Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/1981 Council MinutesDecember 22, 1980 Chief Myhre was out of the Counci•I Chambers - a recess was called - the meeting was reconvened. Chief Myhre noted that these bids went out quite a while ago and called in on the 15th of December. The lowest bidder was Frederick's GMC in the amount of $9,631.26. Chief Myhre recommended approval of this bid. Mr. Kulaszewicz discussed briefly the matter of paying for this vehicle with a possibly paying for this on a term contract. This has already been budgeted for the year 1981. Mr. McLean moved to accept this bid. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimous- ly. Mr. McLean asked that Mr. Schumacher consider paying for this on installments. Mr. Locher discussed several items with no official action taken. Mr. Jaworski asked for consideration of this Council of the egress at Rocky's North. He felt this driveway had been widened out to a dangerous point and felt that MDOT was not aware of this situation. Mayor Gourley said a meeting had been set up for some time in January - this can be taken up at that time. Under New Business, Cigarette Licenses for Lino Corner Store, J &K Liquor, and Hank's Superette. Mr. McLean moved to approve. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. The contract for Police Coverage for the 1981 for Centerville was considered. Mr. McLean moved to approve this contract and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McLean moved to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Aye. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at a regular meeting held on January 12, 1981. Edna L. Sarner Clerk - Treasurer January 12, 1981 The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Gourley with all member present. Mr. Locher, Mr. Short, Mr. Meister, and Mr. Schumacher were also present. There were no corrections or additions to the minutes of December 22, 1980. The minutes stand approved as presented. On consideration of the disbursements, Mr. Jaworski questioned a check written to the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Schumacher explained that the Clerk had failed to deposit a withholding check on time and this is an automatic fine. January 12, 1981 Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to approve the December 31, 1980 disbursements. Seconded by Mr. IIIMcLean. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jawosski moved to approve the disbursements of January 12, 1981. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carrued unanimously. Mary Clare Wahlberg and Rose Branville appeared before the Council to present informa- tion on the formation of a United Way Chapter to include the City of Lino Lakes and to request Council approval for the insertation of donation cards in the Employees payroll envelopes. Next year deductions may be made from the payroll. Mrs. Wahlberg explained that donations made to another community are not available for use in this community for service. This is the basic reasoning for the formation of this chapter of the United Way. More information will be forwarded to the City offices. Mr. Jaworski moved to approve the insertation of donation cards in the'employee pay en- velopes. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. The hearing for the consideration of the finding of facts in conjunction with the Special Use Permit for El Rehbein & Son for the development of Lakes #7 was opened. Mayor Gourley announced the format for this hearing will be as follows; 1) The Attorney's presentation; 2) Mr. Schumacher's presentation; 3) Mr. Bill Short, City Planner; 4) Mr. Ken Meister, City Engineer; 5) the Developer; 6) members of the audience. Questions for clarification will be allowed. He asked that the consultants be allowed to give their testimony first. 7) The Council will then make a decision on the permit. 8) Adjourn the hearing. Questions for clarification from the audience will be allowed at any time upon recognition by the Chair. However, Mayor Gourley asked that additional testimony be made at the pro- per time. Mr. Locher presented a short resume of the history of the Special Use Permit noting that it was issued in March of 1970 for Townhouses and apartments. In August of 1971, Ordin- ance #56 was published. Special Use Permit #27 was issued under Ordinance #6 which pro- vided that a permitted use in a Residential District was 2 -4 family dwellings and apart- ments by Special Use Permit, upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning. Under Or- dinance #6 there was only two districts - residential and commercial. Mr. Locher pointed out that under Ordinance #56, 6.20, a zoning map was to be prepared - no map has been prepared to date. So, except for particular areas that have been re- zoned by request, the City has two (21 zoning districts - Residential and Commercial. Judge Bakke heard the arguments and is before this Council per the Judge's suggestion. Under 6.21 of Ord. #56 there should be an application for a Special Use Permit. (This section deals with the completion of the project within three (3) years). Mr. Locher noted the hearints that had been held in May, June, and July. Action had been taken at that time on all existing Special Use Permits and Rezoning - some had been con- tinued - some had been revoked. All had been considered including #27, which had been continued. The record of this Council action is on file. Mr. Schumacher presented a brief history of the permit. In April of 1972 a final plat for Townhouses was approved on a portion of Outlot K. This plat was never recorded. In July of 1980, all Special Use Permits and Rezoning were reviewed. January 12, 1981 In March of 1973, the Special Use Permit on Outlot G (which is North of Lantern Lane) was rezoned from Multi- family to R -1 at the request of the developer. Mr. Schumacher read the Resolution that reaffirmed the existence of Special Use Permit #27 passed in May of 1980. On September 29, 1980 the preliminary plat for the 24 Quads was approved by the City Council. Mr. Short, City Planning Consultant was requested to present his credentials. Mr. Short said thgt he is a member of the firm of Barton- Aschman and had been the Consultant for the City of Lino Lakes since 1975. Mr. Short said his purpose was to discuss 5.04 of Ordinance #56 on the issuance of a Special Use Permit. It must meet the following criteria: 1) a use can be granted in any district with the following five criteria to be considered. Would the granting of a Special Use Permit have serious effect upon 1) Health, Safety, Morals and General Wel- fare of the Public; 2) on traffic and parking; 3) Public facilities; 4) Public Utilities and 5) Conformance with zoning Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Short noted that many uses may be suitable in certain districts under certain cir- cumstances with condition to be attached to a Special Use Permit. Under Traffic - Mr. Short compared the Quads to R -1 using standards set by MNDOT. There would be 672 daily trips for R5 development and 496 for R -1 development. According to the Anoka County Highway Department, Birch Street had been designed for 8,000 trips daily. In 1980 the expected trips per day is 1,700. This development would have littl if any, impact on Birch Street. Under the proposed Land Use Plan, Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, this area is pro- posed for Urban Res. - R -1, this proposed development is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a guide and does provide for alternatives. And Lakes #7 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Under the Park requirements - this has been satisified with the acquisition of the 22 acre park on the West side of the Lake. Also to be taken into consideration is the close proximity if the Anoka County Chain of Lakes Parks containing 2500 acres of land. However, Mr. Short would recommend there be some recreational facilites provided in this project for children and the 'back yard type' for adults. Under public utilities, Mr. Short noted there is capacity in the inter=ceptor for this project with no significant effect. Mr. Short discussed the landscaping that could be required in conjunction with the issu- ance of a conditional use permit. This would produce an enviornment consistent with the neighborhood. The density factor was considered. This is defined as the units per acre - 4.35 for the Quads as compared to 2.7 for R -1. In computing the population, Mr. Short pointed out that there are fewer persons per unit in quads than in R -1. The estimated person per R -1 unit is 3.4. Mr. Short had contacted Orin Thompson, Horizon Homes, Burnsville, White Bear Lake, Shoreview and the Metropolitan Council for persons per unit in quads. The developers estimate that in 1980 there were 1.7 persons per unit; White Bear Lake - 2.05 persons; Burnsville - 2.0 persons; Metropolitan Council - 2.5 persons. Mr. Short used 2.4 persons per unit for 96 quads for and estimated population of 230 per- sons. Using the available land area for single family homes, there would be 59 lots 1 23: January 12, 1981 with 3.5 persons, per home for an estimated population in the R -1 development of this area of 207 person. Thus the quads would create an excess population of 23 persons over single family residential development. Mr. Short explained to Mr. Julian Hook these are gross density figures. Someone sug- gested that the single family lots that exist should be used as a basis for the R -1 density figure. Mr. Short explained he used what could be platted in that area per existing ordinances. The single family homes would cover approximately 8.5% of the land; the quads would cover approximately 10% of the land. On considering the height of the structures, Mr. Short pointed out that most R -1 homes have an average of 16' to 26' (2 story) - the quads will be 24' from ground level. There would be a green area of 60% of the and with the quads and 86.5% with single family development. Mr. Short, in answering a question, said there would be approximately 26% more trips per day if this area is developed as quads versus R -1. Mr. Short pointed out that the figures he presented relative to trips per are very generous figures. Another major issue is the cosmetics of the buildings. He felt with a Special Use Per- mit, the City Council could have some input. Since there will be no back yards, as such, Mr. Short felt there must be some provisions for passive recreation and for storage. He suggested one or two designated area for recreation and some provisions by the developer for storage of boats, snowmobiles, etc. Mr. Short also suggested some restrictive covenants as to how and who does the main- tenance of the grounds and buildings. Also, in the matter of landscaping provisions in relationship to the adjoining properties, under a conditional special use permit, the City could have input into this facet of the development. The items can be partial- ly controlled by the City under a special use permit but not under rezoning. Mr. Reinert asked Mr. Short if he agreed with the land use as proposed by the Comprehen- sive Plan and Mr. Short said, Yes. Mr. Short pointed out the Comprehensive Plan is to be used as a guide and since the plan had been informally adopted some changes have already taken place. This is the guide used to formulate the zoning districts map which is a separate tool to be used in planning. Mr. Hook asked what this development would do to the plan and Mr. Short said, it is in- consistent but under some conditions it could be consistent. Mr. Short was asked if he felt this plat is a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan and he said he hasn't reviewed the plat - someways, yes - someways - no. Someone asked if he felt this development is inconsistent with the present development of the area and Mr. Short said, Yes, but under certain conditions, quad development can be consistent with R -1 development. Mayor Gourley went back to the statement "that Special Use Permits may be granted in any district" - this would appear to give the Council unlimited power. He pointed out that even though this is possible, it is highly improbable that a Council would consider an 1 -2 in a R -1 area. )29 January 12, 1981 Mayor Gourley asked Mr. Short if he could define what constitutes the degrees of den- sity and Mr. Short said generally and R -1 district with on -site systems with 2 on 5 acres of land is considered low density; R -1 on small lots, with 2/4 homes per acre is considered moderate; quads or townhouses, with 4/12 per acre, are considered mod- erate to medium; and apartments or condos- with 12/15 per acre, is considered high density. Mr. Jaworski asked if the proposed plat conforms to Ord. #56 and Mr. Short said most of the requirements are met with the exception of the side yart setbacks - he would need to thoroughly review the plat, which he has not done to date. A recess was called at this point in the meeting. The meeting reconvened with Mr. Ken Meister speaking on the utilities in the area. The sewer system was designed to flow to the existing lift station. This lift station was designed to serve the entire area completely developed. Mr. Meister said there is more than enough capacity in the lift station for the complete area. The water system consists of the one well and pump house which was also designed to ser- vice the entire area, completely developed. Mr. Meister noted that this well is only capable of pumping 500 gallons per minute - this is more than adequate to serve the daily requirements of the area. However, when designing a system for fire flow, it should be 1000 gallons per minute. The drainage of the area will be controlled by the Rice Creek Watershed Board. The soils are silty sand with a high water table. Streets have been constructed on this III type of soils. Coarse materials will have to be brought in to control, the frost heave. Mr. McLean asked what impact this development would have on the water supply and Mr. Meister said there is more than enough water for daily consumption. In case of a fire, all areas would be basically out of water. The fire flow requirements are 1000 gallons per minute and this pump will only produce 500 gallons per minute. Mr. McLean noted that this problem exists at the present time and the same situation would exist even if the development is not completed. Mr. Reinert asked if the well was sized to serve the entire area - what capacity is the well? How many residents will it serve? Mr. Meister said that when the entire area is developed, the maximum daily peak requirements would be 230 gallons per minute - this well will serve the entire area. There was discussion on the water study that had been ordered by the Council. Mayor Gourley explained this was for a larger area than Country Lakes and was basically for the purpose of providing the necessary fire flow and to provide a back system to the existing system. There was discussion of the elevations in the area to include the construction of the ponding areas. Mr. Meister explained the manner of construction and the fact that there would not be standing water in the ponds. These ponding areas will drain through a storm system into the Lake. These ponding areas will be so constructed as to filter the water before it is drained into the lake. These areas are under the jurisdiction of the Rice Creek Watershed Board. At this point in the meeting the Clerk was asked to read the motion from the Planning III and Zoning which denied the special use permit. 1 23 January 12, 1981 Mr: Benson said he felt that questions on the following topics have not been answered; 1) water; 2) Centerville Fire Department; 3) the green area; 4) Redreation facilities; 5) trees (inabiltiy to grow); 6) area harmony; 7) consistent with neighborhood. Mr. Schumacher read letters from the Centerville Fire Department, School Dist. #12, County Highway Department and MNDOT, indicating these agencies have no major concerns with this development. Mr. Jaworski pointed out some points in the motion - 1) the fact that this development is not in conformance with the current zoning - that is why there is an application for a special use permit; 2) density, as Mr. Johnson had computed at 14.6 persons per quad, this used 3 & 4 bedrooms. These quads, as proposed are on,ly 2 bedroom units - the density figure is out of line, per a letter from Metropolitan Council. 3) Mr. Johnson said the water table is 0 to 2 feet - Mr. Jaworski noted that he had an Engineer's report that said the water table is 0 to 14 feet with the average being 7 to 14 feet. Mrs. Elsenpeter disagreed with Mr. Johnson's statement that these buildings would tower over existing homes - these buildings are only 24' from ground level - single family homes can also reach that height. Mayor Gourley noted that Mr. Johnson's motion referred to this development as being a detriment to the Lake - there is no testimony at either meeting supporting this; that this development would lower property values - it would be necessary to have a certi- fied appraiser do an appraisal of the area to determine this factor - there has been no testimony to this fact at either meeting; that this development would be a finan- cial burden to the City of Lino Lakes - Mayor Gourley pointed out this would increase the users of the sewer system and would make the system self- supporting - the cost of operating that system has been borne by the citizens of the City since it went into op- eration; Mayor Gourley noted that several of the Planning and Zoning Board members felt this matter should be dealt with by the Courts - and pointed out it will be dealt with by the Courts no matter which way the Council votes. He pointed out that this Council has been attacked for considering the installation of a water system for that area - tonight the Council was criticized for not having adequate water in the area at, the present time. Mayor Gourley noted that there had been expert testimony at this meeting that refutes the figures on density in Mr. Johnson's motion. This showed -there is only an estimated difference of 23 persons from R -1 to Quads. Mr. McLean commended the Planning and Zoning for doing an in depth study on a difficult project. He did not feel that a Special use permit was proper - this should be rezoned requiring the 2/3's majority vote. Mr. McLean moved to deny the special use permit for the proposed quad project in that it is not in conformance with the Proposed Comprehensive Plan as R -1; the proposed density concentration on 294' of shoreline would have a negative effect due the use concentra- tion of lake shore and natural environment of the area. Mr. McLean did not feel that the Park and Recreation facilities are adequate for the density proposed due to the distance to the neighboring facilites 1) across the Lake and 2) the Shenandoah Park. Also, water facilities available will be marginal under heavy fire use requirements. Also, the high water table readings in the area will require buildings without basements and that the aggregate mass of quad buildings will then provide an unharmonious sight line to the home owners. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. On a roll call vote - Mr. Kulaszewicz - Yes; Mr. Jaworski - No; Mr. McLean - Yes; Mrs. Elsenpeter - No; Mayor Gourley - No. Motion failed. January 12, 1981 Mr. Kulaszewicz presented his concerns over the number of ponding areas that are being required by Rice Creek Watershed Board to be constructed within this City. Mr. Jaworski moved to approve the Special Use Permit subject to detailed land- scaping plan; the plat to include adult recreations areas; screening form ad- joining residences to soften the sight line. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Mrs. Elsenpeter amend the motion to include "that any landscaping be approved by the Council, Recreation areas to be approved by Council; that each quad'exterior is to vary for the pthers; there be a restrictive covenant be included in an As- sociation to be formed to cover maintenance and b.u1Idi.n.g standards for the future; this restrictive covenant to include lighting, outside storage, landscaping and any other items in this category to be dealt with in the future and the establishment of the Association to be approved by City Council. There is to be presented to the Council a phasing program established by the developer so that the Council is aware of how buildings will go in and what landscaping will be done as the phasing occurs. Mr. Jaworski seconded the amendment. Mr. Schumacher asked if there would be a performance bond required and Mrs. Etsenpeter added this requirement to her amendment to insure the conditions imposed on this Specia4 Use Permit would be adhered to. Mr. Jaworski accepted this additional amendment. Mayor Gourley recapped the findings as presented at this hearing; 1) Professional testimony from the Attorney that the land was platted and approved 1970/73; the Council is considering the Special Use Permit at the direction of the Court; this Council reviewed all Special Use Permits in the summer of 1980 - some were con - tinued, some were cancelled; this land was approved for townhouse construction in 1972; this Special Use Permit was reaffirmed in July, 1980; this Council has approved the preliminary plat for quads for these outlots; on the _Resolution passed re- affirming the Special Use Permit #27, the Council vote was unanimous; per the City Planner, Special Use Permits may be issued in any District; traffic concerns were answered in that there would be little, if any, impact_on Birch Srreet; the land use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the project is consistent with the policies and goals of the Plan; Park needs are satisfied with the 22 acre land dona- tion to the City which was for the entire area of Country Lakes; sewer is available and capacity is adequate; this area should be landscaped to be consistent with the neighborhood; the density is 230 persons for quads and 207 for single family homes; the building coverage of the land per acre is approximately the same; the height of the building meets the R -1 requirements; with certain restrictions and limitations' a quad project could be developed without significantly disrupting the Comprehensive Plan; the Engineer had testified that both the sewer and water systems are adequate for the project daily use, noting that the water system is not adequate for fire flow at the present time and the development of the project would have no real bearing on this problem and that streets can be constructed in this area. Mayor Gourley amended the motion and the amendment to include approval of Rice Creek Watershed District on the drainage and that the Lake Shore access not be developed in any manner. Mrs. Elsenpeter accepted this amendment to her motion. Mr. Jaworski accepted the amendment to his second. On the vote Mayor Gourley, Mr. Jaworski, and Mrs. Elsenpeter voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Kulaszewicz and Mr. McLean voted against the motion. Motion carried. Mayor Gourley opened the hearing on the rezoning for Wollans Estates at 11:46 P.M. There was no one in the audience who came to speak for this request. Mr. McLean 1 January 12, 1981 moved to reschedule this hearing for February 23, 1981 at 9:00 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the consideration of approving employment of a Police Clerk. Chief Myhre had conducted interviews with a number of the applicants and re- commended Mrs. Josephine Goodwin be employed. Mr. Jaworski moved to employ Mrs. Josephine Goodwin as Police Clerk, effective as soon as possible. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. There were a number of cigarette licenses for Council approval. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to approve these licenses. Mayor Gourley asked that they include the name of the applicant as well as the establishment. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion car- ried unanimously. Mr. Jaworski moved to continue the balance of the agenda until January 19, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McLean moved to continue this meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. 12:00 Midnight. January 19, 1981 The continued meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Gourley on January 19, 1981 with all members present. Mr. Locher, Mr. Meister and Mr. Schumacher were also present. The Engineer's report was considered first. The matter of accepting the streets in Rohavic Oaks for maintenance was discussed. There was discussion on the petition for the changing of a name of one of the streets. The Council was also concerned with the fact that most of the project is not completed and the streets could be damaged during future construction. Mr. Jaworski suggested this street be accepted for partial maintenance. This would consist of snow plowing only. There was noting of the fact that there is a petition of changing the name of F.W.D. Court to Oakwood Drive. There was questions if the persons who petitioned for the name change are aware of the costs involved in this and the fact that they will be responsible for the costs. It will be necessary for an Ordinance to be passed to change this name and this Or- dinance will need to be filed with the County Surveyor. Mr. Jaworski moved to accept the streets in Rohavic Oaks for partial maintenance snow plowing only. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McLean requested that the petitioners be informed that the costs involved in the changing of the street will have to be paid by the persons requesting the name changes. The estimated costs should be under $50.00. The next item to be considered was the study for sewers on Highway 49. Mr. Meister reported that he had updated the study to include the area from the lift station on Laurene, over Linda to Highway 49 thence South to County Road J. Mayor Gourley said the question here tor;.ight is to either scrap the project or to set