Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/1981 Council Minutes1,0 8 March 9, 1981 WHEREAS, Lino Lakes is presently using only fifty per cent (50a) of the allocated connections in this district, and WHEREAS, Lino Lakes has identified specific locations in Urban Service District #1 for potential residential connections. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that: 1. The Shenandoah Second Addition residential plat be added to the approved interim plan for future sewer connections to the existing system. 2. With this inclusion, the Lino Lakes City Council warrants the above stated maximum number of services in Urban Service Area #1 until the Metropolitan Council has had sufficient time, pursuant to State Law, to review the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Lino Lakes shall enforce the Metropolitan Council's request con- cerning sewer connections by restricting building permits (not to exceed 300 sewered connections) in Urban Service District #1, thus assuring the Council that Lino Lakes shall control future sewer connections in this area. Passed by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 9th day of March, 1981. Mr. Schumacher asked for direction from the Council as to the salaries that have not been approved- how is this to be handled? Mr. McLean said he would like to meet with Mr. Schumacher - Mayor Gourley suggested that he and Mr. Kulaszewicz present a proposal of their own. Mr. McLean said he would work with Mr. Schumacher on this. As to the Clerk's salary, Mayor Gourley said to put that porposal on the next agenda. Mr. Jaworski moved to adjourn at 11:30 P.M. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Aye. These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council meeting held on March 23, 1981. /461_ Edna L. March 23, 1981 AlOP arner, Clerk- Treasurer The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M., March 23, 1981 by Mayor Gourley with all Council members pre- sent. Mr. Locher and Mr. Schumacher were also present. Mr. Jaworski moved to approve the minutes of March 9, 1981 as presented, Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. On considering the disbursements, there were no questions. The dis- bursements were approved as presented. 1 1 March 23, 1981 OPEN MIKE Mr. Jack Menkveld asked to speak. He has a question regarding the in- spection costs in regards to Forest Glen. Mr. Menkveld said they had paid over $900.00 to Carley Engineering for the work already done and has received an estimate of over $7000.00 to complete the work. Mr. Menkveld felt these charges are out of line and asked permission to use another Engineering firm. Mr. Menkveld said they had requested a break down on the costs already paid and have not received an answer to date. Mr. Schumacher felt this should be addressed by the City Engineer at the next Council meeting. Mayor Gourley - is your question to allow the use of another Engineer or is it to have the Council investigate the charges? Mr. Menkveld said he would like to use another Engineer and Mayor Gourley said it would be necessary to use the City Engineer in order to main- tain consistency. Mayor Gourley asked if the Council wanted an explanation from Carley Engineering and the general consensus was that this matter should be on the next agenda. A gentleman from the audience asked if the City has lost the Block Grant or if a proposal has been prepared? Mayor Gourley said the City has not lost the Grant and a proposal is being prepared. RESOLUTION - 81 -5 RESOLUTION REVIEWING AND ACCEPTING THE ENVIORNMENTAL RESOURCES SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LINO LAKES. WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes was in receipt of a letter from the Metropolitan Council requesting additional information for its Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, The City Planner has prepared an additional supplement dealing with Enviornmental Resources Inventory and Policies, and WHEREAS, The Lino Lakes City Council has reviewed this supplement and have made additional amendments, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Lino Lakes City Council has reviewed and accepted the Enviornmental Supplement to the Comprehensive Plan, 2. That the Lino Lakes Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the Enviornmental Supplement, 3. That the Lino Lakes City Council requests the Metropolitan Council to terminate suspension on the review of the Comprehensive Plan, . 4. That the Enviornmental Resources Supplement fulfills the requirements of the Land Use Planning Act. March 23, 1981 This Resolution approved the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Draft and relates to the new chapter prepared by Mr. Short and presented at tge kast Council meeting. This material was also pre- sented to the Planning and Zoning Board at their meeting held on March 18, 1981. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to adopt Resolution #81 -5. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. SEWER PETITION FOR LAKE DRIVE FROM 77th STREET TO MAIN STREET. The Clerk reported that she had checked the front footage and had verified the signatures on the petition and had found these signa- tures correct. The front footage had been computed and the signa- tures represents 45% of the front footage. The next step for the Council is to order a fesibility study. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to refer this petition to the Engineering Firm who is currently conducting the study for the lower part of Lake Drive. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Mr. McLean noted that in the previous study order, a c rndition was made that the person petitioning would be asked to share the costs. He requested that this be added to this motion. Mr. Bohjanen asked the location of this - will this be on both sides of County #14? The petition stops at the South line of County Road #14. Mr. Kulaszewicz seconded the amendment. The vote was on both the motion and the amendment. Both carried unanimously. DESIGNATION OF A FINANCIAL CONSULTANT. OSM is requesting a financial consultant be designated for the trunk sewer now being considered. Mayor Gourley said Juran & Moody had been used for the last bond issue and Mr. Schumacher said the service had been excellent. Mayor Gourley moved that Juran F Moody be designated as financial consultants on this project. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. SETTING OF A SPECIAL MEETING FOR CIP AND FIRE SERVICE REPORT. Mr. McLean suggested this meeting be held on April 6, 1981 at 8:00 P.M. The Council members agreed. RESIGNATION OF MR. GARY FOSTER. Mr. McLean moved to accept this resignation and the usual letter of Thanks be forwarded to Mr. Foster. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. RECESS PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE REQUEST - GLENN REHBEIN Mayor Gourley noted that the format will be the same as previously - March 23, 1981 27 consultants will give testimony first, the developer may make comments, comments from the audience - either pro or con and the developer may answer - it will then be turned to the Council for a decision. A letter from Mr. Arden Lind, of Palico Instruments, was read. This indicates there is no objections to LI but did object to the HI designation. The Clerk read the notice of publication and noted that certified letters had been mailed to all persons within 350' of the property and all but one - Mrs. Edith Morse - had been returned as received. Mr. Schumacher presented the petition as it had been presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board had re- commended a Public Hearing be set for the consideration of the property designated as LI but had made no recommendations in reference to the proposed area for HI. Mr. Scumacher reported on the letter received from Mr. Short basically noting that this is a proper use for this parcel of land. Mr. Short also suggested that the entire parcel be zoned LI until such time as Mr. Rehbein has a specific proposal for HI. This use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schumacher presented some of the LI uses that are allowed per Ordinance #56. The Engineer's letter was read noting there would be limitations on the street construction and the septic system installa- tion due to high water table. However, it was noted this area is scheduled for sewers sometime between 1981 /1990. The street specifi- cations were noted in this letter also. There is an additional letter from Mr. Short but this deals with the requirements for the platting and Mr. Schumacher felt that this is not appropriate at this hearing since this hearing deals with the rezoning of the lands. Mrs. Paul Reinhold had written a letter setting forth some points she felt should be considered before this rezoning is approved. She in- dicated she felt that this matter had received preliminary approval. Mayor Gourley said there has not been any action with the exception of recommending that a public hearing be set. There has not been any preliminary approval of any sort. The purpose of this hearing is to approve or disapprove the rezoning of the lands - then the plat will need to go through the Planning and Zoning Board and the Counci. Mrs. Reinhold's concerns with screening, etc., will be considered at that time. Mr. Harvey Karth, representing Mr. Glenn Rehbein, stated that they are not concerned with the HI area - this can either be rezoned to LI or left as is. Mr. Karth pointed out that at the present time, they do not plan to develop the lands North of the ditch, nor do they plan to install a street on the South of the Skelly station. There are several other itmes that will be discussed in more detail when the plat is presented. Mr. Bill Bohjanen asked how big an area is being considered? Mayor Gourley noted the area and that it contains 55 acres. Mr. Douview, 7841 Lake Drive, School property to the West? Yes. Wondered what kind of problems would this plat present if a school is March 23, 1981 '2 i 4!i developed at that location, Mayor Gourley said those kinds of con- cerns would be addressed at the time of platting. Mr. Karth said he had a list of concerns that had been presented by some of the property owners along Lake Drive and these concerns will be taken into consideration at the time of platting. A resident asked if there had been any consideration of what this would do to property values - wouldn't this decalue the property existing? Mayor Gourley said no such study had been done but he flet with the coming of the sewer the property values would increase. This person said that from what he and heard at this meeting, he would object to the rezoning. Mayor Gourley asked if he had any specifics and he said he didnot - the things he wanted to discuss were the items that would be concerned with teh platting of the property. Mr. Tom Eniis, 7395 Lake Drive, lives next door to Palico and he said there is only 25 to 30 feet from his house to the property being ocnsidered and he asked the Council not to rezone this land. Mayor Gourley asked Mr. Ennis if he knew he was in a commercial zone at the present time and Mr. Ennis said, Yes. Mr. Wally Ostlie, 7420 Lake Drive, concerned with the private homes being affected by the change and he wanted to know if there was some- thing they could say to sway the Council or has this already been decided? Mayor Gourley said the purpsoe of the hearing is to take testimony and find facts. Mr. Ostlie felt that there are other areas of the City that could be used for Industrial purpsoes - the Acton property on the East side of the City. The Council noted that sewer is not available for that area and Mr. Acton's property is not for sale - he wants to develop this. Mrs. Elsenpeter said this has not been an immediate step - this matter is tied into the Comprehensive Plan. There has been over a year's work of planning into that plan in order to have an orderly develop- ment within the City to insure that this is not just a 'bedroom' community. She also pointed out that the accessability to he free- way makes this an deal site for LI - nobody would want an Industrial Park in the middle of a residential area. Mr. Ostlie asked if anyone had determined what the tax advantage to the City would be from this industrial properyt? Mr. Karth said he had called the County Assessor and asked how the Industrial tax is computed and was told they use the figure of $46.35 per thousand of assessed value - on a single family homsteaded properyt, they use he figure of $15.70 per thousand - these are 1980 figures. Multi- family residences are about midway between. Mrs. Reinhold, Lake Drive said her property had been devaLuded because of the Industrial property on the North of her by 25%. Mayor March 23, 1981 Gourley asked her to submit her documents to this effect to the Mr. Glenn Rehbein, the Developer, pointed out that this property is ideally located for industrial property - that his new home is across the street and did not feel that this development would devalue property. Mr. Jeff Johnson, 7421 Lake Drive, he is opposed to sewer because he has a lot of frontage and it follows that he would also be opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Ostlie felt it would be good to know what impact the reported tax increase would have on the residents of the City before a decision is made on this rezoning. Mr. Karth said the dollar value would be approximately 3 time as much from an industrial zone as from a residential area. Mayor Gourley asked if there was any questions from the Council. Mr. Jaworski asked Mr. Karth if the area was zoned industrial, is there a time schedule for the development of the property - Mr. Karth said there is approximately a three months process of platting the next phase would be to start the construction - this would probably be in the early fall. This would depend on how soon the preparation of the plat could be accomplished and presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for their review. The area being considered is the entire area with the exception of lots 12,13, & 14. These are the Southern most lots that had been proposed for HI. Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed out that this Council must consider what is best for the entire City and regreted that in that process, some individuals may be hurt. Mr. Jaworski moved to approve the rezoning of Zone A to LI. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion on roll call vote: Mr. Kulaszewicz - Aye; Mr. Jaworksi -Aye: Mr. McLean - Aye; Mrs. Elsenpeter - Aye; Mayor Gourley - Aye. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was called at this point in the meeting. The meeting reconvened and Mayor Gourley asked if there was a representative of NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE present. MR. DOKKEN was in the audience. Mr. Dokken presented the Council with contour maps of the area and informed the Council that there is no problem with the setbacks as re- quired by the City. The building will be put at the 40' setback line. The site has been reduced in size to accomadate just the building with the minimum setbacks. This would create a substandard lot that cannot be used for any other purpose. This lot will be fenced and will also be landscaped. This will be presented in detail at the time the application for construction is submitted. Mr. McLean moved to approve this variance as amended, the area to be landscaped and fenced. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Moyor Gourley pointed out this is a variance to Ord. #56 and Ord. #78. Mr. Schumacher questioned the Park Land dedication. Mr. McLean amended his motion, that since this is a public utility, the park land dedication be waived. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. March 23, 1981 274 The Planning and Zoning Board actions were next on the Agenda. SCHILLING - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING Mr. Schumacher pointed out the portion of this area that will be considered in this rezoning. A portion of the land abutting Lilac has LI zoning at the present time. This would include the reaminder of the lands. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval and a public hearing be set. Mr. McLean moved to set a public hearing for Lino Industrial Park for April 13, 1981 at 8:00 P.M. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Motion carried unanimously. REHBEIN - LOT SPLIT This is concerned with Lots 28 4 29 in Equity Estates and each contain 5 acres. Mr. Schumacher pointed out the manner in which these lots would be split. The Planning and Zoning had reviewed this and found no hardship in the land and had recommended denial of this lot split. Mr. Karth said there is no hardship to the land - just that the smaller parcels would make this land available to more persons. The cost of a five acre parcel of land is prohibitive to most people. Mr. Karth said at the time this land was split (3 years ago) the general concept of the market was that people wanted 21/2 to 5 acres, now this marketing trend has reversed - people are looking for smaller parcels of land. Mr. Jaworski questioned the off balance split of one of the lots and Mr. Karth explained that the one lot has a low area and this allows for a one acre building site. Mayor Gourley felt the consideration of whether a hardship of this land exists is not the primary factor here - the major concern should be the moratorium on the splitting of these lots in an area where the Comprehensive Plan designates one unit per ten acres. This is to ensure that City services are not needed in that area ahead of the plan. Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to deny this variance, in that it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and there is no hardship of the land. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. FRANK MINAR - VARIANCE Mr. Schumacher reported this is a five acre split from 20 acres, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that there would be two dwellings on 20 acres. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval of this variance with money in leiu of land. Mayor Gourley - on smaller parcel or the larger? Mr. Schumacher said in order to stay consistent, it would have to be on the smaller parcel. Mr. Minar objected to this procedure and asked why it was necessary for him to pay to split a parcel of land to give to his daughter. Mr. Minar understood that he could give land and Mayor Gourley ex- plained that the recommendation had been for money in leiu of land. In this case the amount would be $750.00, and would be payable before the building permit is issued. March 23, 1981 275 Mr. Schumacher pointed out that this variacne must be recorded with the County before the transfer of title. Mr. McLean moved to approve this variance for the splitting of the land with the stipulation that $750.00 be paid to the Park Fund before the variance is issued and the building permit is approve. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - MR. PIEL Mr. McLean asked if this is for another plumbing shop and Mr. Schumacher said it is next door to the one under construction but this person de- signs sprinkler systems. This would also be a retail outlet for these systems. Mr. Schumacher pointed out the requirements as pointed out by the Planner. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval of this Special Use Permit with the stipulation that the Planners requests be adhered to. Mr. McLean moved to return this to the Planning and Zoning Board for their review of the submission by the applicant as it relates to the recommendations of the Planner. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. KENNEL LICENSE - DR. LINDY. This is for a kennel license in a residential area - Dr. Lindy lives on East Shadow Lake Drive. At the Planning and Zoning meeting two persons had spoke against this license and the Police Chief had compiled a list of complaints from the past several years. This is to keep four dogs against the City Ordinance. Mr. Curt Johnston, who lives next door to Dr. Lindy, had no objections to this kennel license. Dr. Lindy said that most of the warnings were for not having a kennel license. Dr. Lindy explained the events leading up to this action. Mr. McLean moved to approve the issuance of the kennel license. Seconded by Mr. Mulaszewicz. Mr. Jaworski asked if there could be a limit of four dogs. Mr. McLean and Mr. Kulaszewicz accepted this amendment. Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed out the Council actions in denying a kennel license for a person who had five acres of land on the assumption that he had no need for three dogs. She felt the Ordinance regulating this action needs to be revised. She said that if this kennel license is approved, then this Council is arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Jaworski asked Mr. Locher if the Council is setting a precedent and Mr. Locher said each application must be considered on its own merit. Mr. Kulaszewicz called for the question. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried with Mrs. Elsenpeter voting, No. On the vote on the motion, the motion carried with Mrs. Elsenpter and Mayor Gourey voting, No. SIGN PERMIT - MR. JULEEN There is a copy of the proposed sign for each Council member. Mr. Schumacher noted it is on the agenda due to the requirement of Ord. #51. This is a wall sign. Mr. McLean moved to approve this permit. Seconded ,f- March 23, 1981 1J u by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. PUDWILL /LIEBERMAN - LOT SPLIT This is for the purchase of the parcel of land by Mr. DuFour. There has been a special use permit for the parking of a trailer on the parcel of alnd and Mr. DuFour was to have his building permit by this meeting. The Planning and Zoning had recommended approval of this lot split and recommended money in leiu of land for this parcel. Mr. DuFour has a contract on file for the maintenance of a temporary sewer facility on the site and a well should be drilled in a short time. Mayor Gourley asked what happened to the building permit and Mr. Dufour said his plans are not ready at this time. He said the Build - ing Inspector gave him permission to go ahead with the basement - Mr. Schumacher said this had not been discussed with him. Mayor Gourley said the Council had give him every opportunity and had seen very little, if any, cooperation from Mr. DuFour. Mayor. Gourley moved to table consideration of this request. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried with Mrs. Elsenpeter voting, No. Mayor Gourley asked what action the Council wishes to take in this situation. This has been dragging out for over three weeks and nothing has been done by Mr. DuFour. The general consensus was this matter will be on the next agenda. Mr. Jaworski asked what happens if he puts his foundation in and then does not have his building permt approved? Mayor Gourley said he had not heard this had been approved by the Building Inspector. ATTORNEY'S REPORT Mr. Locher has not completed the agreement on the sewer and will have the report for the next meeting, along with the feasinility report. The next item was the Ordinance changing the name of a street in Ulmer's Rice Lake Addition III and a portion of the Street in Ulmer's Rice Lake Addition I. Mr. Locher had written a legal description for the portion of the street that will be changed. This action had been approved at the last Council meeting, therefore there is no action necessary. Mrs. Elsenpeter requested that a copy of this be sent to 216 Rice Lake Drive informing him that he is now on Ulmer Drive. This is to be recorded with the Post Office and the Council Surveyor's office. The problem with teh MWCC involving the Shenandoah project has not been resolved - Mr. Locher is stillworking on that matter. Mr. Locher reported that he has the abstract on the Schuenemann Corner's plat. He said the plat will have to be changed since the title is in two names and Mr. Schuenemann's Father had passed away. Mr. Jaworski moved to grant Mr. Schueneman an extension of one year for the presentation of his final plat for approval. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. 1 March 23, 1981 OLD BUSINESS A letter of thanks should be sent to Mrs. Pankratz and a letter of recommend ation for use in seeking employment. Mayor Gourley asked that this be taken care of. SALARY ADJUSTMENT 27' Mr. MeLean reported that he and Mr. Kulaszewicz had met with. Mr. Schumacher and had established some objectives for 1981. The several points were reported. Mr. Schumacher said the only item he had a concern with was the first itme which indicates that a 5% surplus should be re- alized in each department. He felt this could result in a cutback in services. Mr. McLean felt the number one objective is not to exceed the budget. Mayor Gourley asked that time 6, dealing with provisions of office space, be elaborated. Mr. McLean noted that with the Assessor being required to work from the City Hall and other possible needs for space, he felt it was important to note and some planning be done in order to consider at budget time. This would simply involve office realignment. Mr. Elsenpeter questioned item 5 which deals with the use of City vehicles. Mr. McLean said this involved employees getting to work on their own and to use City vehicles for City business only. Mayor Gourley moved that the 8 goals be included in the Ways and Means Report and that the report be approved as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. CENTERVILLE FIRE CONTRACT Mr. Schumacher said the City of Centerville would like to see this ratified as soon as possible. Mr. Englund, Centerville Fire Chief, was in the audience. Mr. Jaworski questioned Itesm #3 - this makes the City of Centerville not liable for any damage to the City of Lino Lakes - but in the next item the Department carries liability insurance protecting both Cities. Mr. Jaworski felt the paragraphs are inconsistent. He assumed that this pre - mimum is part of the cost to the City of Lino Lakes. There was discussion of these two items, with Mr. Locher pointing out areas that would be covered, and he had some questions on Item #3 - he felt there should be some clarification of the language. Mr. Jaworski - Item #10 - no provisions for cancellation in the 5 year life of the contract. This is binding furure Councils - he felt there should be provisions for cancellation by either City for their own pro- tection. Mayor Gourley said Centerville needs to be able to plan for capital expenditures and without a contract, it would be impossible for thses sort of plans to be made. Mayor Gourley pointed out that the Fire Study indicated that the need for a Fire Station would be in the North West quadrant of the City - not on the East side. Mr. Jaworski - Item #3 - $5000.00 expenditures - is this per year? per day? per week? per what? Mrs. Elsenpeter said the members of this ;7 March 23, 1981 committe should be members of the Council. Mr. Schumacher felt that by putting this limit on the expenditures, it would give the City of Lino Lakes input into the consideration of larger planned expenditures. Mr. Jaworski said it doesn't say per what and he felt this should be noted. Mr. Englund said this is %5000.00 per year. Mr. Schumacher felt the City Fire Marshall could be considered he felt that members should be someone who is familiar with teh needs of the City. Mr. Schumacher said this was left open and anyone could be considered. Mr. Jaworski - there is nothing in this contract that allows the Centerville Fire Department of collect from the home owner on insurance that covers fire calls - shouldn't the City of Lino Lakes be receiving credit for this? This should be checked out - Mr. Englund did not know if this practice was being done by the department. Mayor Gourley - Item #3, Item #13, plus two items that are not included in the contract - these are to be clarified. Mr. Schumacher will clarify these items. Mr. Jaworski said that ifthis insurance clause is in the policies, then he felt if this is collected by the Centerville Fire Department, then the City of Lino Lakes should be given credit. Mrs. Elsenpeter - Iten #6 - this deals with retaining the firemen for crowd control - and who is in control - the fire cheif or the police officer? Mr. Englund felt that in that case the policemen would be in charge. Mr. Jaworski asked that some language be included to insure there could be consideration of reducing the area covered by Centerville, if and when this City becomes involved in their own Fire Department. Mr. Jaworski moved to table this matter until April 6, 1981 Special Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. MOLIN Mr. Schumacher reported that Mr. Molin had presented a performance bond in the amount of $6000..00 to insure the landscaping be done as re- quested. The type, size and location of the landscaping was discussed. Mr. McLean moved to accept this plan with a June30, 1981 deadline, with the Building Inspector authorized to issue his occupancy permit. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McLean moved to ajourn. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Aye 11:45P.M. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at a regular scheduled meeting held on April 13, 1981. „%'6 i Edna L. S.rner, Clerk- Treasurer 1 1 27 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION 81 -5 RESOLUTION REVIEWING AND ACCEPTING THE EINVOIRNEMTAL RESOURCES SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE ICTY OF LINO LAKES. WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes was in receipt of a letter from the Metropolitan Council requesting additional information for its Comprehensive Plan , and WHEREAS, The City Planner has prepared an additional supplement dealing with Enviornmental Resources Inventory and Policies, and WHEREAS, The Lino Lakes City Council has reviewed this suppplement and have made additional amendments, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Lino Lakes City Council has reviewed and accepted the Enviornmental Supplement to the Comprehensive Plan, 2. That the Lino Lakes Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the Enviornmental Supplement, 3. That the Lino Lakes City Council requests the Metropolitan Council to terminate suspension on the review of the Comprehensive Plan, 4. That the Enviornmental Resources Supplement fulfills the requirements of the Land Use Planning Act. Passed by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 23rd day of March, 1981. F. Kenneth Gourley, Mayor iLA) Edna L. Sarner, Clerk- Treasurer April 6, 1981 City Council The Special Meeting of the Lino Lakes /was called to order at 8:00 P.M., April 6, 1981 by Acting Mayor Elsenpeter. Council members present; Kulaszewicz, Jaworski, Absent; McLean. Mayor Gourley will be late but had requested that the meeting begin. INPUT FOR SENATOR DAHL CONCERNING INCREASE OF FUEL TAXES Mr. Schumacher had made a copy of a letter from Senator Dahl concerning the proposed increase in gas tax. This tax has never been increased two legislative sessions in a row. He is requesting input from this Council on their concerns - either with support or objections. Mr.