district uses and standards. I would suggest the following new definitions be included in the Ordinance when the City updates Section 1, Subd. 2 (Rules and Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance: Mass Transit Terminal. The property, equipment and improvements owned, used, constructed, maintained, controlled, or operated to provide mass transportation for passengers or to provide for the movement of people. including park- and -ride stations, transfer stations and parking lots. Revisions to Industrial District Standards (Section 8) 5 July 9, 2012 • • 3. Manufacturing. An establishment engaged in the indoor manufacturing. assembly, fabrication. packaging or other industrial processing, primarily from previously prepared materials, or the indoor provision of industrial services, where there are few external effects across property lines. This term includes but is not limited to a business engaged in the processing, fabrication, assembly. treatment, or packaging of food, textile, leather, wood, 'gaper, chemical, plastic, or metal products. Outside Storaq The storage of goods, materials, equipment, manufactured products and similar items not fully enclosed by a building for a period greater than 24 hours. We note that the existing ordinance currently uses the terms "outside storage" and "exterior storage" interchangeably. We recommend that future ordinance updates replace the term "exterior storage" with "outside storage" for consistency and clarity. Research Laboratories. A use engaged in research and development, testing, assembly, repair, and manufacturing. Examples include research labs in the following industries: biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical instrumentation or supplies, communications and information technology, electronics and instrumentation. and computer hardware and software. Office, warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution of the finished products produced at the site are allowed as part of this use. Trade or Business Schools. A specialized instructional establishment that provides on -site training of business, commercial, and /or trade skills such as accounting, data processing, and computer repair. This classification excludes establishments providing training in an activity that is not otherwise permitted in the zone. Incidental instructional services in conjunction with another primary use shall not be considered a business and trade school. Wholesale Businesses /Showrooms. An establishment or place of business primarily engaged in selling and /or distributing merchandise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users, or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to, such individuals or companies. This is not considered a general commercial use. Zoning Map We recommend that the City update the zoning map to be consistent with the adopted 2030 Future Land Use Map as required by State Statute and to eliminate any confusion about appropriate land uses on properties. However, this item is not required immediately and can be completed in the future. Revisions to Industrial District Standards (Section 8) 6 July 9, 2012 Recommendation Move to adopt the proposed revisions to the Industrial Ordinance standards in Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Attachments 1. Ordinance Amending Section 8 • • Revisions to Industrial District Standards (Section 8) 7 July 9, 2012 • 1st Reading: Publication: 2 "d Reading: Effective: Council Member moved for adoption of the following ordinance: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 7 -12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REVISE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2030 COMPRHENSIVE PLAN Section 1 Findings Section 2, Subdivision 1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires consideration of possible adverse effects of a proposed zoning amendment and that the judgment of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of, and has been found to be consistent with, the official City Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the industrial standards of the city are consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the city's vision goals and policies, and are appropriate for each type of use. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The changes contained within this amendment will increase the compatibility between present and future land uses. 3. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained herein. This ordinance will reflect the goals of the comprehensive plan and will establish performance standards for industrial development within the city. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. The proposed amendment is based on the 2030 comprehensive plan which appropriately considers service capacity. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 410 The proposed amendment will not affect traffic generation, as the properties it will be applied on are already guided by the comprehensive plan for industrial development. The Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on the amendment on June 13, 2012, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment. Section 2 Amendment of Zoning Ordinance Approved The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains that Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended per attachment A of this ordinance. Section 3 Zoning Ordinance and City Code Stand as Amended As above amended, the Zoning Ordinance shall stand as initially passed and previously amended. Section 4 in Effect According to City Charter This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Jeff Reinert, Mayor Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this th day of 2012. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. • • • • • • SECTION 8. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Subd. 1. LI, Light Industrial District. A. 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 Tight industries which are dependent upon raw materials refined elsewhere. No new and shall be zoned LI, Light Industrial unless the site or area lies within the City's MUSA and sanitary sewer and municipal water is available. B. Lot and Yard Requirements. 1. Minimum Lot Size. a. Sewered Lot. One (1) acre. b. Unsewered Lot. Ten (10) acres in accordance with applicable provisions of Section 3, Subd. 2. of this Ordinance. 2. Minimum Lot Width. One hundred (100) feet. 3. Setbacks. (The greater of the following:) a. From Streets. 1) Principal and Accessory Building - Local Street. Thirty (30) feet. 2) Principal and Accessory Building - Collector or Arterial Street. Fifty (50) feet. 3) Parking Lot. Fifteen (15) feet. b. Rear Yard. 1) Principal Building. Fifteen (15) feet. 2) Accessory Building. Ten (10) feet. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance industrial Districts 8 -1 3) Parking Lot. Five (5) feet. c. Side Yard. 1) Principal Building. Ten (10) feet. 2) Accessory Building. Ten (10) feet. 3) Parking Lot. Five (5) feet. d. From property guided by the comprehensive an for residential develoomen - Seventy-five (75) feet. of the buIdi g hoightc of the two (2) buildings. C. Buffer. Where a side or rear lot line in an LI District coincides with an adjacent public road right-of-way or property guided by the comprehensive plan for residential or commercial development, a landscape buffer area shall be provided along such side or rear lot line not less than forty (40) feet in depth and shall contain landscaping, planting, berming or other effective screening suitable to provide an effective screen in compliance with Section 3. Subd. 4.Q,6 of this Ordinance. D. Maximum Building Height Regulations. No building in the LI Diatrict shall be erected or structurally altered to exceed fForty-five (45) feet in height, except as allowed by Section 3. Subd. 4.C. E. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage. in no event shall off street parking space. structures of any typo, buildings, or other fates cover more than eight-ySeventy-five (g-575) percent of the lot area resulting imi3E.:S than fifteen (45) F. Building Requirements. All newly constructed industrial buildings shall meet the exterior building standards of Section 43, Subd. 4.B.4 of this Ordinance. Buffer. Where a side or roar lot line in an LI District coincides with an adjacent residential or commorcial (distnot, or public road right of way, a landscape buffer 7C3 shall be provided along such side or rear lot line not less than forty (40) foot scroening suitable tc provido an effective F./;rok...-n. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8-2 Industrial Districts 1 • • • • G. Permitted Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are permitted uses itn the LI District, no building or and shall hercafter Pc erected, or struoturUlly altered - except for ono or more of the following 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. Community Gardens operated by the city. 1. Construction- related businesses, including sghops and offices for contractors incl ding plumbing, heating, glazing, painting, paper hanging, roofing, ventilating, electrical, carpentry, welding, landscaping, excavating, an — general contracting and similar uses, including contractor storage of equipment and building materials if enclosed within a building, but not storage yards. Feed and seed sales. Greenhouses, nurseries. -r .8. Laundry, dry cleaning or dying plant. 8. E-- oohine chops and metal products manufacturing when not equipped with riveting and grinding machines or any equipment which mo GFeate noise, vibration, omokc. odors, heat, or glare, etc., disturbing to adjacent proporty occupants. g. Manufacturing or assembly of a wide variety of products that produces no exterior noise, glare, fumes, obnoxious products, by- products, or wastes, or creates other objectionable impact on the environment, including the generation of large volumes of traffic. Examples of such uses are: a. a. Fabrication or assembly of small products such ss optical, publishing. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -3 Industrial Districts 10. Puss transit terminals. -.11. Office business — clinic and aeneraloffices. 4-41.-.1 2. Radio and television stations. .1413. Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building. 14. Research laboratories 12. Mass transit terminals. 15. Trade or Business schools. 44,16. 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. 4-5,17. Wholesale businesses!showroomsWholcscle buci;°osDed and offing:. 15. Community OeronE operstod by tho ci H. Accessory Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are accessory uses in the LI District: Accessory buildings and structures as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4.D. 10 of this Ordinance. 1.2. Accessory indoor retail. rental or service activities other than that allowed as a permitted or conditional use within the Light Industrial zoning district, provided such use is related and accessory to a principle use allowed within the Light industrial zoning district. 2-3. Fences as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4.R of this Ordinance. 3-4. Off - street loading as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 6. of this Ordinance. Off - street parking as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 5. of this Ordinance. .6. Radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs three (3) meters or less in diameter, short -wave dispatching antennas, or those necessary for the operation of electronic equipment including radio receivers, ham radio transmitters and television receivers as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4-5-14 of this Ordinance. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -4 • • • • • 6.7. Signs as regulated by amDndcd.Chapter 1010 of the City Code. 7.8. Brewer taprooms accessory to a malt liquor beverage production and bottling facility. Liquor sales, on sale through brewer taprooms and off sale pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 340A.301, subdivision 7(b), all accessory to a malt liquor beverage production and bottling facility. 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. as a per cd use or conditiona -de this section, pfovidod that: allow hin the LI Distrint gross floor area of the principal building. 2. Automobile and truck repair provided that: a- d site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area influence within a- roa'on bte distance of the lot. b. Al4 building materials and construction including thoho of accessory structures must be in conformance with Section 3, -ubd. 1.D. of this Ordinance. Not less than twenty five (2,) percent of the lot, parcel or tract cf planting hall be surfaced bituminous or con -crate which will curb barrier, 3 storm water drainago system and is subject to the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -5 industrial Districts 2) F•crior wall treatment shall be the, principal building. sir nl!ar and/or cornploment The enclon_d troy � re eptacie area shall be located in tho The trash enclosure must be in an accessible loco pick up hauling vehicles. The trash enclosure must be full' adjacent properties. cn Tor ene`d from view of ;—All painting must be conducted in an approved paint booth per Section 3. Subd. H. !`CPC 1 15, 3S a, c . The emission of odor by a use shall o in compliance with and c .. Minnesota Regulations APO, as amonded. b. h. All flammable materials, including liquids and rags, shall conform with the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. All outside storage shall be prohibited except the storage of customer vehicles waiting for repair. Off street parking shall be in conformance with S.:ction 3, Subd. 5. of this Ordinance and a leading arca or berth shall be provided in conformance with Section 3, Subd. 6. of this Ordinance. by modifying tho :renditions. 2. Commercial and Public Radio and Television Transmitting Antennas, and Public Utility Microwave Antennas greater than forty -five Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -6 Industrial Districts • • • (45) feet in height and less than two hundred (200) feet in height as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4-5-14 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. b. If an "on-premises" caretaker dwelling unit is provided on site, construction of said dwelling unit shall conform to all design standard regulations for multiple family 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. space shal providod to access fue! pumps and allow tanks arc to be pos;tionod to ailnw adoquatc access by motor fuel transports and unloading operations which do not conflict with b. Arohitoctural Standards. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8-7 industrial Districts As a port of the co dition,al 4C-e permit ai. plication, a color 5■ Thc architecture! appearanc'o, Scale, and functional plan of the building(s) and canopy shall be complesmantary and '-ornpatible with oach other and the oxicting buildings in the neighborhood setting. All sides of the principal and accessory structures a Ordinance. earth tone colors of exterior materiaie including he canopy in soil, vegetation; etc:. such colors are limited to brown, back, gray, tan, beige, brick r . -oft groin, soft blue, or white. 6) Ten -(10) percent of building facade may contoin h not deflncd as earth tones. Thc canopy may have contrasting color bands or accent linos not to exce...d an accumulative width of four (') inches. The color bands shall not be illuminated. c. Canopy. A- protective canopy structure may be looat.d over the Thc edge of the canopy shall be thirty (30) feet or Marc from both on site and off sit s maintained. 2) The canopy shall not exceed eight on (13 a s mi trailer truck pa-E.,-sing undcrnoath. 3) The canopy fascia shall not €x.-.,cod three (3) foot -in- vortical ect in height and Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -8 Industrial Districts • • • '1) annopy lighting shall consist of canister spotlights r�.oc� d into to canopy. Nc portion of t o light source or fixture mai illumiration may not e.xceed one hundred fiftoen (115) foot candies below the canopy at ground -level shall c consistent wit, no principal building on the site. signoge on e principal structure, provide that: a public rig-ht of way. operation of the gas pumps. Pump Islands. Pump islands shall comply with the following performan^o standards: traveled surface of tho site. All pump islands shall bo SC t 3t Last thirty (30} foot back Dust Control and Drainage. The entire site other than taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, cobblestone, or paving brick. Plans far surfacing and drainago shaA be subject to approval .of the —ity Engineer. Drainago fro 1 all fueling a -r-eas shall be directed to on oillgrit separator. Minimum design standards for the oilkgrit separator shall include the following: 1) A minimum of four hundred (400) cubic fLct of permanent pool storage capacity pox acre of drainage area. A minimum pool depth of four (1) fact. A minimum oil contain -neat capacity of eight hundred (300) gallons. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -9 4) Minimum maintenance inspection of two (2) times per year andfor after measurable spill events. A- measurable °pill shall be defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Ml PCA. Landscaping. 1) At lea='t twenty five (25) porcant of the lot, parcel or tract of and used exclusiv ty for the gas solos facility shall remain as should be emphasized in the front and side yards abutting streets or residential property. sr re c) than five (5) feet wide- shall be landscaped in oompliancc with Section 3, Subd. 4.0 of this Ordin3noo. From ail road rights of way, an area of not Ions than fiftoon (15) feet wide shall be landscaped in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 'l.Q of this Ordinance. Whore lots abut rocidontial pro; e a buffer Subd. 4.0 of this Ordinance. d) The property owner shall boulevard. Exterior Lighting. The lighting s! re oonslble for !I be accomplished in such a way compliance with S otion 3, Subd. 4.F of th .is Ordinance. A c.,-ehensivc lighting plan shall bo oubrnittcd as part of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -10 industrial Districts • • • • • r: ^ocsod into the canopy. No portion of the light source or canopy illumination below the canopy may n.,t one hundred fifteen (115) foot candles at ground 2) Perimeter Lighting. Lighting at he periphery of the oitto and building shall be dir�ctcd downward, and individual lights 3) Illumination. Maximum site illumination shall not exce.:d four tenths (.'i) foot candle at ground level when measured at any boundary line with an adjoining residential property or any public property. h) Access. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and shall comply with S,action 3, Subd. 5 of this Ordinance. h. Circulation and Loading. Tho site design must accommodate\ truck. designated loading areas must be exclusive of off stroo4 parking stalls and drive aisles. A site plan must be provided to templates. Parking. properties in compliance with S:ction 3, Subd. ^.O of this Ordinance. Noise\. Public address system shall not be audible at any property lino. Play of music or advertisement from the public address k. Outside Storage, Sales ani!- Sorvioo. No owtside storage or sales shall be allowed; exc.. pt as follows: Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -11 Industrial Districts Public phones may be locate n site 3S long they do not • - yard abdtting residentlaily zoned property. 2) Propane. sales of twenty (20) pound capacity tank: may be. iodated outside: provided tho propanc tanks are secur..: n a i-ecker and meets all State Uniform Building and Fire- Code:. Largo, bulk sa4e propane tanks must meet all pplio..alo building and firo A long as it does not interrupt on site traffic circulation. Outside sonvices, S3iDS, and egJuipmont rental accessory to e • - percent of-the gross floor arca of the principal building. Littar Control, The operation shall be responsible for litter control on the oubjoct property, which is to occur an a daily testis. Trash receptacles shall be provided at a convenient location on site to facilitate litter control. m Additional Stipulations. Ali conditions pertair;ing to a cpcifo cite relation to a formal requost find: -that the. general welfare and public betterment can bc served as well or better by modifying or expanding the conditions set forth herein. 5. 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 neig boring adjacent uses, residential zoning districts,_ and public rights-of-way via a fence and greenbelt planting strip. in accordance with -pie-is-Section 3, Subd. 4.Q.6 of this Ordinance. c. The entire storage area is fenced and secured in an appropriate manner. b. Storage area is fenced i a manner approv:d by the City. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8-12 • • • • d. The sgtorage 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. d. A!I ligtting shall bo in mplianoe with Section 3, Subd. 4.F of this Ordinance or other lighting standards In place at the tirno of project approval. e. 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 yards. f. The property shall not abut property zoned for residential; rura €, or business :use including and in a neighboring city. "Abutting" includes across 3 strcot. "/ butting" does not include prop rteo that touch only ,orner to corner. f_g----The property shall not abut I -35W or 1 -35E. h. The storage oroa shall not abut s school or a public pa; k. .—The ratio of storage area to building footprint shall not exceed a-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. 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. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -13 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. J. Uses by Administrative Permit. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following uses are allowed by administrative permit, as may be approved by the Zoning Administrator: 1. Personal wireless service antennas as secondary uses as regulated by Section 3, Subd. +5-14 of this Ordinance. 2. Telecommunication towers as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4-5-14 of this Ordinance. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -14 • • • • • • 3. Temporary mobile towers as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 15 14 of this Ordinance. 4. Open Air Markets. 5. Transient Merchants. 6. Accessory outdoor dining or seating facilities intended for consumption of food or beverages purchased on site, provided that requirements of Section 3, Subd. 15 are met. K. interim Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are interim uses in the LI District and are governed by Section 2, Subd. 3 of this Ordinance: 1. Opon and outdoor storage as 3 principal or accessor y Lice p-ravided that: a. A minimum setback of seventy five (75) feat is provided along abutting residentially zoned properties. b. The setback shall include a buffer yard not less than twenty (20) feet in width provided along residentially zoned properties in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 'l.0 of this Ordinance - Ali storage is screanod from view of neighboring uses and public d. The storage ace3 does not to :e up parking space or loading space a. Ali lighting be in co pHance with Suction 3, Subd. 4.F of this Ordinance. f. The Jtoragc area is fenced and securL.d in an appropriate manner. g. The storage area is surfac d in a wear resistant material determined by the City Engineer to be suitable to -control dust and drainage. h. All parking, loading and truck staging activities shall occur on site. On street parking and loading associated with the use is prohibited. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance industrial Districts 8 -15 Noises emanating from the use are in compliance with and Minnesota Regulations MPC 7030, as amended and City Code. The usro is terminated upon a specified date. or the ha :,coning of an event ea dcterminDd by the City. 1. 2. Temporary Batch Plants. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -16 • • Subd. 2. GI, General Industrial District. A. Purpose. These are areas which, because of availability to thoroughfares, suitable topography, and isolation, are appropriate for industrial uses of a more intense nature and ones which may have certain nuisance characteristics. No new land shall be zoned GI, General Industrial unless the site or area lies within the City's MUSA and sanitary sewer and municipal water is available. B. District, Lot and Yard Requirements. 1. Minimum Lot Size. a. Sewered Lot. One (1) acre. b. Unsewered Lot. Ten (10) acres in accordance with applicable provisions of Section 3, Subd. 2. of this Ordinance. 2. Minimum Lot Width. One hundred (100) feet. 3. Setbacks. (The greater of the following:) a. From Streets. 1) Principal and Accessory Building - Local Street. Fifty (50) feet. 2) Principal and Accessary Building - Collector or Arterial Street. Fifty (50) feet. 3) Parking Lot. Fifteen (15) feet. b. Rear Yard. 1) Principal Building. Fifteen (15) feet. 2) Accessory Building. Ten (10) feet. 3) Parking Lot. Five (5) feet. c. Side Yard. 1) Principal Building. Ten (10) feet. 2) Accessory Building. Ten (10) feet. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -17 3) Parking Lot. Ten (10) feet. d. From property guided by the comprehensive an for residential developmentResidentiai District. One hundred (100) feet. e. Betwt.en Principal Buildings. Not less than one half (1,2) the sum of the building heights of the two (2) buildings. C. Buffer. Where a side or rear lot line in a GI District coincides with an adiacent Public road right-of-way or property guided by the comprehensive an for residential or commercial development. a landscape buffer area shall be Provided along such side or rear lot line not less than forty (40) feet in depth and shall contain landscaping, planting, berminq or other effective screening suitable to provide an effective .visual screen in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q.6 of this Ordinance. C;D. Maximum Building Height Regulations. r‘,Je building in thc GI District shall be erected or structurally altx'..,d to exoeed fForty-five (45) feet in hoight, except as allowed by Section 3, Subd. 4.0. E. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage. !ri no event shall off street parking space, structures of any type, bwildings, or other features cover -more than eightySeventy-five (g-575) percent of the lot area resulting in I e SS than fifto.on (15) peArcent pervious landscaped arca. E. Buffer. Wh•lre a side or rear lot line in a Gl District coincides with 3n adjacent residential or commercial district, or public road right of way, a landscape buffer F. Building Requirements. All newly constructed industrial buildings shall meet the exterior building standards of Section 3, Subd. 4.B.4 of this Ordinance. G. Permitted Uses. Sublect to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are permitted uses, il-n the GI District:, and no building shall be erected, convrted, or struuturally altered unless cthLTwino provided heroin, except for one or more of the following uses. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8-18 Industrial Districts • • • • 1 Beverage production and bottling, including public tours of the facilities • • and gift shops containing merchandise directly related to the facility. 2. 2. Building material sales. 3. Commercial (production) bakery. 4. Community gardens operated by the city. 3. Construction- related businesses, including s•Shops and offices for contractors including plumbing, heating, glazing, painting, paper hanging, roofing, ventilating, electrical, carpentry, welding, landscaping, excavating, and 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. 5. Greenhouses, nurseries. 0. Laundry, dry cleaning or dying plant. ?. Machine shops and metal products manufacturing whoa not drop forges, riveting and grinding mach-inc or eny equipment which may crcate noise; vibration, -moke, odors, heat, or glare, cto., disturbing to adjacent property occupants. 9. 8. Manufacturing or assembly of a wide variety of products that produces no exterior noise, glare, fumes, o1 noxious products, by- products, or wastes, or creates other objectionable impact on the environment, including the generation of large volumes of traffic. E . ampics of such uses ,arc. Fabrication or acsemdfy of small products such as optical, eectronic, pharmaceutical, medical supplies, and equipmcnt. b. Printing and publ -ishing. 10. Mass transit terminals. 11. 9. Professional offioesOffice business — clinic and oeneral. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -19 12. 10. Radio and television stations. 11. Mass transit terminals. 13. 12. Warehousing and distribution facilities_ but not including truck freight transfer stations or mini self- storage facilities poi- Section 1, Subd. 14. 13. Wholesale businesses /showroomsWholesaie businesses and of#i -J. 11 Community wardens operated by the- city. H. Accessory Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are accessory uses in the GI District: 1. Accessory buildings and structures as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4.D.; 10 of this Ordinance. 2. Accessory indoor retail, rental or service activities other than that allowed as a permitted or conditional use within the General Industrial zoning district. provided such use is related and accessory to an allowed principal use in the district. 3. Crude oil. gasoline or other liquid storage tanks (not including bulk propane at motor fuel stations for providing service to the general public) where related and accessory to an allowed principal use in the district, 2A. Fences as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4.R of this Ordinance. 3-.5. Off - street loading as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 6. of this Ordinance. 4-6. Off - street parking as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 5. of this Ordinance. 5.7. Radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs three (3) meters or less in diameter, short -wave dispatching antennas, or those necessary for the operation of electronic equipment including radio receivers, ham radio transmitters and television receivers as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 45-14 of this Ordinance. .4-3. Signs as regulated by tho city sign ordinance. Ord. No. 12 97, as amondcd.Chapter 1010 of the City Code. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -20 • • • • -0. Brewer taprooms accessory to a malt liquor beverage production and bottling facility. .8-10. Liquor sales, on sale through brewer taprooms and off sale pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 340A.301, subdivision 7(b), all accessory to a malt liquor beverage production and bottling facility. Conditional Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are conditional uses in the GI District. These uses require a conditional use permit based on the criteria and procedures outlined in Section 2, Subd. 2 of this Ordinance. 1. Accessory, indoor retail, rental, or service activity other than that allowed - oc 3 permitted use or conditional use within this - section, provided that: allowed within thc Li District. b. Such use does not constitute more than thirty (30) percont of the gross floor arca of the principal building. Automobile and truck repair provided that: and site shall -not be s dissimilar to thc existing buildings or area influence. within a reasonable distance of the lot. this Ordinance. Not less than twenty five (25) porcont of the lot, parcel or tract of approved landscape plan. approval of the City Engineer. e. hfl buildings shall provido an interior location for trash handling or an enclosed trash -receptacle arca in conformance with the following: Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -21 Industrial Districts Exterior well trcatmcnt shall be the principal building. sirniiar andlor complement Tho encloo,-ed trash receptacle area shall bo located in th . The trash enclosure must be in ar'r 3ccessible location for pick up hauling v hicloo. The trash enclosure be fully screened from view of adjacent properties. f-.---All painting must be conducted in an approved Section 3, Subd. H. operation shall thoroughly control the emission of fumes, dust or other paint booth per APO 1 5, a emended, g. The emission of odor by a use shall be in compliance with end b. h. All flammable materials, including liquids and rags, shall conform wi to the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. c. —AI1 outside storage shall be prohibited except the storage of customer vehicles waiting for repair. The storage of damaged vehicles, vehicles being repaired and vehicle parts and accessory equipment must bo completely inside a principal or accessory building. Off street parkins shall be in conformance with Section 3, Subd. 5. conformance with Section -3, Subd. 6. of this Ordinance. by modifying the conditions. 2. 3. 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. 15 of this Ordinance. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -22 Industrial Districts • • • • • • 3. 4. Concrete product plants, building materials production and similar uses provided that: a. All applicable. Minnesota Pollution Control- Agency requirements are satisfactorily mot. b. A drainage system subj ct to the approval of tho City Engineer shall be any^ a, c. Storage areas are landscaped, fenced and screened from view of neighboring uses, properties guided by the comprehensive elan for residential or commercial development, abutting residential zoning districts and public rights -of -way in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.S Q.6 of this Ordinance. through traffic movement and shall bo subj ct to approval of the City Engineer. Provisions ohall be mode to control and minimize noise, air and water pollution. whoa the' Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal roqucst, finds that the general welfare' or public betterment can ba served as well or better by modifying the conditions. 5. Crude oil, gasoline or other liquid storage tanks as an act e (not general public) provided that: satisfactorily met. A drainage system subjoot to the approval of tho City Engineer shall be installed. Storage areas arc landscaped, fenced and screened from view of neighboring u� .s, abutting residential zoning districts and public rights of way in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.0. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -23 Industrial Districts City Engineer. a pining residential zoning district. No tanks shad be permitted the ront yard or side yard abutting public rights of way. be pet bac "0) fcr't from any storage tank. Storage tanks :hall be sot bac from existing structu-res, as outiinLd in the Fire Code, based on tank sic. not limited to, par ing, driveway, curb cuts and Loading area. A wire weave /chain fink security fends shalt be required around all storage tanks. The location of said fence 'shall be as per th Uniform -Fire Code. Storage sites shah bo aoocssiblc by scfvice and •nergcncy vehicles. locking devices. in a oonspicuoue location, directly on the tank indicating a cuppiier's name, address, phone nur1bar, that highly fia ,rrabie and dangerous material io stored therein, and that no smoking requirem.,nts must be observed or a sufficient warning to that be used for advertising purposes. pollution. II, upon investigationn in relation to a forma! request. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -24 Industrial Districts • • • • • finds that the general welfare or public bttermont can bc servad well or better by modifying the conditions. 4. Commercial Kennels, ;provided that: a. The applicable provisions of Chapter 503 are determined to be satisfied. b. Cedes. enclosures and housing facilities shall be at Iast 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. 5. 6. Manufacture of materials, including but not limited to, rubber, corrosive acids, petroleum and chemical products, which pose potential health and safety risks and which when produced give off potentially noxious odors provided that: c. All applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements are satisfactorily met. b. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer s all be installed. rights of way in compliance with Section 3, Sub .Q. OM AM! 111.11:, .F; t rough traffic movement and shall be subject to ap-proval of the City Engint..no,n e. Provisions are made to control and minimize noise, air and water pollution,. f. Exterior liquid storage tanks shall campy with the standards of Section 8, Subd. 2.1.5 cf this Ordinance: All conditions pertaining to a specifi 11,1■ are subject to change: Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 5-25 Industrial Districts well or better by modifying the conditions. Mini self- storage facilities provided that: At least twenty five (25) percent of the site is open green space which is sodded and intensely landscapcA oscordaroo with a plan approved by the City Qouncil. b. No buildings shall be located doer than twenty five (25) feet to _ .. .__. arc. No single building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length. d. Adequate space is provided for snow storage. Ati torage buildings ere equipped with an approved fire City Buildin Official and the Fire Department. g. Every two thousand (2,000) squaro feet of the storage structure is to be separated by a fire wall and o complete and comprehensive fire alarm system with cmoko doteotorc shall be klitiated in each structure 1 . All driveways and parking a-roas arc 10 be hard (blacktop or ancretc) surfaced and adequate turning radius for fire truck maneuverability is ronth-s- an "on- premises" caretaker dwelling unit is provided on site, construction of said dwelling unit shall conform to all design standard regulations for multiple family dwelling units of the Minnesota State Building Code. Any structures having exposure to an adjacent residential use or public right of way, park, or simila -r public use areas shall be of brick, natural Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -26 • • • • • c. k. No retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, repair, or other such activity other than storage is to occur within the self storage, mini warehousingmini self - storage facility. Motor fuel stations provided that: a. Motor duo! Facilities. Mato; fuel facilities shall be installed in accordance with State and City standars. Additionally, adequate space shall be provid ^d to access fu21 pumps and allow maneuverability around the pumps. Undergro nd fuel storage tanks ore to be positioned to allow adequate access by motor fuel transports and unloading operations which do not conflict with e installed on pump islands. b. Architectural Standards. 2) The architectural appearance, scale, and functional plan of the building(s) and canopy shall be complementary and neighborhood setting. 3) All sides of tho principal and accessory structures are to finish treatment pursuant to Section 3. Subd. '1.3 of this Ord nance Exterior wall treatments like brick, stone (natural or artifice!), •ocorotive concFeto block and stucco shall be used. columns shall be required. "Earth tone colors" shall be defined as any various soft colors like those found in nature in soil, vorgetation. etc, suoh colors are limited to brown, black, gray, tan, beige, brick red, soft green, soft blue, or whit. Ten (10) percent of the building facade may contain contrasting colors. Contrasting colors shall be th000 colors not defined as earth tones. The canopy may have Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -27 Industrial Districts not be 1llumnatz. c. Canopy. A protective canopy structure may be locatLd ovor the thc following performa -nce standards: 1) The dge of the cancpy shall be thirty (30) both on site and off site is maintained. cet or rr ore from The canopy shall not oxceed eight ?en (18) feet in height and must provide fourteen (141) feet of clearance to accommodate The canopy fascia ;hall of oxcc:.d three (3) foot in ve ical height. Into thc canopy. No portion of the light source or fixture may shall bo consictont with tho principal building on tho site. 6) Signaae may be allowed on a detach d canopy in lieu of wall signage on the principal structure, provided that: a) The individual canopy sign does not ex --_ed more than twonty (20) percent of t e canopy facade facing a public right of way. d. operatio of thc gas pumps. Pump islands. Pump islands shall comply wan the followng porformance standards: Pump Islands shall bo olevatod c:x (6) inches above the travcicd surface of the site. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -28 Industrial Districts • • • • • 2) All pump islands shal! be cot at !cast thirty (30) foot back bump islands ourb l�eoe must be at least twenty four (24) feot. Dust control and Drainage. Tho entire site other than taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with asphalt, drainago Drainage s4-,ell be subject to approval of the City Enginekor. from all fueling aroas :hall be directed to an oil /grit ude the followin J) A minirxu of four hundred (100} cubic feet of permanent pool storage capacity per acre of drainage area. A mini um pool depth of #o.x (4) feet A minis gallons. oil containment capacity of Light hundred (800} shall be defined by the Minnesota Pollution „ontrol Agency {MPCA). Any measurable cpiW avant must be-reported to tho ;'1PCA. Land: taping. 1) At least twenty five (25) peresrit of the lot, parcel or tract of and used exclustveky for the gas sales facility skull remain as a grass plot, including trees, shrubbery, plantings or fencing and shall be landscaped. 'eauirod minimum green area :streets or residential property. than five (5) Ordinance. b) From 311 road rights of way, an area of not less than fifteen (15) feet wide shall be landscaped in cet wide sha I bo lan soaped in Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -29 Industrial Districts compliance with Section 3. S bd. ^..Q of this Ordinance- r yard of not less than twenty (20} fc o wide shall be 3, Subd. ' .Q of this Ordinanco The property owner shall e responsible for boulevard. as to hove no direct source of light visible from adjacent and in residential u:e or from the public right of way and shall be in compliance with Section 3. Subd. of this Ordinance. A following performance standards: under the canopy structure, and consist of canister spotlights recessed into the canopy. No portion of the light source or building shall be directed downward, and individuol lights shall not exceed fifteen (15) foot candies at ground level. illumiation. Maximum site illumi- nation shall not exceed four tenths (.Ai) foot candlo at ground loval when measured at a y public property. conflict with through traffic rnoveme€ Section 3, Subd. 5 of this Ordinance. and shall comply with h. irculation and Loading. The ✓te design must accommodate truck. Dosignated loading areas must be exclusive of off street Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -30 Industrial Districts • • • illustrate sdeg6ate turning radius, using appropriate engineering templates. Parking. +uce(s and the square footage of the principal building-(s). 2) Parking spaces hall be cr�.oned from abutting rocidontial Noise. Public addrecs system shall not be audible at any property line. Play of music or advorticcment from the public addr-ec system is prohibited. Noise control shall be requid as regulated in Outside Storage, Sales and Sorvi No outside storage or sales shall be allowed, except as folio vs: 1) Public phon c may be located on site as long a, yard abutting residentially zoned property. 4) Propane sales of twenty (20) pound capacity tanks may bo located outside provided the propane tanks are s_cured in 3 o not building and fire code r q rements. A compressed air scr,Fice area may be heated on site as long as it does not interrupt on site traffic circulation. '1) Outside services, sales, and equipment rental accessory to the principal use and limited in area to twenty five (25) p&oent of the gross floor area of the principal building. Litter Control. The operation shall bo responsible for litter control on the subject property, which is to occur on a- daily basis. Trash t a convenient location on site to facilitate fatter control. are subjec to change when the Council; upon ,'vestigation in Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8 -31 Industrial Districts relation to a formal request, finds that the genera! welfare and public betterment can bc crved as well or better by modifying or 9. 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. a-b. The storage area is landscaped and screened from view of neighboring adiacent uses, residential zoning districts, and public rights-of-way via a fence and greenbelt planting strip. in accordance withpe-F Section 3, Subd. 4.Q.6 of this Ordinance. sJaU bc screonc,,„ ono hundred (100) pc= properties. from residential c. The entire storage area is fenced and secured in an appropriate manner. c1. 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 Storage 3r:3 is blacktopped or concrete surfaced c. All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. /1.F of this Ordinance • or other lighting standards in place at the time of project approval. 4.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 yards. o. Thz„, property hfl not abut property zoned for recidential, rural, or business usc, including and in a neighboring city. 'Abutting includes e ee— e e corner to corner. f. The property shall not abut I-35W or I-35E. Alk Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 8-32 Industrial Districts • • • • • The ratio cf storage area to building footprint shall riot exco -d 3.5:1. k,g. All parking, loading and truck staging activities shall occur on site. On- street parking and loading associated with the use is prohibited. h. Storage shall not include material considered hazardous under Federal or State Environmental Law. 10. Refuse /garbage collection transfer stations provided that: a. a. No refuse or garbage shall be stored or in any way disposed of on the site. bb b. The storage of refuse or garbage in the front yard shall be prohibited. Vohicle parking and storage area are scrocnod from view of neighboring uoe , abutting residential zoning districts and public right. from vio� a gig baring LIE.; s and public rights of way. c. €---The site shall be maintained free of litter and any other undesirable materials and will be cleaned of loose debris on a daily basis. d. f. One (1) off - street parking space shall be provided for each commercial vehicle operated by the business. Parking requirements will otherwise be as mandated by the provisions of Section 3, Subd. 5. of this Ordinance. e. g. All in bound and out bound trucks and equipment, excluding -- _ mployee's personal vehicles, shall be restricted to designated routes established by the City, except for times when providing collection service to customers within the City limits. ff. --The hours of operation shall be limited as necessary to minimize the effects of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise, and glare upon any existing neighboring residential uses, or residential zoning districts. • Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -33 9. Provisions aro mode to control and minimize — noise, air and water All conditions pertaining tc a sp ^ific site are subject to change whin tho Council; upon invostigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfaro or public betterment can be ce 'od as well or better by modifyini tho onditiono. (1. Trucking terminals provided that: a. Vehicular access points shall be located along arterial streets and shall be limited and designed and constructed to create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. b. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer gall bo installed. r neighboring uses, abutting reside, ial Toning districts and public A d. Vehicular aocoss points shall create a minimum of conflict with City Engincor. pollution. All conditions pertaining to a specific cite are subject to change finds that the general welfare or public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying tie: conditions. J. Uses by Administrative Permit. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following uses are allowed by administrative permit, as may be approved by the Zoning Administrator: 1. Personal wireless service antennas as secondary uses as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 15 14 of this Ordinance. 2. Telecommunication towers as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 15 14 of this Ordinance. 3. Temporary mobile towers as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4-5-14 of this Ordinance. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Industrial Districts 8 -34 • • • • • • 4. Open Air Markets. 5. Transient Merchants. 6. Accessory outdoor dining or seating facilities intended for consumption of food or beverages purchased on site, provided that requirements of Section 3, Subd. 15 are met. K. Interim Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the following are interim uses in the GI District: 1. Temporary Batch Plants. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance industrial Districts 8 -35 • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 TOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance Number 08 -12 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Section 3.4.Q Landscaping and Screening VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 )NTRODUCTION The City Council engaged the planning consulting firm Stantec (formerly Bonestroo) to complete a review of the existing Landscaping section of the zoning ordinance as part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update process. This work was completed over a year ago, but was not adopted as the City Council had not yet adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council have reviewed the proposed language previously, but staff updated portions of the proposed language as part of the comprehensive review of Industrial Zoning Districts and outdoor storage uses. SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS: Planning & Zoning Board (Public Hearing) June 13, 2012 City Council Work Session July 2, 2012 City Council First Reading July 9, 2012 City Council Second Reading July 16, 2012 Publication of Ordinance 'I BD Ordinance Effective I'BD Action Deadline Staff initiated, no deadlines BACKGROUND The proposed language follows the same format that the Planning and Zoning Board saw previously, however the language has been simplified and shortened to make it easier for staff to enforce and for developers /residents to understand. The landscaping requirements are still composed of five distinct standards: Canopy Cover, Foundation Landscaping, Open Area Landscaping, Buffer and Screen, and Boulevard Trees. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval, as is staff. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance Number 08 -12 P44 c 1st Reading: Publication: 2nd Reading: Effective: Council Member moved for adoption of the following ordinance: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 8 -12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.4.Q OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REVISE LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2030 COMPRHENSIVE PLAN Section 1 Findings Section 2, Subdivision 1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires consideration of possible adverse effects of a proposed zoning amendment and that the judgment of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of, and has been found to be consistent with, the official City Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this amendment is to implement portions of the newly adopted 2030 comprehensive plan, and to clearly express the landscaping and buffer standards for future developments. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The changes contained within this amendment will increase the compatibility between present and future land uses as appropriate landscaping and buffering will be provided for. 3. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained herein. This ordinance will reflect the goals of the comprehensive plan and will establish performance standards for new developments that occur within the city. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. The proposed amendment will make changes to the landscaping and buffering standards for new development and therefore will not have any impact on the public services or service capacity. • • • 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The proposed amendment will not affect traffic generation, as it is creating performance standards for future development projects. The Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on the amendment on June 13, 2012, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment. Section 2 Amendment of Zoning Ordinance Approved The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains that Section 3.4.Q of the Zoning Ordinance be stricken and replaced with the language included in attachment A of this ordinance. Section 3 Zoning Ordinance and City Code Stand as Amended As above amended, the Zoning Ordinance shall stand as initially passed and previously amended. Section 4 In Effect According to City Charter This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. • Jeff Reinert, Mayor Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this th day of 2012. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. • ATTACHMENT A Q Landscaping, Screening and Tree Preservation Standards 1. Purpose. To establish landscaping and tree preservation standards to promote high quality site development, compatibility of uses, biodiversity, tree preservation, and to enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the community. a. Definitions. For the purpose of the Landscaping, Screening and Tree Preservation Standards, the following definitions shall apply: Basic Use Area. Area dedicated to site's use, including buildings, parking, loading, driveways, streets, outbuildings, trash enclosures, utilities, landscaping, and grading necessary for the construction of the above uses. Surface water detention ponds are not part of the basic use area. Biodiversity. The variety, distribution and abundance of living organisms in an ecosystem. Damage. Action or inaction which does not follow good arboriculture practices. Damage may include damage inflicted upon roots by machinery, changing the natural grade above the root system or around the trunk, destruction of the natural shape or any action which causes infection, infestation or decay. DBH. Diameter at breast height, typically measured at 4' -6' above the ground. Detention Area. Area of a detention pond from the normal water level and up the side slopes to 10' offset from the high water level. Disturbance. Any construction, development, removals, earth movement, clearing or other similar activity. Drip Line. Imaginary line on the ground that is extended straight downward from the outermost edge of the canopy. Foundation Landscape Zone. Within 15' of the building. Invasive Species. A plant non - native to the local ecosystem which exhibits, or has the potential to exhibit, uncontrolled growth and invasion or alteration of the natural functions of any native habitat. Large Shrub. Large shrubs have a mature height over 6'. Large Tree. Over story deciduous trees with a mature height of at least 40'. Medium Shrub. Medium shrubs have a mature height of 3' -6'. Medium Tree. Deciduous trees with a mature height over 18' and up to 39'. • • • • Removal. Actual removal or effective removal through actions resulting in the death of a tree. Root Protection Zone. A protected area around an existing tree established by offsetting the drip line 5' away from the tree center. Screen. A barrier that hinders sight and, potentially, access. Small Shrub. Small shrubs have a mature height of Tess than 3'. Small shrubs are interchangeable with perennials, ornamental grasses and groundcovers to fulfill landscape standards. Small Tree. Understory deciduous trees with a mature height of 18' and under. Tree. Any self supporting woody plant, growing up the earth with one trunk of at least 3" dbh, or a multi- stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown. Undesirable Tree. Trees that are dead, diseased, structurally weak, invasive or trees that are hazardous to people, infrastructure or buildings. 2. Landscaping Standards. New residential platted subdivisions, mixed use, commercial, institutional and industrial uses shall be subject to the landscaping standards unless specifically excepted. The landscape standards have been divided into five categories: Canopy Cover, Foundation Landscape, Open Areas Landscape, Buffer and Screen, and Boulevard Trees. Projects shall comply with the applicable requirements of all five categories. 3. Canopy Cover Standards. The purpose of this requirement is to mitigate the effects of vehicular hardscape by establishing tree canopy cover to intercept rainfall, protect pavement from sun deterioration, reduce the heat island affect, and improve aesthetics. Vehicular hardscape areas includes loading drives, parking lots, driveways, drop -offs and other areas covered with a hard surface intended for vehicles. Canopy cover requirements do not apply to single family residential development, nor to multi - family residential development without surface parking other than individual unit driveways. a. The required minimum canopy coverage for all uses is 40 %. b. The following equation shall be used to calculate required canopy coverage: Vehicular Hardscape (Square Feet) x Canopy Cover Percent = Required Minimum Canopy Cover (Square Feet) The total of the assigned canopy coverage values for all the trees in or near the vehicular hardscape must be equal or greater than the required minimum. Pervious pavements are considered 50% hardscape. c. The assigned canopy coverage value of each tree is based on planting location, tree size and anticipated tree canopy size 15 years after planting. The assigned canopy cover value to each deciduous tree is described in the following table and illustrations: Assigned Canopy Cover Value Assigned Canopy Coverage Value Interior parking lot islands Within less than 7' of vehicular hardscape edge 7' -12' from vehicular hardscap e edge 100% of the canopy square footage 50% of the canopy square footage 25% of the canopy square footage .: 0 D C.) co >c�. .I- 0 0 0) • t. z. O �. caarn- • ca cn Cr L.) CU c Large Tree 950 SF (or 1200 SF in islands of 3 or more trees) 600 SF 300 SF Medium Tree 500 SF 250 SF 125 SF Small Tree 250 SF 125 SF NA Existing Tree: 6 — 12" dbh 1900 SF 950 SF NA Existing Tree: 1 2+"dbh 2850 SF 1425 SF NA i 1 i \ - Large trees in an island containing 3 more trees are given additional �) Canopy Value. See Canopy Coverage Table. Trees surrounded by hardscape on 3 sides are valued at 100% Canopy. Tres with access to planting soil outside of the island are required to meet soil volume requirements for a shared bed. .Trees in interior isian ^_s are valued at 100% Canopy • • • • • • d. Existing trees may be used to fulfill canopy coverage, as described in Section 3.Subd. 4.Q.8, when the drip line has proximity to the edge of the hardscape; therefore, existing trees do not need to be within less than 7' feet of the vehicular hardscape edge. 4. Foundation Landscape Standards. The purpose of these standards is to soften and enhance building architecture, define access points, add color and seasonal interest, and to blend buildings in with the natural environment. Foundation Landscaping Standards do not apply to single family residential development. a. The foundation landscape planting standards are described in the following table: Foundation Landscape Standards Per 100 eel F) of Building Location Trees and Shrubs Real and Side 1 large 3 large Front and Stree' 2 large 6 large * Rounded to the nearest tenth, with a minimum factor of one. b. Round all calculations to the nearest whole number of plants. c. The required plant materials shall be planted in the foundation landscape zone adjacent to the building face where the requirement applies. The City may allow flexible planting locations where service areas or other constraints make the standards difficult to meet. d. Existing trees may be used to fulfill the Foundation Landscape Standards as described in Section 3 Subd.4.Q.8. e. Smaller landscape materials may be substituted at the following rates: 1 Large Tree = 1.5 Medium or 2 Small Trees 3 Large Shrubs = 5 Medium or 10 Small Shrubs f. The design of landscaping for ground areas under the building roof overhang must take into account the potential effects of runoff from the roof edge. 5. Open Areas Landscape Standards: The purpose of these standards is to provide general site beautification and high aesthetic quality with a mix of plant materials in open areas. Open areas include disturbed site areas, such as cul de sac islands, boulevard medians, storm water management areas, common areas in multifamily sites that are not for recreation facilities, and disturbed areas that are not located within the foundation landscape zone, vehicular hardscape area or the building footprint. Open Area landscaping standards do not apply to single family residential Tots. Open areas landscaping shall meet the following standards. a. The open areas planting standards are described in the following table: Open Areas Landscape Standards Per 2000 SF Trees as and : Shrubs 1 large 3 large * Rounded to the nearest tenth, with a minimum factor of one. b. Round all calculations to the nearest whole number of plants. c. Only and above the normal water level shall be included in the open area calculation for storm water detention areas. Planting shall be located above the normal water level in detention areas. The City may require specific tree species in locations where water levels vary. d. Existing trees may be used to fulfill Open Areas Landscape Standards as described in Section 3, Subdivision 4.Q.9. e. Smaller landscape materials may be substituted at the following rates: 1 Large Tree = 1.5 Medium or 2 Small Trees 3 Large Shrubs = 5 Medium or 10 Small Shrubs f. Areas that are included in a project- specific natural resource management plan that addresses vegetation are not subject to the open areas landscaping standards. g. All lot areas not used for off - street parking, off - street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building sites or other requirements shall be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment as required by this chapter prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Exceptions to this requirement are listed in Section 3, Subdivision 4.Q.14. 6. Buffer and Screen Standards: The purpose of this requirement is to separate and buffer different land use types, screen roads and parking, and screen utility and loading areas. The location of buffers and screens are listed below, while the width of the buffer yard can be found in the • • • • • • respective zoning districts. Buffers and screens shall meet the following standards. a. Required screen location, height, and materials are described in the following table: Landscape Screen Location, Height and Materials Location Required Screen Height Required Screen Materials Between a • Year round continuous planting parking lot 30 inches screen in accordance with and paragraph 6.b. public right of Or way or sidewalk • A combination of berm and year round continuous screen in accordance with paragraph 6.b. Between • Year round continuous planting residential uses screen in accordance with6.b. and Or arterial or • Wall or fence and plantings collector road 6 feet shall provide shrub cover for Between any 50% of the wall or fence on the development exterior side and Or adjacent, less • A combination of berm and intense, residential land year round continuous screen in accordance with paragraph uses (this includes across a street from residential) 6.b. Between loading /service area and public view Required Screen Height Outdoor Storage Yards 8 feet • A wall or fence of permanent materials and planting shall provide shrub cover for 50% of the wall or fence on the exterior side. At its discretion, the City Council may approve a modification or waiver from these standards where the affected property line adjoins another industrial property. b. All continuous year round planting screens shall require at a minimum a double row of plants with triangulated spacing. See illustration. Planting plans shall include species which are sized to appropriately screen visibility within five years of planting. Small shrubs shall be a planted at a maximum interval of 3' on center; medium shrubs shall be planted at a maximum interval of 4' on center; and large shrubs shall be planted at a maximum interval of 6' on center unless; otherwise authorized by the City. c. A wall or fence intended to provide a continuous year round screen shall block visibility completely. d. In addition to the shrub cover required in the table above, all screens shall be planted with large trees every 50 LF, medium trees every 35 LF, or small trees every 25 LF or some combination thereof, along the length of the screen. e. Existing vegetative screens should be left in place unless composed of invasive species or otherwise directed by the City. Existing screens may be enhanced with new plantings to comply with the standards. f Berms shall be irrigated, have maximum side slopes of 3:1, and have no less than four (4) inches of topsoil. g. Permanent walls and fences shall be offset by a minimum of 2' at intervals of 75' maximum length for stability and visual relief. See illustration. '5' mar, ' min offset `\J • • • • • • h. Approved permanent wall /fence materials shall include wood, metal, masonry, concrete stone, or other prefabricated and /or sustainable materials. Non - decorative concrete block is prohibited for screening walls: rock face block or other decorative material is required for masonry walls. Chain link fences with slats are prohibited for screening walls. Maintenance of the required buffer strip planting and /or fence shall be the responsibility of the individual property owners or, if applicable, the homeowners association. Boulevard Tree Standards: a. Boulevard trees are required at the rate of one tree per 70 linear feet of road frontage where property fronts any public road. The City shall collect a standard fee per tree based on the estimated market rate cost to purchase and install trees within the development site. b. Existing trees may be used to fulfill boulevard tree standards at the City's discretion. 8. General Landscaping Standards: a. Desirable existing trees may be used to fulfill Canopy Cover, Foundation Landscape and Open Areas Landscape standards if applicable by placement. Desirable existing trees are valued according to the following table: Existing Tree Value �auous ees under B or evergreen; gees` under 12'ta... deciduous trees be wee 1 "2" DBH or evergreen trees between 2' -20' tall eciduous over or evergreen ees over 2C 1:ree 'ate 1 large tree 2 large trees 3 large trees b. Plantings may be grouped if part of an approved landscape plan. c. Standards may be met with different sizes of trees and shrubs. d. New trees may fulfill Canopy Coverage, Foundation Landscape and Landscape Screen standards simultaneously if applicable by placement. e. An existing tree is considered to be removed if the tree trunk is damaged or if more than 30% of the drip line area is disturbed during the construction process. f. The City may allow flexibility in landscape standards if there are conflicts with solar power, wind power, water harvesting, food production or other innovative measures proposed for the site. 9. The landscape plan shall be compared to all applicable CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) standards and reviewed by the police department. h. Trees and shrubs shall not be planted in the right of way without City authorization and shall not be planted in easements without authorization from the holder of the easement. Turf slopes in excess of three to one (3:1) are prohibited. 9. Tree Preservation and Mitigation Standards: The purpose of these standards is to protect valuable trees and stands of vegetation, while not interfering with landowners' reasonable use and development of property. The goal is to minimize unnecessary loss of habitat, biodiversity and forest resources and to replace removed trees in areas where tree cover is most critical. Unless specifically excepted, tree preservation and mitigation standards apply to all plats, site plans, conditional use permits, interim use permits, grading, building, and other activity that requires a city permit or approval. a. Tree preservation and mitigation standards are described in the following table: Tree Preservation and Mitigation Standards 3vironmen_ Sensiti _ {ESA;)_ Tree ocation: in Basic se Area ee Location: =not in Basic Use Area deciduous trees 6" dbh and over or evergreen trees between deciduous trees 6 -12" dbh or evergreen trees between deciduous trees over 12" dbh or evergreen trees over 20' tall • • • • • b. Trees used for mitigation may also fulfill the Open Areas Landscape Standards at the discretion of the City. c. Trees with thirty percent (30 %) of the roots damaged are considered to be removed and must be mitigated for at the applicable rates. d. Undesirable trees are not subject to the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Standards. e. On existing Tots with existing buildings where no building or development activity that requires a permit or approval from the City is occurring, the removal of trees is not subject to tree preservation and mitigation standards. f. Replacement trees shall be planted on site. g. The applicant may request to pay a fee per tree in lieu of some or all of the trees required for mitigation. At the City's discretion, the City may accept the fee for planting trees within the general area of the development project. The City shall maintain a standard fee per tree based on the estimated market rate cost to purchase and install trees. 10. Landscaping Guidelines and Technical Specifications: The selection, installation and maintenance of all planting materials shall be in accordance with the City's Landscaping Guidelines and Technical Specifications Manual. 11. Tree Survey: a. A tree survey is required for all property that contains a deciduous • tree greater than 6" dbh or an evergreen tree greater than 12' tall. 12' -20' tall 12' -20' tall Non -ESA no mitigation required provide one tree per tree removed provide two trees per tree removed Natural Resource Conservation Area or Natural Resource Corridor Enhancement Area provide one tree per four trees removed provide two trees per tree removed provide three trees per tree removed Natural Resource Protected Area provide one tree per two trees removed provide two trees per tree removed provide three trees per tree removed b. Trees used for mitigation may also fulfill the Open Areas Landscape Standards at the discretion of the City. c. Trees with thirty percent (30 %) of the roots damaged are considered to be removed and must be mitigated for at the applicable rates. d. Undesirable trees are not subject to the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Standards. e. On existing Tots with existing buildings where no building or development activity that requires a permit or approval from the City is occurring, the removal of trees is not subject to tree preservation and mitigation standards. f. Replacement trees shall be planted on site. g. The applicant may request to pay a fee per tree in lieu of some or all of the trees required for mitigation. At the City's discretion, the City may accept the fee for planting trees within the general area of the development project. The City shall maintain a standard fee per tree based on the estimated market rate cost to purchase and install trees. 10. Landscaping Guidelines and Technical Specifications: The selection, installation and maintenance of all planting materials shall be in accordance with the City's Landscaping Guidelines and Technical Specifications Manual. 11. Tree Survey: a. A tree survey is required for all property that contains a deciduous • tree greater than 6" dbh or an evergreen tree greater than 12' tall. b. The tree survey shall be the basis for the tree preservation plan, tree mitigation standards, and the use of existing trees to fulfill landscape standards. c. The tree survey shall provide the following information: 1) In the basic use area and other areas where tree removal is proposed, for all deciduous trees over 6" dbh and all evergreen trees greater than 12' tall: a) tree species b) size c) location d) drip line e) tree condition 2) the location of the combined drip lines of all tree stands designated for preservation on the development property 3) on adjacent properties, the drip line of deciduous trees over 6" dbh and evergreen trees greater than 12' tall where the drip line is within 5' of the development property. d. For a new plat or new Planned Unit Development, the tree survey shall be one plan sheet and the tree preservation plan shall be a separate plan sheet. e. For a building permit for a new structure on an existing lot, the tree survey and preservation information may be included on the lot survey typically required for a building permit instead of on a separate document. For a building permit for an addition to an existing structure, the tree survey information may be provided in an informal medium that sufficiently conveys the information. f. At the City's discretion, the tree survey requirement may be waived under the following circumstances: 1) Deciduous trees greater than 6" dbh or evergreen trees greater than 12' tall will not be removed and are not likely to be impacted by construction. 2) Deciduous trees greater than 6" dbh or evergreen trees greater than 12' tall will only be removed within the basic use area and the basic use area is not an ESA. 12. Tree Preservation Plan: a. A tree preservation plan shall be required for all soil disturbance activities where Tree Preservation and Mitigation Standards apply. A tree preservation plan shows how the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Standards will be met and how preserved trees will be • • • • • • protected during construction and other potentially harmful activities. b. The tree preservation plan shall be based on the tree survey. c. If a tree survey shows that no desirable deciduous trees over 6" dbh or evergreen trees greater than 12' in height on the development property or adjacent properties are near the construction area, the City may waive the tree preservation plan requirement. d. A tree plan shall identify: 1) The basic use area. 2) The disturbance area. 3) Tree size (dbh), species, condition, location, and root protection zone (5' out from the drip line) for all deciduous trees over 6" dbh or evergreen trees greater than 12' tall to be preserved, or; The combined root protection zone of all stands of trees designated for preservation, whichever is applicable. 4) Location and type of tree protection fence. 5) Staging areas. 6) Temporary construction access routes when temporary site access is necessary within root protection zone of any tree or tree stand designated for preservation. Temporary access shall be routed in a manner that is least disruptive to the tree or tree stand per the approval of the City Forester.. ii. Temporary access roads shall not exceed twenty -five (25) feet in width and shall be delineated by snow fencing or safety fencing. iii. An eight (8) inch deep cover of wood chip mulch shall be placed over the temporary access road to cushion the root protection zones from compaction. 7) Concrete washout areas. 8) Existing and proposed grading. 9) The plan shall show directional felling and trenching to separate root systems prior to bulldozing trees or stumps if necessary to avoid damage to adjacent trees. 10) Coordination of utility planning so that utilities are installed in a manner that protects trees intended to be saved. a) Trees to be preserved shall be tagged in the field and keyed to the tree preservation plan. The City may inspect the trees to verify compliance with the preservation plan at any time during construction. b) If a natural resource management plan has been approved for the site, the tree preservation plan shall be in accordance with said plan. c) See City Code Chapter 1011, Stormwater and Erosion and Sediment Control, for other construction related requirements. e. The following shall occur prior to soil disturbance: 1) The tree preservation plan shall be approved by the City. 2) Fencing and all tree protection measures shall be installed and inspected by the City. 3) Erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected by the City. 4) All required financial securities have been submitted. 5) Any required development agreement has been approved. 13. Tree Preservation during Construction: Trees that are to be preserved must be protected by the following methods unless otherwise approved by the City. a. Tree protection fencing shall be installed and maintained 5' out from the identified drip line of the trees (Root Protection Zone) prior to soil disturbance. Fencing shall be a minimum of 4' high and of a highly visible material, such as snow fence or polyethylene laminar safety netting, and must be standing throughout the construction process. Cut roots with clean, pruning cuts at the fence line prior to fence installation to avoid later tearing of the roots. Signage shall be installed to instruct workers to stay out of the Root Protection Zone. b. Areas where development must encroach upon the root protection zone must be identified on the tree preservation plan in which case the fencing shall be installed at that edge. c. No actions that may harm the health of the tree, including but not limited to construction, traffic, compaction, storage of equipment or • • • • • • materials including soil, grading, or concrete washout areas may occur in the Root Protection Zone. d. Trees damaged by construction, or with more than thirty percent of the roots disturbed, shall be counted as removed and mitigated at applicable rates. e. Tree protection measures shall remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated. 14. Final Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project developer, builder, or representative shall certify in writing to the City that all elements of the tree preservation plan and landscaping plan were completed. These must be confirmed by the City. However, the City may issue a certificate of occupancy prior to completion of landscaping in the following situations: a. If winter weather will prevent healthy planting practices, a security shall be posted to ensure the remaining planting is accomplished and all planting must be installed by the fifteenth of June the following spring. A certificate of occupancy may be issued by the City on residential Tots prior to lawn seeding or sod, provided an escrow security is submitted sufficient to ensure that the work will be completed and the date of completion is specified. 15. Non - Compliance: If the City finds that the property is not in compliance with the approved landscaping plan or tree preservation plan, it shall inform the property owner or, if applicable, the homeowners association, regarding the non - compliance and describe, in writing, the steps needed to bring the property into compliance within a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days. 16. Performance Security: The City may require performance security to ensure conformance with the requirements of this chapter. a. The performance security shall extend for two (2) years from the date of planting. The form of the security (cash, letter of credit, or other form) shall be determined by the City. b. If after notification of non - compliance the property owner or, if applicable, the homeowners association fails to achieve the compliance within sixty (60) calendar days, the City may exercise its authority to use the performance security to address compliance. • • • 2 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 12 -60 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2012 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, it is proposed to perform cleaning and repair activities to the City's surface water management system in accordance with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 13th day of February, 2012, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. WSB & Associates is hereby declared as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the 2012 Surface Water Management Project for the amount of $15,000. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this day of , 2012. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member and was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 P46 • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: MEETING DATE: TOPIC: VOTE REQUIRED: INTRODUCTION CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6C Michael Grochala July 9, 2012 Consider Resolution No. 12 -60, Authorizing Preparation of Plans & Specifications, 2012 Surface Water Management Project Simple Majority Staff is requesting council action to authorize preparation of plans and specification for the 2012 Surface Water Management Project. WSB, city engineer, has submitted a proposal for the not to exceed amount of $15,000 to prepare the plans, provide contract administration and construction inspections. Funding for the engineering and the maintenance contract is included in the 2012 Public Services — Streets budget. BACKGROUND The City operates a storm water conveyance system to manage water runoff and water quality from City streets and neighborhoods. To maintain the effectiveness of the system, cleaning and repair of pipe sections, catch basins, manholes, drainage ways and ponds must be completed. City staff conducts's annual reviews of the system components as required by the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Project priorities are determined following completion of the inspection process and evaluation of resident issues identified during the year. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 12 -60 Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 12 -60 P45 P46 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 12 -60 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2012 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, it is proposed to perform cleaning and repair activities to the City's surface water management system in accordance with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 13th day of February, 2012, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. WSB & Associates is hereby declared as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the 2009 Surface Water Management Project for the amount of $15,000. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this day of , 2012. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member and was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2