Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/2002 Council Minutes• • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : October 14, 2002 TIME STARTED : 6:35 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Carlson, Dahl, O'Donnell, Reinert, and Mayor Bergeson MEMBERS ABSENT : None Staff members present: City Administrator, Linda Waite Smith; City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; Community Development Director, Mike Grochala; City Planner, Jeff Smyser (part); Associate Planner, Tanda Gretz; and City Clerk, Ann Blair SETTING THE AGENDA Item 7H, Resolution No. 02 — 147, Accepting Quotes for B agenda. Item 7J, Authorizing Execution of Electrical Inspect, The agenda was approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA Trees, was removed from the oritract, was added to the agenda. Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approvethe Consent Agenda, as presented. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried un a nously. ITEM DISBURSEMENTS: October 14, 2002 (Check No. 66239 — 66481, $508,804.61) ACTION Approved Centennial Fire District (Check No. 13421 - 13447, $11,866.17) Approved Consider Approving Application for Exempt Permit from Lawful Gambling License, St. Joseph Catholic Church Consider Authorizing $3,943.00 Payment To Centennial School District for Items Approved COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 • Damaged by Mold Approved OPEN MIKE • • Turtleman Triathlon Donation to Police Reserves, Diane Soucheray — Ms. Soucheray came forward and presented the Lino Lakes Police Reserve Department with a donation on behalf of the Turtleman Triathlon. Mayor Bergeson thanked Ms. Soucheray for the donation to the Lino Lakes Police Department. No one else was present for open mike. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK Amend Date for Public Hearing for Certification of Delinquent utility Fees — City Administrator Waite Smith advised on September 9, 2002 the City Council set a.publ"'hearing for the certification of delinquent utility charges for October 21. This date is incorrect ='` ere is no Council meeting scheduled for that date. The correct date for the public hearing shr ld have been October 28. The City Council needs to formally change the date of the hearing"" e 28th. Notices of this correction have been mailed to those affected and the published notice`s for the correct date. Councilmember Carlson moved to change the public hearing date to October 28, as presented by staff. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Bergeson asked if a time has been set for the public hearing. City Administrator Waite Smith advised the public hearing has been scheduled at 6:30 p.m. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTM; RT, DAN TESCH Consider Eagle Liquor and Tobacco Application, Ann Blair — City Clerk Blair advised an application for an Off -Sale Liquor Lcense'and a Tobacco License has been submitted by Steve Bergman. This is a new business that would be located on the JADT property. However, prior to being open for business both an Off --Sale Liquor License and a Tobacco License are required. Investigator Matt Vanna conducted a background criminal investigation on the owners of the business and found no problems, nor any reason to deny either of the applications. In accordance with the City Code, 701, Liquor Licensing, this new business meets the qualifications for an Off -Sale Liquor License. Also, in accordance with City Code, Section 602, Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products, this new business meets the qualifications for a Tobacco License. In an effort to address concerns raised by the City Council at their September 9, 2002 Council meeting regarding the intensity of the proposed tobacco use, the applicant's attorney, Mr. Mike Keifer, has submitted a letter, a layout map, and a brochure which show the sale of tobacco products to be an incidental use on the site. 2 • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 The applicant is fully aware license approval is subject to all the fees, provisions and conditions of the laws of the City, state and of the federal government. Mayor Bergeson thanked the applicant for providing the additional information. Councilmember Dahl moved to adopt Resolution No. 02 — 150, as presented. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02 — 150 can be found in the City Clerk's office. FIRST READING, Ordinance No. 11— 02, Cable Franchise — City Administrator Waite Smith advised the North Metro Telecommunication Commission has renegotiated a cable television franchise on behalf of its seven member cities with AT&T Broadband. As this franchise agreement is an ordinance it will require a public hearing and two readings. Thost reading will occur this evening and the second reading is scheduled for October 28. The length of the franchise agreement is fifteen years. Councilmember Reinert moved to approve FIRST READIN Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. rdinance No. 11 — 02, as presented. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Mayor Bergeson voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAVE PECCHIA There was no Public Safety Department eport. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER Accepting Donation from Lexington Fireman's Relief Association, Rick DeGardner — City Administrator Waite Smith advised the Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department is administering the youth tackle football program for the second year. In order to help provide equipment for each team, staff contacted several organizations in the community requesting donations. The Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department received $400 from the Lexington Fireman's Relief Association. Councilmember O'Donnell moved to accept the donation from the Lexington Fireman's Association, as presented. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3 • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT Consider Resolution No. 02 — 145, Approving JADT Addition Development Contract, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala advised the City Council approved the preliminary plat of JADT Addition on September 9, 2002. In accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and conditions of approval, staff has prepared a Development Contract for City Council approval and execution. JADT Addition consists of four (4) commercial lots. In addition to construction requirements the contract provides for the following: 1. Submittal by the developer of a Letter of Credit in the amount of $133,700.00 representing 35% percent of the development improvement costs to insure completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans. 2. Deposit of a cash escrow in the amount of $40,685.68 to reimburse the City for costs incurred by the City related to the development and improvement' of the site and developer improvements. JADT Development Group, LLP, the developer, has reviewed the agreement and is aware of the conditions set forth. Community Development Director Grochala noted the application asked for the addition of the following language on page 3, item 4A1, All construction and erosion control measures shall be done in accordance with best management practices set forth by Rice Creek Watershed District and in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 103.F.711 Subd. 3. Community Development Director Grochala advised staff is recommending approval of the development contract. Mayor Bergeson inquired abou he number of leases that are signed on this project. Community Development Director Grochala stated there is one lease that covers the construction on lot 4 for a liquor store and coffee shop. The remaining three lots are not filled and the owner may sell them outright. Councilmember Carlson thanked and acknowledged staff for the language in the contract regarding drainage. Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution No. 02 — 145, as amended. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02 — 145 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 4 • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Consider Resolution No. 01 — 146, Approving Stoneybrook Development Contract, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala advised the City Council approved the preliminary plat of Stoneybrook on August 26, 2002. Tollefeson Development, Inc., the Developer, is now requesting approval to begin construction of improvements for the first phase of the development, to be known as Stoneybrook First Addition. Stoneybrook First Addition consists of 52 single family residential lots. In accordance with the preliminary plat approval and City policy staff has prepared a Development Agreement. The agreement provides for the following: 1. Submittal by the developer of a Letter of Credit in the amount of $2,410,900.00 representing 150% percent of the development improvement costs to insure completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans. 2. Submittal by the developer of a Letter of Credit in the amount of $102,900.00 representing 35% of the costs to be assessed for the project. 3. Deposit of a cash escrow in the amount of $267,750.00 to reimburse the City for costs incurred by the City related to the development and improvement of; the site and developer improvements. 4. Section II.A.11, specifically states that the developer will be responsible for street and storm sewer maintenance until issuance of all Certificates of Occupancy for the development. Tollefeson Development, Inc., has reviewed the contract and is aware of the conditions set forth. Community Development Director Grochala advisedtaff did try to address the erosion control in the language of the agreement. The developer has asked for clarification regarding that issue. He referred to page 5, item 11 and 12 and recommend - following change: The Developer shall promptly clear -rand debris, within public right-of-ways, and drainage and utility easements, resulting from construction by the Developer, its purchasers, builders and contractors within five (5ydays after notification by the City. The Developer shall be responsible for all necessary street and storm sewer maintenance including street sweeping, storm sewer and cleaning, ditch cleaning and pond dredging, resulting from the accumulation of said dirt and debris, until all Certificates of Occupancy are issued. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If and when the streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The developer shall maintain a smooth, hard driving surface and adequate drainage on all temporary streets. Community Development Director Grochala advised staff is recommending approval of the agreement. Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 01 — 146, as amended. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 01 — 146 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 5 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Consider Resolution No. 02 —117, Approving a Variance and a Minor Subdivision, 855 Ash Street (Lindahl Property), Tanda Gretz — Associate Planner Gretz advised this item was heard by the City Council on September 23, 2002. At that time, a question was brought by staff regarding whether or not street right-of-way was to be counted when figuring lot area. Specifically, if lot area is exclusive of street right-of-way, then it appeared that the Lindahl property would not meet the minimum lot size requirement of one acre, as required under the homestead clause of the City Zoning Ordinance (Section 3, subdiv. 3.A.2.b.2). Staff has now verified that the Lindahl property may count street right-of-way as part of lot area. The City Zoning Ordinance (Section 3, subdiv. 3.B.2.b) states that: "Within zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres or more, up to 80% of the minimum lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights-of-way, is below the 100 year od elevation, or lies within City watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies asdefined by this ordinance." Don and Faith Lindahl own 11 acres of land, zoned Rural, at. 855 Ash Street. The Lindahls have applied for a Minor Subdivision and Variance from the minimum lot width requirements in order to subdivided their property. Although the minimum lot size forproperty in a Rural zone is 10 acres, the Lindahls are seeking to create a 10 -acre and a one -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes City Code: "Habitable single family homes constr'ted prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a minimumofone `'e if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten acres, or i serviced by public sewer, and it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will not result in ground water, soil or other epintamination which may endanger the public health." The Lindahls propose to live on the one -acre parcel containing the residence and outbuildings, and sell the remaining ten -acre parcel to their son. It should be noted that the existing 11 -acre parcel was created in 1997 as part of a minor subdivision of 58.76 acres. Minutes from the meetings of both the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council note that a further subdivision of the 11 -acre parcel, such as is now being proposed, was discussed at that time. Minutes note that the applicant "had been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case. This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. Minutes from November 24, 1997 City Council meeting 3. Minutes from November 12, 1997 Planning & Zoning meeting 6 COUNCIL MINUTES • 4. Certificate of Survey, dated July 10, 2002 5. "Marked Up" Certificate of Survey, dated December 8, 1997 • OCTOBER 14, 2002 The attached Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 11 -acre parcel. Tract B, one acre, contains the Lindahl home and outbuildings, of which .89 acres are upland; Tract A, ten acres, contains the balance of the property, of which four acres are upland. Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site West Low Density, Unsewered Residential CC Rural Rural North East Rural Rural,, South Minimum Lot Requirements Size: the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zonis ten acres. Proposed Tract A would meet this requirement, with the balance of the property,Tract 3, consisting of the one -acre parcel containing the existing homestead buildings, as all- 'tinder Section 3, subd.3.A.2.b.2. (North Oaks) (North Oaks) Width: the minimum lot width for propert r .Ru al zone is 330 feet. The existing property only has 611 feet of frontage along County ".1" (Ash Street). As such, the property cannot be subdivided and meet the required minimum frontagefor both lots. Tract A is an irregularly shaped ("C-shaped") lot that does meet the minimum lot width requirements, although it is not contiguous width/r frontage. Rather, the lot wraps around the one acre parcel, with 269 feet to the west of the one acre parcel and 188 feet to the east of the one acre parcel. Tract B is being created under the homestead clause, as noted above, which allows property of a size under the minimum requirements. As a result, Tract B, measuring 155 feet in width, does not conform to minimum width requirements, and the applicant is asking for a Variance. Even if the applicant had the required 330 feet of lot width, the allowable one -acre parcel would then only provide a lot depth of 132 feet. The typical minimum lot depth is 135 feet for residential lots. Buildable Area Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of 20% upland area. Both parcels meet this requirement, with Tract A containing four acres of upland (this upland exists as "islands" among wetland areas), and Tract B almost entirely composed of upland. 7 • COUNCIL MINUTES Septic Issues OCTOBER 14, 2002 Soils tests confirm that the proposed 10 -acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The one -acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. Access Issues The existing 11 -acre parcel contains a second driveway, not used by the Lindahls but existing on their property, which is the sole source of access for the neighboring property to the west, at 815 Ash Street. Without this driveway, the property at 815 would be landlocked, with no access out to Ash Street or any other road. The minor subdivision approved in 1997, which created the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street, required an easement agreement be drawn up. for this driveway. This agreement was approved by the City attorney and recorded with Anoka County, In addition, as a further condition of approval in 1997, the driveway was approved by the Fire Chief. The driveway is currently used primarily by the residents at 815 Ash;Street, as the Lindahls have their own access drive. Further subdivision of the Lindahl's 11 acre parcel would require shared use of this driveway by the future owners of proposed Tract A Such= -:situation may or may not pose a legal issue: the easement agreement states the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of Tracts B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Further, the agreement states that "no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement:" The agreement can be amended only with IPthe written consent of both parties. The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that n' considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. ,r s Comment: The property is betingubdivided according to the homestead clause of the City Zoning Ordinance(Section 3, s`ubdiv. 3.A.2.b.2), which allows minimum lot size below what is normally required under Ordinance. The proposed property can not take advantage of the homestead (which allows lot size down to one acre in size) while also meeting the normal minimum lot size requirements of Ruraly zoned property (which requires lots to be at least 10 acres in size). 2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, not created by the land owner. Comment: While the existing lot of record, while meeting the area requirements as prescribed in the ordinance, does not have the necessary frontage required under minimum Rural lot width standards. 3.) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a • reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 8 • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Comment: While the zoning ordinance allows a one acre lot to be created under the homestead clause, the minimum Rural lot standards preclude the creation of such a lot that would also comply with the City's minimum lot depth standards. 4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: The property in question has the necessary lot area to conform to the minimum requirements of the homestead clause. 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The Variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance which allows for homesteaded properties to reduce their lot to minimum of one acre if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten acres. The above report was presented at the August 14 & September 11x`2002 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. After consideration of the issues, Board member voted to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1.) A park dedication fee of $1,665 to be paid prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. 2.) The applicant shall dedicate to the City drainage and utility easements measuring ten feet in width along the front and rear property lines, five feet in width along side property lines, and covering all ponding andetland areas. Such dedication shall be in the form of a Quit Claim Deed, per the City att ney, to be submitted prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision.. 3.) The applicant shall dedicate to Anoka County the required public right-of-way adjacent to Ash Street. Such dw ion shall be submitted prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. Associate Planner Gretz advised that based on the findings stated above, staff recommends approval. Councilmember Carlson asked for clarification regarding the amount of required right-of-way. Associate Planner Gretz advised the right-of-way is 60 feet. Councilmember Dahl moved to adopt Resolution No. 02 —117, as presented. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02 — 117 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Consider Resolution No. 02 —144, Final Plat Approval and Allocation of MUSA Reserve, Clearwater Creek Fifth Addition, Jeff Smyser — City Planner Smyser advised this is the last phase • of the Clearwater Creek development, which received preliminary plat and rezoning approval in April 9 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 1999. The 5th Addition includes 54 lots. The recent approval of the new comprehensive plan puts the site within a stage 1 growth area, eligible for MUSA. The 1999 approval indicated the intention to allocate MUSA to this site when MUSA became available. Approval of the comprehensive plan by the Metropolitan Council gives us the MUSA needed for this site. Final Plat: The City requires a number of things for a final plat approval. • Final plat must substantially conform to the approved preliminary plat, which it does. • Development agreement must be completed, including financial securities. We have a development agreement that was approved by the City Council on August 26, 2002, with Resolution 02-102. • Title commitment must be reviewed by City Attorney. This has been completed. • Conditions of approval must be met. Any conditions that have not been completed are addressed in the development agreement. MUSA: The approval of the project was several years ago (199 and the timing of MUSA availability was unclear at that time. For these reasons, it is better'learly allocate the intended MUSA by a formal resolution now that we actually do have,MUSA available. There are 20.8 acres of upland in the area to be platted as Clearwater Creek 5th Addition'Therefore, the resolution allocates 20.8 acres of MUSA reserve. City Planner Smyser advised staff is recommendir g Council approve Resolution 02-144 approving the final plat of Clearwater Creek 5th Addition and allocating 20.8 acres of MUSA reserve. Councilmember Carlson stated the last ti mentioned. Mr. Quigley stated the lot not correct. The Kiefers also provided "a s growing. There is also a lot of rock ill the issue was discussed the grading on the Kiefer lot was d as the Kiefers requested. The Kiefers said this was Part of the landscaping that was replanted is not ea :She asked if a retaining wall is being constructed. Community Development Director Grochala'stated he has seen the rock in the area but has not heard anything about a retaining wal Councilmember Carlson indicated she would follow up with Mrs. Kiefer. property is on the old section of Clearwater Creek. She noted the Kiefer Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 02 — 144, as presented. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02 — 144 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Consider Resolution No. 02 —142, Approving Distribution of EAW for Eagle Brook Church, Jeff Smyser — City Planner Smyser advised Eagle Brook Church is proposing to build a church on a site approximately 3/4 mile north of the Centerville/Lino Lakes border, on the west side of 20th Ave. The church has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project. City staff have reviewed the information submitted by the church and is comfortable recommending that the 10 • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 EAW be distributed for public comment. Resolution 02-142 approves the distribution for public comment. The resolution does not in any way grant any approval of the church project itself. The Eagle Brook Church EAW is voluntary. The proposed project does not cross any mandatory EAW thresholds. A citizen group did submit a petition requesting the preparation of an EAW, which was forwarded to the City. However, the church decided to prepare the EAW by the time the City received the petition, so the City did not need to decide if an EAW was warranted. The church has not submitted any project applications to the City for review. Based on the preliminary plans described in the EAW, the site comprises 95 acres overall. The proposed new church would include 88,000 sf with the possible addition of another 7,500 sf. The potential total of 95,500 sf is analyzed by the EAW. The project would also include the necessary parking, road improvements, and other typical elements of site development. Rules written by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board dcscribe the requirements for the environmental review. These rules were written to implement MN Statute 116D, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. Environmental review starts with anenviro amental assessment worksheet (EAW). An EAW is defined as a brief document which is designed took set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) is necessary. The EAW form was created by the Minnesota Environmental Qualify Bcard `(EQB). It is a list of questions that must be completed based on the project specifics. Briefly, the project proposer submits information for the EAW. The City then reviews the submitted information for accuracy and completeness. Then the EAW is distributed and made available for public review. A public comment period of 30 days follows. Approving the EAW for distribution means that Ate City is comfortable that the document is accurate and complete to the best of its knowl ; * Titre is no other commitment or hidden implication regarding approval of the project inrhakifig thhe cision to distribute the document. Approving the EAW for distribution does not mean tt the City is approving the project. On the contrary, once the EAW process has been initiat projectcannot be started and no governmental entity can make a final decision on the project until the environmental review process is completed. After the public comment period, the City decides if it has enough information to determine if the project will cause significant environmental effects. If it will not cause such effects, the City makes a "negative declaration" meaning that an EIS is not necessary. If the review process reveals, in the judgement of the City, that the project will cause significant environmental effects, the City makes a "positive declaration" meaning an EIS is necessary. An EIS is a very large, very expensive study. It is not unusual for an EIS cost a million dollars and typically takes several years to complete. A step-by-step summary of the process follows. 1. Project proposer submits data. ••Normally, the developer completes the EAW form and the City reviews and amends it. 11 • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 • It is the City's document and the City has a responsibility to ensure, to the best of its ability, that it is complete and accurate. 2. City approves the EAW for distribution. 3. There is a list of agencies to which the EAW must be distributed. The project proposer will make all the necessary copies and distribute them to the required agencies. We will have a copy available in the library in City Hall. 4. Availability of the EAW is published in the EQB Monitor. City provides press release to newspaper. 5. Thirty -day public comment period begins on day of publication in EQB Monitor. 6. After comment period closes, City determines if it has enough information to make a determination. • If not, it can postpone the decision for 30 more days: to gather information. 7. If City has sufficient information, it should make a determination within 30 days of the close of the comment period. • • A negative declaration means there ' .be no significant environmental effects from the project and an EIS is not necessary. A positive declaration means an EIS s ecessary. 8. The City provides its decision within % ` ys-to the distribution list and everyone who submitted a comment. 9. The City must respond to all substantive coents and distribute the responses. City Planner Smyser advised distribution of the EAW. mending Council approve Resolution 02-142 approving Councilmember Carlson stated she had questions and apologized for not having these more organized into categories, but she had just received the document on Wednesday. She stated if she had the earlier verson she could have asked the questions Wednesday. She expressed concern as to whether or not the document was complete. On page 36, she noted, the regulating government unit certifies that information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge -- and secondly, that the EAW describes a complete project, there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document. She felt this raised a number of questions. Councilmember Carlson stated on page 1, "Reason for the EAW Preparation," it is marked "proposer volunteered" with a note indicating that a citizen petition was submitted to the EQB Board on May 10, 2002. The information that the Citizens' Environmental Quality Board application had that the 12 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Council was given copies of said the developer has not been forthcoming on the balance of their future building plans. Eagle Brook Church has informed the petitioners that an environmental assessment worksheet process was not required for their plan. A staff member of the EBC, Scott Anderson, stated the City of Lino Lakes City Planner told the church it was not necessary. So on this reason for preparation, Councilmember Carlson stated the Council was looking at the initiation of the process on one end and the submission of the final part of the process on the other end. She stated she believed it would be more correct to mark it both "proposer volunteered" and "citizen petition." City Planner Smyser stated he did not see a problem with that. Mayor Bergeson stated that before the Council moved on, perhaps the representatives from the consulting firm that prepared the document would like an opportunity to respond to that. Ms. Ann Hopkins, SRF Consulting Group, stated she managed the preparation of the EAW for EBC. When they were beginning the EAW preparation it was clear there was not a mandatory threshold exceeded for preparation of an EAW so it wasn't necessary to prepare it, but the church had decided to hire them to prepare an EAW, so that is what is reflected here;.; She did not think that technically there was a reason it would have to be marked in a particular way She felt that was how the group had understood it at the time. Councilmember Carlson stated she had a comment on page 2B, regarding the complete description of the proposed project, but she would come back to this. She directed the Council's attention to page 4 where it referred to future phases of this development including development of any outlots planned or likely to happen. And also on page 4 where it asked for the number of residential units. She stated those two somewhate tie in because the answer to D describes the possible expansion of the church in the future. It does not refer to the senior housing that was to be part of the project. City Planner Smyser stated the applicant has drOlipeddropped the plans for senior residential housing. If in the future the church were to include residential development, a whole new EAW would be required. As far as he knew there was not an interest in doing senior residential and that is why it was not reflected in the EAW. Councilmember Carlson stated senior residential housing would be a terrific project. Her only concern was that in so many ways it would not coincide with the information as far as the shoreland ordinance for instance, how far into the shoreland ordinance this project would go. So if the church was dropping plans for housing than that was correct. But if it was coming back in the future she felt it should have been included here, because they have stated it in the brochure in the RFP and they have stated at the Council work session they need 60 acres for development and the proposal did not include 60 acres or a minimum of 60 acres. She indicated she was just asking the question because she would like to feel assured this is complete and it seems that in three ways there are contradictory statements. City Planner Smyser stated there is nothing within the EAW that is contradictory. There is no information that he had been furnished that was not supported by the information in the EAW. At one time, they were contemplating including senior residential housing as part of the development. That 13 COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 • was way back more than a year ago when first thoughts of the project were being contemplated by the church. Since that time they have dropped that part of the plan. • • Councilmember Carlson referred to page 4 regarding building heights, and inquired as to how a structure over two stories high compared to nearby buildings. She did not know that there had been a comparison made to nearby homes and farms. The church will consist of two stories, and the roof height will reach 48 feet, with a paraped of 52 feet. A spire here is proposed to reach 62 feet with a potential spire at a height of 80 feet. She expressed concern because the zoning heights in rural would be 35 feet which would be a surrounding use. In residential, the zoning ordinances provide that no building shall be built or structurally altered to exceed 35 feet in height. Even in the City's light industrial and general industrial, the height is 45 feet. She didn't think the issue of comparing the heights to nearby buildings had been addressed. City Planner Smyser stated if the Council wished, Staff could diet the project proposer to add a sentence that the nearby houses are two stories high at the most or something to that effect. Councilmember Carlson stated she would like to see this chaos,, € g with language from the ordinance as far as height of the surrounding properties. City Planner Smyser requested Councilmember Carlsoo clarify which language this would be. Councilmember Carlson responded this would be 35 feet m residential and 35 feet in rural. City Planner Smyser stated if it was not listed there or elsewhere he could certainly look into that. Councilmember Carlson responded she did not d it elsewhere. She referred to page 5 regarding religious institutions being considered a conditional use within a rural zone. She inquired as to whether the seven standards they need to meet could`be included in the back in the appendix? Mayor Bergeson stated he believed there wast tandard format for this and that the consultant might wish to comment on this. Ms. Hopkins asked Councilmem erCarlson to repeat the question. Councilmember Carlson referred to the bottom sentence, regarding religious institutions being considered a conditional use in rural zone. There are A through I that are standards that she would like included in the appendix. C for example, will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essectial character of that area. She stated that the question concerned current and recent -past land use in development for the site and adjacent lands. Mayor Bergeson stated the question really was whether or not it was appropriate to put in this document some more detail about the regulations of a conditional use in rural zone. And if that were appropriate, where would that go in this document. Ms. Hopkins stated she believed that if there are standing ordinances that are referred to and they could be referred to more specifically, that would be helpful. Usually an effort is made to refer to other documents, laws or regulations, whatever, to keep the size of the document down. It is already fairly 14 COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 • thick so generally, so they try not to attach too many things. But he stated they could certainly attach an excerpt or could refer more specifically to the area under discussion. • • Councilmember Carlson stated it was her preference to put this in the appendix. She stated that the document was single -sided, and compared the size of the Target document double -sided. Ms. Hopkins stated they can get voluminous. Councilmember Carlson stated it is a different project of course. Target was more intense. This was on the lake, so it is environmentally more intense. Councilmember Carlson referred to page 6, third paragraph from the top regarding the land to the immediate north. She stated the land to the immediate north is guided for rural land uses while the area immediately to the east is guided for medium density and industrial uses. The industrial uses are not immediately to the east. The east is medium density housing. The industrial uses are on the other side so she felt that sentence should end with medium density residential. Mayor Bergeson asked whether Councilmember O'Donnell had a question on points raised, and he responded he would comment when Councilmember Carlson was finished. Councilmember Carlson referenced page 7, bottom paragraph beginning "Furthermore, property currently owned by the St. Paul Regional water services separates'the project from Peltier Lake. This is under Fish, Wildlife and Ecological Sensitive Resources." She questioned whether this property was subject to lease because she was aware that a number oproperties around the lakes in the area with land owned by St. Paul Regional Water Services are leased properties with 100 -year leases, for instance, where homes are built. She also questioned ether or not it were possible that this property was being looked at by Anoka County to be added to the park region? City Planner Smyser stated the St. Paul Water Services property right next to the church is owned by them, and it is a very narrow strip and not. big ugh to build anything on, so there is really no potential for lease on that property beth+ r that is considered to be included into the park, there was an area in that general vicinity that was,onsidered for this, which the St. Paul Water Utility was going to make available. The prop was available has already been purchased by the County. So if it were going to be it would have been already. Councilmember Carlson stated along the lake shore, on Centerville Lake, there is a section that is available to lease she thought, as well as where they have a building. Mayor Bergeson stated it was his understanding that the property the water department potentially had available was north of the freeway. Councilmember Carlson stated this refers to property owned by St. Paul Regional Water Services that separates the property from Peltier Lake. City Planner Smyser stated there was also land available up there but that was a different site. There was property available north of the church site in this general vicinity, but not immediately between the lake and this property. It did not go that far south. 15 COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 . Councilmember Carlson wanted to clarify that it remained uncertain as to whether or not that property was subject to lease or not and she wanted this point noted. • • City Planner Smyser stated he did not know for certain, but he would be surprised because the property was so small. Councilmember Carlson referenced page 8, the bottom paragraph of section B, "The proposed site configuration is intended to minimuze disruption to sensitive species." She indicated this is why she asked about other development on that site, because here that statement is being made and is in reference to what the DNR was concerned about, the heron rookery and cattail marsh and their response. Councilmember Carlson stated on page 12, top of the page, the western portion of the site is in the floodplain and she wished to clarify whether it was also correct that it is within the 1,000 foot shoreline ordinance? City Planner Smyser responded by stating the shoreland ordinance covers 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake. As noted previously, he believed the ordinary high water level •is 884.7 so 1,000 feet from that is included in the shoreland overlay zone. That does not mean that nothing can be built in that zone. It just means the shoreland regulations cover that. So, yes, the flood plain is within the shoreland zone, he indicated. Councilmember Carlson state she had concerns about sewer and water not reaching this area before development. If the Council were going to be approving a single family residential area there it would not be allowed. On page 15, she noted thatelevated raM field mounds will be necessary because of the lower soils being somewhat poorly drained. She 'inquired as to how many mounds would be requierd, and what size and how will they be landscaped in? Mr. Walt Trishonhower, SRF Consulting,, stated the question was regarding number of mounds. There would be one mound, that we ave indica t on the plan. Councilmember Carlson indicated she was asking, because the word "mounds" indicates a plural. She inquired as to how large will that one mound be to be able to handle that size system? Mr. Trishonhower responded he believed that would be approximately 50,000 square feet. Councilmember Carlson expressed surprise and stated that City Planner Smyster had made that same comment on the height of the building being 80 feet earlier in the report. She inquired as to whether that mound would be landscaped in with the rain gardens, then. Mr. Trishonhower stated the mound area cannot be touched according to MPCA guidelines. Councilmember Carlson stated her next question related to the size of the mound because it has to do with (per page 17) solid waste, hazardous waste and storage tanks. It states that 140% of the proposed church is estimated to generate approximately 140% of the current church's solid waste amounts. Now the current church is 1,400 seats, the proposed church is 2,100 with a possible 700 is 2,800. Exactly 16 COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 • twice the number of seats now and 200% increase in possible occupation. What method was used to come up with 140%, how was that calculated? • City Planner Smyser stated there is typically a formula used to estimate how much solid waste will be generated and as the number of seats in a church increase, it does not necessarily generate a one for one increase. People sitting in a church do not generate solid waste. It is the amount of activities and things going on that do that. So there is a scale that building planners use. He did not know what that was but similar to how much waste water that will be generated there is a scale that is used for doing that. Typically, they look at that scale and square footage and things and see how much will be generated. He indicated it is always a bit of guess work based on past experience with projects. Mayor Bergeson stated he believed the appropriate question here was whether the 140% figure applied to the initial size of the church or the ultimate size? City Planner Smyser responded that everything in here has to address the ultimate size. That is a very important element of the EAW. You have to analyze its ultimate size. You cannot just say you will do this much and then we might do this much. It is clearly written in the rules that you have to include the whole thing Which is why in serveral places you will see the expansion, would include so much, and so forth. Councilmember Carlson stated okay, on page 20, under thCF:ilfre Traffic Operations Analysis, the 2010 buildout assumes completion of proposed interchange improvements at CSAH 14/35E and upgrading CSAH 14 to a four -lane divided roadway west of the interchange. The improvements were identified in the Anoka County 2003-2007 Capital Imps - ement Program. She stated this would be very good news and questioned whether there isfunding for this. City Planner Smyser responded he did not know where the funding is on that, it is something that was going on. This part of the EAW was suggested by TKDA traffic engineers as a more likely scenario than just assuming that it is not going to ha at all because the County is gearing up to have this happen. Community Development Director Groc la- stated Anoka County has received federal funding for the CSAH 14 improvements west of the 'tterchange but not for the interchange itself That is what we have been working with Centerville and Hugo on to try to get it programmed. Councilmember Carlson stated the reason she raised that question was because the last time this was discussed in a joint meeting, it was requested of the City to consider funding, and other cities, to consider funding that intersection and then be reimbursed at a later date. She did not necessarily believe that the City had the funding to do that or what the likelihood of being reimbursed would be. Councilmember Carlson referenced page 21, looking at the 2005 level of service and delay results on Sunday design peaks. She questioned what difference was there in calculation that they improved from the previous report. City Planner Smyser requested a clarification of the question, and Councilmember Carlson stated she was looking at page 21, table 5, 2005 level of service and delay results Sunday design peaks and she was comparing that to the previous original report 2005 level of service results Sunday design peaks. 17 COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 • She questioned why have they improved from the previous report (the original report)? What difference in calculation or way of looking at this was used? • Mr. Mike Monhahan, SRF Consultants, stated the reason for the change is the initial analysis only had two-way stops at the freeway off -ramps and the final has a four-way stop. That is what made the change. Councilmember Carlson stated if that were the case, then she did not believe that the report illustrated the results with traffic control officers that was shown on the first report and she wished to point this out. Councilmember Carlson stated regarding construction noise, the heron rookery is a concern is because the construction will be going on in the spring of 2003. She pointed out this would be the first opportunity to see if the herons are going to return or not. She questioned what type of noise will this generate? In relation to the herons, she pointed out there had been noise studies. City Planner Smyser stated at this point what the City needs to do is let the DNR submit formalized comments on that very question. He stated the purpose of this document is to put information out there and get comments. They were communications with the DNR on this so they got the information about the herons and in the information from the DNR:that is; in the appendix, they don't raise any red flags because it is over a half mile away from the rookery. However, as part of the public comment period, if the DNR has a problem with it they will Certainly make that known. Councilmember Carlson stated this was correct and that the no -wake zone was much smaller, but the reason she raised it was that in addition to hurnan'diturbance, one of the possible discussions we had was if the reconstruction, let's say 35W, had an effect on the herons leaving. Councilmember Carlson referenced ,.age 30, at thejtop, regarding noise modeling and monitoring and modeling results. She stated this exceeds the state standards in many areas and questioned whether there was anything that can be done to reduce this? City Planner Smyser stated he believed that we should be able to get a good answer for that when we get comments from MPCA, MnDOT and possibly Anoka County Highway. Councilmember Carlson wished to bring up another consideration. Regarding nearby resources, archeological, she was referring to the Indian Artifacts, the church and the parking lot, on page 31, second paragraph from the bottom. The church and the parking lot will be located on the northeastern portion of the propery well away from the mound group. This is why the potential of other development is a concern, because with other development it would not be possible to tow the line on the western edge of the church property. This was a question on the bottom page 33, she stated she was surprised, as this related to the Comprehensive Plan because as someone who had spent a lot of time on the Comprehensive Plan, she did not realize this. Since the project does not comprise residential development and it does not rely on City utilities, growth areas are not relevant. She questioned where did the Council approve that in the Comprehensive Plan, or how that comes about, because this not only refers to this project but also to other possible ones. 18 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 City Planner Smyser stated that in regard to the staged growth areas, they are about when we would allow utilities to be extended into that area. This project is not contingent upon utilities, it does not need City sewer and water. Councilmember Carlson stated that was a little bit different understanding than she would have of this because she was reading it as two separate statements. This was a surprise. Zoning had already been covered. She referenced page 35, number 29, regarding the need to identify any past, present or reasonably foreseable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW. Such as the way accumulative impacts are caused. Now it references that there is no signficant proposed development identified near the area that will compound the impacts. But referring back to page 36 and her concerns about other development. Many times throughout this document it was being stated that this is the development that is proposed. She questioned whether or not she could vote on this, believing this is the development, that we are not going to be lookip at something else a couple of years down the line that is going to move the development to the 1 d closer to the Indian mound, more into our shoreland ordinance and so forth. City Planner Smyser stated if they do that, then this EAW would become moot and they would have to do another one so, we can only plan what we know about.As an analogy, he stated that a person does not necessarily know if in ten years they would want to.. add on to their garage. At this time they have no plans to do anything other than what is in there. CouncilMember Carlson did not necessarily feel the garage analogy was pertinent, but that essentail y the answer is no, but they would have to go through the EAW process again. City Planner Smyser stated this was correct, Councilmember Carlson stated this summarized her concerns. Councilmember O'Donnell inquired about the process and where the City needs to go from here. He stated his understanding of the agenda item tonight was merely to distribute the EAW. There have been a number of proposed modif cations rtlade to the EAW, and now his question was which one is the City distributing? Are they distributing the one that was handed out at the work session, the one the Council had in front of them, or are we distributing the one with the additions Councilmember Carlson suggested? And a related` question would be how to go about putting these and agreeing to the changes that have been proposed' He questioned whether or not the Council would need motions on each of those points or whether the Council would vote only on whether to distribute it or not and let staff work with Councilmember Carlson and other appropriate parties on modifying this? He felt the procedure as to this was unclear. City Administrator Waite Smith suggested that Councilmember Carlson's comments could be brought up at the time when the City receives the other public comments. Mayor Bergeson stated the consultant might wish to address this. Ms. Hopkins stated she had only noted two specific changes that were requested. 19 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Councilmember Carlson stated that was correct. Ms. Hopkins stated regarding the petition, question number 4, adding that it was a citizen petition as well as proposer volunteered, and then adding a reference to the standards from the conditional use permit in an appendix, noting that City Planner Smyser had that information. Ms. Hopkins stated she believed those things could be added without dramatically changing the document. He had heard the rest of the comments and understood the concerns that Councilmember Carlson had and those could be aired through the public comment period. That is how those are typically handled. That they are not, according to his understanding, to be changes proposed at this time. He felt these changes could be made easily and he could have it ready for review in the same timeframe. Councilmember Carlson stated she agreed there are just the two specific changes she had requested. She wished to communciate on these issues sooner rather than later because she had received calls from residents. She wanted to express her concerns are and that is whyie brought these other issues forward at this time. She is very concerned about other potential d:pment on that site if it occurs, but had not been anticipated nor addressed. Mayor Bergeson stated he had a question about the prodtu=e for presenting concerns of people other than agencies. How would a member of the public or individual Councilmember communicate questions, concerns, comments, whatever, related to this whole process? City Planner Smyser stated there is a public commentperiod for the City to take comments. He is the person who will receive all public comment. Comments from the Council will be taken after the public comments are received, and when tit,Council determines whether or not an EIS is necessary. All questions will be answered and addressed before that decision is made. City Administrator Waite Smith stated she did not want the audience to think that the other Councilmembers were unprepared op this matter. There had been no expectation that Councilmembers would comment on `e EAW this eveningThe only formal action on the agenda was to approve distribution of the EAW to the public agencies and public. Councilmember Carlson concurred with City Planner Smyser as to the public comment process. Her intention was to bring her concerns up as the process unfolded, and that she had the right to do so at the current meeting. She felt that commenting on questions and issues that are in the EAW would have been better done at a work session. She expressed hope that the next time the Council is looking at some step in this process, they would get the information in time to raise those questions at a work session, so that it does not take so much of everyone's time. Councilmember Dahl inquired as to whether, at this stage, the document was mainly for the benefit of the agencies involved, and not necessarily the general public? • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 City Planner Smyser stated the document is technically available to anyone who requests this and wants to view it. They can buy copies or view copies in the City Hall library. A copy will be sent to the interested community group. Councilmember Dahl questioned whether the Council had to wait 30 days until after comments come back from the agencies or whether the public can pick it up immediately after the meeting, for example? City Planner Smyser stated by law, it has to be made available to anyone when a request is made. Therefore, it is available to everyone at the same time, once it is printed. Councilmember Dahl clarified that there is no waiting period. Anyone can come up and get it this week or next week. City Planner Smyser stated that was correct. Councilmember Dahl stated she also had a couple of comments. Shewas concerned about the mound system, because she knew that it stated what would be typical for sewer and water. She was sure that whoever checked this was very accurate, but somewhere she recalledeeing that they might have additional seating sooner or later and she was wondering if that mound system is just to accommodate the current capacity. She had wondered if the capacity was referencing initial capacity or ultimate capacity. Mayor Bergeson stated this had been addressed m the earlier comments, and staff has already advised that the EAW addressed the ultimate size of the building. Councilmember Dahl questioned the figures, and Mayor Bergeson responded that whatever the largest number is, was how size was calculated. Councilmember Dahl stated she brought this up because she shared Councilmember Carlson's concern on this point. And she wished to point out that the preferred the corrected copy contain the two points Councilmember Carlson had raised. City Planner Smyser stated that this had been agreed upon and would-be done. Mayor Bergeson stated that it was possible there would be more additions, following discussion by the other Councilmembers. Councilmember Dahl stated she had no additional comments at this time. Mayor Bergeson stated he had two comments. First, he inquired as to whether there was a page in the document about noise monitoring and modeling. (Figure 6 in the appendix.) He did not need an explanation of this now and he did not know if it had already been done, or if it was a model and would be done. His point was that since Councilmember Carlson raised the issue of noise related to the lake and the island, was it possible to put a noise point on the lake end of the property in terms of monitoring or modeling? City Planner Smyser responded that the noise monitoring that was indicated here was traffic noise, since that was the significant noise generator in the area. Mayor Bergeson responded that the question remained whether it were possible to calculate the traffic noise on the back of the lot in addition to the front of the lot? 21 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Ms. Hopkins stated she believed the models take into account topography and distance. As you get back further from the road you are going to find it is minimized by the time you get to the lake. As part of the comment period she would be prepared to respond to that. Mayor Bergeson stated he was not suggesting to amend the document but it was a question he had. One additional question he had, was that somewhere in the document was a list of agencies this goes to. The other night City Planner Smyser had a list of agencies, and it seemed that list was longer than the one provided. He asked whether he could provide the Council a list of those agencies. City Planner Smyser stated that regarding the list of agencies in the report, that is a permit list, which is two different things. The list of permits is just that, a list of permits needed if the project is built. This is not the circulation list. That will be provided to the Council. Councilmember Carlson stated she felt there was a third item she had requested. The first was that the citizen petition / proposer volunteered both be marked with a footnote removed. The second was that the standards for conditional use permits be added in the appendix he'third had to do with the building height over two stories and stating the building heights in the rural and residential areas of 35 feet. Mayor Bergeson inquired as to whether these suggested changes could be done. The consultant for the EAW indicated that change would also be made. Councilmember Carlson stated she had one other item. She inquired whether there a copy of this EAW available for public to look at in the am? `City Planner Smyser stated he had his own copy, which he was making notes on during th 4tusion. Councilmember Carlson stated that was net really available, then. It was her understanding that at least one copy of any printed materialrelating to agenda items of the meeting shall be available in the meeting room for inspectionb tk publtc'4while the governing body considers the subject matter. City Administrator Waite Smith felt a copy was sufficiently available, but offered her copy of the EAW for the meeting room in caseanyone present wished to see it. Mayor Bergeson announced this to the audience. Councilmember Carlson stated she wanted to follow up on Councilmember Dah's request for information because at the Wednesday night meeting, it was said that a copy of this would be given to the petitioner and she did not believe that had happened, plus the report was not available in the room. Mayor Bergeson asked if there was any additional discussion and asked staff to reiterate the suggested motion and clarify the scope of the action requested. City Planner Smyser stated what the Council was being asked at this time, was only to approve distribution of the document for public comment. He had four changes noted: deletion of a phrase that Councilmember Carlson requested regarding industrial development to the east, comparison of the 22 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 height of surrounding buildings, attaching the conditional use permit conditions somehwere in the document, whether in an attachement or the document itself, the change to the citizen petition and proposer volunteered statement on page 1. With those changes Staff would make the amendments in the document and distribute the document for public comment as required by Minnesota Rules 4410. So if the Council wishes, approving Resolution No. 02 — 142, knowing those four changes will be made to the text and we can move on in the process. Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 02 — 142. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Mayor Bergeson confirmed the requested changes with the consultant. Ms. Hopkins stated yes, these would be done, and they would have the document ready to submit to the EQB next Monday, October 21, 2002 at which time it will be sent out to everyone on the distribution list and any other concerned parties and available at thelibrary next Monday. That will give them enough time to make the changes. Councilmember Reinert amended the motion to include the four recommendations outlined and reiterated by staff Councilmember O'Donnell agreed to the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02 —142 can be found in the Citi` Ck's. office. Public Hearing, Consider FIRST READING o prdinance No. 12 — 02, Vacating Ponding Easement, Lot 11, Block 2, Sunset Oaks, 73 L lac Street (Debra Woods), Tanda Gretz — Associate Planner Gretz advised Debra Woods lives at 73 Lilac Street, a two -acre lot which is zoned Rural. The property contains a home with an attached garage, and Ms. Woods would like to construct an additional detached garage to the rear of the home. There is an existing 42' X 190' ponding easement area on the east part of the property. This easement area is where the applicant would like to site the proposed garage, and so she is asking for a Vacation of the easement. This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map. 2. Certificate of Survey, prepared by Kurth Surveying, August 16, 2002. The existing ponding easement at 73 Lilac Street (Lot 11, Block 2, Sunset Oaks) covers portions of the eastern part of the property and extends onto the neighboring property to the east. In reviewing documents from the time the Sunset Oaks subdivision was constructed (1970's), it appears that the ponding easement area was designated in anticipation of a pond being constructed or needed. Thirty years later, such a pond has never materialized. 23 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 City Engineer Jim Studenski has reviewed the site and found no need for the ponding easement area, as there is no drainage to the area and the land is relatively level. In addition, a portion of the existing septic system of the home is sited in the easement area, which would thus make it impractical for ponding purposes. As the ponding easement area does not appear to be necessary for drainage purposes, staff would recommend its vacation. Mayor Bergeson opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Councilmember Dahl moved to close the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve FIRST READINpf Ordinance No. 12 — 02, as presented. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Mayor Bergeson voted yea, Cour member Carlson voted yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Motion carried unanimously. Consider SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 09'- 02, Vacating Drainage and Utility Easement, Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, Pheasant, H , 9t1' (Brausen Property), Tanda Gretz — Associate Planner Gretz advised Ordinance No. 09-02 was approved on the first reading before the City Council on September 23, 2002. It isnow before the Council for the second reading. Theodore Brausen is applying for the Vacation of a drainage and utility easement on his property. Mr. Brausen, who lives at 6763 Timberwolf Trail, has purchased the adjacent lot to the south of his home, and has combined the two lots inbo,one tax parcel with a single PIN. He would now like to vacate the drainage and utility eaacments which exist on either side of the line between the two original lots. Mr. Brausen ha constrLlcted a pool and, although the pool is not itself sited on the easements, other pool utility areas will be. This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1.) General Location Map 2.) Easement Vacation Exhibit, dated 8-6-02 by Loucks Associates The subject drainage and utility easement exists as two standard five-foot side yard drainage and utility easements, one on Lot 4 and one on Lot 3. Since the two five-foot easements are on adjacent lots, the combined easement area measures approximately 10' X 144.' City Engineer Jim Studenski has reviewed this application and reports that there are no utilities or storm sewers located in the easement area. As a result, there should be no negative impact to vacating the easement area. 24 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 This is a request for the Vacation of two standard five-foot side yard drainage and utility easements. Since the two properties have now been combined into a single tax parcel with one PIN, and there are no utilities or storm sewers sited in the easement area, it is appropriate to vacate the easement. Councilmember Carlson moved to approve SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 09 — 02, as presented. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Mayor Bergeson voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 09 — 02 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Consider Resolution No. 02 —147, Accepting Quotes for Bou Asleson — Upon adoption of the agenda, this item was removed. ree Plantings, Marty Consider Resolution No. 02 — 149, Amending City'sblic Improvement Finance Policy (Nadeau Request), Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala advised in May of 2002, the City Council granted Site and Budding Plan approval to Peter and Norma Nadeau allowing them to move their existing house, located at 1644 20th Avenue, to an existing vacant 13.5 acre parcel directly across the street (6651 2)t _Avenue). As part of the house relocation, the Nadeau's requested approval to connect to C. water. A 16 -inch City trunk water main is in place on the east side of 20th Avenue. No assessr e levied against abutting properties when the line was installed. The City's Public Improvement Financing Policy states that in areas where a property abuts a trunk sewer and a trunk watermain and no assessment has been made against the property, the property owner may connect to the t `d" and pay the current area charge, unit charge and a front footage charge. In accordance with policy, the Nadeau's charge to connect to the system would be $40,626.00 based on their 13.5 acre parcel and front footage of 320 feet. The improvement policy does allow for reduction in assessments for developed residential lots, adjacent to City trunk sewer and water, if the property has an existing home, well and septic system. Often referred to as the Bisel and Modified Bisel amendments, the policy allows for the reduction in assessments for properties with an existing home, well, and septic system. In each instance the applicant is required to pay an area, unit and front footage charge based on the minimum requirements of the zoning district the mains were intended to serve. In cases where properties can be further subdivided, assessments on the remainder of the property is deferred. The Nadeau's have requested that their situation be treated in accordance with the modified Bisel Amendment. This would allow them to connect to City water with the fees based on the minimum lot requirements of the R-1, Single Family Residence District and the remainder to be collected upon 25 COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 • further subdivision of the property. The total fee under this scenario, to be charge at this time, is $3,968.50. However, the Nadeau's do not qualify for this exception under the existing policy. • • Rather than grant an exemption to the existing policy, staff is recommending the amendment of the policy to address both developed and undeveloped large lots adjacent to trunk sewer and water mains. The policy amendment would provide for the following: 1. All lots that cannot be subdivided would be charged based on the minimum requirements of the zoning district the mains were intended to serve, upon connection to the mains. 2. All lots that can be further subdivided would be charged based on the minimum requirements of the zoning district the mains were intended to serve, upon connection to the mains. The remainder of the assessment will be deferred until further subdivision of the property. Staff has also included a provision that, in the event a parcel is assessment clause would apply. divided in the future, the applicable Community Development Director Grochala advised staff reom 02-149. ends approval of Resolution No. Councilmember Carlson stated the assessment fee was originally over $90,000. Under the previous policy the fee was $40,000. She asked what the fee will be according to the new policy. Community Development Director Grochala state the original fee of $95,000 included surface water management fees. Staff determined t hat fee eidW of apply so the fee was calculated at approximately $40,000. The total fee will be $3,968.50 under tnerevised policy. The property owner will also be responsible for the actual connection fees to the main. Councilmember Carlson asked what the assessment fees will be in the future in the property is subdivided. Community Development Director Grochala stated that will depend on what happens in the area. The property will not be subdivided because it is not 10 acres. The estimated amount of assessment fees for the entire' property will be approximately $40,000 minus the Nadeau fee of $3968.50. Councilmember Carlson stated that with the policy amendment that leaves approximately $37,000 to be assessed on the property. She asked if the City charges interest or improvement costs at the time of the improvement because it sounds like the property owner is getting an interest fee loan. Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the City policy regarding unit charges. The unit charges are based on fixed numbers that the City approved many years ago. Those numbers are based on an index that is reviewed yearly and has inflation built into it. Councilmember Carlson clarified that the assessment for the property will then be more if the property is subdivided in the future. She stated the amendment would apply to others in the same situation. She stated there was a resident on Birch Street in the same situation with an existing home. She asked if the amendment will work better for individuals on large lots. 26 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Community Development Director Grochala stated staff hopes the amendment will work better because of the clarification. The City does want to apply it uniformly where trunk lines have already been put in. Councilmember Carlson stated there are other areas in the City where sewer and water will be going in or the City has already put it in. She asked how the City can go back and justify costs to those other projects in relation to this policy. Community Development Director Grochala stated there are two separate situations. The first situation is where the lines are put in to get to other areas and not providing a direct benefit to the properties. Sometimes services are provided because they have been specifically requested. Those costs are assessed to the property owners. A middle of the road situation is 62nd Street. If the residents there do not want sewer and water staff will likely put' from the project. Councilmember Carlson stated there are properties on the north side of the City that won't have sewer and water for years. She stated some of those property owners ave expressed anger because they are providing City utilities to other areas in the City. Community Development Director Grochala stated residents are not paying for City services in other areas of the City. City utilities are paid for by the Trunk and Area Fund and does not come from the General Fund or taxes. Mayor Bergeson stated this issue is a concern and the Council does need to discuss how the City will get services to areas that need it when there willnot'be development in the area for quite some time. Councilmember Carlson stated that a part oftat is the existing homes that need services and if those funds can also be used for them. Community Development ' Grochala advised the Council needs to discuss and review the City's entire Public Improvement oficy. Mayor Bergeson moved to adopt` Resolution No. 02 — 149, as presented. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 02 — 149 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Consider Authorizing Execution of Electrical Inspections Contract, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala advised on September 9, 2002 the City Council approved the adoption of Ordinance 08-02 which rescinded the City's authority to conduct Electrical Inspections and transferred such responsibilities to the State Board of Electricity, effective October 1, 2002. However, the State Board of Electricity will not provide the necessary inspections for any permits issued by the City, prior to October 1, 2002. As such, it is necessary for the City to enter into an interim contract for timely completion of all previously issued permits. 27 • i COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Mr. David Kichler, the inspector servicing the area for the State Board, has indicated his willingness to contract separately with the City to complete the outstanding permits. Staff is working with the City Attorney to complete the contract. The only substantial departures from the previous Electrical Inspection contract relate to insurance provisions. Mr. Kichler does not currently carry the same insurance amounts for General Liability, Automobile and Errors and Omissions that were required under the previous inspection contract. Staff is reviewing the insurance provisions with the City Attorney. Community Development Director Grochala advised staff is recommending Council approve authorizing execution of Electrical Inspections Contract. City Attorney Hawkins advised it is difficult to get the same level of insurance with an interim contract as the prior contract. He stated he does not see the contract as a risk to the City. If there was a claim beyond the limits of the policy, the City limits would cover that There is government immunity beyond the City's limits. Mayor Bergeson asked what the City requires in relation to the insurance provision. Community Development Director Grochala advised the previous contract allowed for $300,000 per person and $1 million per occurrence. The new contract allows for $500,000 each accident and $1 million aggregate. The contract does have substantial coverage. Councilmember Carlson asked how long a permit can stay out there if the state will pick them up. Community Development Director Grochlta.;advsed permits are good for one year and the state may pick up expired permits. Councilmember Carlson asked how Director Grochala advised the City ennits the City has out. Community Development 100 permits out. Councilmember Dahl moved o authorize the execution of an interim electrical contract with Mr. David Kichler to perform electrical inspections for electrical permits issued prior to October 1, 2002, and authorizing the City Attorney to draft such a contract. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS September 9, 2002 Council Meeting Minutes — Councilmember Carlson requested the September 9, 2002, Council Meeting Minutes be removed from the agenda. NEW BUSINESS September 18, 2002, Council Work Session Minutes — Councilmember Carlson referred to page 3, paragraph 3 and correction the last sentence to read "She noted that she tried to look at the culvert on Cripple Creek and it could not be seen". 28 • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the September 18, 2002, Council Work Session Minutes, as amended. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried with Mayor Bergeson abstaining. September 23, 2002, Council Meeting Minutes - Councilmember Dahl moved to approve the September 23, 2002, Council Meeting Minutes, as presented. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. October 2, 2002, Special Work Session Minutes — Councilmember Dahl requested the October 2, 2002, Special Work Session Minutes be removed from the agenda and discussed at a future work session. COMMUNITY CALENDAR OCTOBER 14 THROUGH OCTOBER 28, 2002: Council Work Session, Wednesday, October 23, 2002, 5:30 p.m. Environmental Board Meeting, Wednesday, October 23, 2002, 6:30 p.m. City Council Meeting, Monday, October 28, 2002,1000 p.m. ADJOURN There being no further business, Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Councilmember Carlson seconded the mote Motion carried unanimously. These minutes were considered and approxi the regular Council Meeting, December 9, 2002. Ann Blair] City Clerk Transcribed by: Kim Points TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. erge on, ayor