HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/2008 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Monday, December 1, 2008
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Community Room (not televised)
5:30 P.M.
1. Comprehensive Plan Discussion
A. Future County Road 14/I -35W Interchange
B. Metropolitan Council Affordable Housing study
2. Request to Amend Animal Ordinance
3. Variance to Shoreland Ordinance OHWL Setback Requirement — 1801 77th Street
4. Funding Request of I -35W North Corridor Coalition Update
5. Five -Year Financial Plan
6. Code Project — Title 600, Business and Activity Licenses
7. Open Meeting Law Allegation — Investigation Results
8. Regular Meeting Agenda
Adjourn
PAGE 1
•
•
•
WS — Item 1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 1
Date: Council Work Session, December 1, 2008
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Background
At the October 27, 2008 City Council meeting Mr. James Landsberger, 7849 Main Street,
requested that the council pursue funding for the construction of an interchange at Main
Street (CSAH 14) and I -35W. The council directed staff to report back with an update on
improvements in this area.
At the November 17, 2008 Comprehensive Plan work session the City Council
requested additional information regarding the methodology used by Metropolitan
Council to allocate affordable housing to communities within the seven county
metropolitan area.
The council also requested an estimate of the number of previously approved housing
units that are not built and included in the 2030 household forecasts.
Main Street/I -35W
Main Street (CSAH 14) is currently under construction from I -35W to I -35E. The project
was started in 2008 and is expected to be completed in 2009. The project includes a
continuous paved bicycle /pedestrian trail along the entire length of the corridor
terminating at both interstate bridges.
As part of the planning for the roadway improvement Anoka County prepared an
alternative analysis report for the corridor which examined: 1) access improvements to
the regional system (I -35W and I -35E) in conjunction with a new highway corridor north
of Centerville, and 2) the reconstruction of Main Street on the existing alignment. A
review of the area's transportation system revealed that existing CSAH 14 needs to be
maintained for access to the regional park and to residents and businesses in Centerville
and Lino Lakes.
1
The analysis report included seven regional access alternatives. The alternatives included
a "no regional access" alternative as well as several variations of a "northerly by- pass"
providing connectivity to both I -35E and I -35W from CSAH 14. The study determined
that no additional regional access (i.e., interchange at I- 35W/14) was warranted during
the 20 year study period. However, the study recognized that future growth within the
study area will necessitate improvements beyond the reconstruction of CSAH 14 in the
future. Of the seven alternatives reviewed, the preferred long term improvements
included the extension of CSAH 14 easterly north of Peltier Lake and linking to 80th
Street and I -35E. The alternative included a future interchange at 80th and I -35E as well
as a CSAH 14/I -35W interchange located easterly of the existing overpass (attachment
1).
The regional access alternatives were evaluated by both Mn/DOT and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). Both concluded that any additional access to the
regional system would need to be justified (the area must experience significantly higher
traffic volumes) before improvements can be considered. Additonally, the local arterial
system needs to be fully developed so that it supports the regional system before
additional access to the regional system is developed.
Based on the study an interchange at the existing overpass at CSAH 14 and I -35W is not
proposed or warranted, nor is it included in the County's five year CIP or Mn/DOT's 20
year plan and is therefore unlikely to be eligible for federal funding in the short term.
While replacement of the existing overpass would likely include a trail crossing it also is
not included in the County or Mn/DOT's future plans.
The newly constructed trail along CSAH 14 is part of the Regional Trail System and
therefore extension of the trail system across I -35W is ultimately eligible for federal
funding. The next federal funding solicitation process begins in 2009 for projects
anticipated for construction in 2013 and 2014. However, the solicitation process is
highly competitive and projects must meet certain criteria. One important element
lacking for a potential extension of the CSAH 14 trail across I -35W is connectivity.
Currently, there is no trail system developed westerly of I -35W. A stand alone trail
project along Main Street would likely need to be of such scope to provide connectivity
to an existing trail system or arterial roadway (i.e., Lake Drive) to be competitive.
Additionally, federal funding is limited to 80% of the construction cost. In addition to a
local match of 20 %, local dollars must also cover 100% of engineering, legal and land
acquisition costs. At this time there is no local funding identified either at the County or
City level to provide a local match.
As listed in the Council Goals, Objectives and Management Plan, the City will continue
to work with Anoka County to develop the Main Street northerly by -pass. Both the
City's draft Comprehensive Plan and the Anoka County Transportation Plan include the
proposed northerly alignment as recommended in the Alternatives Analysis Report.
Additionally, Anoka County has indicated funding additional studies of the route in 2010.
2
•
•
•
•
•
Metropolitan Council Affordable Housing Need Determination
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, Minnesota Statues, Section 473.859, subd. 2,
paragraph c, states that:
A land use plan shall also include a housing element containing standards, plans
and programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and
projected local and regional housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official
controls and land use planning to promote the availability of land for the development of
low and moderate income housing.
The Metropolitan Council is charged with preparing and adopting guidelines and
procedures to help local governmental units accomplish the provisions of the
Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, including the affordable housing planning
responsibility.
In preparation for the required comprehensive plan updates in 2008, the Metropolitan
Council prepared a report to determine the affordable housing need in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area for 2011 -2020. The study determined the forecasted household
growth in sewer - serviced parts of the region and calculated the net need for newly
constructed affordable housing units. The number of newly constructed affordable units
metro -wide was calculated to be 51,000 units (or 30.6% of forecasted growth in sewer -
serviced households).
The affordable housing units were allocated across metropolitan communities based on
the following factors:
1. How much household growth is a community planning to absorb from 2010-
2020?
2. What is the relative balance of low -wage jobs based in the area vs. low -wage
working residents?
3. To what extent does a community offer affordable housing now?
4. What level of transit service is available in a community?
Step One in the allocation process was to apportion new low- income housing need in
each community according to its household growth. Under this step 30.6% of the 2010-
2020 forecasted household growth was identified as affordable, the same share as the
metro area overall.
Step Two provided for adjustments (additions or subtractions) to the housing need in
each community according to the following factors:
Low -wage job proximity: Communities with more local low -wage jobs than local
low -wage working residents in the area increase their share of need by the proportional
amount they were above a 1:1 parity. Cities below 1:1 parity have their need share
proportionally diminished.
3
Affordable housing stock: For communities in which more than 30% of all
existing housing units are affordable, the formula reduces the need number by the
proportional amount they were above this threshold. For communities in which the
percentage of affordable housing is currently below 30 %, the need share number is
proportionally increased.
Transit Service: For communities with regular, frequent transit service, the
formula increases the community's share by 20 %. For communities with little current
transit service (category 3), the formula makes no adjustment. For communities with no
regular transit service (category 4), the formula decreases the community's share by 20 %.
The allocation formula can be expressed mathematically as:
Affordable housing need =
(HH growth * K1) * {1 + (Jobs/Workers — 1) + (.30 — existing aff housing) + (transit adj)} *K2
Where K1 is 30.6% the forecast for region wide affordable housing need as a share of forecast
growth, and K2 is . 779, an adjustment factor to ensure the regional total of 51,000 needed
affordable units.
A map illustrating the distribution of affordable housing units metro wide is attached.
Additionally, staff has attached summary tables for cities by county. The summary tables
include the sewered household forecast for net growth as well as the adjustment factors
for each community.
Please note that the tables show Lino Lakes with a need of 1,051 units. This number was
adjusted to 560 in May of 2006 to account for existing units changing from on -site
systems to public sewer which are not considered new "sewered households ". The draft
comprehensive plan estimates a total of 1,275 affordable housing units which is based on
the revised total housing units (4,150 new households by 2020). This change is discussed
on pages 4 -16 and 4 -17 of the draft comprehensive plan.
Approved Housing Units
The draft comprehensive plan's forecasts estimate 4,150 new households by 2020. Based
on staff's review of existing development approximately 250 -300 residential lots have
received either preliminary plat approval or final plat approval but have not been
constructed on. Additionally, the Legacy development was approved for up to 450 units
with 60 completed.
Council Direction
No council direction is requested at this time. Staff and consultants will be available for
comment.
4
•
•
•
Attachments
1. Regional Access Alternatives — Option 4
2. City Future Roadway System (Post 2030)
3. Affordable Housing Units Distribution Map
4. Summary Tables: Affordable Housing Need Allocation
5
IAiTAcArAE.f+r .�.
Option 4 Includes
• Additional regional access provided at I -35E.
• Additional regional access provided at I -35W.
• A local connection on the north between
County Road 14 and County Road 21
(20th Street).
XX = PROJECTED 2030 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
COUNTY ROAD 14 PROJECT AREA
PLANNED FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
REGIONAL ACCESS IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE
LAR
Coturnbuz
Lake
COLUMBUS
TOWNSHIP
2000 POP. 3.957
SR— SR— SR— 'SR— SR
.—
zz
LINO LAKES
2000 POP. 16,791
13,200
LINO LAKES
2000 PO9.16,791
BJC 37.
OPTION 4
NEW NORTHERLY ALIGNMENT
WITH NEW FREEWAY ACCESS
K
cuRccrto. 6-3-04
RICE CREEK - CHAIN Of LAKES
REGIONAL PARK
RESERVE
12,
Wards
Merman ^
t�
A
E
CENTER VILLE
2000 POP. 3.202 , �y
Regional Access Alternatives - Option 4
A1171-11-)C1+f wvT 2
Columbus
28 . r� r � 4 _ r r 1 q _._. _ o soon 140► �
:.� HSTE
White Bear Twp
Future Roadway System (Post -2030)
City of Lino Lakes 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
0 Existing Full Access Interchange Recommended Lanes* Lakes
lit ®
® Future Full Access Interchange
Existing Partial Access Interchange Six -Lane Divided Streams IIII (Future Full Access)
Four -Lane Divided School Open Space/ City Parks
Two Lane County Parks
N #,### Traffic Forecast 2030 • For Major and Minor Collectors, Minor
Arterials and Principal Arterials except 1G Lino Lakes City Limits
4,000 0 4,000 1-35W and I-35E
i Feet
Figure 6.7
June 30, 2008
Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
JAtaps 15933 \'rad\SummaryFigures\Figure 6-07 FS_lanes.mxd
ATTACMh -1-- 63
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 2011 — 2020
Page 12
Twin Cities Region
Affordable Housing Units Needed, 2011 to 2020
None
1 to 99
100 to 499
500 to 999
1,000 to 1,999
IIIIII 2,000 to 2,999
- 4,088 (Minneapolis)
Ana
d
Ben Trap.
Osk Osw
ANOKA
6s BOW
Unwed Tvp.
Coluniss Trap.
Hun lie
WASH
Sandia Tvp.
NGTON
ID H4/6
independenwo
Holfvoad Trap.
Tevnpknd T.
conley/293
1/10/06
A3
New Market Twp.
Cedar lake Tvp.
Cede Notlk Tvp.
Nedd
tle,pt , Tvp.
0 25 5
10
15
20
Wes
25
tMetropolitan Council
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
•
•
•
AIACWIt10"`i
CD CD
03 '0 N
m 'a O C m O
Z 3 C m .‘•••
o o m 0 ,
U = Z O
Q N
N. 0 CO O O
(O N O (D . co) M LO LO t`
to •- ' N N N. ' O tt
c- .- ,-
Units Added /Subtracted per
C
CO
F
ee
m c0..)
N .'
O N. 0 O 0 0 h.— 0 COO 0 0 0 'Q co)
co) co) N Ir
co co O) CO 0 N O) O) (O O M.— O CO 0
N N — N N ' ' '
N ' ' N LO '
co h O co CO N CO CO 0) 'V 0 .- 0 I- LO
O c) 1- O) 1- (? ,a- N O CO
N N N
c I
Stock2
imity1
Housing Need Adjustment Factors
Service' I
service level
1 through 4
co) N co) M CO N �t CO N N CO co) co) N
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 0 0 0 0 0
M M h (- O O) N M I'- (O ID CO I— `a' O co
N r N 7 N CO O) (O M N
N (00 O0) O I- co N ((') M
Stock2
or below 60%
of HUD AMI
O
-
O
0.
lower -wage
workers
V•V•Vt•• VV••••••a•J•
Sewered Households
Net
Growth
O O 0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
0 C o(o()OLtV' O vOOOLO
N- CO ' Co) N CO CO C) co) ' 0 LC) N
N 1.6 M (O •-
M O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0)00)000(31.00c3,-1.00000
(0 (n M (O .- N M in 0)- a) 0 0 0 O
.— CO 0) . N 0) CO. . CO ,ci CV-
v- N N ,-
M O N 0 0 0 0 00000000
O) O O) O LO O CO O .- O O O LO
O) O) O co) 0 (O 1 LO O - O O Lo Co h
CO N- er . N (O LO <- LO N- N CV-
N N
O
N
0
N
O
0
N
Sewered
Communities
aJ Y
L • as
-,3a) a
C y = f' O 0)
0� mcmc� oY �,m
Q N C d C) E d J V01 C
_lC -O O L C U -- o -p = X p m .: Q
O C C C) 4) 0 0 0 •C — a) C
C<<mm00000IL2JJ W CO 0)
c o
co O >,
(4 = (0 0
C
O p O 7
L N .Q C 0) a) N
CD O _ C .
> - N OQ •V N
.o c > 0 'E
` N L) ca
O C N Q.
3
� E w _o 773.0-
c O O= O c L
(0 O L cis c
O m N
L U co 0) y U
0) @ L 3 w 3 N
0) 0
.O C .0 O C
m O U
Q N C C N
C C U > E E C E
O CO m O- y O O
fC - 0 o O N >, N
c IA
o C) .o O -s 2 al
m
co
O U L O co c p p a)
a) N 2 U c
O co
L C O O fQ L p—
u] EON - C) u) c 3
E) 0 C E N p 1 N
m
0 C u] > N N QL 0
a) m m rn m >. 3 c
48 U) = mEmv - ( U O d p 'C .
.. 0) L .-. U 2.
L.,
T E c m m Q N U C O
0 'E C O `. a) Z .s u)
co) N .N y >+ U
o C_ N_ >, E C N y
O L C O m 'E O
p „' C
.0 co Q O E y' c C vl
:—° i n V E O C 0 o E
f6 m 3 m 3
N 0) 0 w C ,4U'_- N .0 3
03 er as w
CO O p) O m 'D N
a) w J m 0 U m -p . i
.. 0 0) 3 CO CO m d
0 o m m ` 0) ! .(.1-) E
o O E 7 QQ N II
7 C
O Oc) m NN L`- L m
O _C 7 FL- = N O C
c m L y >, c> 2 0
0) - C W G) 0
N = C C)
N W 3 .0 ` a) y
Iii -C o) C-.) 6 O I- 3 u) T
c cn v V •' o —c7..) c
o.> �, °'w - m
w w vD gO ai 0 3 E
ate) co p N Q a1 •--I c.2 a)
C L.. �C U p ,.- C
L- p O
m E'o °c) OU E m
N
f0 :X m W (%� C_ C) O C
N
c0 c c ` ' C w
.. 5 O Y 3 N N C (1fl N 0 0 1 0
mo
,- U = o
2011 - 2020
0 0
s a) O
a i 0
Z = C
o o= 0 r
U x Z N
CD r O— CO O N ti O
0 CO r O CO
CO N- N D) ' r r a) r
T
Units Added /Subtracted per
Factor
4S
C m V
N .'
it..
ch co O cc) O T O O c•)
1 CO CO CO 0 `7 .7
'
N t- O C') I- In O (0 a) N- CD - CD
CO ' n ' ' 'co N r N
r N ' N '
r r- 0) '40- ti N 0 CD ' CO r- co to
' CA N CD ' . N ' CO
Ln N
Housing
Stock2
Job prox-
imity'
Housing Need Adjustment Factors
Transit
Service'
transit
service level
1 through 4
t %ZtV 99'
ti %£Z 96'
E %L 90'1.
17 %Z9 1.6'
V %0L 179'
t %ZE Z9'
V %9 96'
1► %95 99'
t' %6 96'
V %i•E 90' b
E %OE Z£' 6
E %6 L9'1.
t• %91. Z6'
Housing
Stock2
pct. of units
affordable at
or below 60%
of HUD AMI
.0 .E
O
0.
ratio:lower-
wage jobs to
lower -wage
workers
Growth Summary:
Sewered Households
Net
Growth
1,800 1,850 50
9,900 12,800 2,900
10,000 12,500 2,500
1,180 2,200 1,020
250 4,560 4,310
240 300 60
220 220 -
770 1,610 840
180 250 70
1,800 2,800 1,000
4,000 7,200 3,200
4,487 5,279 792
1,800 2,500 700
0
N
0
N
0
O
H
Sewered
Communities
aa)
E
Q
on
ci fl T c
3 0O) 1— H E >- c
c L
V L CU 0 c 0 m 3 a) 0 c o
L _y O L 0 0 -` 'C
a as co c N 0 Y O ° U
CO . _C O N (5 0 a) 0 00 U N ca
U U U U U 0 2—I 2ZZ5
c c
co o
CD
0 3
o p O
a) : -
a) .a c
L a)
0
a. o _ E
C1 >
o L 0
m
c
T 7 `. 2
st E to .a
CO- E --0 0
C6 0 0 o2$
to U 7 CI
to O O 'cn
a) N L 7
CD L
o U O
0_ N c C
c C U
a
0 0 to O t O O d
cC a) a) fl o
O G
O_ 0
0_ 45. O
c E E
O U � N
N a)
H
N � p as T
.0 C O O Itf
to 7 O N w -O
EO L a)
a) E r o to .c
5 U y C E
to O C N 7 0
N _c co co O co c 'O
w O N 7 0
f N U r O n)
rn E
m
c m o Q
c o •E
7 r L >, to 4)
CO) c a) as fo . >. E
a) L - c C U
C •3 0 E c
h n E >_
3 0 c o- 0 E
ns
tai) 0)0- w�
a) N N O O co
a) O O n C
N 7 a) co
7 0 N E N
U —°E� CL
Q
46 CI' m -C <
c
C I6 7 I— 2 E' C
3 .r C' N
CO :n
~ cr-
o .— O
vim) X 0 Q
u)
f the Twin Cities 13 -Coun
U
c
N to aa))
= w c
c '—
U .— 8
c .O.
O w E
U �
c as
ctf d m
O 3
OC .0
CD (a U
to
a) Q. a)
.L+ ca
a)
-0 _C C
>s a)
O O
CD
T
a)
_
to w o
EU
L (6
E _ y b
0 N
O .c — 7
. y U) =
a) • o -2 12
N > 0
> N II
as E Ev
CD 0 "C
U_ `
0).9 0)
(0 '� .c— a)
a) >,co
W N U
C ) to
C E
ON N
0
c
0 C O 43
•
(0 =
7
L � w
N d L
fa U a)
U j N D
cn ! E
0) II O
r 0 N
y
c c.) cO
to N 0
:E 'ytn
w a) Co
J a) 7
0 0
U
in 11 O
L O N N
in 0 . - C
w
tag ) o ai
c `) oro
I— X fa C
en a) 0 ca
•
•
•
•
•
•
co
r
O
O
L
m
2
co
H
C.)
1-
m
O
N 0 O
CJ N
O
W °
C4
Z
0)
O
his
m
0,
0
0,
1-
l4
E
C a 0
c 0 e o
m 3 C Qi ,
Z 0 o M m e-
QI ZO
N
N CO 0 0 00)) )- CO CO C(0 O O N
(7 1` 10 N ti N' 00 .--
CV
Units Added /Subtracted per
Factor
C m V
V. N 3 >
I
O O O Ch ' N CO O O O O O O 00 N
1- O 1 CO ,- 1 N
1 I
CA CO r- t- r •- cn c (NI co .- Ch 1- co N r•
CO N CO .•- N CO I 1- CO • I--
r- 1 ' e
co co CO co co C) CD N O O N CO 0 0 M 0)
CO O 0) CO ' .-- C") () I. (*) ' ()
1' CO .- ' N (11 . '
Housing
Stock2
Job prox-
imity'
Housing Need Adjustment Factors
Transit
Service3
transit
service level
1 through 4
() c+) t) c+) cc) C) C') C`) C') N d• N
0 0 0 0 ...,E> 0 0 ;if.: 0 0 0 Cc Cr z.,..? 6,.9. 0
CO CO N O N- N N CO (0 CO O) �,- O
N N N (') N — '— CO fh V-
t0 0 co th co 0) O (o 0) cm O N N CD
M CO CO f` 1` CO 7 CA O tO O O (7 r C7
Housing
Stock2
pct. of units
affordable at
or below 60%
of HUD AMI
.-P,.,
.0
O •
a
ratio:lower-
wage jobs to
lower -wage
workers
Growth Summary:
Sewered Households
Net
Growth
(0(0 O O O O O 1` O 000000
N 0 0 0 CO 0 CO O .— 0 0 O V- CO
N- CO CO N- O N V' CO ' N N CO M
C+) r ei N N Cti C")
U•) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N 1• O O 0 0) O 0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 - 0
e- 1` O V' CO N O 10 0 CO .- OD CO CO N CO
Co CO O .- O CO cO O co- O)
N N N,- N
r- N 0 0 0 0 0 t,100000000
1` 1O O O O t0 O,7 O 00 O O O O O CO
(7 CA CO 1` CO N CO O 1` CO Co M M N CA
-
N '- co t- co c7 0) '- t- c co
N N N .- .-
co
N
O
N
O
l"'
Oa G
Sewered
Communities
CO
s
Cr) 0)
= 9) 7 7
>" 5 to
C d _ 3 0 > 2 c 0- c d
O co F- - C 'in O N (U (5 p O
O _ _
U> •> C co C �1 0= N O D E fn
m a) (1) Ca .= ' 0_ . ,_ > to •C3 -a a)
„,,g ° O. 7 co E N co O >@ ?+ w a) 0 0 a) N
Q Q m W W li 2 2 2 J J 2 2 Q' cn > 5
c o
CO 0 >.
C0 0
U O
O n O 7
O
� N � C C/) N a)
L N = .t-. c
a) O E _ C .
-° w O U _ a)
'O� _> 7"a E
O
O
ca N C1 CO >.
O C a) c �- N
C -
0.O
co O= 0 fl
N U .c L C
CO a)
(0 i 7 CD y U
a) L a .c co u)
O a) O
c E2 >., c
w _o
.5,-a w c c
co v O b
i c >.a)
O (ca �a o - 5 O p
n o cCU m a) V 13,7 ;.---.6.5 °n CI- n (Si
L N
�.- U N Co a) c ° m •N
0
+' L
y F- � .FO 0 c
-E- Lc IEW M co
�. c 0 0 L W 7 0 N p O
y r O f") 7; . C U n j y C EE
O L O
O) U
as c u) m N Q c
c -° > cca mr) u ��00) °Es co V 0 a) p •` -
y ° 3 t U L
C O •` T$ — c0 Z -_ 0CD
U'.- 0) N N W> CO
_C N ->. E y
a) L c O O . F, O
-C C 7 C = c E w
C Q>, > p tO C
0) O E C
O a) a 0 i O C
o cr3 y
c C E f6 LL f0 p N O
110 C7) U W c yam_- a) 'C 7
_ w
N CO O ca 0 0 N w y N
(5 w O p) N N -O _
.._ J
d) �
O p c U 0
a) 03 7 a) Ca
g 7N O cm
U N N ` a) CA N
8 E 3 a< 11
U
� 7 C
O O °m OQ .n Ca
3 O L
c j F- 2 O N O C
c Ca t 0) .. > c > .O O
a) L c y., w e E U
a) ° .3 a) c s m a)
L iA
y F- c ' m 0 ~ o° 0)
.0 N v
•> ° � 0 o E
cn) L N a) Q N J a) N
C L N
a) > d U :t+ U O c
f6 X N to fn C Hil co
L OL L 0- c U , F N O a)
a) C N N c a) co •n
O Y p O t7_ .O. "6
U -3 ° O 2 x cu c
. e- 3 U n O a) U co
r.co+
O
a.
O
2
H
m
U
3
t
C
O p
N ( O
N
.0
K Q r
W m N
z
0/
.y
0
2
"a
.0
0
co
cnE
E
0 CD • N
CO c S m O
2 '0 = C m
u O z O
Q = N
Housing Need Adjustment Factors
m
s
Co
0 to 0 V)
0 0 3 °)
to
t'
R
E w
E
O
W
5
0
(.1
N
m
Z O �
C7
O
O
0
O
m
m
a c
m O
E
m o
(0 0
Ch 0 0) CD c'1 N CD LC) N 0) Nt 1n 10 '7 M (D 0 1'7 V- CD '7 CO r r CO CO Ch
N CD 0) h h N CD r N O N r- '7 V' c0 CO N O CO r
CD r 1O r CO r 0) (D N r r r CO c) 0 V- c0 N c7
V:
In 10 O 1O 10 CO O O 1n O N CO 0 V- CO N O r O N O 0) N O O 1� O r 0
O) N c7 CO N CD N r ' vt r 1 ' ' CD 10 1n CO c7
N 7 c7 10
r 0 10 0) r 10 V' 0 N V- 1,- h r 1- N N N O c0 r 0 CO 0) 1O 0 V- N N 10
M c) Tr CO r ' 10 r 0) ' CO CD vt 0) ' 11")
r r ' CO
CD M 0 M ti 0 CD V- N V' 1-- CD I- M 0 10 N CO r CM r N N 0) 0 0) O N c7
CD 0 N tt 1- 0 r O r r 10 ' r CO ' r cc) 10 0) N r 0) cc)
N CD ' N N r r r
N
N N N M N M c') N c0 N d• c'7 vt N V- M V- c7 V) r N M cc) N M
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 0 0 0
O 1- N c7 CO N N O O 00 00 N 1O V- c7 N CD O) 1,- (O 1n 11•) h N 10 N CO r
N CM CV r r N N r CV e r r '- N N c') r r N c7
CO r r O h N r M CO N c) 0) .• N c0 CO O V- 0) C') O N
1C) In M 1n 0) O 0) CO O 0) 0) 1n c7 CO O O r Co Co
r e- e- • r r • e- N r- r r • r •
0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O CO O CO 0 0 '7 CO O N 0 r N 0 0 0 '7
0 O CD O 0 0 0 10 0 O CO O CO r r O N O r C•4 r CV 0 O Ln O O)
10 CO 1` ti Cr 0 Ch sf N r N- c7 r (0 r O CO r N 10 CD
r CD N Co r 10 r 0)
0000000000 0 0 10 O O CO O O O '7 O O O O r O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O C•) r (D O 0) ' 10 O) ' O r C7 O O O 10
N N 0 N 10 r 0 1O 10 O c7 N N cc) 1-- CO N O N.- 0) r N O r N 1- CD (o O)
0) N N 0) V O 1'- r 10 N H 0) co r O N r M ('.1 ' 0) N-
M .- c0 .- N N cc) CO N
r
O O 00 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 c'7 O c0 N O O O N O O 0 0 Co O O O CD
0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1n 0 1O N CO O CO O N CO r 0 O M 0 10 0 10
1,- CO r 1n CO i,- O V- N CD N O r c) 1 1n N 0) N 10 0) r r 0 C) N CD M r N
►,- r CO CO r O) r r r r O) CO Ni. r N N r tr O) N
C+) r N N N N r- N
c N
7 c Y A
O c O a) CI) N
c c c c c n `p > 5
aa� c d y cr~
O.E.. �c O O Qc to — N c
c p O O L 0 i' 0 0 'O 'O ) O m
acommUUUDD W W W00
Greenwood
m m
0_ c(-) a) Y
cp H C. 5 J O c
c00 0 d c co m
ca c Q J O N N •C) c 0 CD
N 0 13 0 EL) O CO (6 N 121
C C
Minnetonka Beach
ca m
(0 Q
0
N C 2 O
c O 3 c0
2z0
•
•
•
•
•
•
cu
m
0,
O
0.
O
L
m
2
to
m
U
H
m
t
O
CU 0
;~ ci N
.0 0
a�
W m N
m
Z
'y
O
2
m
.0
1
0
Q
.0
W
1-
0,
E
7
N
CD 0
23 co -0 N
IV C .- m O
m- 3 C m
Z 0_ Z = O
Q N
N CO N a- N-
O N- N ,-- ,- '
O to c. NI'
to
Units Added /Subtracted per
Factor
C
CO y
H
I- O N O CO O
CA M M .-
to in to N h 1- 0
1 N Ch
T
L0 N Oa- O
Nr N ,- '
O O O O O
CO
N 0 N a- N O
,- '
CC0 N .a— co N
N
Housing
Stock2
Job prox-
imity '
Housing Need Adjustment Factors
Transit
Service'
transit
service level
1 through 4
1.04 46% 2
1.59 14% 3
1.93 29% 2
1.65 29% 2
.92 5% 4
1.48 34% 2
.96 22% 3
Housing
Stock2
pct. of units
affordable at
or below 60%
of HUD AMI
It
-E
O
o.
ratio:lower-
wage jobs to
lower -wage
workers
Growth Summary:
Sewered Households
Net
Growth
1,090 1,200 110
29,000 31,500 2,500
16,500 18,000 1,500
6,500 7,000 500
4,685 5,173 488
4,000 4,300 300
1,100 1,100 -
0
N
O
N
O
0
N
Sewered
Communities
c c
m O U
co 0
U O
O
O a)
> ° 15 .-... CT
N _oc .N y
-O 2 L N w,C.. C
N N o f _ c CL co
7 5)
>+ N '.
c N O E
O .��' CC0 o U ca
0 3 N C a N Ca v E y. oco...
EA E o o- o.o
(5 0 -C 05 N N
7
Cy0 N O w N a g CO
0) a) O �' co
C -O o w fl c c
QCO c c N N
c(3 3E EcE
as as -°-t `m o
U O Q y
p 0 a) a) -0 43 M 6
c_ 3 y O y N U
.° -tea vi y w 0 z
c • °)Cyy
V N ;n5 N C 3 0 .N
y.0 .L,,, 7 0 U c
O _0 E
E O O N 0
O co N_ 0 0 N C N
E O N c co - 3
E o c co CT
0 N '� E N •O E a))
O C y O N O': O
ID N CO CD = >, > C
w L C "O C 0C y II CO o y -o = a) CO E g V
y 2 U o _ N O •� •-
N .0 0 ,L a., •
o •E c$< y Z ._ a)
>, y a) �• N a CO
C a) >. E c y y w
t - c c C C .L.
3 nT E>, o m y.E
` 0 E c c y
O w Q' 0 E O N O.0
m
ID UW CCI LL U 6 '.cC
_ w
q_j O 11 � � vO ; L
O
To .0 y 3 a) al N w O
O E O CL N II
o O! m N < .D '" _o as
° c = i- 2 � 0 c9 c
N w C >. y> o
t 3 U 'n 3 E E y y
I- 0) ca O F- O C..
ccri vV 1 c c
o .> �- N w N ca
=j a) 0 0 E
L y N Q y J a) N y
c .c ZT OU E N N O •
•O N w fn C CN N._ C
.p c .3 N c `) 0) -0
-0 O O O w (a Q a
_ .� x ca c
3 U N 0 1) a) U co
V
0
f.
i+
m
2
E-
m
C
o
N N
0 NI
.0 O
• Q
r
W 0 "
0
Z
m
0
0
▪ 0
12
L
0
. 0
0
E
N
0 Co
472 en -0 04
03 C .4 0 O
m C 7 C 0-
Z o o Z G
Q I N
aa) N M c0`') (0 (MM) c0 (0 O a- N (NO O LC)
N N r
Units Added /Subtracted per
Factor
U) m n u G
' � '>
H
0 M 0 c0 O O 0 O 0 0) r CO 0 0 0 0
N O N r M N
Nt
Housing
Stock2
0) .- N- (D 00 r O e- NI- CO O O N M O
N ' , r r • 1 r 0 r r a-
1 M
T
c0 0) O N. r CD O el- N- 1� 0) 0) M 0) 0
0) r r 1� co M O N CD CD r CD N
Job prox-
imity'
Housing Need Adjustment Factors
Transit
Service'
transit
service level
1 through 4
M N M C' N N M N M N N r M M M Cl)
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 0 0 0 0 0
co (0 O — O (0 O r O CD CD r— 6 0) 0) 00
a-0) O v N M N N r N r
0) 0 V. N O r CD -cr (0 co co c0 r \7
M co M (o co M r N O r r N
Housing
Stock2
pct. of units
affordable at
or below 60%
of HUD AMI
w
12 E
0.
C
a
ratio :lower -
wage jobs to
lower -wage
workers
Growth Summary:
Sewered Households
Net
Growth
O 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 h ti O O O O O 0)
0 O 0) 0) O O O 0 V- r 0 0 0 0 CD
c0 at O) N r M O Cr M O N N
00000000C)000000,4-
'
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)
CD r N M 0 CD c0 0 O M r 0) tr
N '- O (0 O 0) O (0 r a— (D - CV a-
r r
O O 0 0 O O O M M O 0 0 0 0 0
O co NY 0 O 0 O O O O 0 0 CD 0 0 N
co co r 0) co M M co co O 0) (D t- N
M N •- N 0 0 0) O L 0 0 (0 `Q r
r N r
r
0)
Cal
O
0
0
O
N
Sewered
Communities
>, CO . N Q Y
-c 3 ca
C 7 CA 1-
_ CO J 3 o m
y rn m� a'
0= i Y 03 c o > o (ra • m w= 0 ao)
a) c O J N U N v co O.c N «s N C a) a
(p a) U E a 0 a a 3 'C 'C a) n' O "O L L
c (6 a) a) .. as 0 C4 0 0 0 • .0 (3
1QI1. CDJJ22ZZZQ'(5w>
c o
co O >'
CO ()
U O c
O O N
O
O 7
C
- a o y 0 a)
'o2 L °' = C
70 Q O O_ O
> _ is o ° _ a)
O . C > 0 w 'E
O O _
O C • C a 0
N—
3 f0 @ >
E u) O
C14 -o L O j
E D n -p s
C o O O C
(CI C) -C o5 L W a
.�... (L) y C7) N N U
ca N - • O w 0 • y
O O • O
CT o .0 c _c
d co C • O )
C aC T 0
O Ca N OE E C E
C CD O
w
c O Q y >, j 5 N N O.0 ()
O.
a)
o 0. .0
N U
a) O (_0 • N •-2 n CO .
p U L ca a) P= � O (o .N
N N OL U c
N • ~ M T E w m N
O
,= C O O f6 -0 o— - L
u' EO`� w a) c (I) •C a
a) r O y C ._ :E.0.5 ci CT
O) 0 E O - Ca
`m - c a' a) m -5 o
• IF) co -a j w to E m
L O O .` .-
o N 0 U L
>' E - co o to U c 0
rn
= o E >' o--- ca C .�
O C N Q o c m " a) T y y U
a) s - c O N - O
..'C. C a) 3 C � c E E.
c 3 a >, E> o a) c
I E. c
3 0 ) a 0 E O c 0-e
U W
O - C E t6 Il CO M M
two C) U W `�- C ( N O
N co 0 O (6 y w m H
L 3 0 a) w J N a) L
m . O O) N t6 ,: -o a)
.�
N O O N C 2 V 7 d 0
W 3 CU lC a) OI •- L
7 U .O m E 19. 1 E w
o O E o '< N II 0
O O m N O r (6
.A O c 7 H 2 7 y aj "c
c N.c ca • >, c> o O
(1) a) 3 a) - C u' 0 ? (.)
.0 0) ° .C] 30 •E 7" y N
N•. C -13 N O A
O .> U a) N (a
'-' 1 O 7 E
un) .�. N < to J N T `.
0> y: U 0 0 o w c
w.c -o a)oU -E 0)
o X N n) ((% C a) N c
OL L 7 �_ N
(o 0- c' U C~ N U) O a)
sa Y C 7 0 C ID C -0
0,- O O r M O_ a). "O
U-3 0 0= ,,_ it X as C
•
•
•
•
•
CD CI
LA '0 N
C S a) O
as .= C a) ,
i
__a) O pD m_
ax ZN
O ()) M N t1') N O
NN N' co_ .,-
CV '- N
Units Added /Subtracted per
Factor
0
C m CO!
`y .;
1
O O N- C') 0 0 0
co r-)
N- 0) 10 h 0 (D 0
00 N aD I-- 0 (D
N N •c--
a7 (D •ct V' (')
a)N1C)MQ)(DN
1 1 I
Housing
Stock2
Job prox-
imity'
Housing Need Adjustment Factors
Transit
Services
transit
service level
1 through 4
- •. . •. (*) t+) cc)
0 .. 0 0 0 0 0
I.- 0) (D 0) to 20
N 'ct
(D r`: (O. CJ
Housing
Stock2
pct. of units
affordable at
or below 60%
of HUD AMI
o K
0
so.
ratio:lower-
wage jobs to
lower -wage
workers
Growth Summary:
Sewered Households
Net
Growth
009'1► 009'66 000'96
009'£ 009'P6 OOL'06
009'9 000'96 009'06
09£'1 009'Z 091.'1
009 00Z'£ 00L'Z
09£'1. 09£'Z OL6
009'1. OOL'ti 006`Z
O
N
O
N
O
O
N
Sewered
Communities
Scott County
Belle Plaine
Elko
Jordan
New Market
Prior Lake
Savage
Shakopee
C o
ca O >
U p O
c
O Q O 7
O
. G) c N N a)
N O E _ C .
C > 3 w ''E
O O _
O »- CO" a CO >.
O C d
v E N D 0
fl E •5 g Q- -o 5 .o
fa 0 .0 c t6 a)
w U N m -11-' U
a) O L o O O O
CD O y O
C� E_ >'C N
w
o. O C C
Q (a C C a) .L..
O ca fa O C w N 4 O O
U O as
= o m m aa)) a) C:6 ai
O_ O_ 9 co _U
C" ID- •� (q "� N p
•
O U O O 7 0 O N L w p U C
N N ~ M a) w Nw O to >. :E w
L C O O p ,...73 L N O O N= "o U C O
V) E co L O C N •
y C O a •
U C CL=
o 0
RS m N N ca >. 3 C to 0)
w O co 16 c ttica as E E
L co co co co O O O � ._
y t U L L.'
>' E C fEC .1 U C
E O -E E . N C N
U N N .N 4,1 >
.
_ y CO
C a) E
a L - N -E U � N O N
o C
— .o E (5
c
= o
`m o O E o c o.n
o° c E U N a)
N O cc a) W w� U o _o
o) 0 w
N N `L U aLa- .... a
L
CU 3 ... O o)0 ,=a a
N ..-� n -0 i
0 O p U � 6 N 7 a) a) a CO .
7 U N ` N W E L
0 o E 0 Q¢ N II O
7 C
C 7 -1E - C d U C
C (C .0 co .. >. >- O
a) L lt N . c V) y Co)
N a) — O L
.. - . . N as
O C N O F- L5 co
> M o N a >,
.n 0 (5
...a T
0 E
N cc N p Q N J C cpCr co .....-
a) >" a) U U p 9C c O
a) :2 O O N
fC •X a) N Cn a) MS • - C
o L 3 3 CO m -
N EL o) — N F•- N 0 N
N Y C O d C N o) "O
o - O O .�.. CO Q o -o
U—3 O O
- 3 U 2 0� 0)) 0 as
(a
m
IZ
O
L
co
Cm
U
1—
m
0
N �
.0 0
K Q
W
CD
m
Z
0)
.y
0
r
m
L
.0
to
E
N
2011 - 2020
a) -0 N
C co 0 O
Z O •= C 0 r
U = Z N
N — r-- t-� 0) 0 co N CO - N N
N
Units Added /Subtracted per
Factor
a) '�
C m (m)
vie F-y >
O O O CD (D O O O 0 () O 0 O O 0 O 0
- —IN
10 O (") — N O 0) 0 O) O C') c') — c0 — N
co co Cr) Nr . — . . a•- 1 co
N N NI-
O N c•) a0 — O N 10 co 0 N nt O()
O O 0) N ' ' — — I — I to
N N
Housing
Stock2
Job prox-
imity'
Housing Need Adjustment Factors
Transit
Service3
transit
service level
1 through 4
() C) (") C.) C') co co co co co co c•-)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 0 0 C C 0 ;:.r..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 ', 0 C. 0
O O 0) CO (O 0 N O O (0 0 N- 0) C+) 0)
N N — — NO) — ♦YNc)c+) —'0
— _
CO COCOoOr 0) N..O 00
Housing
Stock2
pct. of units
affordable at
or below 60%
of HUD AMI
0 X
O
0-
ratio:lower-
wage jobs to
lower -wage
workers
Growth Summary:
Sewered Households
Net
Growth
O O N O O 1() 0 O (D 0 0 0 CD O
(O O O 0 CO CC) c0 r— O N NI. NI. •-- 0)
— . -et c0 P- 0 0) 1 — N h — C) c0
st N NI — N-
CO 0 0 N 0 0 0 O O O 0) O 0 0 0 O O
0) N 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 h• C• 0 0 0 0 0
N c+) N O CD 0) 10 C') O C) CO O (.) 10 CO N 10
• (D O— O el- cq c- N N f` O-
— C`')
0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 O O O co 0 C0 0 0 (D
C) N 0 Nt O O O O (NI h 0 I- CD O C) 0
— V) CO 1.0 N 0) c0 co co co c0_ c') — — N N O
- r N- O � N — N N h M
— — — — (V
0
N
N
N
O
O
o
N
Sewered
Communities
Z. X
C C 2 co
O a) co U rn
C O a) '0 0) = N
3 C
O 0 0 J 0 E 0 0 t N '- d y a) 3
C II 7)U W 2 O C ma_ O O`-0
c >, N cr Q Y d > N p . U - c f Y C_c C Y
W O O p L. 3 co co O O p co O ..; =— 0
jmmUlLOi -J-J 22ZOO(n(n
C
O
0
a.
O
a_
L
O
c o
O co >.
" (D 0
C
0 p O -r-,
3
. 0 a)
a — c
'a a) O a. - C
.> . O p U _ N
"O c > 7 "O' 'E
O . O O
oc � c CQ_
E m n _ -o-; ii
Irk E
(ca 0 r 06 o c
_c L N 0) a) to U_
(0 O 30 h p Z
a) a) t 3 0 0_ a)
L O CO
a) `O 0 _ a) !.
c E ..- c (0
O ..... U O C ` "CI
a, O C C 4)
'T a) c >, O
O (a O '- :C p
U 0 N co
a QJ
C(0 O 0 'c O c..i
`) — - 12 (q vi) -,cam„ o Z
O a) 0) a)
C ,O -, 0) O N
O O O p C 3 O iA
U) a) 3 0 U C
_ • Co
O O -0 p —
O N L 0 U O C O
O �- a) c rn - 3
— 0 C • C (0 rn
- E a) o
(fs u) .c
c N 3 y 0 O. _0 O
00 co 0) a) — C 3 C
.L.. c6 •C "O > 0 U) ii
0 a j N CO E NI-
0 •C
2 CD 0
c (a Q c0i C 0)
' c o.� vi
0 u) a) > E 'w
C
E 'c 0 -
E o
O E •� C
E cs 0 O
a)
W O W COj
a)
0 -
(0 E
a E
' U
O
a)
_c
ca
N
°
U c
a) .c
C
C
N
s a)
O C
a) co 0) U
3 a)
4-
0 O O
y
c (6 a)
7 U
to O 0 (I)
N U .c U
rnE 7-02 E
C
C O .0
0 f0 3
`0
0- :+ 3
O C a) N N
0 a,,-.-... N "`' a) ,_
O 0) [0 "O 0
J O O U fa -0 -.
(0 C� 3 (1)13
7 a) O O 0) ' 1.
O ` N U) N
U O E 7 0. N II -0
— 7 C
0 O�m a)� .a (o
O c 7 F_. 2 = a) O
C
C co t N C j— 0
a) ` N = c N U
a) N .0 a) a) th
N~ �7U 0 al ~ O N A
VJ '0 0 C c
.a O •> O— > 0 3 E
w C 0 Q(0 O O 2 C
p O
a) U. _U
O 'a- -0 OU .. N•0-
fa -X a) c) (n C N -0 - - c
L O ' 3 d _
to a. C •U -C F- •N (0 O a)
a) c = a) C a) CA a
0 0 30 O = N Q.O. "0
•
•
•
14.c- e cc Kai
v . r c / 9 , e ' e i / C " F c d - C / Q v- ( ems Et/cf.- v Ec,Y
7cE? Lakt _���j �U
78 97 .A ; /4 st
Celt
•
•
WS — Item 2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item #2
Date: December 1, 2008
To: City Council
From: David J Pecchia, Public Safety Director
Re: Proposed changes to the Lino Lakes Animal Ordinance — Allow more than 2
dogs without requiring a kennel license.
BACKGROUND:
On November 3, 2008, the city council heard a request from Lino Lakes residents Jeremy and
Jamie Gudmundson, of 992 Kelly Street to amend the Lino Lakes Animal Ordinance. The current
ordinance states that any resident who owns 3 dogs on one acre of land must obtain a private
kennel license. Any resident with a lot less than one acre can only own two dogs. The
Gudmundson's wish to add a provision to allow foster dogs in addition to the 2 dog limit on a
less than 1 acre parcel of land to the current animal ordinance.
A review of November 3, 2008 Lino Lakes City Council minutes indicated four possible changes
to the city ordinance regarding kennel licensing were discussed by the council: - No change to
the regulations
- Special allowance for fostering
- Changing the number of dogs allowed
- Changing the acreage requirement
Should the council consider a change to the ordinance we suggest that the number of dogs
allowed be increased to 3 on a lot less than 1 acre. This action would eliminate the burden on the
city to test the validity of the "temporary" or "fostering" status of the pet and the ordinance
would be more efficiently and effectively enforced.
Following are a partial list of Kennel Licensing Ordinances for surrounding cities and a partial
listing of rescue or foster dog agencies:
Ham Lake — # of dogs: 2, Private kennel.license required for owning three dogs, however, license
restricted to one acre lot size. Population: 16k.
Maple Grove — # of dogs: 2 (3 with inspection/ license), Private kennel license required for
owning three dogs. License not restricted by acreage minimum, is open for inspection and
revocation by city. Population: 62k.
Coon Rapids — # of dogs: 2 (3 with inspection/license), Multiple dog license required for three
dogs, granted by inspection from police department. Population: 64k.
Roseville — # of dogs: 2 (3 with inspection/license), License can be obtained with approval from
75% of neighbors adjoining property to own three or four dogs. A fence is required. Population:
33k.
Forest Lake — # of dogs: 3, Four dogs not allowed in single - family residential areas. Population:
18k.
Blaine — # of dogs: 3, If own more than three dogs, private license is required. License not able
to be obtained in some zoning areas. Population: 55k.
St. Paul — # of dogs: 3, Owning four or more dogs requires a permit and written approval from
75% of owners within 150 feet of property. Population: 278k.
Minneapolis — # of dogs: 3, Multiple animal license needed for more than three dogs, required to
obtain 80% of approval from neighbors within 100 feet and an inspection by the city. Population:
378k.
Andover — # of dogs: 3, Need private kennel license to have four dogs, required to have more
than three acres. Population: 30k.
Hugo — # of dogs: 3, Need kennel license to have four dogs, zoning restrictions apply.
Population: 14k.
Brooklyn Park — # of dogs: 3, Owning four dogs is not possible, unless a commercial kennel
license is obtained, and this can not be on a residential property. Population: 72k.
White Bear Lake — # of dogs: 3, Kennel license required for owning four dogs. Population: 24k.
Fridley — # of dogs: 3, Kennel license required for owning four dogs. Population: 26k.
Anoka — # of dogs: 3, Owning four dogs is not allowed. Population: 18k.
Champlin — # of dogs: 3, Owning four dogs is not allowed. Population: 25k.
Stillwater — # of dogs: 3, Cannot own four dogs in a residential area. Population: 19k.
New Hope — # of dogs: 3, Owning four dogs would be allowed with a kennel license. Population:
22k.
•
•
•
•
Rescue organizations in Minnesota (there are
approximately 150+ rescue groups)
Website
Pet Finder (nation wide)
http: //www.petfinder.com/
A list of animal rescue organizations in our area
http : / /www.chuckanddons.com /pages /friends partners /animal
escue.html
A list of rescues and shelters in our area
http:// www.rescuefido.com/rescues.html
Dog rescues that are a foster home based
organization, near to us.
We are considering fostering for one of the
following.
Website
Homeward Bound Dog Rescue of MN
http : / /www.homewardboundrescue.com/
A Rotta Love of MN
http: / /www.arottalove.org/
Save -a -bull Rescue
http: / /www.petfinder.com /shelters /MN254.html
Midwest Animal Rescue Services
ip : / /www.midwestanimalrescue.org/
Pet Haven Inc. of MN
http: / /www.pethavenrnn.org /index.php
RECOMMENDATION
Staff' s recommendation is no change to the ordinance.
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 3
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
WORK SESSION DATE: December 1, 2008
TOPIC: Resolution No. 08 -134
Variance to the Shoreland Ordinance Ordinary High Water Setback
Ron Marier - 1801 77th Street
As directed by the City Council at the November 24th meeting, I have prepared a packet of materials for you to
discuss the finding of facts for the Marier Variance. This packet includes:
1. November 24th Staff Report, including attachments:
a. Resolution 08 -134 Denying the Variance (with staff findings)
b. Applicant's Justification Letters
c. Site Plan
2. Resolution 08 -134 Approving the Variance (with findings blank)
3. November 12th Planning and Zoning Board minutes
4. October 8th Planning and Zoning Board minutes
5. Variance section of the Zoning Ordinance
6. Variance section of the Shoreland Ordinance
7. Aerial photo of the surrounding area.
AGENDA ITEM 6.A.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
CC MEETING DATE: November 24, 2008
TOPIC: Resolution No. 08 -134
Variance to the Shoreland Ordinance Ordinary High Water Setback
1801 77th Street
BACKGROUND
Ron Marier has requested approval of a Variance from the Ordinary High Water Level (150 feet) of
Peltier Lake to allow a garage /home addition to replace the storm damaged attached garage. The
structure was removed by the applicant, and upon applying for a building permit for the
reconstruction, staff informed the applicant that the decrease in the setback from the lake caused by
slightly reconfiguring the structure would not be allowed under the strict enforcement of the Shoreland
Ordinance. He was issued a building permit for a portion of the structure that would be within the
original garage's footprint so that he could close the structure to the elements, and also received a
permit to rebuild the deck structure.
The property is located on the eastern shore of Peltier Lake just north of the intersection of Peltier
Lake Drive and 77th Street.
•
The Planning and Zoning Board requested revised drawings, which limits the setback encroachment
to being no greater than the previous garage structure, however since the proposed addition does not
follow the exact footprint of the old structure, a variance is still required.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the existing land use and
zoning as well as guided land uses for the area.
Location
Existing Land
Use
Guided Land Use
Existing
Zoning
Site
Residential
Low Density Sewered Residential
Rural
North
Residential
Low Density Sewered Residential
Rural
South
Residential
Low Density Unsewered Residential
Rural
East
Residential
Low Density Sewered Residential
Rural
West
Peltier Lake
Peltier Lake
Peltier Lake
Accessory structures:
The property is allowed a total of 4,200 square feet of accessory structures, based on the acreage of
the site. The existing structures on the site include a 2,240 square foot barn and a 1,920 square fooi
machine shed, for a total of 4,160 square feet. The proposed addition is roughly 1,200 square feet.
This would mean the site would exceed the maximum by 1,160 square feet. Staff recommends that if
•
this addition is approved, this area be removed from one of the existing structures prior to a certificate
of occupancy for the garage addition.
Setbacks:
The Zoning Ordinance requires a five foot setback from side property lines for attached accessory
structures. The proposal clearly exceeds this requirement.
The Shoreland Ordinance requires a 150 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of Peltier
Lake. There is much of the site that would meet this setback, but in order to attach the structure it
would almost certainly need to encroach into the 150 foot setback. The applicant has submitted
revised plans that do not increase the setback encroachment towards the lake, but still increases the
amount of structure that encroaches within the setback area.
Findings:
State law requires the following findings to be made in order to grant the approval of a variance. Staff
has completed the findings in regards to the upland lot area reduction based on the revised submittal:
FINDINGS
In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City
shall make a finding of fact:
a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
While the zoning ordinance requires an accessory structure for all residential properties,
the structure is not required to be attached to the main structure. As such, the property
would still have reasonable use with a new detached structure built the full 150 feet from
the Ordinary High Water Level of Peltier Lake, or the existing detached structures on the
site.
b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his
property not created by the landowner.
The City of Lino Lakes is home to many bodies of water which means being a riparian lot
is in no way a unique characteristic or physical circumstance. As this is a lot of roughly
five acres in size, a large portion of land is buildable and outside of the required setbacks.
c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
While the zoning ordinance requires an accessory structure for all residential properties,
the structure is not required to be attached to the main structure. While the expense of
construction may be higher, the property would still have reasonable use with a new
detached structure built the full 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level of Peltier
Lake, or with the existing detached structures already on the site.
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special •
privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district.
Considering that an alternative location for the garage, detached from the structure, is
available, granting the variance would allow the applicant to encroach into a setback in a
way that other structures would not be allowed.
e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
The spirit and intent of the Ordinary High Water Level setback for structures is to
minimize encroachment of development onto a natural environment. While the existing
dwelling already encroaches upon the setback, the proposed addition would increase the
length of the encroachment.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
On October 8th the Planning and Zoning Board first heard the Variance request and after much
deliberation, advised the applicant to submit revised plans. At the November 12th meeting, the
Planning and Zoning Board voted 4 -0 to recommend approval of the variance request based on the
revised plans.
RECOMMENDATION
•
Staff is recommending adoption of Resolution No. 08 -134, denying the request for a variance to the
Ordinary High Water Level setback of the Shoreland Ordinance based on the finding of facts.
If the City council wishes to approve the request alternative findings must be made, and the following
condition is recommended by staff.
1. Prior to certificate of occupancy for the addition, the property owner must submit proof that
the accessory buildings on site have been reduced to a maximum of 4,200 square feet in
area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 08 -134
2. Marier Justification Letters submitted September 12, 2008 and October 13, 2008.
3. Marier Site Plan submitted October 24, 2008 (two pages).
•
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -134
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELAND ORDINANCE 150 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE OF PELTIER LAKE FOR 1801 77TH
STREET.
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Variance requesting that a home /garage
addition be constructed 119 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line of Peltier Lake, and
WHEREAS, the City's Shoreland Ordinance, in Chapter 1102.07 Subdivision 2, requires that a 150 -
foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of any Natural Environment Lake (Peltier Lake) be
provided for all unsewered structures, and
WHEREAS, placement of the proposed addition would extend 21 feet into the required Ordinary High
Water Line setback, and
• WHEREAS, the following finding of facts have been made by the City Council:
a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
While the zoning ordinance requires an accessory structure for all residential properties,
the structure is not required to be attached to the main structure. As such, the property
would still have reasonable use with a new detached structure built the full 150 feet from
the Ordinary High Water Level of Peltier Lake, or the existing detached structures on the
site.
b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his
property not created by the landowner.
The City of Lino Lakes is home to many bodies of water which means being a riparian lot
is in no way a unique characteristic or physical circumstance. As this is a lot of roughly
five acres in size, a large portion of land is buildable and outside of the required setbacks.
c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for
the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
While the zoning ordinance requires an accessory structure for all residential properties,
the structure is not required to be attached to the main structure. While the expense of
construction may be higher, the property would still have reasonable use with a new
detached structure built the full 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level of Peltier
Lake, or with the existing detached structures already on the site.
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district.
Considering that an alternative location for the garage, detached from the structure, is
available, granting the variance would allow the applicant to encroach into a setback in a
way that other structures would not be allowed.
e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
•
The spirit and intent of the Ordinary High Water Level setback for structures is to
minimize encroachment of development onto a natural environment. While the existing
dwelling already encroaches upon the setback, the proposed addition would increase the
length of the encroachment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lino Lakes City Council denies the proposed
Variance.
John J. Bergeson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 24th day of November, 2008.
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.
•
•
•
Paul Bengtson
Associate Planner
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182
Dear Paul and Committee,
Narrative Information for Variance on 1801 77th Street East - Marier Property
Please grant a variance for the following reasons:
1. Enlarged the entrance to correct illegal stair case . to the basement level.
2. Correct entering the home into a closet with 3 levels to navigate in a confined
area. Wheelchair and limited mobility access improved with change.
3. New entrance provides wheelchair and handicap access with a staging area.
4. Increase depth of garage to provide a straight stair case access on west wall to
living area from garage. Will provide a means to install handicap lift system from
garage to living area and provide room to navigate from the vehicle to stair case
into the living area.
5. Raise garage height by 8 inches to improve drainage away from structure and
improve access from garage area.
6. Add covered front entrance to correct water entering into well pit and root cellar.
7. Add 2 car garage to handicap entrance in order to use vehicle side lift system.
8. Add covered 3 season porch to exiting deck in order to cover walkout icing
problem and provide sheltered sitting area
History: Original 1856 Marier homestead farm house site with existing structure and
proposed addition/remodel with greater set back from lake then original homestead
•deweling. Home has provided care for Paternal and Maternal Parents, Grandparents and
great Grandparents. Improvements will allow the use of new medical equipment to
continue this tradition. Provisions are in place to ensure that the 4`h &5th generation
Marier males will be able to provide this service as well as continue protecting the Peltier
Lake Watershed.
Please note that the new addition is 30 feet above the OHW and only 3 feet closer to the
lake, leaving a 119.9 foot set back. Please approve project so generations to come can
enjoy and protect this unique property.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Marier
Ron Marier
RECEIVED
SEP 1 2 2008
MY OF LINO LAKES
11- 06
Paul Bengtson
Associate Planner
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182
Dear Paul and Committee,
Narrative Information for Variance on 1801 77th Street brier Property
Requested information:
1. Anoka County property tax statement from 1999 to 2008 showing that 1 pay taxes
on 5 acres and house location. Note:
2. 1995 Subdivision survey showing Barn measurements
Barns are over 150 feet from high water mark.
closer to the highwater mark than
3. 2008 survey and sketch showing new garage
the old garage.
Please consider a variance for proposed garage addition.
tO VA- ittata
`Viet/5
—76—
•
RECEIVED I
OCT 1 2008
rsnr of uro us
0 100 200
-77-
HULT:&
B EBEISEN, PA.
PO got 17
Feist Lab. IN 155025
pis ton 4114a1311
IN= pan 4514g12.
haltaatraxes
r..,— 4 Wpm. + rrrar.nr.•
Client .
RON WARIER
.Project
1801 EAST 77TH
ST:, HUGO, MN
Location
11- 31 -22, ANOKA
COUNTY, MN
Certification
Summary
Revision History
m — 1111111ELIONIT�
Sheet Tide
SKETCH
Sheet Number Revision
10F1
Project No. 08142
Y
U
W
LEGEND
Bftominous Surface
Existing Building Line
LFE Lowest Floor Elevation
DESCRIPTION (PER CLIENT)
LOT 5 AUDITOR'S SUBDMSIDN NUMBER 55,
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SKETCH NOTES •
1, For details see bulld'mg plans
2.- Verlcal Datum = NOVD 1929
3. Ordinary High Water Elevation =684.7 feet
Lowest Floor Elevation =904.6 feet
RECEIVED
OCT 2 4 2008
CITY OF LINO LAKES
. HULT &
HEBELSEN, P.A.
PO Bac 37
P L MW 5
(e51) 4643134
,Q (El) 4644622
wok: halemtrauros
»+ -+WOOMI»
Client
RON MARIER
Project
1801 EAST 77TH
ST., HUGO, MN
Location
1141 -22, ANOKA
COUNTY, MN
Certification
Summary
Ap'm66tt a1 Dram i071
Revision History
NB. Dab e SAMHat
1 Isms ma U EUMW
Sheet life
SKETCH
Sheet Number Revision
1 OF 1
Project No. 08142
• Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -134
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELAND ORDINANCE 150 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE OF PELTIER LAKE FOR 1801 77TH
STREET.
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Variance requesting that a home /garage
addition be constructed 119 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line of Peltier Lake at 1801 77th Street
which is legally described as:
Lot 5 Auditor's Subdivison Number 55 Revised, Anoka County, Minnesota
; and
WHEREAS, the City's Shoreland Ordinance, in Chapter 1102.07 Subdivision 2, requires that a 150 -
foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of any Natural Environment Lake (Peltier Lake) be
40 provided for all unsewered structures, and
WHEREAS, placement of the proposed addition would extend 21 feet into the required Ordinary High
Water Line setback, and
WHEREAS, the following finding of facts has been made by the City Council:
a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his
property not created by the landowner.
c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district.
e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lino Lakes City Council approves the proposed
Variance.
John J. Bergeson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 8th day of December, 2008.
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
•
•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT .
STAFF PRESENT .
November 12, 2008
6:30 P.M.
6:59 P.M.
Michael Hyden, Perry Laden, Robert Nelson,
Michael Root, Paul Tralle (Chair)
Brian Pogalz (Vice Chair), Rob Rafferty
Paul Bengtson, Jeff Smyser
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board`eeting to order at 6:30
p.m. on November 12, 2008.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Agenda was approved as presented
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTE;
October 8, 2008
Mr. Laden made a MOTION to table the approval of the October 8, 2008 minutes to the
December meeting. Motion was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 4 - 0.
IV. OPEN
Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:33 p.m.
There was no one present to speak.
Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m. Motion was supported by
Mr. Laden. Motion carried 4 - 0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
Planning & Zoning Board
November 12, 2008
Page 2
A. CONTINUED Variance from the Ordinary High Water Level to allow for the
reconstruction of an accessory structure located at 1801 77th St.
Paul Bengtson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial
of the variance request, due to the findings of fact.
Mr. Bengtson stated that Mr. Marier had provided documentation from the county that
his parcel is five acres in size.
Ron Marier, 1801 77th St., stated that he revised the plan, removed the request for a porch
cover, and was willing to reduce the size of an accessory structure if necessary to obtain
the variance. He noted that the garage is the most important piece to allow for handicap
access to the property.
Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Variance from the OHWL
to allow for the reconstruction of an accessory structure located at 1801 77th St subject to
the following condition:
1. Prior to certificate of occupancy for the addition, the property owner must submit
proof that the accessory buildings on site have been reduced to a maximum of 4,200
square feet in area
Motion was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 4 - 0.
B. PUBLIC HEARING to Amend the Planned Unit Development for Legacy at
Woods Edge to amend the signage standards within Chapter 5 of the Lino Lakes
Town Center Design and Development Guide.
Mr. Bengtson presented the staffreport. Staff recommended approval of the amendment
request.
Mr. Hyden arrived
at 6:52 p.m.
Mr :Tralle opened the .Public Hearing at 6:53 p.m. No one was present to speak.
Mr. Root made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 6:54 p.m. Motion was
supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carved 4 -0.
Mr. Laden made a MOTION to approve the amendment to the Town Center Design and
Development Guide to allow user tenants to have three wall signs. Motion was supported
by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 4 -0.
C. Final Plat for Marketplace 3rd Addition for a commercial subdivision lot line
adjustment.
Mr. Bengtson presented the staff report. Staff noted that the city attorney approved of the
plat as presented. Staff recommended approval of the Final Plat.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 12, 2008
Page 3
Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to approve the Final Plat for Marketplace 3rd Addition.
Motion was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 4-0.
VL DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Comp Plan Update
Mr. Smyser stated that the City Council approved the distribution of the Comprehensive
Plan Update for review by neighboring communities, counties and school districts. He
added that the council will continue discussion of the plan during this review period.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 6:59 p.m. Motion was supported
by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Dawn Bugge
Community Development Assistant
•
•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE :
TIME STARTED :
TIME ENDED :
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT :
STAFF PRESENT
October 8, 2008
630 P.M.
9:08 P.M.
Michael Ryden, Perry Laden, Robert Nelson,
Brian Pogalz (Vice Chair), Rob Rafferty, Paul
Tralle (Chair)
Michael Root
Paul Bengtson, Jeff Smyser
L CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chair Tralle called the Lino LakesPlanning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30
p.m. on October 8, 2008.
IL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Rafferty requested that Discussion Item C be added for discussion of the
Comprehensive Plan. The agenda was approved as amended.
DLL APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
September la, 2008
Rafferty requested a. revision to the minutes on Page 7, paragraph 8, changing the
word "previous" to "existing."
Mr. Hyden;'Inade a MOTION to approve the September 10, 2008 Minutes with the
requested change_ Motion was supported by Mr. Laden.
Mr. Nelson arrived.
Motion carried 4 - 0. Nelson abstained.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:35 p.m.
There was no one present for Open Mike.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 8, 2008
Page 2
Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:36 p.m. Motion was supported by
Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 - 0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Variance from the Ordinary High Water Level to allow for the reconstruction
of an accessory structure located at 180177th St.
Paul Bengtson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Mr. Bengtson explained that since the writing of the staff report, staff identified
additional issues with the application. Upon a site inspection, staff became aware that
there are two existing accessory structures on the property, which. would be counted as
part of the total allowable accessory structures. Mr. Bengtson explained that a total of
3600 sq. ft. of accessory structures are allowed on a 4.89 acre parcel. In addition, the
application includes a request to put a roof structure over part of an existing deck. He
stated that because the existing deck is already an encroachment into the shoreland
setback area, the proposed deck cover addition would also be considered an
encroachment.
City Staff recommended denial of the variance request based on the facts that the
proposed addition would increase its nonconformity from the shoreland setback, the
proposed addition would surpass the allowable accessory buildings on the site, and the
proposed deck cover addition would be an additional encroachment.
Mr. Bengtson explained that without approval of the application, the applicant would still
be able to rebuild exactly what existed prior to the removal of his garage.
•
Applicant, Ron Mari,. er1801 77th ' St , stated that his property is taxed at 5.14 acres. On
Peltier Lake, his house is the farthest away from the lake as well as the highest. His plan
is to install a handicapped lift system in the home. Mr. Marier said that in order to
receive approval, he `would move the addition back to match the setback of the house. He
explained that they take care of people in an assisted living type of process. He is
planning to add a mud room to correct a water problem as well as to increase the area for
handicap access. Mr. Marier would like to keep this tradition going into the future. He
stated that without the addition, he would probably have to sell the property. Mr. Marier
would really like to keep the property in his family and would keep the property as
pristine as it is now.
Board members discussed the possibility of the addition being moved towards the front
of the home. Mr. Marier stated that he has been planning this project for many years and
explained why the addition is located as proposed. Mr. Marier noted that a different
location would change the aesthetics of the house. He would like to keep the original
integrity of the home. Mr. Marier explained the history of the property as well as the
existing structures on the site.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
October 8, 2008
Page 3
Board members asked if Mr. Marier would consider reducing or removing one of the
existing accessory structures in order to meet the accessory structure allowance. Mr.
Marier stated that he would tear down a building if necessary. He explained that this
garage built for handicap access is more important than his existing storage buildings.
Staff explained that if Mr. Marier's property is indeed five acres, the total allowable
accessory structures would be 4200 sq. ft. The existing sheds are roughly 4200 sq. ft. and
the new structure would be 1000 sq. ft. The new total would be 5200 sq. feet. This
would be a net increase of 475 sq. ft. from that of the previous garage.
Mr. Marier believes that the discrepancy of the total square footage of his lot is that the
St. Paul Water Department claims to own part of the shoreline area, but Mr. Marier
believes the he owns all of the property.
Some board members did not see a problem considering the lot size as five acres if the
applicant is paying taxes for that size of property.
Most board members agreed that they would prefer that the applicant stay within the
maximum square footage of allowable accessory structures, as well as moving the
structure back so to not increase the encroachment.
Mr. Nelson was comfortable with the proposal, pointing out that the Marier family has
been good stewards of the land, and did not agree that the applicant should have to
destroy a pre - existing shed.
Board Members recommended that Mr. Marier return to the November meeting with
documentation that the property is five acres, revised to -scale drawings showing a new
proposal for the addition, and the exact sizes of the existing accessory structures. They
stated that they would not approve the addition of a roof over the existing deck. Mr.
Marier declared that he understood what the board was requesting.
Mr. Laden made a MOTION to table this item to the November Planning and Zoning
Board Meeting. Motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 - 0.
VL DISCUSSION ITEMS'
A. Animal Chiropractic Care
Mr. Bengtson presented the staff report.
Dr. Josee Gerard, 6776 Lake Drive, Suite 210, is a licenses animal chiropractor. Ms.
Gerard explained that she was the person who worked for the past five years to get
the licensing of animal chiropractic care approved in the state of MN. Ms. Gerard
referred to specific areas of the statute that specified requirements of treating humans
and animals in the same facility.
Mr. Bengtson stated that there were no health concerns from Anoka County, the State
Board of Health, and the State Board of Chiropractors.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 8, 2008
Page 4
Ms. Gerard explained that the owner of the E. G. Rud building suggested that her
facility be located in the garage area of the Rud building for the care of animals. She
clarified that livestock animals would be treated on a house -call only basis, not in the
clinic.
Mr. Laden made a MOTION to forward to city council that the interpretation of
chiropractic care in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance includes domestic animals.
Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
B. Town Center Signage Requirements
Mr. Bengtson presented the staff report.
The majority of the board members agreed that they would be comfortable with
amending the Town Center Guidelines to allow a third wall sign to businesses in the
Town Center development.
Staff agreed to forward the board's comments to the Country Inn and Suites.
C. Comp Plan Update
Mr. Rafferty discussed his concerns with the limited attendance at Comprehensive
Plan Advisory Panel meetings throughout the Comprehensive Plan update process.
Mr. Rafferty was concerned about issues that changed throughout the drafting of the
plan and the review of those changes by the panel.
Mr. Pogalz stated that meeting materials were distributed to all of the advisory panel
members, and every member had the opportunity to make comment.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION 40 adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Motion was
supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Dawn Bugge
Community Development Assistant
Subd. 4. Administration: Variances and Appeals.
A. Variances. Variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance may be
granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration.
1. Findings of Fact. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in
taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact:
a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if
used under conditions allowed by the official controls.
b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances
unique to his property not created by the land owner.
c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance.
That granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this
ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district.
e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the ordinance.
2. Variance Procedure. The City shall decide upon requests for variance by
approving or denying the same in part or in whole. The procedure for
granting variances is as follows:
a. A person desiring a variance shall fill out and submit to the Zoning
Administrator or his /her designee a "Land Use Application Form ",
together with a fee as established by City Council
resolution /ordinance and all related material to document said
hardship.
b. The request for variance shall be placed on the agenda of the
Planning and Zoning Board according to the City's deadline and
meeting schedule. The request shall be considered as being
officially submitted and the application approval timeline
commences when all the information requirements are complied
with.
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Administration
2 -11
•
•
c. The City Council shall approve or deny the application for a
variance within sixty (60) days of receiving all required information.
The sixty (60) day time limit starts over only if the City sends notice,
within ten (10) business days of receipt of the request, telling the
applicant what information is missing. The City may extend the
sixty (60) day time limit before the end of such time limit by
providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The
notification must state the reasons for the extension and its
anticipated length, which may not exceed sixty (60) days, unless
approved by the applicant. Failure of the City Council to deny an
application within sixty (60) days is approval of the request. If the
City Council denies a request, it must state in writing the reasons
for the denial at the time it denies the request.
d. The petitioner or representative may appear before the Planning
and Zoning Board in order to present information or to answer
questions.
e. The City Council may grant the variance if it has been established
that a hardship exists. The City Council shall, on all variance
applications whether granted or denied, record a finding of fact.
Such findings shall be recorded in writing and shall state the City
Council's reasons for such action.
f. Following approval of the variance, the City shall file a certified
copy thereof including a legal description of the property with the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
3. Submittal Requirements. Applications for variances shall be filed with
the Community Development Department and shall be accompanied by
the following submittal information:
a. Proof of title and contract/purchase agreement and /or property
owner signature on the application form when applicable.
b. Eight (8) large scale copies and reduced (11" x 17 ") copies of
detailed written materials, plans and specifications to include the
following information:
Note: One /two additional large scale copies shall be provided for each of the
following, if applicable:
• Project adjacent to a County Road or County State Aid Highway — (2 sets)
• Project adjacent to a State Highway or Interstate Highway — (2 sets)
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Administration
2 -12
• Project lies within a Shoreland District — (1 set)
c. Certificate of survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor
identifying the following: The Community Development Department
may waive the certificate of survey when the survey will not provide
information relevant to the variance necessary to review the
application.
1) Scale (engineering only) at not less than one (1) inch equals
one hundred (100) feet.
2) North point indication.
3) Existing boundaries with lot dimension and lot area.
4) Existing buildings, structures and improvements.
5) Easements of record.
6) Delineated wetland boundary, to include the OHWL of any
lakes or DNR waters.
7) All encroachments.
8) Legal description.
d. Graphic information, plans, specifications, or other materials that
illustrate the requested variance.
e. Narrative description of the unique hardship associated with the
property that warrants the consideration of the variance, to include:
1) That the property in question cannot be put to reasonable
use if used under the conditions allowed by the official
controls.
2) That the plight of the landowner is due to physical
circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
3) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations
alone if a reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance.
4) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Administration
2 -13
•
ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district.
5) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit
and intent of the ordinance.
B. Appeal Procedure. An appeal shall only be applicable to an administrative
permit, order, requirement or interpretation of intent of provisions of this
Ordinance. Opinions and evaluations as they pertain to the impact or result of a
request are not subject to the appeal procedure. The City Council shall be the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments with powers listed in Minnesota Statutes
462.357, subdivision 6.
1. Appeal Procedures.
a. An appeal from an administrative action shall be filed by the
property owner or their agent with the Zoning Administrator within
ten (10) days after the making of the order, requirement, or
interpretation being appealed.
b. The property owner or their agent shall file with the Zoning
Administrator an application for appeal stating the specific grounds
upon which the appeal is made. Said application shall be
accompanied by a fee as established by City Council ordinance. In
cases where the application is judged to be incomplete, the Zoning
Administrator shall notify the applicant, in writing, within ten (10)
days of the date of submission.
c. An appeal stays all proceedings and the furtherance of the action
being appealed unless it is certified to the Board of Adjustment
Appeals, after the notice of appeal is filed, that by reason of facts
stated in the certificate a stay would cause imminent peril to life
and property.
d. The Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff
persons to prepare technical reports when appropriate and shall
provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the
action to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
e. The Board of Appeals and Adjustment shall consider the
application for appeal at a public meeting and consider testimony of
the property owner and City staff.
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Administration
2 -14
f. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals shall make its decision by resolution within sixty (60)
days from the date on which a completed application is filed, unless
the review is extended as allowed by MN Stat. 15.99.
g.
The Zoning Administrator shall serve a copy of the final order of the
Board upon the applicant by mail.
•
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Administration
2 -15
•
Subd. 3. Variances.
A. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statues, Chapter 462,
as applicable. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this
ordinance. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the
zoning district in which the subject property is located. Conditions may be imposed in the
granting of a variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public
interest. In considering a variance request, the zoning Administrator must also consider
whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the variance, whether the
property is used seasonally or year- round, whether the variance is being requested solely on
the basis of economic considerations, and the characteristics of development on adjacent
properties.
B. The City Council shall hear and decide requests for variances in accordance with the
rules that it has adopted for the conduct of business in Section 5, Subd. 7 of the City Zoning
Ordinance. When a variance is approved after the Department of Natural Resources has
formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the approved variance
required in 1102.04, Subd. 4B shall also include the City Council's summary of the public
record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of
the variance.
C. For existing developments, the applications for variance must clearly demonstrate
whether a conforming sewage treatment system is present for the intended use of the
property. The variance, if issued, must require reconstruction of a nonconforming sewage
treatment system.
Subd. 4. Notification to the Department of Natural Resources
A. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or
conditional uses in the Shoreland Overlay District must be sent to the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources or the Commissioner's designated representative and
postmarked at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices of hearing to consider
proposed subdivision /plats must include copies of the subdivision /plat.
B. A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions /plats, and final decisions granting
variances or conditional uses in the Flood Plain or Shoreland Management Districts must be
sent to the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked
within ten (10) days of final action.
1
•
•
•
WS — Item 4
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 4
Date: December 1, 2008
To: City Council
From: Gordon Heitke
Re: North Metro I -35W Corridor Coalition
Background
Mr. Dick Swanson of the Blaine City Council appeared before the Council at the
November 3, 2008 work session to provide an update on I -35W issues and the activities
of the North Metro I -35W Corridor Coalition. The coalition consists of north metro local
governments served by I -35W who plan and advocate for I -35W improvements. Mr.
Swanson encouraged the City of Lino Lakes to join the coalition. He stated that the
membership fee is based on population and market value, with the first year of
membership being $2,000. The Council directed staff to place this issue on the
December work session agenda for further consideration.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is seeking direction as to whether the Council wishes to become a member of the
North Metro I -35W Corridor Coalition in order to prepare the necessary resolution and
budget adjustment.
Attachments
1. North Metro I -35W Corridor Coalition Progress Report, August 2008
1
Anoka County - Blaine - Circle Pines — Lexington - Minneapolis - Mounds View -
New Brighton - Ramsey County
NORTH METRO I -35W CORRIDOR
COALITION
PROGRESS REPORT
AUGUST 2008
1000 Westgate Drive, Suite #252, St. Paul, MN 55114
TEL (651) 203 -7241 FAX (651) 290 -2266
• INTRODUCTION
Almost three years ago, on August 31, 2005, the Board of Directors of the North Metro
I -35W Corridor Coalition adopted a Resolution committing to focus future efforts on
achieving transportation system improvements in the north I -35W Corridor. The
Resolution further invited all interested cities, counties, townships and business
organizations to join in that effort. Following is a summary of achievements and the
current status of improvements pending in the Corridor.
•
CURRENT WORK TASKS
1. FEDERAL & STATE FUNDING
a. Goal: Secure federal and state fund allocations and near term scheduling of
priority projects, including reconstruction of 1 -694 between I -35W & 1 -35E,
congestion mitigation projects on I -35W and provisions for transit service in
the Corridor.
b. Progress:
i. Congress has approved an earmark of $882,000 in 2008 funds for
congestion mitigation and future system design tasks.
ii. The Senate has earmarked $1 million in 2009 funds for further work on
congestion mitigation and system design.
iii. Mn /DOT is scheduling regular program funds to match and supplement
available federal funds. One example is the installation of a median cable
barrier system to enhance safety in the Corridor.
iv. Transit services in the Corridor area benefited with a $14 million allocation of
funds provided to Minnesota for mitigation of impacts of the I -35W Bridge
collapse.
v. The updated Metro Transit System Plan identifies the I -35W Corridor for
consideration for additional services.
vi. Mn /DOT is planning for a major pavement repair project in 2011 from 1 -694
to 95th Avenue.
2. CONGESTION MITIGATION PROJECTS:
a. Goal: Implement low cost/high payoff projects that reduce congestion.
b. Progress:
i. Construction of an auxiliary lane on southbound I -35W between Lake Drive
and TH 10 westbound is scheduled for construction in 2009.
ii. Construction of an auxiliary lane on northbound I -35W between Lake Drive
and 95th Avenue is anticipated in 2010.
iii. Design work is underway on the 1 -694 interchange to address northbound I-
35W congestion.
3. SYSTEM DESIGN PLANNING
a. Goal: Identify future I -35W mainline expansion design plans that will provide
the framework for staged construction.
1000 Westgate Drive, Suite #252, St. Paul, MN 55114
TEL (651) 203 -7241 FAX (651) 290 -2266
b. Progress: Mn /DOT is assembling current data and are updating traffic
forecasts. Recommendations for "next steps" will be discussed at our
September Board meeting.
4. ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
a. PUBLIC: Current Membership includes Anoka County, Blaine, Circle Pines,
Lexington, Minneapolis, Mounds View, New Brighton and Ramsey County.
b. COMMUNITY: Current participating partners include the Twin Cites North
Chamber of Commerce, Mn /DOT and Metro Transit.
BACKGROUND
The NM I -35W Corridor Coalition was established in December 1996 with the
adoption of the enabling Joint Powers Agreement by the founding member cities. The
founding members formed the Coalition specifically to jointly address intensifying
concerns about congestion in the I -35W Corridor north of TH 36, the impacts that
congestion was having on the quality of life in the member communities and the
adverse impacts congestion would have on pending development and redevelopment
projects in the Corridor.
Recognizing that major investments required for expansion of I -35W to address
capacity constraints that were causing the congestion were not programmed in the
foreseeable future, the Coalition embarked on a two pronged strategy. The first
strategy focused on bringing the needs for improvements to the attention of Mn /DOT
and the Metropolitan Council to ensure that investments would be scheduled in future
plans. The second strategy focused on determining the improvements needed to
balance the need for regional mobility and local access required to support the
pending economic growth ventures.
Progress on the first strategy has been slow. While numerous studies have
demonstrated the significant need for expansion of capacity on I -35W, programming
of the major investments has not progressed because the "2030 PLAN" is fiscally
constrained and funding for expansion of capacity is a lower priority than safety,
system preservation and system management categories of work. Consequently,
more emphasis has been placed on a new two -part strategy.
Given that major reconstruction is years in the future, the Coalition's current emphasis
is on 1) development and funding of "congestion mitigation" projects that will provide
early relief through lower cost small area projects, and, 2) preparing a design plan for
the ultimate reconstruction so that interim investments will fit the final layout and
investments will not be wasted. These strategies work in parallel and provide the
opportunity to make progress in a difficult funding environment.
U:\I-35W\2006-2007 ACTION PLAN \August 2008 Progress Report.doc
1000 Westgate Drive, Suite #252, St. Paul, MN 55114
TEL (651) 203 -7241 FAX (651) 290 -2266
•
•
•
•
•
WS — Item 5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 5
Date: December 1, 2008
To: City Council
From: Gordon Heitke
Re: Five year Financial Plan Completion
Background
At the November 3, 2008 work session, staff discussed the initial draft of the 2009 -2013
Five -Year Financial Plan. Staff noted the impact of the current economic conditions and
levy limits, resulting in challenges to balance projected future revenues with projected
expenditures consistent with present service levels. It was decided that the Council and
staff would engage in a strategic planning process, beginning in February, 2009, to
analyze revenue sources and identify service priorities in order to guide the Five -Year
Financial Plan.
Resolution No. 06 -213 states that the city council will adopt a Five -Year Financial Plan
by December 31 of each year.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is seeking direction as to whether the Council prefers to conduct a public hearing
and adopt the draft plan in its present form to meet the established adoption date, or take
action extending the adoption date of the plan in order to conduct strategic planning
sessions in order to complete the plan.
Attachment
1. Resolution No. 06 -213
1
Council Member g introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -213
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A GENERAL TIMELINE FOR THE PREPARATION, SUBMISSION
AND ADOPTION OF THE FIVE -YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to set out a timeline for the preparation, submission and
annual adoption of the five -year plan
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Lino Lakes City Council that:
1) The draft five -year financial plan shall be developed in tandem with the annual budget,
incorporating the goals and objectives of the City Council. Adjustments and refinements
shall be made to the draft five -year financial plan during the month following the
certification of the preliminary budget, which occurs on September 15.
2) The draft five -year financial plan shall be submitted to the City Council for review at its
first work session in November.
3) Following a review of the City Council at such work session and any ensuing work
sessions, as necessary, a public hearing will be scheduled in December to receive public
comment on the five -year plan.
4) The five -year plan shall be adopted by the City Council following the public hearing, along
with any revisions arising therefrom, by the end of December.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 18th day of December, 2006.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Carlson
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Reinert, Carlson,. O'Donnell, Stoltz, Bergeson
The following voted against same:
none
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and ado _e
Julianne Bartell, City le
Jo n Be : eson, Mayor
•
•
•
•
•
•
WS — Item 6
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item #6
Date: December 1, 2008
To: City Council
From: Julie Bartell
Re: City Code Update — Title 600, Business & Activity Licenses
Background
The Lino Lakes City Code, the regulations of the city, has not been updated since 1993.
The council has established a 2008 goal to update the code.
At the November work session, staff presented a draft updated city code along with a
color coded index. It was requested that the council begin reviewing independently the
green coded chapters that are not amended or contain general non - substantive revisions.
Staff would like to first respond to any questions that council members have come across
as they have begun to review those sections.
Next in the process, in order to ensure that the council is fully aware of any substantive or
policy driven proposed revisions, staff will be presenting the yellow coded chapters for
complete explanation and council review of proposed changes. At the December 1 work
session, Title 600 regarding Business and Activity Licenses will be reviewed. This title
contains three yellow -coded chapters relating to:
- 602. Regulating the Sale, Possession and Use of Tobacco Products and
Tobacco Related Devices
- 611. Gambling
- 613. Transient Merchant, Peddler, Canvasser and Solicitor
Proposed revisions to these chapters are shown in red and explanations are offered within
the draft code book. Staff will be further reviewing all of the proposed changes at the
work session.
1
•
•
WS — Item/
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 7
Date: 1 December 2008
To: City Council
From: Dan Tesch, Director of Administration
Re: Investigation Results
Background
The attached investigation results were distributed to the council in last week's Friday
Report.
Requested Council Direction
The council should officially receive or accept the report. Mr. Dougherty is available on
December 8th if the council has questions for him.
Attachment(s)
1. The Investigation Report.
1
LARRY S. SEVERSON
JAMES F. SHELDON
MICHAEL G. DOUGHERTY*
MICHAEL E. MOLENDA#
LOREN M. SOLFEST *#
SHARON K HILLS
ROBERT B. BAUER*
TERRENCE A. MERRITT#
ANNETTE M. MARGARIT
STEPHEN A. LING*
SEVERSON, SHELDON,
DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 600
7300 WEST 147TH STREET
APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124 -4517
(952) 432 -3136
TELEFAX NUMBER (952) 432 -3780
www.seversonsheldon.com
November 12, 2008
Dan Tesch
Director of Administration
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
Re: Investigation
Our File No. 10555 -28328
GARY L. HUUSKO#
CHRISTINE J. CASSEI .L
BRIAN J. WIS
MICHAEL D.
EMILY FOX WILLIAMS
MATTHEW J. SCHAAP
THOMAS R. DONELY
JESSICA L. SANBORN
RYAN J. BIES
WILLIAM M. TOPKA
ERIN. E. BOERSCHEL
Dear Mr. Tesch:
Enclosed is the Investigation Report that was prepared in connection with our services.
Should you have any questions concerning the same, please be in contact with me. I have
also included a statement for our services. Thank you for allowing me to serve the interests
of the City.
Cordially,
Z
chael G.
GD /jlt
Enclosure
E -mail: doughertym@seversonsheldon.com
Direct: (952) 953 -8820
INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS ALSO LICENSED IN IOWA, WISCONSIN AND MISSOURI
tQUALIFIED NEUTRAL UNDER RULE 114 OF THE MINNESOTA GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE
#REGISTERED PATENT ATTORNEY
*MSBA BOARD CERTIFIED REAL PROPERTY SPECIALIST
Y S. SEVERSON
CHE. SHELDON
CHAEL G. . DOUGHERTY*
MICHAEL E. MOLENDA$
LOREN M. SOLFEST *$
SHARON K. HILLS
ROBERT B. BAUER*
TERRENCE A. MERRITT$
ANNETTE M. MARGARIT
STEPHEN A. LING*
•
•
SEVERSON, SHELDON,
DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 600
7300 WEST 147TH STREET
APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124 -4517
(952) 432 -3136
TELEFAX NUMBER (952) 432 -3780
www.seversonsheldon.com
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
GARY L. HUUSKO#
CHRISTINE J. CASSELLIUS$
BRIAN J. WISDORF*
MICHAEL D. KLEMM$*
EMILY FOX WILLIAMS
MATTHEW J. SCHAAP
THOMAS R. DONELY
JESSICA L. SANBORN
RYAN J. BIBS
WILLIAM M. TOPKA
ERIN. E. BOERSCHEL
ISSUE: DID MEMBERS OF THE LINO LAKES CITY COUNCIL VIOLATE
THE MINNESOTA OPEN MEETING LAW?
INTRODUCTION
STANDARD OF CONDUCT. Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes ( "Open Meeting Law ")
requires that all meetings of the governing body of a city be open to the public subject to
limited exceptions. Before closing a meeting to the public (required of all exceptions), the
city council shall state on the record the specific ground permitting the meeting to be closed
and describe the subject to be discussed.
What is a meeting? The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that "meetings subject to the
requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members
of the governing body... at which members discuss, decide or receive information as a group
on issues relating to the official business of that governing body."
What is the purpose of the open meeting law? The open meeting law is designed to avoid
secret meetings, to allow the public to be informed about public officials' decision making
and to allow members of the public to present their views to the public officials.
EVIDENCE REVIEWED
I was given full access to any information that I deemed was necessary in order to reach my
findings. I conducted interviews with each of the members of the City Council, including
the Mayor, as well as pertinent staff members. I further obtained and reviewed documents
that I deemed relevant to making a determination.
FINDINGS
The evidence, together with the credibility of the testimony, reasonably supports the
following:
INDIVIDUAL Al 1DRNEYS ALSO LICENSED IN IOWA, WISCONSIN AND MISSOURI
$QUALIFIED NEUTRAL UNDER RULE 114 OF THE MINNESOTA GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE
#REGISTERED PATENT ATTORNEY
*MSBA BOARD CERTIFIED REAL PROPERTY SPECIALIST
Investigative Report
November 12, 2008
Page 2
1. A gathering of three Lino Lakes council members to discuss official business
of the city constitutes a meeting.
2. A meeting (work session) of the Lino Lakes City Council occurred on July
28, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. Notice of the meeting was properly made. All members of the
City Council and the Mayor were present.
3. At the work session, the Mayor distributed a letter dated July 18, 2008
addressed to the Mayor from Cori Duffy, Chair of the Lino Lakes Charter
Commission.
4. The activities of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission are a significant issue to
the Lino Lakes City Council.
5. A regular meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council occurred on July 28, 2008
commencing at 6:30 p.m. Notice of the meeting was properly made. All members of
the City Council and Mayor attended the meeting, which took place in the council
chambers.
6. At 7:15 p.m. on July 28, 2008, the council, upon motion made and seconded,
voted to adjourn the meeting.
7. Following the vote to adjourn, neither the council collectively nor
individually sought to remove anyone from the council chambers or otherwise
prevent anyone in attendance from observing the conduct within the council
chambers.
8. Following the vote to adjourn, two to four distinct conversations occurred
involving City Council members and/or City staff.
9. Within two to five minutes following the vote to adjourn, two of the five
Council members had left the Council chambers.
10. Within five to ten minutes following the vote to adjourn, a third Council
member left the Council chambers, leaving one Council member and the Mayor in
the Council chambers.
DETERMINATION
The Lino Lakes City Council held a regular meeting on July 28, 2008. Following the motion
to adjourn, several council members engaged in conversations, either with other council
members or with city staff. The Complainant, a member of the council, alleged that he heard
the words "charter" and "amendment" being used by a staff person. As one of the first
•
•
•
•
•
Investigative Report
November 12, 2008
Page 3
council members to exit the building, the Complainant alleged that he observed three council
members apparently engaged and listening to the remarks of one staff person. The
Complainant expressed concern that the discussion may in fact have continued following his
exiting the building. The Complainant has raised the issue of whether what he observed was
an illegal meeting, that is, a violation of the Open Meeting Law.
The answer to the issue starts with a determination of whether a meeting has occurred. There
is no doubt that the Lino Lakes City Council gathered as a quorum on July 28, 2008;
commencing as a regular meeting at 6:30. The meeting was duly noted, held in the council
chambers and open to the public. While the business being conducted ended with the vote
on the motion to adjourn, the meeting of the council continued until such time as there was
less than a quorum of the council members together. The meeting ended with the departure
of the third council member from the chambers, approximately ten minutes after the vote to
adjourn.
The mere fact that the meeting continued after the vote for adjournment does not
automatically constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law. There is no statute addressing
a post adjournment gathering and there is no Minnesota case law or law from other
jurisdictions directly on point. The determination as to whether there was a violation on July
28th lies in the purpose behind the Open Meeting Law. As noted earlier, the primary purpose
is to prevent private meetings from occurring where the public cannot have access to or
observe the deliberations of the city council.
On July 28th, the continuation of the meeting for several minutes following the vote of
adjournment did not frustrate the principal purpose behind the Open Meeting Law. The
public was duly aware of the meeting that was to occur on the 28th beginning at 6:30. There
was no expression or expectation that the meeting would terminate at a given time. The
meeting was fully open to the public and no effort was made to either restrict or prohibit the
public from either attending or remaining in the council chambers following the vote for
adjournment. In addition, the council members took no steps to hold private conversations
or as a quorum to remove themselves to a different location. Therefore, under the facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that there was no violation of the Open Meeting Law.
Because I have determined that no violation occurred, it is not necessary to opine whether
what the Complainant heard or saw actually occurred. The outcome remains the same
regardless of the truth of the Complainant's observation.
CAUTION
My opinion solely relates to the specific facts herein and should not be interpreted as support
for future activities which could lead to an Open Meeting Law violation. Continuation of
discussion in the council chambers following a motion to adjourn should not be condoned.
Each council member should be concerned as to the possibility of a violation as the penalty
is personal. Every effort should be made as a council member to depart from an existing
quorum so as to avoid a meeting from continuing, which in other circumstances may prove
Investigative Report
November 12, 2008
Page 4
to be a violation. Additionally, members of the council should be aware that simply
removing themselves from a quorum (without objecting to what is occurring) may not shield
them from liability.
Good faith or lack of harm is not a defense to an action for violation of the Open Meeting
Law. Moreover, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that attendance at a meeting is
also not required. In a recent case, the Court found a member to have violated the Open
Meeting Law, finding that a member was instrumental in arranging the meeting, was aware
of the meeting, and simply did not attend. The Court noted that the member did not indicate
that his non - attendance was out of concern that the meeting might violate the Open Meeting
Law. Under the Court's reasoning, had the facts supported an opinion that the Lino Lakes
Council conducted a meeting in violation of the Open Meeting Law by remaining in the
council chambers beyond the vote to adjoum, all five members could be subject to a penalty.
The two council members that left the chambers first are not excused or immune from
liability solely based on their removal from the council chambers, particularly if they had
knowledge that a meeting in violation of the Open Meeting Law was taking place. In fact,
neither of them asserted nor in any way declared that they were leaving in order to avoid an
Open Meeting Law violation.
I have concluded that under the present facts and circumstances a violation has not occurred;
however, my opinion should not be comfort to those who wish to continue the practice of
holding conversations in the council chambers following the motion to adjourn. Under
Robert's Rules of Order, an affirmative vote on a motion to adjourn terminates a meeting.
Having acted to terminate the business before the council, the members of the council should
appropriately leave as soon as practical and keep any private conversations in a non - quorum
forum.
c ` tted,
chael -444trarippe.
GD /j It
E -mail: dour h, m s seversonsheldon.com
Direct: (952) 953 -8820
Respec
STATUTES AND CASE LAW
1. Minn. Stat. 13D.01
2. Minn. Stat. 13D.04
3. Moberg v. ISD No. 281, 336 NW2d 510 (1983)
4. Thuma v. Kroschel, 506 NW2d 14 (Minn. App. 1993)
5. Brown v. Cannon Falls Township, 723 NW2d 31 (Minn. App. 2006)
•
•
•