Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/2002 Council MinutesCITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : March 25, 2002 TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:57 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmembers Carlson, O'Donnell, Reinert, and Mayor Bergeson MEMBERS ABSENT : Councilmember Dahl Staff members present: City Clerk, Ann Blair; City Administrator, Linda Waite Smith; Community Development Director, Michael Grochala; Public Services Director, Rick DeGardner (part); City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; Environmental Specialist, Marty Asleso City Planner, Jeff Smyser; and City Engineer, Jim Studenski. SETTING THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ITEM A. CONSIDERATIO i) March 25, 2002 (Check o. 64532 — 64677, $331,064.20) TURES: ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 13128 — 13152, $13,769.90) ii) Election Judge Approval OPEN MIKE genda. Councilmember O'Donnell ACTION Approved Approved Approved Public Information Meeting — Wellhead Protection, Tim Hillesheim, Utility Supervisor Hillesheim advised the Federal Safe Drinking Water and Minnesota Groundwater Protection Acts have mandated that all municipal well operators develop a wellhead protection plan. The purpose of COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 the plan is to address the long-term and chronic health effects of human caused contaminates to the groundwater supply. Utility Supervisor Hillesheim indicated the first portion of the plan requires the City to delineate the wellhead protection area, the drinking water supply management area, and assess the vulnerability of each well. The delineation identifies a specific land area that must be managed by public water supply to protect its wells from possible contamination. The vulnerability assessment indicates the level of potential for contamination of the aquifer. The Minnesota Department of Health has approved the delineation of Lino Lakes' wellhead protection area, the drinking water supply management area, and the vulnerability assessments for the City's wells and aquifer. Utility Supervisor Hillesheim submitted copies of part one of the wellhead protection plan to the City Council. No one else was present for open mike. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK There was no Finance Department report. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT IJANESCH There was no Administration Department repo PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REY AVE PECCHIA There was no Public Safety Departm PUBLIC SERVICES DEPART 'i P RT, RICK DEGARDNER There was no Public Services - ent 'eport. COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ` T DEPARTMENT REPORT, MIKE GROCHALA Public Hearing, SECOND READING, Ordinance 03-02, Peltier Lake Surface Water Zoning, Considering the adoption of surface water zoning requirements for Peltier Lake, Marty Asleson — Environmental Specialist Asleson advised this is a continuation of the public hearing, and the second reading of Ordinance No. 03-02, Adopting Surface Water Zoning Requirements for Peltier Lake. Environmental Specialist Asleson advised Peltier Island is a 30 -acre island on the north end of Peltier Lake and lies within the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve. Peltier Island and the surrounding lake contains a very unique and environmentally sensitive ecosystem. This area is sensitive because of the shallow water depths, unique aquatic vegetation, and a muddy bottom that is rich in nutrients. The area is also sensitive because of the unique colony of great blue herons and COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 great egrets that nest on the island. In fact, Peltier Lake Island is classified as the second largest heron colony in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Environmental Specialist Asleson indicated records of the herons' nesting habits in the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve have been maintained since 1945. Historically, there were three nesting sites in the Lino Lakes area. The birds appeared to have migrated to a single nesting area located on Peltier Island. In June of 2000, the herons and egrets began deserting the island, leaving behind nests, eggs, and offspring. In 2001, the colony was abandoned once again. Environmental Specialist Asleson advised on January 23, 2002, a task force of stakeholders met to discuss the problem. The group identified a number of possible reasons that may have led to the disappearance of the birds. Several strategies were formulated to protect both the bird colonies on Peltier Island, as well as the unique vegetative and aquatic features on the north side of the island. The creation of a no -wake zone area around the north side of t11and was suggested and unanimously supported by the task force. Environmental Specialist Asleson indicated on March 11, 2 public hearing and first reading of Ordinance No. 03-02. & reading of Ordinance 03-02, Regulating the surface use o Peltier Lake Island area, to include the no -wake zone County, as amended with an end -date of Septembe Environmental Specialist Asleson noted Anok the geographical placement of the proposed s included three alternatives. Anoka Count No. 1. o Lakes City Council held a was passed to approve the first ed watercraft on Peltier Lake in the tive No. 2 recommended by Anoka ad submitted a revised recommendation for no -wake zone boundary line on Peltier Lake, which ending adoption of the revised Alternative Environmental Specialist Asleson ise.ta -commends approval of the SECOND reading of Ordinance No. 03-02, regulating the use of motorized watercraft on Peltier Lake in the Peltier Lake Island area. Councilmember Carlson reques d clarification of the three new alternatives recommended by Anoka County. Jeff Perry, Natural Resources Specialist, Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department, presented a map depicting the three recommendations of Anoka County for the location of a slow/no-wake zone on Peltier Lake. Alternative No. 1 showed the no -wake zone line at approximately 350 feet south of the southern end of Peltier Island, running straight across the lake. Alternative No. 2 showed the no - wake zone line at approximately 350 feet south of Peltier Island and angling to the northeast. Alternative No. 3 showed the no -wake zone line at approximately 150 feet south of Peltier Island and angling to the northeast. Mr. Perry indicated these new recommendations were based on a comprehensive review and analysis of scientific literature and consideration of the public testimony provided at the various City Council work sessions and public hearings, both at Lino Lakes and Centerville. Additionally, concern had COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 been expressed by several of the lakeshore property owners that live on the northeast shore of Peltier Lake that the proposed angled no -wake zone line excluded those lakeshore owners from the no -wake zone. Their primary concern was for high-speed motorized watercraft activity traveling close to the proposed angled line, thereby impacting the safety of the swimmers near the lakeshore. Mr. Perry advised a neighborhood meeting was held involving 10 of the lakeshore property owners and eight of those 10 property owners recommended that the no -wake zone line run straight across the lake and not angle to the northeast. Therefore, Anoka County's new recommendation to the City Council, in the interest of the property owners and public safety concerns, was that the no -wake zone line run straight across the lake and not angle to the northeast as previously proposed. Mr. Perry added literature reviewed by Anoka County states motorized watercraft impacts on heron rookeries range from 100 meters to 500 meters. Additionally, he noted the shallow nature of the north end of the lake and indicated the proposed no -wake zone traverses in an area of approximately 10 feet of water and north of the line the lake shallo o as low as two and one-half feet deep. Community Development Director Grochala noted the ma Anoka County incorrectly depicted the three alternatives switched with Alternative No. 3. Councilmember Carlson requested a legal opinio ordinance. It was the opinion of City Attorne on an ordinance if they wish. Mayor Bergeson questioned whether if Lino Lakes and Centerville to differ ordinance does not include a time 1. He indicated the two cities would ha Lino Lakes' ordinance expi lud d in the recommendation from lternative No. 1 should be sunset clause included in the proposed at the City Council can place a time limit acceptable for the ordinances passed by the Cities of r example, he noted at this point the Centerville rney Hawkins felt this would not be problematic. ctive ordinances for a period of time and, at such time the could no longer be mutual ordinances. Councilmember Carlson noted the recent City Council work session, Community Development Director Grochala had suggestecn alternative to the sunset clause. She stated Councilmember O'Donnell had been absent from that work session and asked that Community Development Director Grochala restate this suggestion. Community Development Director Grochala suggested the ordinance be amended by removing the sunset clause and adding a new clause directing City staff to report back to the City Council by a certain date on the results of the no -wake zone, including whether or not the herons have returned to the rookery and whether the no -wake zone has improved the aquatic vegetation on the north end of the lake. Councilmember Carlson noted the follow-up report should include an update on other issues, such as the fish hatchery and shoreline erosion. 4 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 Community Development Director Grochala indicated the intent would be for City staff to continue working with Anoka County and the Department of Natural Resources to evaluate all the environmental components of the Peltier Lake island and surrounding areas. He indicated the primary concern regarding the inclusion of a sunset date was to ensure if the ordinance is adopted the results of this action will be followed and reported. Mayor Bergeson reopened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. and invited Mary Capra, Centerville City Councilmember, to speak first. Ms. Capra wished to express her individual concern regarding the sunset date included in the ordinance. She indicated because Centerville is a statutory City, it cannot place a sunset clause in its ordinances. However, because Lino Lakes is a charter City, they can include a time limit and she felt this would result in Lino Lakes holding the ordinance adopted by Centerville in their hands. She indicated the City of Centerville concurred with a two to three . review of the situation but asked that the Lino Lakes City Council reconsider the inclusion of a sunause in the proposed ordinance. Ron Marier stated he lives on the northeast corner of Peltie a . d asked that the City Council consider not only the herons but also the underlying veg m do exists at the north end of the lake. He indicated many experts have given their opinions . g the impact of disturbing the lake bottom, as well as the sensitive plants. He indicate ea al of water runs through Peltier Lake and the only buffer is the north end of the lake. � fe t eluding a sunset clause in the ordinance and allowing motorboats to travel through the nort e lake again in the future would rip up the plants and disturb the bottom of the lake and ; ately jeopardize the quality of the lake and its sensitive ecosystem. Mr. Marier asked the City Council to onsider the aquatic ecosystem and quality of Peltier Lake and secondarily the heron room ry. b r' ed the majority of the residents on the northeast side of the lake agree that protection s ecosystem and rookery come first over recreational considerations. Mayor Bergeson noted the Ci eceived a letter from eight residents on the northeast side of the lake asking that the no -wake zone lin run straight across the lake and not be angled. He invited a representative of that group to address this request. Nancy Bowring, 7608 Peltier Lake Drive, stated last week a number of the Peltier Lake lakeshore property owners met. She indicated that she had polled eight of the nine property owners on the northeast side of the lake and, due to safety concerns of an angled no -wake zone, six of those eight property owners agreed to support a no -wake zone 200 feet south of the island running straight across the lake. Additionally, eight of the nine property owners supported a no -wake zone 200 feet south of the lake angled to the northeast. She indicated all the property owners supported some sort of no - wake zone since they all agree that the entire ecosystem of the lake deserves attention. COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 Rod Kukonen, Chairperson of the City's Environmental Board, stated everyone agrees that the sensitive ecosystem of the north end of Peltier Lake needs protection. He noted all images and photographs presented of the lake show that the lake is essentially split in two. Mr. Kukonen stated he favors the original recommendation passed by the Environmental Board for a no -wake zone south of the island running straight across the lake. He noted over time as the island changes the herons may nest farther south on the island and the no -wake zone line proposed by the Board fits with the buffering requirements. He indicated the recommendation passed by the Board had actually been a compromise since the Board would have preferred no trespassing on the north end of the lake. Mr. Kukonen noted Amy Donlin, a member of the Environmental Board, was unable to attend this evening's meeting but had expressed her disapproval of the proposed sunset clause. He indicated the Board would prefer this issue be kept as simple as possible. Shelly Farmerie, 7425 Peltier Lake Drive, stated she has attempt , to ` er some specific factual information regarding the heron rookery at Peltier Lake Islaii ed in February 1996 the rookery had 690 birds, in February 1997 this number drop a; o 6 7 and in February 1998 there were no records. In February 1999 there were 555 birds, in F , 10 there were 625 and in June of 2000 there were 696, at which time the birds left the i -zl She indicated the individuals monitoring the island in June through July of 2001 noticed a laza, dif e ence in the birds. At that time they found five adults flying above the nests. She indicated ' Fe .' ary 2001 there were no records on the birds. She noted some key years of record keeping w �s ?g. Ms. Farmerie indicated Art Hawkins had through July. Additionally, Joan Galli attend this evening's meeting. a daily study of the heron rookery from April ecords of the herons, however, she was unable to Ms. Farmerie felt it would be very a .1 for the City Council to consider the recommendation brought forth by the Peltier a ;< _ oc' . & which suggested that the no -wake zone begin at the bog poles and extend to the north • the ake. She indicated the majority of the Association concurred that this was their fir choice for the location of the no -wake zone line. Ms. Farmerie stated prior to slalom skiing being introduced to the north end of the lake there had been no issues with, or complaints about the herons or the aquatic life of the lake. She noted the bog poles are already in place and would provide an easily maintained, economically sound method to post the no -wake zone since boats already must slow down to pass through them. She did not support the use of unsightly buoys to mark the no -wake zone. Ms. Farmerie stated she does not want the heron rookery to fail, however, she felt more research needed to be done to determine the reason for their disturbance. She also felt if the ordinance did not include a sunset clause a continuing investigation of the issue would not be a priority. Connie Grundhofer, 235 Linda, stated during the public hearing on March 11, 2002 she had mentioned the list of Minnesota endangered, threatened and special concern animals, birds and plants. ID COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 She presented the lengthy list to the City Council and noted this issue is not only a Minnesota concern, but also a specific concern for the City of Lino Lakes. She indicated there are at least 12 entries on the list of endangered, threatened and special concern animals, birds and plants that are found within the City of Lino Lakes and at least six of those are found at Peltier Lake. She stated the Peltier Lake area is a very special ecosystem that the City needs to take care of and be responsible for. She asked that the ordinance not include a sunset clause. Jennifer Kline, 7162 Hill Road, stated she works as a Program Manager for the Pollution Control Agency. She indicated she had done some research on this issue and found several reports from the State of Wisconsin on the effects of motorized water sports on aquatic ecosystems. These reports indicated that shallow lakes and rivers are the most affected by motorized water sports. She stated the concerns are for water clarity, water quality, shoreline erosion and aquatic macrophytes. She felt a no -wake zone to protect the north end of Peltier Lake will help decrease the negative impact on water clarity and noted that increased water quality and clarity can in se lakeshore property values. She asked that the City Council approve a no -wake zone for Peltier L a 5 d that the ordinance not include a sunset clause. Deborah Kelly, 7625 Peltier Lake Drive, stated she would,p northeast, as previously approved. However, she felt any t better than none. She stated she would prefer that the no -wake zone to angle to the -wake zone alternatives would be ce not include a sunset clause. Dave Loomis, 1567 Peltier Lake Drive, stated opy` atiri r e watercraft in a careless or reckless manner is against the law. Additionally, to operate a water a ' ' such a way that the wash or wake endangers, harasses or interferes with any pe ; or property is against the law. He indicated jet skies must travel at slow/no-wake speeds of 5 er e . ur or less within 150 feet of non -motorized boats and shorelines unless launching or landiirectly to or from open water. Additionally, jet skies must remain at least 150 feet fro E + o wim rafts, swimmers or any moored or anchored boat. He felt these Minnesota Stat ws, ° chic lready exist, are reasonable and that the ordinance under consideration would be redun. . e questioned why the City would feel the need to expand on laws already in place. Mr. Loomis noted Minnesota 1. • rohibits the use of a watercraft in such a way that the wash or wake endangers, harasses or inte eres with any person or property. He noted the definition of property was wide open, but he felt property meant any State, County or privately owned property. He believed any responsible boat owner/operator will abide by the State laws and the laws should be sufficient if properly enforced. Mr. Loomis indicated all Peltier Lake lakeshore property owners agreed the north end of the lake is a very delicate ecosystem, which was the primary reason for the installation of the bog poles around the island. He indicated the first choice of the Peltier Lake Association was for a no -wake zone beginning at the bog poles, and in fact would support a no -trespassing zone beginning at the bog poles. He acknowledged the herons are susceptible to human interference and he felt all human interaction should be avoided in the northern portion of the lake. COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 Mr. Loomis noted Lino Lakes is part of the seven county metropolitan area and Lino Lakes and Centerville are growing by leaps and bounds. As a result of this growth he believed there will be more people using Peltier Lake. He stated he favored inclusion of a sunset clause in the ordinance. Mr. Loomis stated prior to a final decision being made by the City Council he would like to see the results of an environmental impact study and, if such a study has not been undertaken, he would like to know why. Shelly Dentz, 1667 Peltier Lake Drive, stated she spoke with the owner of Trout Air regarding the fact that the herons fed at Trout Air quite frequently. She had asked the owner what time of day the birds were feeding on trout and was informed they were feeding at dawn and dusk. She also asked how many birds were seen feeding on the trout and was informed that hundreds of herons were seen feeding each day. She indicated the owner of Trout Air had contacted her State Senator, and several suggested solutions had been tried but failed. She noted the D:' a ent of Natural Resources will reimburse farmers for lost crops due to feeding deer, but would burse Trout Air for their fish loss due to feeding birds. Ms. Dentz indicated Trout Air closed in September 1998, the herons. In the year 2000 the ponds were depleted an found no fish available and fled to find food, leaving believed the reason the heron rookery at Peltier L being the herons' primary food source. In fact, th added. Ms. Dentz stated she has learned that hero without a food source. She felt in order be completely disallowed on the isl Ms. Dentz provided the City Counci colony abandonments have nearby. Additionally, becaus harassing the herons. 99 there was still plenty of fish for herons returned that spring they ung. She stated the owner of Trout Air be so successful was due to the fishery counts increased when more ponds were xist with people and with eagles, but cannot live e herons the best chance, human interaction should of the bog poles. ers with handouts regarding eagles, which indicated heron n their only predator, the bald eagle, chooses to nest ber ° of eagles have grown due to their protection, they are Ms. Dentz stated she would like for the herons to remain in the area and she would prefer a no -wake zone beginning at the bog poles. Gerald Lindner, 7413 Peltier Lake Drive, requested the Council to consider all the relevants facts before making a decision. He wished to present some additional considerations for the Council. Mr. Lindner advocated putting the "no wake" zone straight across the lake at the bog poles. He stated that meetings of the Lake Association showed area residents supported this idea. He felt this solution would provide the herons an adequate buffer. Mr. Lindner referenced a Rice Creek Watershed District study which he stated was initiated in 1990. He stated the study contained a tremendous amount of relevant information as to the history of this 8 COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 25, 2002 area, and the water quality. He felt it was important to pinpoint the cause of the phosphorous loading of Lake Peltier. Mr. Lindner stated he was concerned about the blue herons, and also was interested in working together with the cities of Lino Lakes and Centerville to improve aquatic habitat, recreation, fishing and the quality of the lake water. Mr. Lindner reiterated his request to have the "no wake" zone aligned with the bog poles and stated the Lake Association had voted unanimously on March 4, 2002 for this solution. Dave Pecchia, Chief of Police, stated he lives on the northeast end of Peltier Lake. He cautioned the City Council to not inadvertently create a public safety issue by approving a no -wake zone with an angle, thereby placing high speed boats and traffic close to the shore where the residents live. He noted the lake is very shallow and there are many young childr ho must travel a distance out into the lake to recreate. Jeri O'Connell, 1000 Main Street, stated she was present thi s a concerned citizen. She stated she has canoed and kayaked many of the local lakes ha oticed an increase in population on the lakes. She noted Peltier Lake is very shallow and°t e er aquatic life is being affected in addition to the heron rookery. She asked that the Cit it approve a no -wake zone. Mr. Perry stated it was Anoka County's position clause due to the concerns for water quality. Ha descriptions of the three no -wake zone altem Deb Peterson, 208 Palomino, believed i would not be so great. She questioned and how will the no -wake zone be Mayor Bergeson requested Perry stated this was correct. are not in favor of the proposed sunset at Anoka County has prepared legal s presented this evening. ake did not have a public boat launch the concerns ake zone is adopted, how will the public be informed Councilmember Reinert moved seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. the boat launch is managed by Anoka County. Mr. close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Councilmember Carlson Mayor Bergeson noted the first reading of the ordinance had been approved including a particular alignment for the no -wake zone and a sunset clause. He questioned the City Attorney if the substance of the ordinance remained the same but the alignment of the no -wake zone is changed and/or the sunset clause is removed, would it be necessary for the City Council to consider a new first reading of the ordinance. It was the opinion of City Attorney Hawkins that because the adjustments under consideration would be minor it would not be necessary to reconsider the first reading of the ordinance. He indicated the COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 reason the City has a second reading was to allow the Councilmembers to give more thought to an issue prior to making a final decision on an ordinance. Mayor Bergeson called for a motion on the SECOND reading of Ordinance No. 03-02. He reviewed the motion and the location of the no -wake zone as approved during the last City Council meeting. Councilmember Carlson stated she had initiated the motion during the last City Council meeting to adopt the ordinance, however, she had voted against the motion to amend the motion and include a sunset clause. She did not believe she could make a motion at this time since she would not want to include a sunset clause and she had not been on the prevailing side when this clause was added to the ordinance. It was City Attorney Hawkins' opinion that because final action has not been taken, Councilmember Carlson could make a motion this evening on the second reading the ordinance. Councilmember Reinert moved to approve the SECOND readin surface use of motorized watercraft on Peltier Lake in the P wake zone as previously approved and a sunset date of Sept O'Donnell seconded the motion. Councilmember O'Donnell felt the purpose of incl the issue is reviewed and that a report with reco improvements to the lake. Councilmember Carlson expressed conce She noted the Centerville City Council received by the City today, Anoka C review period was inadequate. Sh the majority of the Council did not nance 03-02, Regulating the sland area, to include a no- , 2004. Councilmember as set date in the ordinance was to ensure ons is made regarding the progress of the ng together with other governmental bodies. pport a sunset clause. Additionally, per an e-mail of support a sunset clause and feels that a two year aft copies of the Centerville City Council meeting, a sunset clause. Regarding the issue of eagles ' ti _'theeron rookery, Councilmember Carlson indicated Joan Galli has studied this issue for 'z1 years and has found both eagles and herons nesting and coexisting at Peltier Lake. She indicated thnotion of the birds feeding at Trout Air is not their usual way to feed and noted there are fish in Peltier Lake for the young herons to feed upon. Regarding the buffer distance of a no -wake zone, Councilmember Carlson noted the staff report states the purpose of the no -wake zoned is to minimize human disturbance to adjacent nesting birds, aquatic vegetation and water quality around the island. The need for buffer areas around nesting birds is well documented. Research indicates the need for at least a 300 -meter nesting and buffer zone for great blue heron nests, and that the birds tend to abandon nests when larger disturbances occur within 500 meters. The effects of intensive motorized watercraft use in shallow lake areas is also well documented. Councilmember Carlson expressed two concerns for the ordinance as proposed. One concern was for safety and she noted the Chief of Police and other property owners along the northeast end of the lake 10 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 have requested that the no -wake zone boundary line run straight across the lake versus being angled to the northeast. She did not feel the City Council should ignore their Chief of Police. Additionally, she noted the concern is not just for the herons, rather the entire ecosystem of the lake needed to be taken into consideration. Councilmember Carlson stated she would for the ordinance with the sunset clause, even though she felt this would be disrespectful to other governmental bodies. However, she could not in good conscience vote for an angled line -- the line needs to go straight across for the safety of our citizens, grandchildren, and children, as well as adults. Mayor Bergeson noted the no -wake zone had originally been proposed to angle to the northeast because this was believed to be the desire of the eight to 10 homeowners that would be affected by the no -wake zone. However, he noted the majority of those homeowners would prefer that the no -wake zone boundary line run straight across the lake and he shared t ncerns for an angled boundary line. Councilmember Reinert stated he would be willing to suppo straight across the lake, providing the ordinance includes a was important so that after three summers of no high sp be determined if the no -wake zone is effective or whe e zone boundary line running lause. He felt the sunset clause activity around the island, it can ranges to the ordinance need to be made. Mayor Bergeson moved to amend the motion to s g - e no -wake zone boundary line as being at the same distance from the south end of the isl ` d oka County's recommended Alternative No. 3) as previously approved, but with the lug¢ ng straight across the lake and not angling to the northeast. Councilmember Reinert secon 1- et•'tion. Mayor Bergeson voted yea. Council !tc b lson voted yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Reinert vote Motion carried unanimousl Mayor Bergeson noted that one oncern he has regarding environmental regulations is that they are often made by agencies without great deal of public accountability. He felt it was a rare case for an elected body to make this type of decision regarding an environmental issue. He noted the City's Environmental Board is accountable to the community. Mayor Bergeson did not have a problem with the inclusion of a sunset clause since he felt this will ensure that the issue is reviewed. He hoped that if a sunset clause is included, the Environmental Board will be tasked with monitoring the situation and providing recommendations to the City Council well before the expiration date of the ordinance. In response to the question of why the City wished to expand on the State laws already in place, Councilmember Reinert indicated the great blue herons have left the Peltier Lake rookery but no one knows why. He indicated the City has been asked to do all it can to address this situation and the only 11 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 action within the City's power would be to provide a barrier around the island, which is the home of the blue herons. Councilmember Reinert stated he had initially proposed the sunset clause because he does not want the blue herons to disappear from Lino Lakes. He believed the sunset clause will cause this issue to be a priority for the City. He noted comments have been made that if the sunset clause is included the City will forget and the ordinance will simply expire. He did not believe this would occur in Lino Lakes since there is a high level of awareness of the situation and he did not believe this issue will slip by the residents or the City Council. He believed the sunset clause will be very effective in keeping this issue in the public's eye and keeping the discussions moving forward to determine the reason the herons are leaving. He noted if the actual reason for the colony's abandonment is found, then the City may be able to take additional action to protect them. Ms. Capra noted if the proposed ordinance is adopted it will no Centerville. City Attorney Hawkins indicated the ordinances wi which time the ordinances would no longer be mutual. He note Natural Resources was requiring that both cities have ordin match, then this issue will have to be addressed upon expir atch the ordinance adopted by h until September 1, 2004, at esota Department of e and, if the ordinances must the Lino Lake's ordinance. Mayor Bergeson called for a vote on the amended moi t adopt Ordinance No. 03-02. Mayor Bergeson voted yea. Councilmember Carbon E d yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 03-02 can be found i Mayor Bergeson called for a break Consideration of Resolutio Mike Grochala - Community '.�-velopment Director Grochala advised that the City Council approved the Lino Lakes Market,® lace 2nd Addition preliminary plat on March 11, 2002. The developer has submitted a final plat for approval. .m. /The meeting was reconvened at 8:08 p.m. , pproving the Final Plat of Market Place 2"d Addition, Community Development Director Grochala advised the final plat, consisting of three lots, conforms to the approved preliminary plat. The development agreement for the original Market Place plat covers the proposed 2nd Addition and all required securities have been submitted. Community Development Director Grochala indicated title information has been submitted to the City Attorney and has been found satisfactory. The plat does contain property currently owned by the City. The closing on the property is scheduled for March 29, 2002. Approval of the final plat should be conditioned upon the purchase of the City -owned property by Ryan Companies U.S., Inc., prior to its recording. 12 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 Community Development Director Grochala advised staff recommends adoption of Resolution 02-22, Approving the Final Plat of Lino Lakes Market Place 2nd Addition, with one condition as noted above. Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-22, Approving the Final Plat of Lino Lakes Market Place 2nd Addition, with one condition as listed in the Staff report. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02-22 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Consideration of Resolution 02-21, Requiring preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition,` Smyser — City Planner Smyser advised the City received a petition requesting the preparation of :�' vironmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition , .rojec ` The Petition requests that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) act as tANT le governmental unit for the EAW. In accordance with the rules, the EQB decides whic " e mental unit has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as .wlo . In this case, it is the City of Lino Lakes, and so the EQB forwarded the petition to the City Planner Smyser indicated the project may no made on the project until the EAW process is been notified that no further work is to occur he site. and no final governmental decision can be The project proposer, Mr. Ed Vaughan, has City Planner Smyser advised, under Mi ota les, the City: "shall order the preparation he evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwis = >wn to the (City) demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the propo ` ect project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. e ty) all deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project a have the potential for significant environmental effects. MN Rules 4410.11 Subp. 6." City Planner Smyser indicated the site is within a shore land overlay district. This requires extra scrutiny of possible effects on the natural environment. The project would require extensive clearing of vegetation, including trees, for the road, for house pads and for storm water ponds. The 300 -foot bridge will require several piers constructed on land or in the water. The construction of the bridge, and the project in general, creates the potential for significant impacts to land and water, including the wetlands, vegetation, and the existing neighborhood of Quail Ridge. Because of the potential impacts, it is appropriate to prepare an EAW. Proposed Resolution 02-21, attached to the staff report, includes findings of fact supporting the decision to require the preparation of an EAW. City Planner Smyser advised staff recommends adoption of Resolution 02-21, Requiring the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition. 13 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 Councilmember Carlson noted the Shore Land Overlay District Map, which indicates Wards Lake as being a Department of Natural Resources protected area. She questioned whether the City of Lino Lakes or the Department of Natural Resources has the authority to determine whether or not an EAW should be undertaken. City Planner Smyser indicated the EQB decides which entity has the most approval authority over a project. Therefore, because the City of Lino Lakes has the authority to approve or deny plats, site plans, variances, etc., they would typically be chosen as the entity to make this type of decision. He added that the Department of Natural Resources generally has jurisdiction over projects below the ordinary high water mark, the City has jurisdiction over projects above the ordinary high water mark, and the Rice Creek Watershed District has authority over wetland areas. Councilmember Carlson requested confirmation that the EAW ; ld be discretionary and not mandatory. City Planner Smyser responded affirmatively. Councilmember Carlson noted per the Minnesota rules, cert from requiring an EAW. She wished to ensure that the Phe not fall under the exempt category. City Planner Smyser explained an ongoing issue w formulated and that this project would not be exe within the shore land area. Councilmember Carlson noted the City h questioned whether this letter contained the information contained in Mr. Vau recommendation. developments are exempt 'lls Preserve 12th Addition would er in which the rules had been rding to the rules, since the plat is located a letter from Mr. Vaughan's attorney and facts. City Planner Smyser did not believe any of rney's letter would change City staff's Mayor Bergeson noted this • u caring but opened the meeting to brief public comments. Sandy Seebold, 6668 Rough Gr se Road, provided the City Councilmembers with drawings of the proposed project with specific areas highlighted. She noted the proposed bridge would cross the wetland and that the proposed road would be located within the shoreline impact zone. She presented a photograph of the area in which the road would be constructed and noted the entire area was under water. Ms. Seebold felt an EAW would be very important for this proposed project since there were many environmental concerns expressed by the Department of Natural Resources in their letter to the City dated September 18, 2001. She noted Mr. Vaughan had asked that Tom Hovey, Area Hydrologist for the Department of Natural Resources, submit a letter to the City indicating that he was working with them to save more trees. She indicated that such a letter, dated February 25, 2002, was submitted acknowledging that Mr. Vaughan was attempting to save some trees, however, the road was not proposed to be moved from the shoreline impact area. She stated the letter from Mr. Hovey clearly 14 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 stated that this recent letter in no way rescinded the concerns expressed in his September 2001 letter and that he still felt strongly about those concerns. She asked that the Councilmembers take the time to closely review paragraphs four and five from Mr. Hovey's letter. Kent Austerman, 6654 Rough Grouse Road, noted the bridge involved in this project was proposed at 100 yards long, or 300 feet, and 18 feet off the ground. He demonstrated how high an 18 -foot high bridge would be. He felt an EAW would be appropriate and hoped the City Council would adopt the proposed resolution. Mayor Bergeson closed the meeting to public comments. Mayor Bergeson noted the issue under consideration at this time was whether or not an EAW should be undertaken, not the actual plat. He asked City staff to summarize what is involved with an EAW and how long the process would take. City Planner Smyser explained an EAW is a form that the EQB E; velo ' d, which includes approximately 30 questions. He indicated the project propo ed to answer the questions and submit the responses to the City. The City must then deter e w ether the form is complete or whether additional information is required, which is oftenhe ''_ `a `` Once the form is completed to the satisfaction of the City, it is then submitted to a numb ' • s fferent State and Federal agencies and is published in the EQB newsletter. Once the report i blis - + there is a 30 -day comment period to receive comments or concerns from various agen es the City must then consider the comments and prepare responses. Once this process is co e� e City then would decide whether an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) should be + ertaken, which is a much more involved process. He indicated it would generally be the int .,t ~ ®roposer to ensure the proper information is submitted with the EAW so that an EIS x of n W eded. He anticipated that the entire EAW process would take a couple of months to co Councilmember O'Donnell reques impacts, it could also provi City Planner Smyser stated th ation that if the EAW finds evidence of environmental how to rectify those impacts without requiring an EIS. Councilmember O'Donnell requ ted confirmation that a determination that an EIS is not needed would not necessarily mean the project has no environmental impacts. City Planner Smyser responded affirmatively. Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-21, Requiring the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition, as submitted. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Councilmember Carlson stated she was willing to support the requirement of an EAW for the Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition since she felt to not do so would be inconsistent with her stand on the Peltier Lake ordinance. She expressed concern that she could not recall requiring another project within the City to perform an EAW, other than the Target Store development. She noted when reviewing the Environmental Protection and the Shore Land Overlay District Maps she found 15 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 there are a number of housing developments that were approved without an EAW being required. Additionally, there are a number of development projects upcoming in the near future. However, she • has not heard any specific criteria for requiring an EAW, therefore, she believed the City will be in a situation where they will be considering this type of requirement more often than has been required in the past. She did not feel this was a negative situation, however, she felt the City needed to be consistent. Councilmember Carlson noted during the recent City Council work session she had requested information regarding the last EAW required by the City for a residential development. City Planner Smyser indicated no City staff members could recall the City requiring an EAW on a residential project in the past. Councilmember Reinert acknowledged that it was not typical for the City to require an EAW, however, he indicated in this case it was being recommended b regarding the proposed development. He felt the proposed devel examine the environmental impacts so that when the island deve environmentally correct for the area. He felt if this does set requested, this would not be a bad situation. se there were strong opinions t it would be prudent to done so in a manner that is ce and more EAW's are Mayor Bergeson felt it was positive that the City Coup. proposed Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition an fewer opinions. For these reasons, he supported Motion carried unanimously. heard so many comments regarding the hopetbthe EAW would provide more facts and sed resolution. Resolution No. 02-21 can be found in t = erk's office. Consideration of Resolution 02-2 3rd Addition, Mike Grochala - Co measuring 10 feet by 300 fe Clearwater Creek Drive to La a minor subdivision, Outlot F, Clearwater Creek Development Director Grochala advised Outlot F, platted as a pedestrian trail easement, connecting ve, ut not providing connections to any other system of trails. The reason for the trail was top ovide pedestrian access across the subdivision, since a block of excessive length (1,700 feet) w `created when a block in the 3rd Addition was added to an existing block in the 2nd Addition. Community Development Director Grochala noted the trail had not been constructed in August 2000, when it came to the attention of the City Council Work Session meeting of August 23, 2000, via Mr. Petronick of 6601 LaCasse Drive. Mr. Petronick expressed a number of reservations about the placement of a trail next to his home, plans for which he was unaware of when he purchased his property. It was reported that "neighbors are also opposed to the trail." Community Development Director Grochala indicated after consideration, "council directed staff to proceed with vacating the trail easement," according to the minutes of the September 6, 2000 City Council work Session. 16 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 Community Development Director Grochala provided an analysis of the proposed minor subdivision and indicated, since the outlot was never part of the property dedicated to the City, and the proposed trail was never constructed, the outlot is still owned by Gor-Em Builders. Gor-Em had agreed previously to pay the City $1,000 should the construction of the trail not be required. Community Development Director Grochala indicated what was further needed, however, was a minor subdivision, dividing Outlot F in two along the boundary lines of Lots 1 and 14, Block 3, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition. The resulting two 150 -foot by 10 -foot pieces would then be attached to Lots 1 and 14. Such action would prevent the outlot from becoming a useless piece of land, and thus going tax forfeit, and resolve the trail issue. Staff has assumed that the above described two pieces should be attached to the two lots south of the outlot, rather than be divided among all four of the neighboring lots (two to the north, and two to the south.) Community Development Director Grochala advised this repo meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. After consideration unanimously to recommend approval of the minor subdivision. s presented at the March 13, 2002 issues, the Board voted Community Development Director Grochala advised staff r Approving a minor subdivision, Outlot F, Clearwater Creek following: nds adoption of Resolution 02-20, dition, conditioned on the 1. Gor-Em Builders shall submit to the City 1,00` n lieu of trail construction. 2. Gor-Em Builders shall deed over the $>: subject pieces to property owners of Lots 1 and 14, Block 3, Clearwater Creek 3rd Add•€ • `e nominal sum of $1.00. 3. Gor-Em Builders shall submi to of Survey describing the minor subdivision. 4. The newly created parcels s =°ombined with Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 14, Block 3, Clearwater Creek 3r ctively. An Anoka County Lot Combination form shall accompany deeds sub r City approval. Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-20, Approving a minor subdivision, Outlot F, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition, with four conditions. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02-20 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Public Hearing, FIRST READING, Ordinance No. 02-02, Vacating Fox Trail, Shenandoah 2nd Addition, Mike Grochala - Community Development Director Grochala advised Fox Trail is shown on City maps as a 60 -foot wide stub street, approximately 171 feet in length, existing within the Shenandoah 2nd Addition, located just southeast of the intersection of Arrowhead Drive and Tomahawk Trail. Fox Trail was never actually constructed as a street, but was initially designed to 17 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 provide future access to the area south of the subdivision, which was undeveloped when the Shenandoah 2nd Addition was developed. Community Development Director Grochala indicated the Pineridge Addition has since developed to the south of the Shenandoah 2nd Addition, but no street was ever constructed to connect Fox Trail. Rather, a trail in Pineridge was constructed to the south of Fox Trail. Fox Trail has subsequently become a trail corridor connecting to the Pineridge Trail, and has existed as such for several years. The trail connects Arrowhead Drive in the Shenandoah 2nd Subdivision to Hawthorne Road in the Pineridge Subdivision. In June of 2000, Rick DeGardner directed Engineering staff to survey the area in anticipation of vacating part of Fox Trail, since it was not in use as a street right-of-way. Community Development Director Grochala indicated, although Fox Trail technically remains a stub street, it is not needed for street purposes. Right-of-way is only needed to maintain the existing trail to Pineridge. As a result, it is the recommendation of staff that - west 20 feet and the east 20 feet of Fox Trail be vacated, leaving the center 20 feet to serve as a trail ect to the 15 -foot trail in the Pineridge Subdivision. Community Development Director Grochala advised staff r Reading of Ordinance No. 02-02, Vacating the west 20 fe of -way. Community Development Director Grochala note Trail and has one addition to the description. He i �4. easement should be reserved over the norther nds approval of the FIRST east 20 feet of the Fox Trail right - as reviewed the legal description of Fox d a l0 -foot public drainage and utility feet of the area to be vacated. Mayor Bergeson opened the public he g' 0 p.m. Councilmember Reinert moved to ase t pu. ` hearing at 8:50 p.m. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Bergeson requested confit ation that a four-fifths vote of the City Council is required to pass the proposed Ordinance. City Attorney Hawkins responded affirmatively. Councilmember Carlson moved to approve of the FIRST Reading of Ordinance No. 02-02, Vacating the west 20 feet and the east 20 feet of the Fox Trail right-of-way, as submitted. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Mayor Bergeson voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 02-02 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 18 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 Consideration of Resolution No. 02-23, Establishing charges for Town of White Bear Building Inspection Services, Mike Grochala - Community Development Director Grochala advised White Bear Township is currently in need of building inspection and plan review services, on an interim basis, until their vacant Building Official position is filled. Community Development Director Grochala indicated the City of Lino Lakes and White Bear Township currently have an agreement for building inspection services that was executed in January of 1995. Section 11 of the agreement permits the City to review and adjust the fees as necessary to ensure that such charges and fees adequately cover the costs of providing said services. Staff has reviewed the original contract and costs of providing such services. No changes are required with the contract, however, staff is recommending that a new hourly rate of $41.00 per hour be established for all hours worked by City personnel within the Township. Additionally, the reimbursement rate for mileage traveled while performing work under the contract sho. be adjusted to $0.365 per mile. The Township Board has reviewed the revised costs of services in agreement with them. Community Development Director indicated the proposed re, included an endorsement of the contract for Building Inspe upon by White Bear Township. ould set the proposed fees and ices that was previously acted Community Development Director Grochala advise a taf re ommends adoption of Resolution No. 02-23, Establishing charges for Town of White Bear B k4 ding Inspection Services, and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute . n or..sement of the contract. Mayor Bergeson noted the proposed rates perform the requested services. He ask Director Grochala stated the propose adequately cover the actual costs Councilmember O'Donnell White Bear Building Inspect • Dery�ees, as submitted, and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute an ens +rsement of the contract. Councilmember Reinert seconded the a motion. o be only a slight mark up over the actual costs to were typical rates. Community Development ded a certain percentage for overhead in order to lieve cities could collect larger profit margins. esolution No. 02-23, Establishing charges for Town of Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02-23 can be found in the City Clerk's office. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to consider. 19 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 NEW BUSINESS CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES March 6, 2002, Council Work Session Minutes March 11, 2002, Council Meeting Minutes Mayor Bergeson noted Councilmember O'Donnell had been absent from the March 6, 2002 Council work session. Councilmember Reinert moved to approve the March 6, 2002 Work Session Minutes, as submitted. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried, 3-0-1, Councilmember O'Donnell abstaining. Councilmember Reinert moved to approve the March 11, 2002, submitted. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. eeting Minutes, as COMMUNITY CALENDAR MARCH 25 THRQ; H " ° RIL 8, 2002: Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 6:30 p.m., Enal Board Meeting Monday,April 1 2002 6:30 .m. Park � etin > P � g Wednesday, April 3, 2002, 5:30 p. uncil Work Session Monday, April 8, 2002, 6:30 p.m., F ouncil Meeting ADJOURN There being no further business, ouncilmember Carlson moved to adjourn at 8:57 p.m. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, April 8, 2002. Ann Blair, Ci Clerk 20 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 Transcribed by: Lori Rolfson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 21