Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/2005 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday October 5, 2005 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Council Salaries 2. Hardwood Creek Comp Plan Amendment 3. Sign Ordinance 4. Sewer System Complaint 5. Community Survey 6. Joint Meeting with Charter Commission Regular Agenda Items Adjourn PAGE 1 MEMORANDUM October 3, 2005 To: City Council From: Jeff Sm Y ser G% Subject: Village of Hardwood Creek Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Plan The application to amend the comprehensive plan has been reviewed by the P & Z, which recommended approval. The application also includes a concept plan for the future planned unit development (PUD). The concept plan does not require a vote: it is an opportunity to get comment from the City Council prior to the PUD application being assembled. The purpose of this memo is to explain the process for this development, discuss conservation development, and layout the different elements of the comprehensive plan amendment, including the growth management policy issues. I also will give an overview of the concept plan. The Review Process Ultimately, the Village of Hardwood Creek development will require a number of approvals, including: • comprehensive plan amendment • rezoning to PUD • PUD general development stage plan/preliminary plat • PUD final development plan/final plat The current application is for amendment of the comprehensive plan only. The other application would come later if the plan amendment is approved. It is important to note that approval of this comprehensive plan amendment does not grant or imply any right to an approval of applications that will follow. As described in the zoning ordinance, the purpose of a PUD general concept plan is "to provide an opportunity for the applicant to submit an application and plan to the City showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development. The concept plan provides an opportunity for the proposal to be publicly considered at an early stage." The concept plan does not require approval or any type of vote. However, it is important that the City Council provide staff and the application with comments on the concept plan before the project design progresses. Conservation Development Conservation development is a method of developing land in a way that is kinder to the natural environment than traditional development. Conservation development includes such things as preserving open space, restoring or improving greenways and wildlife habitat, managing stormwater with natural infiltration, creating buffers to protect valued natural features, creating trail corridors to connect greenways, and other methods. In short, conservation development is a method of development design. Projects that are designed as conservation developments can be exempt from some Lino Lakes growth limits, at the City Council's discretion. The Hardwood Creek project will be a conservation development. The applicants originally intended the application to be a conservation development project. They are aware of the City's desire to encourage conservation design, and have been following the AUAR project. The AUAR mitigation plan requires that all development incorporate conservation elements whenever possible. In Lino Lakes, the growth management ordinance provides that the City Council can allow development in excess of specific growth management limits when a project provides elements consistent with identified conservation development goals. However, there are two reasons we cannot exempt this project from the growth limits based on it being a conservation development. 1. the exemptions from growth limits do not include the Stage 1 MUSA total, so a comprehensive plan amendment would still be necessary. There are only 90 acres remaining in reserve for Stage 1 (pre -2010) residential development and 68.5 acres for commercial /industrial development. The development project site requires 363 acres of additional MUSA. 2. we need a great deal of information in order to exempt it from the specified growth restrictions. Specific information would include such things as stormwater management designs, open space designs, long term stewardship plans for open space, etc. Such information typically would be included in a planned unit development/plat application. The current application for a comprehensive plan amendment does not include such detailed information. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The proposed comprehensive plan amendment includes the following five elements: (1) Amending the proposed land use plan map. The current designations are Industrial, Medium - Density, and High- Density Residential. This would be changed to guide the entire site for Mixed Use. (see map, Attachments A and B) (2) The amendment includes a request for 370 acres of MUSA for the Stage 1 growth area. This additional MUSA would be mapped, not held in a reserve. (3) Even though our comprehensive plan includes Mixed Use on the proposed land use map, there is no description of this land use category in the text of the document. This should be addressed by describing the intent of the Mixed Use category. Attachment C includes the proposed text amendment. (4) The growth management ordinance states that an amendment of the comprehensive plan shall be required if, in order to accommodate a specific development project, the annual target for new growth (units /year) would be exceeded (Section 2, 7.). It is unlikely that the master plan for this development could proceed within the limits of the target of 147 units per year. (The 1029 units for Stage 1 noted in Section 2, paragraph 5 of the growth policy, is based on 147 x 7 years.) The proposed text in Attachment C includes a brief description of the Village of Hardwood Creek project and specifies that the comp plan amendment is intended to meet this requirement of the growth ordinance. There also is a brief reference to the project to be added to the Planning District 6 section of the comprehensive plan document. (5) The comprehensive plan itself includes a list of Growth Management Policies, which includes "Limit residential growth to an average of 147 units per year, carrying a three year supply lot inventory" (page 27). As stated above, this would not accommodate the anticipated development project. This statement should be amended to accommodate the potential advantages of master planning large areas. The proposed text amendment (see Attachment D) includes the possibility of amending the comp plan for specific projects that are found to fulfill specified public purposes, which would justify amending the comprehensive plan to exceed the limit. In addition, the growth goals described in the comprehensive plan "assume an average of 147 new households annually through the year 2020" (page 63). This statement merits discussion. To amend this statement raises the question of amending the growth projections, an important part of planning the community's future. This will be extensively analyzed and discussed as part of the overall review of the comprehensive plan that must be completed by the end of year 2008. Therefore, I recommend no amendment to this statement in the comprehensive plan for now. Concept Plan The concept plan is Attachment E. The site includes 363 acres. The concept plan includes 150 -170 acres for residential development. A rough density estimate is about 4.5 units per acre overall for the residential area. The concept plan also includes 55 -70 acres for 500,000- 600,000 square feet of commercial development. The concept plan includes the main collectors and access points envisioned in the draft AUAR. A local north/south collector provides a route through the site. Two collector roads provide access to 20th Ave. on the west of the site. The north/south collector would continue south to access Main St., and north to future developments. The concept plan also shows an internal local circulation network providing access for the residential development areas. The development site does not abut Main St. The pictured collector road would need to extend 1/4 mile south of the site to access Main St. The details will have to be worked out at part of the PUD review. The concept plan includes an extensive open space network. The Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan includes trail connections to be created on the site. The AUAR builds on this approach. The concept plan includes these and more to facilitate walking and biking within the site and to connect to trails outside the site. The site would develop from south to north in four phases, with over half the commercial development and some residential in phase one. The developer envisions full build out of the site over six years. ATTACHMENT A LAND USE PLAN (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN URAL LOW DENSITY SEWERED RESID. LOW DENSI UNSEWER MED. RESID. ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■r ■ ■, r ■ • u LOW DENSITY SEWERED RESID: ° °...,,. R • INDUSTRIAL • • ■ ■ • ATTACH-IENT B PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LAND USE PLAN (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LOW DENSITY SEWERED RESID. LOW DENSIT. UNSEWERED R LOW DENSITY SEWERED RESID. ATTACHMENT C • The following text is to be added to the comprehensive plan, at the end of the Land Use Plan chapter, on page 97: MIXED USE The Proposed Land Use Map designates several areas for "Mixed Use ". The Mixed Use designation is intended to accommodate development that includes a variety of land uses. This could be a development that integrates uses in the same building, such as residential units above commercial space. It also might include different uses in separate locations as elements of a larger development, as part of a master plan. While it is possible that an appropriate development project in a Mixed Use area could include only one type of land use, other land use designations are available for development with only one type of land use. Development in areas guided Mixed Use typically will take advantage of the flexibility available with the use of a planned unit development. The City does not require a PUD for development in a Mixed Use area. However, it is the preferred design tool because development that includes a variety of uses typically will pose challenges best addressed with the flexibility available with a PUD. Amending the comprehensive plan to guide new areas for Mixed Use should be reserved for areas that have undergone significant environmental review. Commercial development typically will require more impervious surface than residential development, which raises stormwater management design challenges. Traffic generation differs between different land uses. The Mixed Use land use designation envisions varied land uses, and recognizes the possibility of design challenges, including environmental impact issues. These can best be addressed with extensive environmental review. Amending the comprehensive plan to guide new areas for Mixed Use and development with these areas should be reserved for development that promotes clearly identified public purposes. Such purposes may include but are not limited to: a) provision of housing unit variety that contributes toward meeting housing goals, such as medium density, high- density, and mixed -use developments in locations designated for them in the comprehensive plan b) provision of infrastructure that will provide benefits beyond the project site, in accordance with City transportation, sewer, or water plans, that is not financially feasible without the project c) preservation of environmental features that would not occur without the project d) provision of economic benefits to the City that would not occur without the project Development in areas guided Mixed Use must comply with the following performance standards: 1. The land use and site design must be sensitive to the surrounding land uses in the area, including but not limited to building height, exterior composition, landscaping, and site access. 2. The road network within new development shall promote the safe and convenient traffic movement. The project design must incorporate access management design elements for access to arterial and collector roadways. 3. Municipal water and sanitary sewer service must be available. 4. All development shall address environmental concerns with regard to site planning, landscaping, impervious surfacing, open space, and storm water management. Stormwater management must incorporate methods to protect and improve water quality such as infiltration, buffering of water bodies, and other natural methods whenever feasible. 5. Commercial site designs shall emphasize pedestrian accessibility, connections to residential neighborhoods, shared parking, and green space to create a customer friendly environment and promote a high level of interaction among local businesses and between businesses and residents. 6. Architectural and site standards shall be applied to establish aesthetically pleasing, high quality buildings and streetscapes. Village of Hardwood Creek The Village of Hardwood Creek development area is located 1/4 mile north of Main St., between I -35E and CSAH 21 (20th Ave.). This 360 -acre development site is to be developed with commercial and residential uses. The concept plan for the development includes 500,000 to 600,000 square feet of commercial space on 55 to 70 acres of the site. A variety of single family and multi - family residential development will include approximately 1200 to 1250 dwelling units. The net residential density is to be approximately 4.5 units per acre, when including all and not within the commercial area. While these are the approximate use parameters, the specifics of the development are to be part of a master plan using a planned unit development approach. In the northeast corner of the site, a triangle is formed by I -35E, a pipeline, and the property boundary. This area could be designed to accommodate an office campus type use, which could be a suitable land use along the freeway. This would reduce the amount of residential land noted above. Such flexibility is appropriate for the area. This site is included in the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) environmental analysis. Development must comply with the mitigation plan that forms a part of the AUAR. This area was guided Mixed Use with an amendment to the comprehensive plan in 2005. This amendment was intended to fulfill the City's growth management policy requirement that amendment of the comprehensive plan shall be required if, in order to accommodate a specific development project, the annual target for new growth (units /year) would be exceeded. • The following text is to be added to the comprehensive plan in the Planning District 6 section, on page 153: Village of Hardwood Creek The Village of Hardwood Creek development area is located 1/4 mile north of Main St., between I -35E and CSAH 21 (20th Ave.). This 360 -acre development site is guided Mixed Use and to be developed with commercial and residential uses. This site is described in the Mixed Use section of the Land Use Plan chapter. The specifics of the development are to be part of a master plan using a planned unit development approach. ATTACHMENT D • The policy on page 27 of the comprehensive plan is amended to read as follows: 9. Limit residential growth to an average of 147 units per year, carrying a three year supply lot inventory. Specific projects that are found to fulfill specified public purposes can justify amending this comprehensive plan to exceed this limit. The City Council shall consider such an amendment only if the specific development project will promote a clearly identified public purpose. The public purpose may include but is not limited to: a) provision of housing unit variety that contributes toward meeting housing goals, such as medium density, high- density, and mixed -use developments in locations designated for them in the comprehensive plan b) provision of infrastructure that will provide benefits beyond the project site, in accordance with City transportation, sewer, or water plans, that is not financially feasible without exceeding the target c) preservation of environmental features that would not occur without exceeding the target d) provision of economic benefits to the City that would not occur without exceeding the target ; yr 4 •••• ..,141?) -:60e• ••; 0,4L /7741A LANDFORM $$$$$ Ot1111,,P.1.01.111, r•, .r • , • r,' • • poottort40,04.1.7,,-101 . • • .t.` •••.Y.; trYbi!* bet3 0.,itttet,., coraTiox 140;t41313 twor.t1 " • • et'y ••■•;.V.fdi, 6841. j4 f North o '4) fen me Mao 11114 titawbsvd ‘07370 vg 1-1-cm ft- 2 s - /12777,14e,,ye7- 4, , Land Use Data Land Uso Units Acies Conftenweial 500 -o00110 sr Residential - Shop Fondly iliNi- 420 oohs - latellFainey 800 • 830 units 1200- 1250 units VA • 1711 On Sluice NIA 80 - 00 Public Right of Way IVA 50 Total 3'53 4-, ,IgamUrz,VISCIUtrt. Lagend pral Commercial Single Family ResIdonlial Melii4am4y Residential tiqui Open Space Concept Plan t WS -4 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Date: October 5, 2005 Re: Work Session Item 4 Sewer System Complaint At the Open Mike portion of the September 26, 2005 City Council meeting, Mr. Lloyd Chalupsky, 2115 Reiling Road, presented his concerns alleging that sewage effluent was moving into his property from the septic system soil treatment area serving the Muehlstadt residence, 2221 Reiling Road. The council requested that the issue be discussed at the October 5, 2005 work session. Background City staff and Jon Christensen, Anoka County Environmental Health Specialist, have been called out to the properties by both neighbors over the past year due to concerns over the possible discharge of sewage effluent into the Chalupsky property. Several attempts have been made to verify the claim. On June 30, 2005 an inspection of the property was held. Present at the inspection were: Ken and Debra Muehlstadt Pam Nissen; Attorney representing the Muehstadt's Jon Christenson; Anoka County Environmental Services Pete Kluegel, City of Lino Lakes, Building Official Julianne Markiewicz, Attorney representing Chalupsky Larry Sibik; Pinnacle Engineering Dan Tetrault; DLT Construction (licensed septic system designer) Pinnacle Engineering was retained by the Muehstadt's Attorney to provide an expert opinion regarding the civil dispute between the homeowners. The results of the testing were set forth in the August 16, 2005 report by Pinnacle Engineering. The report concluded that sewage was not being discharge from the Muehlstadt property onto the Chalupsky property. A copy of facts and conclusions page of the report is attached. Page 2 Based on the report, personal observations, and discussions with the property owners, Jon Christianson issued a letter dated September 13, 2005 stating that in his opinion water moving into the Chalupsky property is the result of groundwater and not sewage effluent (letter attached). City staff concurred and issued a letter, to this effect, dated September 15, 2005. City staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney. Based on the information available there does not appear to be a violation of the City's Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) requirements. Furthermore the City Attorney has stated that the matter is a civil dispute and that the City should not be involved unless further directed from the courts or if a clear violation of the City's ISTS requirements are verified. Attachments 1. Excerpt from Pinnacle Engineering Report 2. Letter from Jon Christianson, Anoka County Environmental Health Specialist 3. Letter from Pete Kluegel, Building Official Page 2 The following facts were discovered during the course of this investigation: • The dye that was observed in the cistern on the Bachrneier/Chalupsky property does not match the chemical profile for the dye that was introduced into the "observation" pipe for the distribution box on the Muehlstad property; • The observation pipe does not discharge into the distribution box as thought, but simply marks the location of the distribution box; • The drain field at the Muehstadt residence was installed consistent with the rough sketch that was prepared prior to the installation of the drain field; • The termination point of the drain field on the Muhlstadt property is 21 feet from the fence line, the required setback distance is 10 feet • All drain lines that were inspected, terminate in the rock field; • The rock field does not extend into the Bachmeier /Chalupsky property; • No additional drain lines or rock fields were discovered along the property line; • Due to soil and weather conditions the site soils were saturated; and • No evidence of disturbed native soils were observed in the pictures provided by the Bachmeier /Chalupsky's that would indicate that a pipe or drain field was installed onto their property from the Muehlstadt property is evident. Based on the facts discovered during this investigation the following conclusions can be made: • The yellowish hue /dye that was observed in the cistern at Bachmeier /Chalupsky residence was not due to the addition of the dye tablet into the "observation" pipe. • Neither drain field pipe not drain field rock extend from the septic system on the Muehlstadt property to the Bachmeier /Chalupsky property. • Untreated sewage is not being discharge from the septic system on the Muehlstadt property directly onto the Bachmeier /Chalupsky property. • Due to tight soil conditions, and drainage that slopes toward the drain field, this site will experience a high water table after heavy rains. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. 11541 95th Avenue North Maple Grove, Minnesota Page 7 McGrann Shea Project #: MN05170.00 August 16, 2005 SEP --21 -2005 08.37 P.01,01 COUNTY OF ANOKA (763) 422 -7063 City of Lino Lakes c/o Peter Kluegel, Bldg. Official 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Mn 55014 COMMUNITY HEALTH & ENV[RONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Anoka County Government Center 2100 3rd Ave. Room 360 Anoka, MN ..5303-2264 Subject; 2115 and 2221 Railing Road, Lino Lakes Fax (763) 323-6150 September 13, 2005 Dear Mr. Kluegel During the first part of January 20051 received a complaint from Lloyd Chalupsky at 2115 Reiling Road alleging the septic system soil treatment area serving the Muehlstadt residence at 2221 Reiling Road was located on part of his property. Mr. Chalupsky also indicated sewage effluent was moving into his property via the soil treatment area. Since that time we have met at the property a number of times with Mr. Chalupsky, the Muehlstadt's and representatives of both property owners. Our last meeting was on June 30, 2005 in response to testing which Pinnacle Engineering was doing. The results of this testing was set forth in the August 16, 2005 report by Pinnacle Engineering. Based on my observations, discussions with both homeowners, their representatives and the Pinnacle Engineering report it is my opinion the water moving into the Chalupsky property is the result of groundwater and not sewage effluent. If you have questions concerning this matter, please call me at 763 - 422 -7066. 4erely, tit( J • n M. Christensen Environmental Health Specialist Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer TOTAL P.01 BUILDING DEPARTMENT September 15, 2005 Sally Bachmeier & Lloyd Chalupsky 2215 Reiling Road Lino Lakes, MN 55110 RE: Groundwater You have requested that the City of Lino Lakes allow you to run groundwater from your property into a ponding area in your front yard. As part of the building permit review process for your property a drain tile was proposed and approved for installation between the attached garage and the east property line. Based on a required and approved as -built survey, dated November 1, 2004, the drain tile was installed and daylighted in the front yard. Extension of the drain tile may be undertaken provided that the outlet to the tile is contained within the property boundaries. No water can be deposited directly on adjacent properties. Additionally, you have expressed concerns regarding the location of your neighbor's Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS). Based on a Pinnacle Engineering report dated August 16, 2005, and an as -built survey of the septic system located at 2221 Reiling Road, the ISTS treatment lines terminate approximately twenty -one (21) feet from your property line. This is in conformance with the minimum system setback requirements of 10 feet. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 651- 982 -2460. Sincerely, Peter Kluegel Building Official PK/cly cc: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Address File 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Building Denartrnent: 651- 982 -2420 • Fax: 651 -982 -2499 ws - 5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 5 Date: Council Work Session October 5, 2005 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Community Survey Proposal Background At the September 21, 2005 Council work session, a proposal from Decision Resources Ltd. was discussed. Staff was directed to obtain additional information related to survey methodology. The attached response relates to the following questions: Do you ever "target" the surveys, rather than use a random approach? When are the calls made? (If you only call during the day, you will not reach people who work traditional hours.) What is an appropriate sampling? If 400 were sampled in 1996, shouldn't more be sampled this time? How did you do the survey for the Centennial School District? I also inquired about their availability to appear before the council at the October 5, 2005 work session. They were not available for the meeting and hoped that the written response (attached) would answer the questions. They confirmed their flexibility to modify the basic proposal, if desired by the Council. Upon approval of the proposal, they will prepare a draft survey and present it to the council for review and modifications, if needed. 1 Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking direction from the council as to whether the proposal is acceptable and should be placed on the October 10, 2005 regular meeting agenda for action. Attachments 1. DRL response to questions, Oct. 3, 2005 2. DRL proposal, Sept. 19, 2005 2 Page 1 of 1 Gordon Heitke From: William Morris [wmorris @drlmpls.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 1:31 PM To: Gordon Heitke Subject: Responses to City Council Questions Hello Gordon, Here are the responses to the three methodological questions raised by your Council Members: 1. Telephone calls are generally made on Monday through Thursday evenings and Saturday afternoons. We make appointments if a household is reached at an inconvenient time. We will attempt to contact a household up to thirty times over 10 days if necessary, so as not to bias the sample against residents with active lifestyles. 2. Accuracy of the sample is not based on the percentage of city households contacted, but on the number of households contacted. In other words, a 400 household sample of Lino Lakes and a 400 household sample of Minneapolis both result in an overall accuracy of +/- 5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases. We employ larger samples if subgroups, such as geographical subdivisions, age, or ethnic groups, need to be focused upon. 3. The Centennial School District survey was based upon a random -digit dialing generated sample. Using telephone company information about the exchanges serving the School District, random suffixes (4 digits) were computer - generated. These telephone numbers were then called and screened to insure they were homes within the District. When that criterion was met, the survey was administered to a randomly selected adult in residence. In this way, we are able to avoid problems caused by unlisted numbers or gender biases resulting from who first answers the telephone. If you require further information, I will be happy to provide it. Thanks. Bill Morris DRL 10/3/2005 fTh PROJECT PROPOSAL Decision Resources, Ltd. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 920 -0337 Fax: (612) 920 -1069 September 19, 2005 COMMENTS Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to provide this proposal for survey research to you. Survey Parameters: Quality of Life and Visioning Study 400 Random Sample of City of Lino Lakes residents '• Written Analysis of Survey Presentation of Data and Findings Costs: 400 Random Sample, ±5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases 40 Question Units $10,200.00 Each additional question would be: $135.00 This cost includes one meeting for the discussion of the survey and one meeting for a presentation of the survey results. Any additional meetings would be $500.00 each. Company policy requires one -half of the total cost at the time of the approval of the question PRIOR TO FIELDWORK; the remainder is due at the time of the delivery of the Report of Findings. Project Timeline: 1. Planning with you and other designated participants to establish topics for questions. This activity to be completed within two weeks of the initiation of the contract and will be accomplished in the interests of efficiency, using telephone and faxes. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities to be completed within two weeks of the initiation of the contract. 3. Final determination of the field dates for the interviews and questionnaire approval. 4. Pre - testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity will be completed by the second day of fieldwork. 5. Computer analysis and preparation of the written report. Frequencies of responses will be provided to the client within two weeks after the completion of all fieldwork. All statistical analysis and preliminary commentary will be available four weeks after completion of the fieldwork. 6. Telephone discussion with you and designated participants to explain and discuss survey results. This preliminary discussion can be arranged at a time convenient for you and appropriate City Council and/or staff. 7. One meeting with City Council and/or staff in either work session or formal presentation to explain and discuss the results of the survey. The final presentation or discussion session can be arranged at a time convenient for Board members and/or staff after delivery of the written report. A final written report would be made available within two weeks of this final meeting. Work Products: Report of Findings Frequencies of Responses Cross- Tabulation Tables Presentation Graphics I hope this overview sufficiently covers all the information you require. Let me assure you that we believe we can provide you with timely and reliable information. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you. But, in any case, we wish you the best of luck with your efforts. WS - 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 6 Date: Council Work Session October 5, 2005 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Joint Council/Charter Commission Meeting Background Following the presentation on city charters and charter commissions by an attorney from the League of Minnesota Cities to the Council on April 6, 2005, questions were raised regarding whether the agenda proposed for an April 14, 2005 joint meeting of the Charter Commission and City Council was consistent with the statutory role and authority of charter commissions. As the result of subsequent correspondence from the City's attorneys, some city council members chose to not attend the joint meeting. The issue of holding a joint Charter Commission and City Council meeting was discussed again at the July 20, 2005 City Council work session. Council member /Charter Commission Liaison Dahl was asked by the Council to provide a proposed agenda from the Charter Commission for a joint meeting. Council member /Charter Commission Liaison Dahl provided a proposed October 13, 2005 joint meeting agenda to staff at the September 21, 2005 council work session. The proposed agenda is as follows: A. Road Reconstruction B. Pavement Management Report C. Communication to Residents D. Five -Year Plan E. Eminent Domain Information/Discussion This proposed meeting would constitute a special meeting of the City Council. Therefore, the Council needs to confirm that they will be holding a special council meeting in order for staff to provide proper legal notice of the meeting, including the purpose of the special meeting. Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking confirmation that the Council is calling for a special City Council meeting for October 13, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. and clarification of the purpose of the meeting for notification purposes. Attachments 1. City Attorney William Hawkins letter, April 12, 2005 2. City Attorney Barry Sullivan letter, April 14, 2005 2 04/13/2005 10:11 LAW OFFICE 2140 4TH RUE 4 6519522499 Law OFFICES OF NO.570 D02 William G. Hawkins and Associates Wa.Luevi G. HAwlorrs Lcgoi Assistants TAMMI J. UVEGES BARRY A. StrulvAN HOLLY G. PROVO April 12, 2005 Gordon Heitke City Administrator City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: City Charter Dear Mr. Heitke: 2140 FouIrrx AVENUE Noxrx AxoKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427 -8877 FAX (763) 421 -4213 E-MAIL HawkLawl @aacom I am responding to your request for my opinion concerning the legal authority of the Lino Lakes City Charter Commission and what areas of responsibility they are charged with pursuant to Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 410 deals with the appointment of charter commissions and their duties and responsibilities. Minn. Stat. § 410.05, Subd. 1 states the following: "When the district court of the judicial district in which a city is situated, deems it for the best interest of the city to do so, the court, acting through its chief judge, may appoint a charter commission to frame and amend a charter." It should be pointed out that the Charter Commission is not a separate corporate or political entity that has powers beyond those set out in Minn. Stat. § 410. There is no authority found in this statute for the Charter Commission to institute lawsuits, commence enforcement actions for violation of the charter or require the other City advisory commissions or the City Council to appear before the commission or to provide information to the commission not related to the primary function of the Charter Commission to consider framing and amending the charter. You have provided me with the agenda for a joint meeting between the Charter Commission and the City Council for April 6, 2005. A question has been raised of 04/13/2005 10:11 LAW OFFICE 2140 4TH AUE -* 6519822499 Mr. Gordon Heitke April 12, 2005 Page 2 N0.570 P03 whether or not these topics are outside the purpose and authority of the Charter Commission. Unless these topics are related to consideration of an amendment of the existing Charter, I do not believe that the City Council is under any legal obligation to engage in any discussions or obtain direction from the Charter Commission. Section 2.01 of the Charter states: "AII powers of the City are vested in the Council." There is no provision in Minnesota law or in the City Charter that requires them to seek the advice, consent or approval of the Charter Commission for any of these subjects on the agenda. Whether or not the City Council wishes to discuss any of these items with the Charter Commission is purely at the discretion of the City Council. I further note that the issue of a city charter commission budget is addressed in Minn. Stat. § 410.06. This statute states the following: "The members of such commission shall receive no compensation but the commission may employ an attorney and other personnel to assist in framing such charter and any amendment or revision thereof, and the reasonable compensation, and the cost of printing such charter, or any amendment or revision thereof when so directed by the commission shall be paid by the city. The amount of reasonable and necessary charter commission expenses that should be paid by the city shall not exceed in any one year the sum of $1,500; but the council may authorize such additional charter commission expenses as it deems necessary." It is my opinion that the City Council is obligated to pay up to $1,500 for reasonable and necessary expenses but any further expenses beyond that are at the discretion of the City Council. I hope this clarifies the law regarding the relationship of the City Charter Commission to the City Council and the authority of the Charter Commission pursuant to Minnesota statute. WGH /tju April 14, 2005 The Honorable Mayor John Bergeson and Members of the Lino Lakes City Council Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Joint City Council /Charter Commission Meeting Dear Mayor Bergeson and Members of the City Council: Please consider this a supplement to the letter Bill Hawkins sent to you dated April 12, 2005. A copy is attached herewith. It is my understanding that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission has its regular meeting this evening and that part of the meeting was to be a joint meeting with the City Council. It is also my understanding that the City Council recently met with an attorney from the League of Minnesota Cities and discussed generally the respective roles and authorities of charter commissions and city councils. It is my understanding further that the City Council intends to invite the attorney from the League of Minnesota Cities to give a similar presentation to the Charter Commission in July. It seems to me at this time that there are fundamental issues regarding the role and authority of the City Council and the Charter Commission that are unresolved. I suggest it would be in the best interests of all involved if the joint meeting occurred after the July meeting with the representative of the LMC and the Charter Commissioner. Both groups should have the opportunity to consider the important information that the LMC attorney will provide. After that session has occurred, both the City Council and the Charter Commission can determine whether a joint meeting would be desired. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Barry A. Sullivan