Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/1993 Council Minutes132 COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 26, 1993 Staff members present: City Engineer, Darrell Schneider; City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; Consulting Planner, Bob Kirmis; Planning Coordinator, Mary Kay Wyland; Public Works Director, Don Volk; City Administrator, Randy Schumacher and Clerk -Treasurer Marilyn Anderson. Changes to the Agenda: Mr. Schumacher explained that Mr. Dave Miller is unable to attend this evening. He was to speak under Open Mike. Mr. Schumacher asked that Item 11C be added under New Business titled, Update on Regional Park Special Legislation Regarding Assessments. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DISPOSITION MINUTES: Board of Review, April 5, 1993 Approved Regular Council Meeting, April 12, 1993 Approved DISBURSEMENTS: April 26, 1993 Approved Centennial Fire District Approved REGULAR AGENDA OPEN MIKE Joseph Grafft, District Memorial Ambulance Service - Mr. Grafft said that a proposal has been made to sell/lease District Memorial Hospital and its ambulance service to Health One. He presented written information and used the overhead projector to PAGE 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 illustrate, to the audience, certain information regarding the ambulance service presently serving the City of Lino Lakes. He reviewed the current ambulance services provided by District Memorial Hospital (DMH), the services proposed by Health Span as well as options available to all the communities currently served by DMH. Currently seven (7) communities served by DMH are looking at forming a joint powers agreement to study the options for ambulance service. Mr. Grafft asked that the Lino Lakes City Council appoint someone to represent the City at a meeting scheduled for tomorrow evening. Mayor Reinert thanked Mr. Grafft for his presentation and explained that the City Council will consider his request for a representative from Lino Lakes and let him know. Reshanau Park Estates Homeowner's Association - Director Kerry Ostergren, 6900 Black Duck Drive, asked to address some misconceptions that seem to be prevalent about Outlots A and B which are owned by the Reshanau Park Homeowner's Association. A complete copy of her presentation to the City Council this evening with the addendum will be made a part of the permanent City file. The misconceptions include: 1. Plans for a boat launch were turned down by the City Council several years ago. 2. At the Planning and Zoning meeting August 12, 1992, the recommendation was made to place berms on the outlots to prevent lake access. This was accepted by the association but with the change of leadership, the association continued to press for a boat launch. 3. This is a battle between the existing lake homeowners and the Reshanau Park Estates Homeowners Association. 4. We do not understand the other lake shore homeowners point of view and are not being neighborly about it. 5. Park side association members are not concerned about milfoil and the quality of the lake because they do not live directly on the lake. 6. We (Reshanau Park Estates Homeowner's Association) are out to destroy people's reputation. PAGE 2 133 134 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 7. The boat launch is 50 feet plus. 8. We will be launching 30 foot and 40 foot boats on our world class ramp. 9. There will be 30, 40, 50 or a 100 people using the boat ramp. 10. The lake parcel on West Shadow Lake Drive owned by 17 nonresident homeowner's is divided into 17 different parcels. 11. Our 17 park side homeowner's are less responsible than the 17 owning the above mentioned parcel. 12. Our association members are not paying taxes on Outlots A and B. Ms. Ostergren written statement includes her response to these misconceptions. Ms. Ostergren addressed the Council work shop meeting process. She noted that she has attended several of these meetings and it appears that this is when decisions affecting residents lives are made. These sessions are not televised and are held at inconvenient times for a majority of the population. The sessions are not public hearings so that residents are not allowed the opportunity to ask pertinent questions nor clarify inaccuracies made by elected officials and staff. Ms. Ostergren said she opposed these meetings and asked that this process be changed so that the public can see decisions being made in City government. Ms. Ostergren addressed agenda item No. 3H, SECOND READING, Ordinance No. 93 - 04, Amending the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance by Repealing Public and Semi -Public Uses from Various Zoning Districts Within the City and noted that this proposed ordinance is a direct result of the Outlots A and B as evidenced by Mr. Brixius' memorandum to Mary Kay Wyland. Ms. Ostergren read a portion of the memorandum. She said that she opposed the first reading of the proposed ordinance at the March 22, 1993 City Council meeting, however it was passed. Because of the conflict with regard to the outlots and the fact that the association agreed to mediation, the City Council agreed at the April 7, 1993 work session to postpone the second reading until the boat launch issue was resolved through mediation. At the April 21, 1993 work session, the ordinance was placed on the April 26, 1993 agenda again. Mr. Schumacher told the City Council that they could take the item off of the agenda. Mr. Hawkins explained that the PAGE 3 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 ordinance change does not affect Outlots A and B because the Association is already in violation and the change is to provide clarity to the existing ordinance. Ms. Ostergren said the City has admitted to the ambiguity of the existing ordinance with respect to private parks. Mr. Brixius has said the current ordinance does not address private parks and the City should make some interpretation. Mr. Hawkins said at the October 12, 1992 City Council meeting that he did not consider Outlots A and B a park. It is Ms. Ostergren's opinion that the second reading of this ordinance this evening is one (1) example of how the City does not act in good faith. At the April 7, 1993 Council work session, the City Council agreed not to take action against the Association pending the outcome of mediation. However, another threatening letter has been received from the City along with a letter from Mr. Hawkins to the Mayor and City Council dated April 12, 1993. Ms. Ostergren said that the City sabotaged the mediation process with other lake shoreowners and continues to rule by intimidation. She quoted the letter. Ms. Ostergren gave the City Council a copy of a letter dated April 26, 1993 from attorney Thomas M. Hart who has concluded that there are no violations on Outlots A and B. She said his conclusions were supported by the planning consultant, DNR, and by a letter from the previous City Planner. The letter and the attachments can be found in the file at city hall. Ms. Ostergren quoted from a portion of Mr. Hawkins' letter dated April 12, 1993 regarding "FACTS". She told Mr. Hawkins this portion of his letter was fiction. The only changes were improvements to the boat launch. Ms. Ostergren read a portion of the October 12, 199 City Council minutes regarding Mr. Hawkins' legal opinion regarding the outlots. She explained that, based on his opinion at that meeting, the Association ordered the cement planks to finish the ramp for the boat launch. This occurred prior to receipt of the letter from Mr. Schumacher in mid-March. Ms. Ostergren explained that at the March 22, 1993 City Council meeting she had asked Mr. Schumacher if he had inspected the boat launch himself. Mr. Schumacher had said no the building official had inspected the outlots. She asked who was the building official? Ms. Ostergren said she called Mr. Kluegel and asked for a copy of the most recent inspection report. Mr. Kluegel said he had given the report to Mr. Schumacher last fall. Ms. Ostergren asked Mr. Kluegel if he had inspected the outlots recently and he said he had not been to the site since last fall. Ms. Ostergren said she spoke with Mr. Jackson on April 7, 1993. PAGE 4 135 136 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 He said he has not inspected the site. Ms. Ostergren stated that the property was not inspected by Mr. Kluegel until March 30, 1993. At that time another resident was at the site and Mr. Kluegel asked her if there had been any excavation. Ms. Ostergren said that she then called Mr. Kluegel and asked him why he went to the outlots. He said he was sent to take pictures and asked if the ramps were transported over City streets. She told him that no road restrictions were violated. Ms. Ostergren said that Mayor Reinert had told her that his wife and daughter had visited the model home in Reshanau Parks Estates and were told by the salesperson that there would be a boat launch for the Association members. She asked why he did not take action at that time if he thought that this was in violation of the plat approval? Ms. Ostergren said at the April 21, 1993 Council work session it was stated that the Association was in violation of the permitting process and the City would take action against them. There was a lengthy discussion regarding this matter including how long the Association should be given to remove the boat launch. From this discussion it appeared that the removal of the boat launch was a life or death situation. On April 22, 1993 Ms. Ostergren contacted Pete Kluegel, Building Official and asked him how the Association could get a permit from the City for the boat launch. Mr. Kluegel told her that the DNR has control over this matter. Ms. Ostergren said that the Association did have a permit and Mr. Kluegel asked her what was the problem. Ms. Ostergren asked Mr. Kluegel what would happen if someone was in violation by not having a permit. Mr. Kluegel told her that he would have them apply for a permit. She asked Mr. Kluegel what would happen if someone constructed a deck without a permit. Mr. Kluegel said he would write to the homeowner and ask them to apply for a permit within 30 days or so. Ms. Ostergren felt it was amazing that the City has a different procedure for the Association. Ms. Ostergren said that the City has stated that the Association must go through a PDO rezoning for the outlots. The PDO process was not adopted until July 13, 1992. However, the Association had applied for their permits from the DNR, ACORP and the RCWD in April, 1992 and commenced the construction in June, 1992. She noted that Council Member Neal had trespassed on the property and stopped the work by having the Police Department put up police tape to prevent further work. On March 31, 1993 Ms. Ostergren spoke with Officer Keller who stated that the only reason police tape was put up was because Council Member Neal had instructed them to do so. Normally police tape is used when there is a PAGE 5 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 murder. Ms. Ostergren said that Officer Keller told her that there was no complaint, no police report filed and no court order in place. The Association attorney's opinion is that Council Member Neal could be held accountable for his actions. Ms. Ostergren said that the City wants the Association to start the PDO process over again. She said this process is unnecessary and is like handing the City bullets since numerous decision makers reside on the lake. Ms. Ostergren quoted Mayor Reinert's statement, "when attorneys are brought into a matter everybody looses". She said that the Association would like to avoid that situation. Ms. Ostergren noted that Mayor Reinert had said that the City is involved in 12 lawsuits. She said she has heard recently that five (5) more lawsuits are being considered. In reference to the boat launch vandalism, Ms. Ostergren quoted Mayor Reinert as saying, "a person is not guilty until proven guilty". She said that the City recognizes the ambiguity of its ordinances and the differences in legal opinion yet the letter from Mr. Schumacher said that the City would take action in the very near future and the Association is not to use the boat launch. She asked what happened to not guilty until proven guilty? Ms. Ostergren said that Mayor Reinert wanted to do what was in the best interest for the citizens of the City. She asked Mayor Reinert if he considered the City taking legal action against the Association over a boat launch that affects less than 1% of the population of the City in the best interest for the citizens of the City? She asked if the City was willing to post bond of $10,196.00 for non usage of the property for this summer, $200,000.00 for the Moscatelli home that may not close because of pending litigation and the amount of damages to the developer and builder because of loss of purchase agreements? Ms. Ostergren said she was appalled as a tax payor to be funding so many City lawsuits. She also asked if the City Council was using their own money instead of the City's money, would they be so willing to engage in a frivolous lawsuit? Ms. Ostergren said that the Reshanau Park Estates Homeowner's Association has asked the City to be a party to mediation and she strongly urged the City to take advantage of the offer. A copy of the entire text of Ms. Ostergren message and the addendum will be made a part of the City file. Martha Walmsley, 6978 Black Duck Drive - Ms. Walmsley read from a prepared statement. She will send a copy to the City Clerk to be included in the permanent file. She discussed her concerns with some of the City's processes. She noted an issue raised at the April 21, 1993 work session regarding the statement that the Association had violated road restrictions by bringing cement planks in on City streets. Ms. Walmsley said that the Association does not own a boom truck and the delivery company PAGE 6 137 13.3 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 was informed about the road weight restrictions and received permission from Anoka County to bring the material in on County owned property and the weight was properly distributed on the axles. She said that the City Council should retract the statement and this is one (1) example of how rumors and misconceptions get started. Ms. Walmsley asked that statements be verified before they are made. Ms. Walmsley referred to Mr. Hawkins legal opinion quoting a sentence regarding language in the ordinance that could be construed to cover these activities (boat launching). In the absence of such language, such use would be prohibited. She noted that launching a boat is an activity and a boat launch is a structure. Zoning laws do not address activities and Ms. Walmsley added some examples such as flying a kite or mowing grass. She asked if these activities were against the law now? She also asked if the City Council would consider launching a canoe against the law? Ms. Walmsley quoted another statement in Mr. Hawkins legal opinion, "while all property owners on the lake would have the right to launch boats and conduct recreational activities on their properties, we do not believe this right would extend to allowing persons who are not residents of such property to such use, on a ongoing basis, since this is not customarily incidental to the ownership of lake shore property." She addressed each portion of the statement, gave her interpretation of the meaning of each portion and asked several questions regarding how the statement could be construed to cover other activities. Ms. Walmsley read from a letter dated June 18, 1992 from Mr. Schumacher to Mr. Hovey, DNR in which Mr. Schumacher is telling Mr. Hovey that when the Reshanau Park Estates plat was approved by the City Council, a boat access did not exist within the plat. What did exist was an outlot deeded to the Homeowner's Association for recreational purposes. She said she felt that the legal opinion by Mr. Hawkins may result in some very serious violations throughout the City and all property owners should be concerned. At the last City Council meeting, Ms. Walmsley came before the Council and discussed the vandalism committed by two (2) appointed City officials and called for their resignation. She reviewed the act of vandalism and explained that she called Mayor Reinert the morning after the vandalism and asked for the resignation of the two (2) City officials. The following week she spoke to Mayor Reinert again and he responded saying that he would not act until there is proof of a crime having been committed and there will be no proof until the suspects have been PAGE 7 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 prosecuted. Mayor Reinert did acknowledge that the two (2) officials dismantled the boat launch but said he was not sure that their activity was a crime. At the April 12, 1993 City Council meeting, Ms. Walmsley read from the City's Code of Conduct which applies to all elected and appointed officials and hired employees of the City. She asked that the issue of their resignations and their clear conflict between the Code of Conduct and their behavior on the evening of March 28, 1993 be addressed at the next City Council meeting. She asked that a written response be sent to her or include this matter on the next agenda. Ms. Walmsley noted that Mayor Reinert's response was that this matter would be discussed at a Council work session. The matter was not discussed at the following work session nor was the issue placed on this agenda. A written response has not been received either. Ms. Walmsley said that she was tired of his "slippery" answers and his "political double speak". She said the bottom line is that the City Council is responsible to the citizens of Lino Lakes for addressing those City official's breach of ethics. Ms. Walmsley asked Mayor Reinert specifically at which work session do you plan to address this issue? Mayor Reinert said at a work session following the litigation if this matter goes on. Ms. Walmsley said she felt that issues such as this should be faced squarely and be put to rest quickly. No one wins when such issues drag on indefinitely. She felt that the City government is hoping that the issue will "go away, sweeping it under the rug" until people forget. Ms. Walmsley said she would not forget and will return to open mike at every City Council meeting until the Council addresses this issue. She asked what does it take to get the City Council to address unethical behavior? She also asked if it is the burden of the citizens and the media to deal with activities that are at odds with the code of conduct? Do our Council Members shoulder part of this burden? Ms. Walmsley noted that her complaint is not so much that the two (2) people are still in office as it is the Council continues to discuss this issue. She said she assumes that the refusal of the Council to address the issue means that the Council condones that type of behavior. Elaine Malley, 6969 Black Duck Drive - Ms. Malley explained that she is a newcomer to the City and is concerned about being a good citizen and complying with local ordinances. She noted that her home is on Reshanau Lake and that she and her family are concerned about preserving the lake and using it in compliance with all regulations. Ms. Malley consulted with the DNR and the City about zoning regulations on the lake before starting construction of her house. She has found it difficult to comply with the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinances because you are given information then make plans and proceed according to the information given only to find out that a few months later you PAGE 8 139 140 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 are given a totally different interpretation. Ms. Malley said that after dealing with the City for one (1) year she is greatly concerned about the misuse of authority by the officials of the City especially in the area of zoning ordinances. She noted that the Reshanau Park Estates subdivision was zoned and approved by the City in a manner in which each homeowner would have a part ownership in Outlots A and B which gives them all access to Reshanau Lake. Ms. Malley asked if the City has a zoning ordinance that limits the use of the lakes to only lakeshore homeowners, why did the City approve a subdivision whose major concept and amenity is to allow all the homeowners both on and off the lake have access to the lake? She added the City did approve this concept and allow the developers to market and sell these amenities and now that the houses are built and the City is collecting a substantial amount of taxes from this new subdivision, the City has decided that it will not allow the park side lot owners to have access to the lake. Ms. Malley said that they did try to comply with the zoning ordinances but were given conflicting, misleading and false information. She explained that their property has been vandalized and were forced to hire an attorney to interpret the ordinances for them because they cannot trust the City officials. The City officials of Lino Lakes want to be able to control the use of residential property in a manner that far exceeds their authority and goes well beyond what is necessary for the safety and welfare of the residents. Ms. Malley wanted to alert the citizens of Lino Lakes and noted that this affects her today but could affect everyone else in the future. Ms. Malley referred to proposed Ordinance No. 93 - 04 and said that this ordinance would give the Planning and Zoning Board and the City even greater authority which will affect every resident in the City. She read from the ordinance the definition of a private park and said it could describe her yard and could give the City officials the power to declare yards as private parks and could allow officials to require that permits be obtained to use the yards. She asked several questions about the meaning of the definition. Ms. Malley said she has called several Council members and someone at the Planning and Zoning office to voice her concerns regarding the definition of a private park. She was told by two (2) Council members that the definition was ambiguous and could not answer her questions and that the second reading would be delayed until these concerns could be answered by the City Attorney. These questions are not yet answered however, the second reading of the ordinance is on the agenda. Ms. Malley said that Ms. Wyland at the Planning and Zoning office told her that if the definition for a private park is taken to extreme it PAGE 9 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 could apply to her back yard. However, Ms. Wyland noted that it is not the intention of the City to take authority to regulate back yards but to regulate R1 properties that do not contain a primary residence. Ms. Malley said she knows that the City does think it has the authority to control the ordinary recreational use of her back yard. She also said she has proof that the City is trying to pass the ordinance to give the Planning and Zoning Board even greater authority over the use of yards. She quoted a sentence from a letter written by the City Attorney already quoted above which relates to the use of Outlots A and B. She interpreted the sentenceof the letter. She also said she was not told about this ordinance and apparently this ordinance is not uniformly enforced. She asked once the new ordinance is approved, what is to prevent the City officials from applying the ordinance to every yard in the City? She asked the City Council to put a stop to the misuse and abuse of authority by some City officials and begin by not adopting the second reading of the ordinance until the ramifications on all residents of the City have been studied. Ms. Malley said she would give a copy of her statements to the Clerk. Tom Schaefer, 6911 Black Duck Drive - Mr. Schaefer noted that after the open mike portion of the last City Council meeting, Mayor Reinert noted that some things had been said in error during open mike. He asked that he be interrupted and corrected if any of his statements are in error. Mr. Schaefer said that at the last City Council meeting there was a commitment made to put the Code of Conduct matter on tonight's agenda as promised. It is not on the agenda and he asked the City Attorney who is responsible for upholding the City Charter and he assumed that there was somebody in front of him this evening who is responsible. Mr. Schaefer said that there was a commitment, there is responsibility and there is no action. He talked to a number of Council Members who told him that an inordinate amount of time is being spent on the boat launch issue while there are far more important matters that need to dealt with. It appeared to him that there was enough time to deal with the boat launch issue and not enough time to deal with a far more pressing issue, the challenge of the management of the City Charter. He felt that there was a misrepresentation of how City resources are being spent and there is clear failing to follow through on a commitment. Mr. Schaefer's second point was in regard to a redefinition of what is right and what is wrong. He referred to the vandalism at the private boat launch and Mayor Reinert's statements on the matter. He said he was worried because the persons caught doing PAGE 10 141 142 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 the vandalism attended the last City Council meeting and it appeared that at least some of them were smug and showed no remorse. Mr. Schaefer said that if the City will not take action to indicate that this conduct is not appropriate for a City official, then the City is condoning their actions and has failed an a morality leader of the community. Mr. Schaefer's third point was in reference to the proposed mediation between the Reshanau Park Estates Homeowner's Association and the Reshanau Lake homeowners. The City has taken steps to arrange the mediation process and has indicated that they will step aside and allow the process to run its course. On April 22, 1993 Mr. Schaefer asked the City Administrator what the City would do if the two parties could amicably resolve their dispute. Mr. Schumacher said that the City would not take action regarding the boat launch but would continue with the process of clarifying the ordinances so that such disputes could be avoided in the future. However, a letter dated that same day from Mr. Schumacher was mailed to the Reshanau Park Estates Homeowner's Association members which mandates the removal of the boat launch. He asked what kind of hypocrisy was being practiced here. The City Council process has compromised the mediation process. Why would the other lakeshore owners come to mediation if they knew that the City has mandated the removal of the boat launch? Why should the Reshanau Park Homeowner's Assn. continue mediation if this is merely wasting taxpayer's money on a useless exercise? He felt the mediation process had promise and asked the Anoka County Mediation Services to approach the City Council and ask that they join in the mediation process. There has not been a response to this request. Mr. Schaefer said that if the issues can be set aside and the enforcement action by the City can be set aside until the mediation process can be resolved or completed or allowed to run its course, he had faith in finding a common ground with the neighbors around the lake. Mr. Schaefer's fourth point regarded legal opinions. He referred to the City Attorney's legal opinion in the City Council minutes of last fall and relied on this opinion and proceeded with some of the development work on the outlots. He felt that the opinion has now changed by some arbitrary rules and referred to the written opinion sent to the Reshanau Park Estates Homeowners this past week. He asked further questions regarding this opinion and felt there were apparent inconsistencies in the legal opinion. He asked if this was a specific problem or a symptom of a bigger problem. Mr. Schaefer contacted several other cities to determine the number of lawsuits they were involved with. He said he noted that these other cities seemed embarrassed by the number of lawsuits pending against the City of Lino Lakes. This appears to be a symptom of a greater problem and felt that there PAGE 11 1 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 was a lot of taxpayers money going into places in Lino Lakes that are not going into the same places in other cities. This problem should be a greater concern that the small problem of a boat launch. Mr. Schaefer did not have any written comments and said he was comfortable with the recordings of the meeting. Mark Walmsley, 6968 Black Duck Drive - Mr. Walmsley explained that he has been before the City Council before to question the motives of the City Council for denying him basic rights as a lakeshore owner. He said Mayor Reinert's private response to him was that Mr. Walmsley did not understand the history of this issue. Mr. Walmsley told how he sees the issue. He began narrative at a time before the Reshanau Park Estates development was constructed and explained that the vacant land was used by the neighborhood as if it were their own private park. As the area was developed, the area became inaccessible to the neighborhood. The new neighbors used the lake just like everybody else. The developer worked closely with the land owner to develop a neighborhood of which the City could be proud. When plans were presented at a public hearing, Mr. Uhde was instructed to strict plans for an entrance monument, cobble stone streets and a boat marina from the preliminary plat. Mr. Walmsley said that the developer had expected that the neighbors would not appreciate him developing the area which had been like a private park to them. However, he did not expect that the neighbors would try to deny lake access from the outlots. The City did not try to pass ordinances at that time to outlaw the use of the outlots for a boat launch or change any other ordinance affecting the outlots. If the City had clearly changed ordinances so that boat access right had been lost on the outlots, the landowners should have been compensated. Mr. Walmsley continued saying that the lake shoreresidents left the public hearing feeling that they had the power to deny the developer some basic rights, rights the lakeshore residents have long enjoyed. The developers continued to develop the land and the outlots and a seller's market was created. Buyer's paid more for these lots than for any lot around the lake. However, the homeowners on the lake continued to be unhappy with the development in an area that they had been treating as their own park. Also many officials of the City live on the lake and have a vested interest in keeping boat access rights from the Reshanau Park Estates Homeowner's Association. The pressure on them is immense and the lakeshore owners continue to be unhappy with the development and do not want to share the lake. There is already one common lot and some lakeshore owners have spoken clearly on the matter. He felt it was unfair to suggest that the developer PAGE 12 143 144 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 and land owner were unethical to sell boat access on the lake. Mr. Walmsley said he and his neighbors have invested life savings into their lots and homes. He said he has become depressed because the City has put him in the position that he has to fight for basic rights enjoyed by all of the other lakeshore owners. He said he wants to be respected as a lakeshore owner, treated like a lakeshore owner who cares about the lake. He said he paid for the lake shore like everyone else and has a stake in the lake like everyone else. Mr. Walmsley did not have a prepared statement to give to the Clerk for the file. ENGINEER'S REPORT Consideration of Resolution No. 21 - 93 Ordering the Improvement of Phase II, Apollo Drive - Mr. Schneider explained at the previous Council meeting the Council ordered plans and specifications for the above described project and the work is proceeding. As a matter of procedure to meet Minnesota Statutes 429 requirements, it is appropriate at this time to order the project. Since this is a City Council initiated project, a four fifths vote is required. Mr. Schneider noted that if the bids for this project are not satisfactory, the City Council can discontinue the project. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 21 - 93. Council Member Elliott seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 21 - 93 can be found at the end of these minutes. PLANNING AND ZONING REPORT Vacation of Easement for Drainage and Utility Purposes 129.33 Feet East of Lake Drive and Oak Lane, Resolution No. 14 - 93 - Ms. Wyland explained that this matter had been tabled at the April 12, 1993 City Council meeting to allow staff an opportunity to consider alternatives presented by the applicant. These alternatives have been considered and the recommendation is as follows: 1. The easements be vacated and a 10 foot easement located down the center of the property be required. This would require that a home be located to one side of the lot or the other and provide for future subdivision of the lot when utilities become available to serve the site. PAGE 13 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 2. The property owners sign a form, provided by the City, indicating that they have no objections to the extension of utilities to service this site. This form shall be recorded with the County and apply to future owners. The City Zoning Ordinance provides, in Section 4, Subd. 17 Areas Without Sanitary Sewer, (5) All subdivisions in areas without public sanitary sewer shall be designed such that the larger nonsewered lots can be resubdivided to provide smaller sewered lots when sewer becomes available in the future. Homes shall be located on these lots so as to allow for future resubdivisions. The City Comprehensive Plan also provides for areas identified as ER, Expansion Residential, that ".. any land subdivided into one acre lots must be accompanied by a legally binding resubdivision plan one fourth acre minimum lot size. All houses on the one acre lots must be located to allow for easy resubdivision when sewer becomes available.." To accomplish the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement be placed down the center of the lot to insure compliance with these requirements. This would allow for future subdivision of the parcel into two buildable lots when and if sewer and water is available to serve the site. Council Member Bergeson noted that the applicant had requested that the easement be placed on one side or the other of the lot and asked why this is not feasible. Ms. Wyland explained that the purpose of the easement is to prevent the owner from building a house in the middle of the lot, thus preventing the resubdivision of the lot when utilities are available. Council Member Neal asked if the utility lines would run down the new easement in the center of the lot. Ms. Wyland said no, they would run across the front of the lot. The easement is merely to document the ability for resubdivision. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 14 - 93 removing the existing easements and locate a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement down the center of the property and require the new lot owner to sign a document indicating they would not object to the extension of utilities when they do become available. The property owner would be required to provide a new certificate of survey and easement document for recording purposes. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 14 - 93 can be found at the end of these minutes. PAGE 14 145 146 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 Extension of Conditional Use Permit, Fina Station - Ms. Wyland explained that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was approved for the FinaMark at 7509 Lake Drive on May 11, 1992 to allow for reconstruction of the facility. Since that time, Fina has experienced some cash flow problems and will not be able to initiate construction this season. They have requested a one (1) year extension of time and anticipate construction in the spring of 1994. The Building Inspector and the Fire Marshall have inspected the site and havereportedthat one (1) item of concern was noted and promptly corrected. Council Member Kuether moved to extend the CUP for one (1) year. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Site Plan Review, Laborer's Education & Training Center, Main Street and 24th Avenue) - Mr. Kirmis explained that the Construction and General Laborers Education and Training Fund of Minnesota and North Dakota has requested a site plan review to allow the construction of a 21,850 square foot education/training center at Main Street (County Road 14) and 24th Avenue. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the request and has recommended approval with 16 conditions. The site consists of 20 acres and includes an older home that will be leased to the present owner in trust. The home will be removed when the occupant no longer resides in it. Mr. Runyan, the architect for the project explained that this is a very unique facility. There are no similar facilities in this state. He outlined the various areas of the building. He also noted that the building could be used by OSHA and other such organizations. Mr. Runyan said that he has no problem with any of the conditions and the site meets the requirements of all the City ordinances. The identification sign will be discrete. Mr. Fred Chase, a member of help present the site plan. site will be on Main Street will be responding in about will be dining area for the catered. the Trustees was in the audience to He noted that the entrance to the and Anoka County Highway Department a week. Mr. Chase noted that there students, however, all food will be Council Member Elliott noted condition No. 16 regarding handicapped parking. Mr. Runyan said he was aware of the newest regulations and the parking area would be in conformance. PAGE 15 1 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 There was discussion regarding the tax status of the facility. Mr. Chase explained that at this time the facility is not tax exempt. The Carpenters Union has approached Anoka County regarding tax exempt status and were told that this facility would not qualify as tax exempt. Council Member Bergeson asked in the event that the site would become tax exempt in the future, would all of the land also become tax exempt. Mr. Hawkins explained that this determination is also under the jurisdiction of Anoka County. Council Member Kuether moved to approve the site plan with the following 16 conditions: 1. As required by ordinance, a landscape buffer is provided along 24th Avenue. The said buffer may consist of landscaping, planting, berming or other effective screening. 2. Color of proposed building material finishes be specified and approved by the City. 3. The off-street parking lot is modified to provide three (3) handicap spaces as required by State Law. 4. The site's western parking lot is modified to provide backing space for its "row -end" stalls. 5. An access permit to County Road 14 is received from the Anoka County Highway Department. 6. Noise levels emitted from the proposed Training Center do not constitute a nuisance as defined by the City Code or exceed applicable PCA standards. 7. All trash handling equipment is contained in a closed container. 8. The site plan is modified to identify all off-street loading areas. 9. The site plan is revised to illustrate all exterior lighting locations. Per the Ordinance, all lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area must be arranged to reflect light away from adjoining property. 10. The applicant submit a signage plan specifying sign height, size, etc. The sign plan will be subject to City approval. 11. The applicant agrees not to appeal assessments associated with future public sanitary sewer. PAGE 16 147 148 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 12. The applicant produce an agreement which outlines the conditions upon which the farmstead and its related buildings are removed. This item should be subject to comment by the City Attorney. 13. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to the submitted grading and utility plan. 14. Comments from other City staff. 15. The wetlands be delineated. 16. All parking areas comply with the American Disabilities Act. Council Member Elliott seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wyland continued the Planning and Zoning Report after the Redevelopment of Southeast Quadrant of Lake Drive and Main Street Report. CONSIDERATION OF REDEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHEAST OUADRANT OF LAKE DRIVE/MAIN STREET, ROSS' CORNER Mr. Schumacher explained that Anoka County has offered a proposal to Mr. Ross for the acquisition of right-of-way (R -O -W) at the above mentioned location. The Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) has requested that the City establish a new tax increment financing (TIF) redevelopment district for this area. By coordinating the acquisition and removal of the buildings with Anoka County, the City would be able to accommodate the needs of Anoka County, the Economic Development Authority and Mr. Ross. Mr. Schumacher noted that the City has been working with Mr. Ross for several years and had established an Economic District for this area. If Anoka County proceeds and purchases the R -O -W from Mr. Ross the existing buildings will be removed and this will impact the TIF district. The EDAB has recommended that the City negotiate with Anoka County for the removal of the building so that the entire process will be completed in a timely,manner. Mr. Ron Batty, financial consultant explained that the issue is what does the City want to do and when does the City want to do it. He noted that the current TIF district legally lapsed in October, 1992 because the City did not do anything with the property within the three (3) year time limit. He also noted that if the City creates an economic development district, the City will be limited with the use of the property. Mr. Batty suggested establishing a redevelopment district which will allow 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 25 years to capture increment. The first problem to be resolved is to be sure that the current buildings are not removed prior to the implementing of the district. This will require an agreement between Anoka County, Mr. Ross and this City. Council Member Bergeson noted that the agreement requires the cooperation of the landowner and asked if the City has a verbal agreement with him. Mr. Schumacher explained that he has met with Mr. Ross and has explained this concern. Mr. Ross does understand that it is to his advantage to cooperate in this matter. Council Member Neal asked if the City would pay for the removal of the buildings and he was told no. Council Member Neal noted the presence of old buried gas tanks on the property and asked who would pay for the cleanup if there is contamination? This is the responsibility of the landowner and there are funds available to help landowners in this situation. Council Member Kuether asked if Mr. Ross plans to rebuild. Mr. Schumacher explained that Mr. Ross is considering relocating his business. Mr. Schumacher noted that a $1,000.00 escrow posted by Mr. Ross was discussed at the City Council work session. The escrow would cover the costs of establishing a new TIF district. Mr. Schumacher said that these costs could come from the new redevelopment district if Mr. Ross does not post the escrow. Mr. Batty suggested starting the procedure for establishment of the district and calling for a public hearing. If Mr. Ross agrees to enter into the agreement the public hearing could be postponed. Council Member Neal moved to authorize Mr. Batty to begin the process to establish a new TIF redevelopment district giving the property a full six (6) years of development opportunity prior to the loss of the district and to authorize the City Administrator to negotiate an agreement with Anoka County for the removal of the existing buildings on the Ross property and negotiate a $1,000.00 "good faith" escrow with Mr. Ross. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CONTINUATION OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REPORT Final Plat Review, Park Grove - The final plat for the Park Grove development consists of 80 single family lots. This plat is located to the east of PineRidge, to the west of Birchwood Acres and south of Shenandoah, II. The plat received preliminary approval by the Park Board on April 6, 1992, by the Planning and Zoning Board, September 9, 1992 and by the City Council on PAGE 18 149 150 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 September 28, 1992. A development contract was signed on March 11, 1993 and a final grading plan was submitted February 23, 1993. All financial guarantees are in place and construction is proceeding. Council Member Kuether moved to approve the final plat of Park Grove as submitted. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Final Plat Review, Brandywood Estates, III - The Brandywood Estates, Third Addition received preliminary plat approval from the Park Board and Planning and Zoning Board on May 9, 1990 and from the City Council on August 13, 1990. This addition contains 33 lots and is located on the southern boundary of Brandywood Estates. A development contract was signed on March 16, 1993 and the grading plan was submitted March 1, 1993. Financial guarantees are in place to cover the construction of the plat. City staff have reviewed the final plat documents and recommend approval of the final plat. Council Member Kuether moved to approve the final plat of Brandywood Estates, Third Addition as submitted. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Council Member Neal asked how streets are named because it appeared that some names on this plat are similar to street names in other parts of the City. This can cause confusion for emergency vehicles. Ms. Wyland explained how streets are named and explained that the streets in this plat are continuation of streets from the Brandywood Estates first and second additions. Voting on the motion, motion carried unanimously. FIRST READING, Ordinance 93 - 06 Amending Subdivision Ordinance by Requiring Delineation of Wetlands in Preliminary Plat Data Requirements - City staff has determined that a wetland delineation at the time of submittal of preliminary plat information will aid in the review process and save both the developer and staff time and dollars by clearly designating developable area. The wetland delineation must be prepared by a person qualified according to standards set out by the Army corps of Engineers and/or Department of Natural Resources. Legal notices regarding this proposed ordinance have been placed in the legal newspaper and the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended adoption of the ordinance. Council Member Neal moved to adopt the first reading of Ordinance No. 93 - 06 Amending the Subdivision Ordinance by Requiring the PAGE 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 Delineation of Wetlands in Preliminary Plat Data Requirements and dispense with the reading. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Council Member Bergeson asked how someone would get this data. Ms. Wyland explained the process. Voting on the motion, motion carried unanimously. FIRST READING, Ordinance No. 93 - 07 Amending Section 4, Subdivision 5 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Lot Provisions - City staff has determined that the Zoning Code does not specifically prohibit the construction of buildings on lots located on unimproved right-of-way (R -O -W). Construction of buildings on unimproved R -O -W could prove to be a serious detriment to the orderly development of the City. Therefore, the attached ordinance is being proposed to replace the emergency ordinance No 93 - 03 enacted in March 8, 1993. The notice for the public hearing of this ordinance has been published in the legal newspaper. The proposed ordinance was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board at their April 14, 1993 meeting. Council Member Bergeson asked if there were existing homes on unimproved R -O -W? Mr. Schumacher said he thought that there were none. Council Member Kuether asked if the street had to be blacktopped. Ms. Wyland explained that this depends on the location of the property. The City does have some streets that are gravel only, construction would be allowed on approved lots. Council Member Neal moved to adopt the first reading of Ordinance No. 93 - 07 and dispense with the reading. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. SECOND READING, Ordinance No. 93 - 04 Amending the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance by Repealing Public and Semi -Public Uses from Various Zoning Districts Within the City - The first reading of this ordinance was at the March 22, 1993 Council meeting. The item was not placed on the April 12, 1993 agenda but is now being presented for its second reading. As additional background information, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on Wednesday, March 10, 1993 regarding this ordinance. After due consideration the Board recommended that the amendment be accepted by the City Council. This proposed ordinance is designed to repeal public and semi- public uses from various City zoning districts and clarify those allowed in the PSP, Public and Semi -Public districts. PAGE 20 151 15 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 The preparation of the draft amendment was originally prompted by a desire to provide regulation for "private parks" as was included as part of the Reshanau Park Estates plat. To address this issue the City Attorney suggested that an ordinance amendment be pursued which would: 1. Define public and private parks, and 2. Require parks (public and semi-public uses) to hold a PSP, Public and Semi -Public Zoning designation). The following is a brief summary of the proposed ordinance: Section 1. The current zoning ordinance does not include any park related definitions. So as to avoid future problems relating to the public-private park issue, definitions for both terms have been provided. Sections 2 - 12. So as to fully realize the intent of the City's PSP Zoning District, various public and semi-public uses have been repealed from various City zoning districts. The repealing of such uses will require schools, parks, and municipal buildings to hold PSP zoning designations. The repealing of such uses is generally considered positive in that the City is provided an opportunity to determine whether a particular public/semi-public use is appropriate for a particular tract of land via the zoning process. Section 13. This section has been revised to include the following modifications: The reference to "parks" in Item 6 (D) has been changed from "parks" to "public parks". The modification is intended to remove any questions regarding the allowance of private parks within the district. Such a reference would mean that "private parks" would only be allowed via the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) designation. This amendment was originally instigated by a desire to regulate "private parks". While the amendment addresses this issue, it also substantiates the intent of the City's "PSP" zoning district by requiring public and semi-public uses (schools, parks, municipal buildings) to hold a public and semi-public zoning designation. PAGE 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 An additional item is that of accessory uses. The City's existing accessory use regulations provide a level of uncertainty as to what types of accessory uses are expressly permitted within the PSP zoning district. Mr. Kirmis explained that this draft ordinance was prompted by the desire to define private parks. He also noted that if this draft ordinance is adopted, a private single family lot could be construed to be a private park. However, the issue will be to deal with the primary use of the lot. The major implication of the ordinance is that all public use of property must be rezoned to Public and Semi -Public designations. Mr. Kirmis explained that if the City Council felt that there was a problem with any portion of the draft ordinance it could be tabled for further definition. Council Member Kuether moved to delay action on Ordinance No. 93 - 04 until after mediation is completed to show good faith. Council Member Elliott seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinert asked Mr. Hawkins if this action has any effect on the Reshanau Park Estates matter? Mr. Hawkins said it is his opinion that neither the adoption or lack of action on the ordinance has any effect on that particular matter. PARK BOARD REPORT Consideration of a Request for "Start Up" Funding for Friends of Lino Lakes Parks Foundation - Park Board Member Jacquelyn Farm has initiated the establishment of a non-profit organization called Friends of the Lino Lakes Parks Foundation. This foundation is a 509A3 Corporation and falls into the classification of a Support Organization. Ms. Farm has secured funding for the legal work through her husband's firm, Olsen, Thielen and Company, LTD. This request is for funding for publication of a promotional brochure to be sent to the residents of the City, a filing fee for the foundation and miscellaneous expenses such as postage. The funding request is as follows: 1. Filing fee - $150.00 2. Brochure (set up and printing) - $400.00 3. Miscellaneous Expenses (postage, etc.) - $200.00 Mr. Schumacher suggested that there is money in the 1993 Budget under City Promotion and a portion could be used for this project. Council Member Bergeson explained that the brochure may PAGE 22 153 154 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 be included with the next newsletter to avoid mailing costs so at this time it is not known exactly how much money will be needed. After further discussion, Council Member Kuether moved to fund the "start up" of the Friends of Lino Lakes Parks Foundation up to $850.00 and the money is to come from the City promotion portion of the budget. Council Member Elliott seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a Proclamation for Arbor. Day - Mr. Volk noted that over the past several years this City has taken an active part in the annual Arbor Day celebrations. This year the celebration will take place on Friday, May 7, 1993. Celebrations will be held in the morning at Rice Lake Elementary School and in the afternoon at Lino Elementary School. The City will receive a Tree City award for the fifth consecutive year. A proclamation is part of the ceremonies and Mr. Volk asked that the City Council adopt the prepared Arbor Day Proclamation. Council Member Neal moved to adopt the Arbor Day Proclamation. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a Proclamation for Earth Day - Mr. Volk explained that the City's annual Earth Day clean-up and celebration activities are scheduled for Saturday, May 8th. These activities will be held at Country Lakes Park. Part of the activities will include the reading of the Earth Day Proclamation. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt the Earth Day Proclamation. Council Member Elliott seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPORT Consideration of Resolution No. 22 - 93 Establishing License Fee for Residential Solid Waste Haulers - Mr. Volk explained that recently the City Council passed Ordinance No. 93 - 02 mandating that all solid waste haulers operating in the City of Lino Lakes must be licensed. Resolution No. 22 - 93 will establish the fees for the license. The fees can be adjusted with the adoption of another resolution. Council Member Elliott moved to adopt Resolution No. 22 - 93 Establishing License Fee for Residential Solid Waste Haulers. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PAGE 23 1 1 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 ATTORNEY'S REPORT SECOND READING - Ordinance No. 93 - 05 Extending the Moratorium on the Siting of Adult Uses -Principal as Defined Herein Within any Zoning District of the City of Lino Lakes - Mr. Hawkins explained that the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 12, 1993. Since that time there have been no changes or adjustments to the ordinance and also there has been no public comment. The original moratorium was adopted May 11, 1992. The proposed ordinance is well along in the process toward completion. Mr. Schumacher, Mr. Brixius and Mr. Hawkins have met on this matter and have determined that some minor changes should be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. A public hearing on the draft ordinance will be held at the May, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93 - 05 Extending the Moratorium on the Siting of Adult Uses -Principal as Defined Herein Within any Zoning District of the City of Lino Lakes for 180 days. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 93 - 05 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Settlement/Agreement for Legal Action Pending Relative to the 1991 Brandywood Estates Improvement Project - Mr. Hawkins explained that the contractor in Brandywood Estates, Arcon Construction had not been able to complete the project by the contract completion date. The contractor had claimed that weather was the primary reason. The City held back a portion of the payment for the contract in the amount of $30,000.00. The City assessed the project including the $30,000.00 and now the claim by Arcon Construction has been resolved for $30,000.00. It was felt that the City's consulting engineering company, SEH, had responsibility in this matter and they have agreed to contribute $10,000.00 to conclude the matter without accepting any blame. The City will recover all costs so that there will be no expenditure of City funds. Council Member Neal moved to approve the agreement as outlined by Mr. Hawkins. Council Member Elliott seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF MILO BENNETT TWO (2) YEAR CONTRACT Mr. Schumacher explained that at the time Chief Bennett was hired by the Centennial Fire District, it was recommended by the steering committee to enter into a two (2) year employment PAGE 24 155 156 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 contract due to the potential instability of the newly created position. At it April, 1993 quarterly meeting, the steering committee recommended unanimously to approve an additional two (2) year employment contract for Chief Bennett. Council Member Kuether moved to accept the recommendation of the Centennial Fire District steering committee to extend Chief Bennett's employment contract through 1994. Council Member Elliott Seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Ways and Means Committee reviewed all non-union and support staff for 1993 compensation adjustments. Four (4) positions received Comparable Worth adjustments which reflect their increased job responsibilities. The balance received cost of living adjustments. In addition, the Committee is recommending adoption of a department and personnel flow chart with corresponding Pay Equity data. The committee used both internal and external comparisons for the proposed adjustments. Council Member Bergeson explained that the only two (2) components used to determine increases was the cost of living and change of responsibility. He explained that there were no merit considerations. Council Member Elliott moved to adopt the Ways and Means Committee recommendation for non-union/support staff compensation adjustments. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Fire District Litigation Update - Mr. Schumacher explained that the Centennial Fire District received a request from the previous Fire Chief for payment of additional hours work outside the authorized agreement. The Committee denied the request $15,000.00. They did authorize a settlement up to $4,500.00. Over the past year, negotiations have taken place and a settlement in the amount of $4,000.00 has been accepted. This case had been scheduled for an April, 1993 court hearing. Mr. Schumacher noted that this is one (1) of the 12 lawsuits that was referenced during the Reshanau Park Estates open mike presentations. He felt that some of the lawsuits were frivolous and in many others the City must defend itself. Mr. Hawkins said that this City is not being sued because they are doing things incorrectly. PAGE 25 1 1 1 1 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1993 No action is necessary on this matter. NEW BUSINESS REMINDER, Charter Commission Meeting, Wednesday, April 28, 1993, 7:00 P.M. Update, Senior Housing Meeting on Saturday, April 24, 1993, 2:00 P.M. - Council Member Neal explained that he had attended the meeting. Because the date had been changed and then advertised incorrectly, the attendance was not what it should have been. However, a presentation was made for those attending. All persons 55 years of age or older are eligible to rent these units. Council Member Neal will inquire as to whether handicapped persons must be 55 years or older. Another informational meeting may be held later. Regional Park Assessment Legislation Update - Mr. Schumacher explained that there was an attempt to pass legislation that would make it very difficult to assess regional parks for improvements such as streets, sewer and water installations. This is a very big concern for the City of Lino Lakes because of the Chain of Lakes Regional Park. The Metropolitan Council responded to the concerns raised by the municipalities and counties and removed the legislation from consideration. They will try to provide other resources for future improvements. Mayor Reinert referred to Mr. Grafft's presentation this evening regarding the District Memorial Hospital and ambulance service and asked the Council if they wanted someone to attend the May 6, 1993 Council work session to represent the Health One position. It was the consensus that they would like to hear both sides of the situation. Council Member Kuether moved to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Aye. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 10, 1993. Marilyn G. Anderson, Vernon F. Reinert, Clerk -Treasurer Mayor PAGE 26 157 158 Council Member Neal introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 21 — 93 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT OF TRUNK WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES, PHASE II, APOLLO DRIVE WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 9th day of November, 1992, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of trunk water and sanitary sewer utilities, Phase II, Apollo Drive, and ten days' mailed notice and two week's published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held on the 9th day of December, 1992 at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, and the 60 day waiting period from the date of the public hearing has lapsed as required by the City Charter, and two (2) petitions were received from five (5) of the eight (8) affected landowners opposing the proposed assessments, and WHEREAS, the City Charter requires that 51% of the affected landowners must approve the proposed assessments, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted on the 9th day of December, 1992 except that the improvement will not be financed with property assessments but with funding from the Lino Lakes Sewer and Water Area and Connection Fund. Adopted by the City Council this 26th day April, 1993. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn . nderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Elliott and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Elliott, Kuether, Neal, Reinert. The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 1 1 1 Council Member Elliott and moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 22 - 93 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A LICENSE FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE HAULERS LICENSES WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes adopted Ordinance No. 93 - 02 requiring all residential solid waste haulers to be licensed by the City of Lino Lakes, and WHEREAS, the annual license fee for the residential solid waste haulers must be established at a determined rate, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes to set the annual residential solid waste license fee at $75.00 for the first truck and $45.00 for each additional truck operating within the Lino Lakes City limits. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 26th day of April , 1993. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Mardjy) 'G. A erson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Neal and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergerson, Elliott, Kuether, Neal, Reinert. The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. 159 160 Council Member Kuether moved its adoption: introduced the following ordinance and CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 93 — 05 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE SITING OF ADULT USES— PRINCIPAL AS DEFINED IN ORDINANCE NO. 09 — 92 The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes ordains: Section No. I. WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes has directed the City Staff to study the siting of Adult Uses - Principal and to schedule the necessary public hearings, at which time public comment will be accepted and received regarding the placement and location of Adult Uses -Principal within the City, and Staff has not completed their study and public hearings have not been held; and additional time is needed to complete the necessary steps in implementing a final ordinance, and the moratorium as defined in Ordinance 09 - 92 will expire May 11, 1993, Section No. II. The City Council hereby directs that the moratorium as established in Ordinance No. 09 - 92 be extended 180 days from the original date of expiration (May 11, 1993). The City Council further directs that the staff continue to study and prepare a final ordinance, schedule the necessary public hearings and schedule the implementation of the final ordinance within the 180 day moratorium extension. Section No. III. This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage by the City Council and publication as required by the City Charter. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of April, 1993. PAGE 1 1 Ordinance No. 93 - 05 Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marlyn . Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member Bergeson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergerson, Elliott, Kuether, Neal, Reinert. The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. PAGE 2 161