The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-03-14 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday , February 3, 2014 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Civic Complex Island, Marty Asleson 2. Met Council Thrive MSP 2040 Update, Katie Larsen 3. Accessory Buildings, Katie Lars en 4. Saddle Club Residential Development (Regular Agenda Item), Katie Larsen 5. Wireless Communications Update, Rick DeGardner 6. Pavement Management Program, Michael Grochala 7. Cisco IP Desktop Conference Station 8. Parks Funding Initiatives, Rick DeGardner 9. Monthly Progress Report Review Regular Agenda Adjourn WS – Item # 1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 1 Date: February 3, 2014 To: City Council From: Marty Asleson, Environmental Calender Re: Civic Complex Island Landscaping Background The City Council requested consideration of landscaping improvements to the Civic Center Island. Staff is preparing some potential concepts for discussion at the work session. The current native landscape present on the island is a remnant of the oak woodlands that covered the site prior to cons truction. Since the land was part of the regional park prior to purchase , the architectural design attempted to blend the new construction in with the existing natural environment. The landscape also minimized maintenance efforts and requires little to n o irrigation. Staff is evaluating concepts that would maintain the low impact design while providing for more visual interest. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council comment on potential design options . 1 WS – Item # 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: February 3 , 2014 To: City Council From: Katie Larsen, City Planner Re: Met Council Thrive MSP 2040 Update Background Thrive MSP 2040 is the Twin Cities region’s long -rang e planning effort. This plan will provide a regional vision for the 7 -county metropolitan area for the next 30 years. Under state law, the Council prepares a long -range plan for the Twin Cities region every 10 years. These policies also drive the systems and policy plans developed by the Council: the Transportation Policy Plan, the Water Resources Policy Plan, the Regional Parks Policy Plan, and the Council’s first Housing Policy Plan update in nearly 30 years. In September 2013, Met Council released t he following 2040 Preliminary Forecasts for the City of Lino Lakes : Population Households Employment 2000 2010 2040 2000 2010 2040 2000 2010 2040 16,791 20,216 28,000 4,857 6,174 11,300 2,671 3,313 6,000 For comparison, the City’s 2030 Comprehensive P lan was based on the following forecasts: Population Households Employment 2000 2010 2030 2000 2010 2030 2000 2010 2030 16,791 2 2,500 30 ,700 4,857 7 ,500 10 ,600 2 ,444 4 ,100 8,000 A s you will n ote, population and employment projections for 2040 are actu ally lower than the previously projected 2030 estimates. Staff believes this is reasonable due to the housing and economic recession. Households on the o ther hand, continue to increase which is consistent with trends of less persons per household. 2 A draf t of the Thrive MSP 2040 plan will be released in early 2014 for feedback and public comment. Met Council is expected to adopt the final plan in May 2014. Requested Council Direction None . Attachments 1. Thrive MSP 2040 Preliminary Forecasts 2040 Preliminary Forecasts Released for Comments, September 11, 2013 Note: These are preliminary and have not been adopted by the Council. (pt) denotes part of a city; remainder of city is in neighboring county. ◊ = Rogers annexed Hassan Township in 2012; forecasts have been combined. † = Laketown Township will be fully annexed before 2030; forecast has been reassigned to neighboring cities. POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT 2000 2010 2040 200020102040 2000 2010 2040 ANOKA COUNTY Andover 26,588 30,598 35,800 8,107 9,811 15,600 3,583 4,669 5,500 Anoka 18,076 17,142 22,100 7,262 7,060 10,000 13,489 12,840 14,800 Bethel 443 466 790 149 174 370 229 86 640 Blaine (pt) Centerville 45,014 3,202 57,186 3,792 80,300 4,600 15,926 21,077 34,200 1,077 1,315 1,990 16,757 19,668 363 409 27,000 670 Circle Pines 4,663 4,918 5,700 1,697 2,006 2,500 2,150 790 1,480 Columbia Heights Columbus 18,520 3,957 19,496 3,914 24,600 4,300 8,033 7,926 11,000 1,328 1,416 1,960 6,397 3,484 507 1,172 4,900 2,450 Coon Rapids East Bethel 61,607 10,941 61,476 11,626 71,700 16,600 22,578 23,532 32,600 3,607 4,060 7,700 21,682 23,260 1,374 1,123 35,000 1,990 Fridley Ham Lake 27,449 12,710 27,208 15,296 32,600 16,200 11,328 11,110 14,800 4,139 5,171 7,100 26,257 21,333 3,194 2,931 29,200 4,600 Hilltop Lexington Lino Lakes 766 2,142 16,791 744 2,049 20,216 1,360 2,800 28,000 400 380 600 819 787 1,200 4,857 6,174 11,300 257 314 634 467 2,671 3,313 400 700 6,000 Linwood Township Nowthen 4,668 3,557 5,123 4,443 6,500 5,700 1,578 1,884 3,100 1,123 1,450 2,600 154 219 337 318 350 630 Oak Grove 6,903 8,031 10,300 2,200 2,744 4,800 359 741 1,250 Ramsey St. Francis 18,510 4,910 23,668 7,218 28,400 10,900 5,906 8,033 12,500 1,638 2,520 5,100 4,008 4,779 1,247 1,537 7,000 2,600 Spring Lake Park (pt) Anoka County Total 6,667 298,084 6,234 330,844 6,500 415,750 2,676 2,597 3,000 106,428 121,227 184,020 4,401 2,934 110,050 106,387 3,800 150,960 CARVER COUNTY Benton Township Camden Township Carver 939 955 1,266 786 922 3,724 640 720 6,900 307 316 458 297 329 1,182 300 340 3,000 282 15 176 274 56 187 370 110 340 Chanhassen (pt) Chaska 20,321 17,603 22,952 23,770 31,600 30,500 6,914 6,169 8,352 8,816 13,300 13,400 8,366 10,955 9,746 11,123 16,100 15,200 Cologne Dahlgren Township Hamburg Hancock Township Hollywood Township Laketown Township † Mayer New Germany Norwood Young America San Francisco Township Victoria 1,012 1,453 538 367 1,102 2,331 554 346 3,108 888 4,025 1,519 1,331 513 345 1,041 2,243 1,749 372 3,549 832 7,345 3,300 1,150 590 450 1,160 - 7,000 1,180 8,000 900 11,700 385 479 206 121 371 637 199 143 1,171 293 1,367 539 494 201 127 387 660 589 146 1,389 307 2,435 1,540 530 280 210 560 - 3,300 560 3,800 420 5,000 294 203 117 35 100 355 92 50 1,559 61 932 270 202 109 10 90 116 151 46 1,165 46 1,502 510 310 130 20 200 - 230 120 2,040 120 1,760 Waconia 6,814 10,697 16,100 2,568 3,909 6,900 4,082 5,578 8,200 Waconia Township Watertown 1,284 3,029 1,228 4,205 1,300 5,900 429 1,078 434 1,564 580 2,800 72 682 98 556 390 1,510 Watertown Township Young America Township Carver County Total 1,432 838 70,205 1,204 715 91,042 1,390 650 131,130 478 267 24,356 468 266 32,891 660 310 57,790 207 105 28,740 392 119 31,836 370 110 48,140 POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT 2000 2010 2040 2000 2010 2040 2000 2010 2040 DAKOTA COUNTY Apple Valley Burnsville 45,527 60,220 49,084 60,306 62,100 76,200 16,344 23,687 18,875 24,283 26,600 32,800 12,106 31,765 14,279 31,593 18,700 41,200 Castle Rock Township Coates 1,495 163 1,342 161 1,100 160 514 64 504 66 510 70 344 252 356 109 440 180 Douglas Township Eagan Empire Township Eureka Township Farmington Greenvale Township Hampton Hampton Township Hastings (pt) Inver Grove Heights Lakeville 760 63,557 1,638 1,490 12,365 684 434 986 18,201 29,751 43,128 716 64,206 2,444 1,426 21,086 803 689 903 22,172 33,880 55,954 870 86,800 2,500 1,430 26,900 1,240 890 1,230 28,900 46,300 72,400 235 23,773 515 496 4,169 227 156 320 6,640 11,257 13,609 259 25,249 792 518 7,066 275 245 329 8,735 13,476 18,683 420 36,100 1,130 670 11,600 590 420 580 13,300 20,200 30,500 96 42,750 217 196 3,986 68 178 186 8,872 8,168 10,966 92 49,526 255 460 4,438 49 127 85 8,532 9,442 13,862 80 70,000 320 220 7,300 640 210 210 10,400 12,900 21,800 Lilydale Marshan Township Mendota 552 1,263 197 623 1,106 198 1,340 1,110 340 338 404 80 375 403 78 590 520 150 354 220 266 355 117 270 420 320 340 Mendota Heights Miesville 11,434 135 11,071 125 15,200 150 4,178 52 4,378 52 6,500 70 8,549 97 11,550 116 13,700 120 New Trier 116 112 110 31 41 50 30 35 60 Nininger Township Northfield (pt) Randolph Randolph Township Ravenna Township Rosemount 865 557 318 536 2,355 14,619 950 1,147 436 659 2,336 21,874 840 1,860 490 760 2,180 29,200 280 216 117 192 734 4,742 372 414 168 246 780 7,587 400 860 230 360 1,010 12,400 165 79 123 130 115 6,356 149 470 122 113 38 6,721 330 730 100 120 50 11,600 Sciota Township South St. Paul 285 20,167 414 20,160 510 23,500 92 8,123 140 8,186 240 10,600 21 7,697 33 8,557 250 10,900 Sunfish Lake 504 521 560 173 183 260 23 8 - Vermillion 437 419 500 160 156 230 221 93 180 Vermillion Township Waterford Township West St. Paul Dakota County Total 1,243 517 19,405 355,904 1,192 497 19,540 398,552 1,610 650 27,100 517,030 395 193 8,645 131,151 424 193 8,529 152,060 750 310 11,900 222,920 280 461 8,905 154,242 90 679 7,471 170,192 80 1,010 10,000 234,910 HENNEPIN COUNTY Bloomington Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champlin Chanhassen (pt) Corcoran 85,172 29,172 67,388 22,193 - 5,630 82,893 30,104 75,781 23,089 - 5,379 113,600 34,100 90,500 27,300 - 9,100 36,400 11,430 24,432 7,425 - 1,784 35,905 10,756 26,229 8,328 - 1,867 49,900 14,800 36,900 11,900 - 4,000 104,548 16,698 23,692 2,734 979 1,792 86,530 11,001 24,084 4,012 1,159 1,093 108,100 13,800 36,000 5,200 1,160 1,780 Crystal Dayton (pt) Deephaven Eden Prairie 22,698 4,693 3,853 54,901 22,151 4,617 3,642 60,797 28,300 7,300 3,400 82,700 9,389 1,546 1,373 20,457 9,183 1,619 1,337 23,930 12,400 3,300 1,450 33,900 5,638 1,057 1,021 51,006 3,929 921 688 48,775 6,100 2,250 880 64,000 Edina 47,425 47,941 70,800 20,996 20,672 30,200 52,991 47,457 61,100 Excelsior 2,393 2,188 3,000 1,199 1,115 1,300 1,823 2,220 2,240 Fort Snelling (unorg.) Golden Valley Greenfield 442 20,281 2,544 149 20,371 2,777 190 28,900 4,000 - 8,449 817 135 8,816 936 140 12,300 1,810 35,526 30,142 337 23,215 33,194 613 24,000 38,800 620 Greenwood 729 688 760 285 290 330 161 82 240 Hanover (pt) Hopkins 332 17,367 609 17,591 890 27,400 113 8,359 196 8,366 400 12,300 86 11,979 36 11,009 90 13,200 POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT 2000 2010 2040 2000 2010 2040 2000 2010 2040 Independence Long Lake Loretto 3,236 1,842 570 3,504 1,768 650 5,100 2,600 790 1,088 756 225 1,241 732 269 2,310 1,100 350 169 2,510 661 587 1,093 366 850 1,820 340 Maple Grove Maple Plain Medicine Lake 50,365 2,088 368 61,567 1,768 371 89,600 2,800 530 17,532 770 159 22,867 723 160 37,000 1,250 220 18,309 1,792 10 29,877 1,579 15 40,700 1,930 100 Medina 4,005 4,892 7,600 1,309 1,702 3,300 3,254 3,351 6,000 Minneapolis Minnetonka 382,747 51,102 382,578 49,734 487,700 74,700 162,352 21,267 163,540 21,901 209,900 32,200 308,127 51,276 281,732 44,228 419,100 60,100 Minnetonka Beach 614 539 500 215 201 240 201 174 40 Minnetrista 4,358 6,384 11,800 1,505 2,176 5,200 379 665 740 Mound 9,435 9,052 11,100 3,982 3,974 5,100 1,811 1,165 1,660 New Hope Orono 20,873 7,538 20,339 7,437 26,800 10,100 8,665 2,766 8,427 2,826 11,800 4,400 13,565 1,110 11,080 1,562 15,000 1,650 Osseo 2,434 2,430 3,700 1,035 1,128 1,720 2,312 1,749 1,890 Plymouth Richfield 65,894 34,310 70,576 35,228 101,800 45,400 24,820 15,073 28,663 14,818 42,200 20,300 53,491 11,762 46,227 15,604 68,500 19,600 Robbinsdale 14,123 13,953 18,800 6,097 6,032 8,500 7,109 6,858 7,600 Rockford (pt) Rogers ◊ St. Anthony (pt) St. Bonifacius 144 6,051 5,664 1,873 426 11,197 5,156 2,283 870 15,900 7,600 2,420 57 1,973 2,402 681 184 3,748 2,210 863 400 6,900 3,200 1,040 384 5,414 1,992 436 94 7,907 1,626 478 630 12,900 1,900 460 St. Louis Park 44,102 45,250 68,200 20,773 21,743 30,500 40,696 40,485 46,100 Shorewood 7,400 7,307 8,100 2,529 2,658 3,400 782 1,113 1,430 Spring Park Tonka Bay Wayzata Woodland 1,717 1,547 4,113 480 1,669 1,475 3,688 437 2,410 1,470 6,100 450 930 614 1,929 173 897 586 1,795 169 1,000 680 2,700 190 1,028 266 6,268 22 583 298 4,567 8 1,140 430 7,200 30 Hennepin County Total 1,116,206 1,152,425 1,547,180 456,131 475,913 664,430 877,346 805,089 1,099,400 RAMSEY COUNTY Arden Hills 9,652 9,552 12,500 2,959 2,957 4,300 12,326 12,402 17,900 Blaine (pt) Falcon Heights Gem Lake - 5,572 419 - 5,321 393 - 5,800 510 - 2,103 139 - 2,131 155 - 2,380 240 677 4,190 586 893 5,298 526 1,080 4,600 600 Lauderdale 2,364 2,379 2,900 1,150 1,130 1,360 360 718 1,010 Little Canada 9,771 9,773 13,900 4,375 4,393 6,300 5,960 5,467 8,300 Maplewood Mounds View 35,258 12,738 38,018 12,155 49,700 15,700 13,758 5,018 14,882 4,954 21,400 6,900 29,259 4,170 27,635 6,386 33,200 7,800 New Brighton North Oaks 22,206 3,883 21,456 4,469 28,900 6,200 9,013 1,300 8,915 1,746 12,700 2,500 11,007 1,091 9,213 1,260 12,300 1,080 North St. Paul 11,929 11,460 14,800 4,703 4,615 6,800 3,499 2,942 3,500 Roseville 33,690 33,660 46,300 14,598 14,623 20,600 39,211 35,104 45,000 St. Anthony (pt) St. Paul 2,348 286,840 3,070 285,068 4,200 338,900 1,295 112,109 1,638 111,001 1,900 146,000 1,390 188,124 1,357 175,933 2,050 253,400 Shoreview 25,924 25,043 35,000 10,125 10,402 14,900 9,938 11,665 14,800 Spring Lake Park (pt) Vadnais Heights White Bear Township White Bear Lake (pt) Ramsey County Total 105 13,069 11,293 23,974 511,035 178 12,302 10,949 23,394 508,640 220 18,600 14,300 31,000 639,430 48 5,064 4,010 9,469 201,236 75 5,066 4,261 9,747 202,691 100 8,200 6,200 14,100 276,880 202 7,164 2,131 12,020 333,305 66 6,678 2,309 11,085 316,937 20 12,300 3,400 13,600 435,940 POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT 2000 2010 2040 2000 2010 2040 2000 2010 2040 SCOTT COUNTY Belle Plaine 3,789 6,661 11,500 1,396 2,362 5,100 1,428 1,847 2,700 Belle Plaine Township Blakeley Township Cedar Lake Township Credit River Township Elko New Market 806 496 2,197 3,895 804 878 418 2,779 5,096 4,110 830 350 3,200 5,900 8,000 266 166 719 1,242 286 310 165 939 1,662 1,259 370 170 1,440 2,600 3,500 77 70 91 265 248 69 69 82 397 317 130 150 250 330 750 Helena Township Jackson Township Jordan 1,440 1,361 3,833 1,648 1,464 5,470 1,540 1,480 7,200 450 461 1,349 548 486 1,871 730 650 3,300 473 92 1,321 147 168 1,587 420 620 2,450 Louisville Township New Market Township New Prague (pt) Prior Lake 1,359 3,057 3,157 15,917 1,266 3,440 4,280 22,796 1,040 2,800 7,400 34,300 410 956 1,160 5,645 425 1,146 1,618 8,447 440 1,200 3,500 14,700 476 262 2,282 7,972 298 325 2,142 7,766 350 240 2,480 11,800 St. Lawrence Township Sand Creek Township Savage Shakopee Spring Lake Township Scott County Total 472 1,551 21,115 20,568 3,681 89,498 483 1,521 26,911 37,076 3,631 129,928 560 1,210 34,400 49,800 3,500 175,010 144 478 6,807 7,540 1,217 30,692 161 554 9,116 12,772 1,267 45,108 250 570 14,100 20,100 1,590 74,310 145 249 5,366 13,938 176 34,931 48 298 6,753 18,831 390 41,534 210 530 9,900 28,800 180 62,290 WASHINGTON COUNTY Afton 2,839 2,886 3,800 996 1,081 1,700 351 411 530 Bayport Baytown Township Birchwood Village Cottage Grove Dellwood 3,162 1,533 968 30,582 1,033 3,471 1,617 870 34,589 1,065 4,600 2,060 890 40,700 1,200 763 492 357 9,932 353 855 573 351 11,719 373 1,310 930 400 17,400 510 4,900 154 20 6,263 282 3,790 69 25 6,484 277 5,000 210 30 9,200 310 Denmark Township Forest Lake 1,348 14,440 1,737 18,377 2,280 26,900 481 5,433 615 7,015 990 12,400 386 6,636 629 6,449 520 10,200 Grant 4,026 4,094 4,300 1,374 1,463 1,890 750 449 670 Grey Cloud Island Township Hastings (pt) Hugo Lake Elmo 307 3 6,363 6,863 295 - 13,332 8,061 250 - 23,200 11,700 117 2 2,125 2,347 117 - 4,990 2,776 120 - 10,300 5,000 50 224 1,917 1,682 10 64 1,973 1,941 60 100 3,500 3,000 Lakeland 1,917 1,796 2,800 691 681 1,320 374 302 470 Lakeland Shores 355 311 390 116 117 180 20 26 40 Lake St. Croix Beach 1,140 1,053 1,280 462 460 580 50 129 100 Landfall 700 663 610 292 257 270 50 25 20 Mahtomedi 7,563 7,676 8,800 2,503 2,827 3,900 1,252 2,090 2,600 Marine on St. Croix 602 689 1,000 254 302 460 235 124 200 May Township Newport Oakdale 2,928 3,715 26,653 2,776 3,435 27,401 3,700 5,200 33,900 1,007 1,418 10,243 1,083 1,354 10,956 1,670 2,500 14,900 40 2,480 7,812 66 1,605 8,651 150 2,210 13,700 Oak Park Heights Pine Springs St. Marys Point St. Paul Park 3,777 421 344 5,070 4,445 408 366 5,273 6,300 410 400 7,500 1,528 140 132 1,829 1,911 144 147 1,967 2,700 180 180 3,400 2,713 10 10 1,399 4,358 72 15 1,515 5,400 100 10 1,800 Scandia 3,692 3,934 4,900 1,294 1,498 2,240 272 519 780 Stillwater 15,323 18,227 23,100 5,797 7,076 10,400 10,719 9,628 10,400 Stillwater Township West Lakeland Township White Bear Lake (pt) Willernie 2,553 3,547 351 549 2,364 4,054 403 507 2,210 6,400 560 680 833 1,101 149 225 855 1,286 198 218 1,000 2,800 260 300 120 313 131 135 165 232 184 182 210 450 130 270 Woodbury Washington County Total 46,463 201,130 61,961 238,136 78,200 310,220 16,676 71,462 22,594 87,859 31,400 133,590 15,899 67,649 19,438 71,897 28,600 100,970 METRO AREA 2,642,062 2,849,567 3,736,000 1,021,456 1,117,749 1,614,000 1,606,263 1,543,872 2,133,000 1 WS – Item # 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: February 3, 2014 To: City Council From: Katie Larsen, City Planner Re: Accessory Buildings Background This is a continued discussion from the September 3, 2013 and Novemb er 4, 2013 Council Works Session meetings regarding the City ordinance on accessory buildings. The Staff Report from the November 4 th meeting is at tached . To summarize the situation, a homeowner in the Spirit Hills neighborhood submitted a building permi t for a 16’x 20’ square foot detached accessory building. The structure is 18 feet in height and setback 5 feet from the side yard. All parameters of the zoning code in terms of size, height and location are being met. The adjacent neighbor, concerned a bout the size and location of the structure, contacted City staff and emailed Council members suggesting the ordinance should be amended to reduce the allowed size of accessory buildings. Council directed staff to review the ordinance with the Planning & Zoning Board. The Planning & Zoning Board recommended no changes to the current ordinance in regards to size, height or location. The Board did suggest an amendment to allow for 1 attached garage + 2 detached structures. The current ordinance allows fo r 1 attached garage + 1 detached structure not too exceed 1,200 square feet. It is the City’s understanding that the Spirit Hills neighborhood is governed by covenants which restricts the size and height of accessory buildings. Requested Council Directi on Staff has reviewed the current City ordinance in comparison to neighboring City ordinances. Whereas the ordinances vary in terms of size and height, Lino Lakes is comparable. Staff also reviewed previous history of building permits issued for detache d accessory buildings. In the past 5 years, the City has issued 81 permits with no incidents . Staff recommends no amendment to the ordin ance and suggests the adjacent property owner pursue the covenants and restrictions of the Spirit Hills association. 2 A ttachments 1. Work Session Staff Report from November 4, 2013 1 WS – Item # 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: November 4, 2013 To: City Council From: Katie Larsen, City Planner Re: Accessory Buildings Background City Council members received an email from a resident stating concer ns about the allowed size and location of accessory buildings in residential neighborhoods. At the September 3, 2013 Council Work Session, staff reviewed the City’s ordinance on accessory buildings. The Council directed staff to also review the ordinance with the Planning & Zoning Board at their October 9, 2013 meeting. Current City Ordinance Chapter 1007, Section 1, Subd. 2.B. of the zoning ordinance defines the following: Accessory Building. A portion of the principal building or a detached structu re on the same lot which is used for an accessory use. Accessory Use. A use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lot with such principal us e. Detached Garage. A one -story accessory building used or intended for the storage of motor driven passenger vehicles. Garage. A deck building or structure, or part thereof, used or intended to be used for the parking and storage of vehicles. Tool Sh ed. A small one -story accessory building used or intended for the storage of hobby tools and garden equipment. Per Chapter 1007, Section 3, Subd. 4: D. Accessory Buildings and Structures. 1. General Provisions . 2 a. No accessory building or use shall b e constructed or developed on a lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory, except in the case of agricultural buildings on agriculture land as defined by State Statute 273.13, Section 23, as amended. b. A bui lding or portion thereof used for an accessory use, other than home occupation, shall be considered as an accessory building. c. No detached accessory building shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage except within the R, R -X, and R -BR Zoning Districts, provided the accessory building is set back at least one hundred (100) feet from the street right -of -way. d. Setbacks for accessory buildings in all districts shall be determined in accordance with appropriat e district provisions. Location of said accessory buildings shall not interfere with the future subdivision of the property. e. Accessory structures may be constructed within public and private utility and drainage easements provided that: 1) No accessory structure shall be located within a drainage or utility easement without written permission of the Zoning Administrator and the filing of an encroachment agreement. 2) No footings or foundation shall be placed within the easement. 3) The entire structure, incl uding any base material, must be designed to be easily moved if deemed necessary by the city. 4) Removal of an accessory structure or portion thereof for the purpose of utilizing the easement shall be at the property owner’s expense. f. In Rural and Residen tial districts, Gazebos that are attached to the dwelling by a raised deck, porch, or patio shall not be counted towards the maximum area or number of accessory structures allowed on a site, so long as the sides of the gazebo remain at least 50%, though th e open areas may be covered with screens. g. In Rural and Residential districts, Fabric structures are considered an accessory structure and are therefore counted towards the maximum area and number of accessory structures allowed on a site. 3 9. Rural and Residential Zoning District Accessory Buildings . The following summarizes the maximum number, size, and height of accessory buildings allowed in an individual parcel according to lot size and residential district. For the purposes of this section, lot si ze for metes and bounds properties shall include roadway easements. a. Twenty (20) Acres or Greater . (R, R -X, R -BR, R -1, R -1X, R -EC, and PSP Districts) 1) No maximum combination of accessory building(s) and garage(s) size requirement. 2) Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable. 3) Fabric or vinyl canopy structures acceptable. 4) No maximum height requirement. 5) One (1) attached garage not to exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or equal to the size of the house foundation, whicheve r is greater. b. Ten (10) to Less than Twenty (20) Acres. (R, R -X, R -BR, R -1, R - 1X, R -EC, and PSP Districts) 1) The combination of accessory building(s) and garage(s) shall not exceed the greater of: a. Ten thousand (10,000) square feet, or b. 1.85% of the lot area, not to exceed fift.een thousand (15,000) square feet. 2) Total allowable accessory building space shall be limited to the following: a. One (1) attached garage and b. Three (3) detached accessory structures. 3) Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable. 4) Fabric or vinyl canopy structures acceptable. 5) One (1) attached garage not to exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or equal to the size of the house foundation, whichever is greater. 4 6) Building height shall not exceed ba se district requirement. c. Five (5) to Less than Ten (10) Acres. (R, R -X, R -1, R -1X, R -EC, and PSP Districts) 1) The combination of accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed the greater of: a) Five thousand (5,000) square feet, or b) 2.21% of the lo t area, not to exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2) Total allowable accessory building space shall be limited to the following: a) One (1) attached garage and b) Three (3) detached accessory structures. 3) Metal buildings and pole barns accept able. 4) Fabric or vinyl canopy structures acceptable. 5) One (1) attached garage not to exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or equal to the size of the house foundation, whichever is greater. 6) Building height shall not exceed base dis trict requirement. d. Less than Five Acres. (R, R -X, R -1, R -1X, R -EC, R -2, R -3, R -4, R - 6, R -7, and PSP Districts) 1) The combination of accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed the greater of: a) One thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet, or b) 3 .75% of the lot area, not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet. 2) Total allowable accessory building space shall be limited to the following: a) One (1) attached garage and one (1) detached structure, or b) Two (2) detached accessory structures. 5 3) One (1) attached garage not to exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or equal to ninety (90) percent of the size of the house foundation, whichever is greater. 4) Twenty (20) foot maximum height. 5) No metal sheet/panel siding with vertic al orientation except upon tool sheds less than one hundred fift.y (150) square feet in area. Metal horizontal lap siding is acceptable. 6) Fabric or vinyl canopy structures acceptable. 7) Roof and exterior color and material compatible with home (except m anufactured tool shed). 8) Lots that have shared ownership/membership in the Lino Airpark may have a three thousand two hundred (3,200) square foot accessory building as an airplane hangar provided that: a) The hangar be earth tone in color. b) The hang ar conform to Building Code standards for hangar use. c) The hangar location has direct taxiway access to the Lino Airpark runway. 6 Previous City o f Lino Lakes Ordinances The following chart summarizes previous City ordinances related to accessory structures: Year Structure Size (max.) Height (max.) Number of Structures 1971 None mentioned. Cannot exceed height of principal building (30 ft.) None mentioned. 1983 Tool Shed=120 s.f. Rural Storage= 1,000 s.f. on parcel size 2.5 -10 a cres Rural Storage=1,500 s.f. on parcel size > 10 acres Tool Shed= 10 ft. All Others = Cannot exceed height of principal building (30 ft.) < 2.5 acres = 1 tool shed + 1 detached garage 2.5 -10 acres = 1 tool shed + 1 detached garage + 1 rural storage > 10 acres = No limit 1997 Combination of accessory building + garage Parcel size < 0.75 acres = 1,000 s.f. Parcel size 0.75 -1.25 acres = 1,100 s.f. Parcel size >1.25 acres (residential zoned) = 2,020 s.f. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 1 attached garage + 1 detached or 2 detached 1 attached garage + 1 detached or 2 detached 1 attached garage + 2 detached Current Combination of accessory building + garage Parcel size < 5 acres = 1,200 s.f. or 3.75% of lot area not to exceed 5,000 s.f. Parcel s ize 5 -10 acres = 5,000 s.f. or 2.21% of lot area not to exceed 10,000 s.f. Parcel size 10 -20 acres = 10,000 s.f. or 1.85% of lot area not to exceed 15,000 s.f. Parcel size > 20 acres = No maximum 20 ft. Shall not exceed base district requirement Shall not exceed base district requirement No maximum 1 attached garage + 1 detached or 2 detached 1 attached garage + 3 detached 1 attached garage + 3 detached No limit 7 Other Community Ordinances (Typical R -1, Single Family Lot) City Hei ght Size Blaine Shall not exceed height of principal building (30 ft.) 1,200 s.f. (combination garage + accessory) Centerville 10 ft. sidewall; 15 ft. height 200 s.f. detached accessory + 1500 s.f. attached accessory Hugo Shall not exceed height of principal building (35 ft.) 1,200 s.f. (combination garage + accessory) Edina 1 ½ stories or 18 feet (whichever is less) Varies by district Minnetonka 12 feet NTE 1,000 s.f. of gross floor area or more than 30% of the area of the side or rear yard in which they are located Plymouth <120s.f. – 10 feet >120s.f. – 15 feet NTE 1,000 s.f. for attached accessory building (i.e. garage, storage or workshop area) NTE 120 s.f. for detached accessory building New Brighton (same as house – 30 feet) NTE 1,064 s.f.; Any structure larger than 624 s.f. up to 1,064 s.f. subject to approval of a Special Use Permit Roseville 15 feet; 9 feet wall height 864 s.f.; up to 1,008 s.f. by meeting performance standards in Section 1004.02A.2 In any case, combined area of accessory buildings shall not exceed 85% of the footprint of the principal structure Mahtomedi NTE height of home (30 feet/25 feet in shoreland overlay) Depends on lot area; lots <10,400s.f. NTE 750s.f.; >10,400s.f. NTE 1,250s.f. or 7.25% of the total l ot area whichever is less; in no case can the accessory building exceed 80% of the principal building 1. NTE = Not Too Exceed 2. Information compiled by WSB & Associates and City Staff 8 Setbacks The setbacks for accessory buildings are established per z oning district. A typical R -1, Single Family Residential District requires a 5 foot side and 5 foot rear setback. Accessory buildings are not allowed in the front yard. Requested Council Direction Staff seeks Council direction as to whether the ordinanc e should be amended per the following discussions had by the Planning & Zoning Board on October 9, 2013. 1. Should the allowed square footage of accessory buildings and garages be based on the percentage of total lot area or buildable land? P&Z Board Reco mmendation : No change. Total lot area which is how ordinance is currently applied. 2. Should the allowed square footage of accessory buildings and garages differentiate between Rural Districts (R, R -X and R -BR) and Residential Districts? P&Z Board Recommen dation: Amend the ordinance to allow for 1 attached garage + 2 detached structures no t too exceed 1,200 s.f. total on parcels less than 5 acres. 3. Is 20 foot height acceptable for residential accessory buildings? a. Should maximum sidewall heights be included in ordinance? P&Z Board Recommendation: No changes to height , sidewalls or setbacks were proposed. Attachments 1. Buildable Area Example 2. Accessory Building Example #1 3. Accessory Building Example #2 Bu i l d a b l e A r e a E x a m p l e 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0. 0 0 5 Miles St a n d a r d R - 1 L o t S i z e = 1 0 , 8 0 0 s . f . To t a l L o t S i z e = 1 . 0 8 a c r e s = 4 7 , 0 4 5 s . f . Bu i l d a b l e A r e a = 1 2 , 6 5 0 s . f . We t l a n d A r e a = 3 3 , 3 9 5 s . f . 12 , 6 5 0 s . f . 33 , 3 9 5 s . f . Ce n t r a l M e r i d i a n : - 9 6 1s t S t d P a r a l l e l : 2 0 2n d S t d P a r a l l e l : 6 0 La t i t u d e o f O r i g i n : 4 0 Al b e r s P r o j e c t i o n Ac c e s s o r y B u i l d i n g E x a m p l e # 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0. 0 0 5 Miles 6 5 8 1 6 5 7 3 6 5 6 6 65 6 5 3 7 0 6 5 8 5 3 5 0 65 5 7 6 5 5 0 6 5 7 7 6 5 7 4 3 6 6 6558 6 5 4 9 1, 0 6 5 s f Lo t S i z e = 1 . 0 8 a c r e s = 4 7 , 0 4 5 s . f . To t a l A l l o w e d A c c e s s o r y = 3 . 7 5 % = 1 , 7 6 5 s . f . Ex i s t i n g G a r a g e = 7 0 0 s . f . Re m a i n i n g A l l o w e d = 1 , 0 6 5 s . f . ( 3 2 ' x 3 2 ' ) Ce n t r a l M e r i d i a n : - 9 6 1s t S t d P a r a l l e l : 2 0 2n d S t d P a r a l l e l : 6 0 La t i t u d e o f O r i g i n : 4 0 Al b e r s P r o j e c t i o n Ac c e s s o r y B u i l d i n g E x a m p l e # 2 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0. 0 0 5 Miles 6 5 8 1 6 5 7 3 6 5 6 6 65 6 5 3 7 0 6 5 8 5 3 5 0 65 5 7 6 5 5 0 6 5 7 7 6 5 7 4 3 6 6 6558 3 5 4 6 5 4 9 50 0 s f Lo t S i z e = 1 . 0 8 a c r e s = 4 7 , 0 4 5 s . f . To t a l A l l o w e d A c c e s s o r y = 1 , 2 0 0 s . f . Ex i s t i n g G a r a g e = 7 0 0 s . f . Re m a i n i n g A l l o w e d = 5 0 0 s . f . ( 2 0 ' x 2 5 ' ) Ce n t r a l M e r i d i a n : - 9 6 1s t S t d P a r a l l e l : 2 0 2n d S t d P a r a l l e l : 6 0 La t i t u d e o f O r i g i n : 4 0 Al b e r s P r o j e c t i o n WS – Item # 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 6 Date: February 3, 2014 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Pavement Management Program Process Background The City Council reviewed three (3 ) pavement management f inancing options at the January 6, 2014 work session. The options included:  Pay for 100% of the improvements with special assessments.  Pay for improvements with a combination of special assessments and property taxes using Improvement Bonds .  Pay for 100% of the improvements with property taxes using street reconstruction bonds . The first option was eliminated by staff due to the difficulty in just ifying assessments in the amounts necessary to cover 100% of project costs. The council requested additional information regarding the remaining options and requested that staff begin development of a five year street reconstruction plan. Options The two primary funding sources for non -state aid street reconstruction are special assessments to benefiting property owners and property ta xes. Base d on the past discussion the council could proceed under the following options : Option 1 : Pay for improvements with a combination of special assessments and property taxes using Improvement Bonds . This option wil l require voter approval unless the charter is amended to eliminate that requirement. Accordingly t his option can be broken down into 2 subparts: Option 1A: Proceed under current Charter Provisions The pref e r red project would be selected following completion of the Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan . Under the existing charter process we would need to in itiate the feasib ility study by March and hold the required public hearing in June. A minimum of 20% of the total project cost would need to be assessed. If no petition against the pr oject is received within 60 days of the public hearing the project would be submitted for inclusion on the 2014 election ballot. If the ballot initiative is successful we would order preparation of plans and specification s in late November/December of 2014. Depending on the project scope design and permitting could extend to midsummer 2015 with a late summer bid and construction. Alternatively the project could be designed in 2015 with bidding and construction taking place in 2016. Option 1B: Propose an amendment to the Charter A mending the City Charter would follow a separate process. Possible amendments that could be considered by the co uncil are: 1) Submit the 2012 amendment to the voters again. 2) Amend the charter to delete the election requirement under Section 8.04, Subdivision 2 . 3) Amend the charter to provide a procedural exception for projects that are consistent with the street re construction requirements of MN Statut es 475.58, Subd. 3b. This would allow for street reconstruction projects following: a) P reparation of a 5 year street reconstruction plan b) Public h earing c) Unanimous vote of the C ity C ouncil d) 30 day period for petition to hold an election . Petition must be signed by voters equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last municipal ge n e r al election. e) If no petition is received the city may issue bonds without election. Amendment by ordinance would require council approval of the 1 st reading by March of 2014. The Charter Commission would have up to 150 days to review. The amendment would then be sent to the voters for con sideration in the November e lection. If approved and d epending on the scope of the amendment the public improvement process would likely start in 2015 with construction taking place in 2016. Option 2 : Pay for 100% of the improvements with property taxes using Street Reconstruction Bonds. The council may choose to proceed with street construction without the use of special assessments. In this case the project would be funded by the issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds paid back entirely from property taxes . No election would be required unless petitioned for by residents. Under this scenario the City would need to complete the following: a. D evelop a Five Year Road Reconstruction Plan and h old a public hearing b. The plan must be approved unanimously by the City Council. c. If approved the plan is subject to a reverse referendum provision. If no petition is received within 30 days of the hearing the city may issue bonds without election. Under this process staff would prepare the Five Year Reconstruction Plan for City Council consideration by June. A public hearing would be held and the 30 day petition period would commence. If no petition is rec eived the council could order preparation of plans and specification in August. Construction would commence in spring of 2015. If an election is petitioned for we would place the question on the November 2014 ballot. If approved the plan development proc ess would start in December of 2014 with design and permitting extending to midsummer 2015 with a late summer bid and construction. Alternatively the project could be designed in 2015 with bidding and construction taking place in 2016. The council should be aware that the state law does limit spending on street widening and installation of curb and gutter where none previously existed. Unless necessary for safety reasons or inci dental to the reconstruction project other funding sou rces may be necessary for these items. Next Steps As disc ussed at the January work session , i n order to prepare for a reconstruction project in 2015 , the council will need to determine the preferred financing alternative by March of 2014. A determination by the council on the use of special assessments is the primary consideration at this point. If we intend to use special assessments as a funding source then either following the current charter process or seeking an amendment is our critical path. The City could still use street reconstruction bonds under these scenario s but an election would still be requir ed. A comparative analysis showing tax implications for various levels of bonding based on residential home values was prepared in 2012. The information shows the p roperty tax difference between a project with 20% of the cost assessed and one where there are no special assessments , assum ing a $2,000,000 bond issue . While this information needs to be updated to reflect current rates it does provide an example of the property tax differences between Options 1 and 2 . Staff is continuing to work on the development of a Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan. Identification of the top 10 project areas is being determined using both the pavement ratings and traffic counts. Staff will also be developing estimated construction costs for the identified project areas. Requested Council Di rection Staff is requesting council direc tion on the use of special assessment s for funding the pavement management street reconstruction program . Attachments 1. Overview of Bonding Options 2. Bond Issue Comparative Analysis 3. Current Pavement Management Street Con dition Map OVERVIEW OF BONDING OPTIONS A. Generally. The City Charter and Chapter 429 do not directly deal with issuance of bonds. Rather, bond issuance is mostly governed by Minnesota Statues, Chapter 475. Most cities finance infrastructure by is suing “general obligation bonds,” which are secured by the city’s full faith and credit. (These bonds carry lower interest rates than bonds secured solely by a particular revenue stream). Under Chapter 475, there are four basic ways that the City may issue general obligation bonds to finance infrastructure: 1. Voter -approved bonds (election). 2. Improvement Bonds (without election). 3. Street Reconstruction Bonds (reverse referendum) 4. Utility Revenue General Obligation Bonds (without ele ction) Each of these bond types is discussed in turn below. B. Voter Approved Bonds 1. The City may choose to hold an election regarding issuance of bonds for any public improvement, including street reconstruction. The bonds may be issued if ap proved a majority of those voting on the question. 2. The City used this option to finance improvements to the intersection of Main Street and Lake Drive and the intersection of Birch Street and Ware Road. (The bonds were approved in the 2010 general election, and were issued in November, 2012.) C. Improvement Bonds 1. Improvement bonds are paid at least in part with special assessments. They may be issued without election if at least 20% of City’s cost for the improvement is paid with assessmen ts. The balance is secured by a general property tax levy. 2. Improvement bonds are exempt from debt limits under Chapter 475 (which is 3% of the taxable market value in the City). 3. Under the City Charter, even if at least 20% of the project co st is specially assessed, but some portion is paid from a tax levy or other city general funds, the project itself must first be approved at an election —only then may bonds be issued. 4. In most cases, the City of Lino Lakes may issue improvement bonds without election only in cases where the entire cost is specially assessed). D. Street Reconstruction Bonds 1. Street Reconstruction bonds are paid from a general tax levy, though a city may use special assessments or some other revenue source to redu ce the levy each year. 2. The bonds must be used only to finance “street reconstruction,” which is defined to include:  utility replacement and relocation and other work incidental to street reconstruction  turn lanes and other improvements having a s ubstantial public safety function  realignments  other modifications to intersect with state and county roads  local share of state and county road projects. However, the term excludes costs allocable to widening a street or adding curbs and gutters where none previously existed (unless those activities fall within one of the bullet points listed above). 3. Before issuing street reconstruction bonds, a city must hold a public hearing (with 10 days’ published notice) regarding a five - year street reconstr uction plan and issuance of the bonds. After the hearing, the City Council must approve issuance of the bonds by unanimous vote of all council members present at the meeting. 4. Citizens have 30 days after the hearing to file a petition with the City Clerk requiring an election on issuance of the bonds. (This process is referred to a “reverse referendum”). The petition must be signed by voters equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last City general election. If no such petition is filed within 30 d ays after the hearing, the City may issue the bonds without election. If a petition is timely filed, the City is not required to hold an election, but it may not issue the bonds unless it does so and the question is approved by a majority of those voting on the question. 5. Street reconstruction bonds are subject to the statutory debt limit. (However, that limit is very high, and most bonds are exempt from the limit, so it is not likely to be a limiting factor in the City of Lino Lakes.) 6. In citie s that operate under Chapter 429, it is possible to combine special assessments with street reconstruction bonds. For example a city might specially assess 10% of the cost of a street reconstruction project, which is not enough to allow issuance of impro vement bonds without election. But the City could hold a hearing on street reconstruction bonds, and if no petition is filed, issue the bonds without election and use the special assessments to pay 10% of the debt service (with a tax levy covering the res t.) 6. Lino Lakes does not have this combined -financing option, because if any portion of the street reconstruction cost is specially assessed (even 1%), the project itself must go to the voters under the Charter. The result is that Lino Lakes has only these options to issue bonds for street reconstruction without election :  If 100% of the cost is paid from special assessments (or other revenues)—in which case the bonds are “improvement bonds;” or  If the city does not specially assess at all, but inste ad issues street reconstruction bonds paid entirely with a tax levy (assuming no petition is received that triggers an election).  See below for other options that involve combinations with utility bonds. E. Utility Bonds 1. Utility revenue general obligation bonds (or “utility bonds”) are issued in part under either Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444 (in the case of water, sewer and storm sewer improvements), or Section 115.46 (in the case of wastewater treatment improvements). The bond proceeds may b e used only to finance one of those utilities — so these bonds are not an option for general street reconstruction, though they can be used to finance just the utility portion of a street reconstruction project. 2. The bonds must be payable primarily from net revenues of the water, sewer, and/or storm sewer utility. That is, the city must expect that net utility revenues will be sufficient to pay the bonds, but if revenues ever fall short, the City still promises to levy an ad valorem tax to cover any sho rtfalls. 3. One exception to the above rule is for wastewater treatment facilities (which include all types of sewer improvements). For these bonds, the City may include a tax levy to pay part of the bond debt service. 4. The City may also asse ss a portion of the cost of an improvement, and use those revenues in addition to utility revenues. The special assessments are still subject to the petition and veto process under the Charter, but the Charter would not require an election on the project itself because costs would not be paid with a tax levy or general city funds. 5. The City could combine utility bonds with improvement bonds or street reconstruction bonds to finance various portions of a street reconstruction project. For example, the City could finance just the street work by issuing street reconstruction bonds paid entirely with a tax levy (subject to reverse referendum), and finance the utility work with utility bonds secured by net utility revenues. No election is required unde r the Charter because no part of the project is specially assessed —the Charter does not apply at all. Or, the City could specially assess 100% of the cost of the street work, and use utility revenues to pay 100% of the cost of the utility work. In tha t case, the City might issue improvement bonds for the street portion and utility bonds for the utility portion. No election is required under the Charter because, even though the street project is assessed (so the Charter does apply to that work), no par t of the project is paid from tax levy or general City funds. City of Lino Lakes Springsted 2012 Construction Cost $2,000,000 Term 15 years Annual Debt Service Levy $155,651 Impact of New Bond Issue Annual Impact Home No With 20% Residential Value Assessments Assessed Difference $100,000.00 $9.42 $7.54 $1.88 $150,000.00 $14.14 $11.31 $2.83 $200,000.00 $18.85 $15.08 $3.77 $250,000.00 $23.56 $18.85 $4.71 $300,000.00 $28.27 $22.62 $5.65 $350,000.00 $32.98 $26.39 $6.59 County Hwy 10 Co u n t y H w y 1 4 Co u n t y H w y 2 1 Co u n t y H w y 2 3 County Hwy 14 Ho d g s o n R d County H w y 2 3 Frenchman R d Co u n t y H w y 2 1 Today's Overall Condition Index 0 - 39 (Problem) 40 - 69 (Marginal) 70 - 100 (Adequate) County, State and Other Roads Gravel Roads Pavement Ratings Adequate - Pavement in Adequate Condition, Chip Seal Required Marginal - Pavement in Marginal Condition, Cold in Place Recycle Required Problem - Pavement in Failing Condition, Reconstruction Required 0 4,200 Feet K:\02029-480\GIS\Maps\TodaysOCI_12092013.mxd Date: 12/12/2013 Item #9 Monthly Progress Report February 3 , 201 4 Item Last Action Taken Staff Status Digital S canning P roject 10 /14 /13 – Council approved hiring two PT scanner operator s Jeff The new hires are currently scanning council pack ets and accounts payable records 7309 Lake Dr. C ode V iolation 1/6/1 4 – Staff provided an update on this code enforcement issue Michael Proposed use of site for a bus company requires a zoning change Labor N egotiations (Sergeants) 1 /27 /1 4 – Council appr oved 2012 -2014 contract with Sergeants Jeff Staff is still negotiating with other three unions ECFE Building 1 1 /26 /13 – The couple looking to start a child care business passed the first review of their SBA loan application and will likely be approved J anuary 2014 Jeff KW Commercial prepar ed a draft lease agreement ; still waiting for word on final loan application Centennial Fire District 1/27 /1 4 – Council voted in favor of withdrawing from the CFD JPA Jeff Staff are preparing an action plan White B ear Lake Restoration Assn. v. Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) 1/27 /1 4 – Council voted against joining a NE Metro coalition to intervene in the WBL water level lawsuit Jeff Staff will stay on top of this issue