HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2003 Council MinutesAPPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
• 2 MINUTES
3
4
5 DATE : January 27, 2003
6 TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M.
7 TIME ENDED : 10:41 P.M.
8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmembers Carlson, Dahl, O'Donnell, Reinert, and
9 Mayor Bergeson
10 MEMBERS ABSENT : None
11
12 Staff members present: City Administrator, Linda Waite Smith; City Clerk, Ann Blair; Community
13 Development Director, Michael Grochala; Finance Director, Al Rolek (part); City Engineer, Jim
14 Studenski; City Planner, Jeff Smyser (part); Associate Planner, Tanda Gretz; City Fire Chief, Milo
15 Bennett (part); and City Attorney, Bill Hawkins.
16
17 SETTING THE AGENDA
18
19 Mayor Bergeson noted that Item 7D, Consideration of Resolution No. 03-11, Minor Subdivision and
20 Variances for James Keefe, has been withdrawn from the agenda.
21
22 The agenda was approved as amended.
23
W24 CONSENT AGENDA
25
26 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as submitted. Councilmember
27 Reinert seconded the motion.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 ITEM ACTION
32
33 A. CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES:
34
35 i) January 27, 2003 (Check No. 67211 -
36 67351, $425,930.23) Approved
37
38 ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 13598 -
39 13620, $63,805.42) Approved
40
41 B. Consideration of Resolution No. 03-14 Approving Commercial Waste Hauler License,
42 Walter's Recycling and Refuse
43
44 OPEN MIKE
45
46 A. State Senator Mady Reiter — Introduction to City Council
047
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 Mayor Bergeson welcomed Senator Mady Reiter to the meeting and indicated she will be providing a
• 2 legislative update.
3
4 Senator Reiter introduced herself stated she is proud to represent a portion of Lino Lakes. She also
5 represents Circle Pines, Lexington and Shoreview. She stated she has been assigned to the
6 Transportation Committee, the Commerce Committee, which has recently been combined to include
7 cable communication and most of the utilities, and to State Government Budgets.
8
9 Senator Reiter indicated she was here to talk briefly about the four and one-half billion dollar deficit
10 in the spending budget. She stated that the economy right now is going okay in Minnesota, but has
11 not come all the way back since the September 11, 2001 tragedy.
12
13 Senator Reiter indicated the State loss in capital gains has been nine million dollars, and combined
14 with the health care costs has hurt the State budget. She added that Northwest Airlines revenues have
15 had a part in the deficit also, with fewer people traveling.
16
17 Senator Reiter stated one thing being looked at is a two-year freeze on salary increases on all levels of
18 government. She indicated anyone who campaigned extensively during the previous election
19 received a clear message that tax increases would not be tolerated. In light of this, a freeze is
20 necessary on all levels of government from State through cities, school districts, watershed districts,
21 etc. She indicated there are 25,000 employees at the University of Minnesota, and while they cannot
22 tell the University specifically they cannot increase salaries, they can take away $10 million in aid,
23 which would force them to make that decision themselves. She stated there were 129,000 employees
•
24 in school districts and 40,500 in county positions. She indicated she didn't have the exact number of
25 city employees. She added that every police officer, fire department employee, anyone due to receive
26 an increase is not going to get it. She stated that with this freeze the senators are supposed to receive
27 a 12 percent raise, which obviously they won't do.
28
29 Senator Reiter indicated there are a few areas they've been told are off limits, including K-12
30 education. She indicated a task force has been formed to look at the allocation of funds per district,
31 and they have to get a handle on it. She stated currently Minneapolis receives $16,000 per student,
32 and St. Paul receives $11,000 per student, whereas Lino Lakes and other areas receive only $6700 or
33 $6800 per student. She indicated they need to look at the pieces that drive how that amount is
34 determined, and property taxes will be looked at also. She added Homeland Defense is also off
35 limits. She stated Lino Lakes is very frugal. They receive only $157,000 in state aid. Senator Reiter
36 stated that while she is not a proponent of holding back salaries, the taxpayers will hold government
37 in line and she is here to ask for support from the City.
38
39 City Administrator Waite Smith asked if multi-year union contracts would be hampered by this action
40 as well. Senator Reiter stated her assumption would be that anything in progress would go forward.
41 She indicated the State has not approved the freeze yet.
42
43 City Administrator Waite Smith indicated there were three items on the agenda to approve this
44 evening, including a union contract that is a year old already. She asked if they should continue with
45 those items or if they should be tabled until further information comes out. Senator Reiter indicated
46 she would defer to the City Attorney to make that decision, as it could take the entire session to
•
47 decide to move forward.
48
2
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 City Attorney Hawkins stated his recommendation would be to go forward with business as usual.
• 2 He stated the Council cannot stop conducting business based on what might happen.
3
4 Senator Reiter stated she does not know how to advise the Council at this time, as she does not know
5 what will happen.
6
7 Councilmember Carlson indicated that in Toni Coleman's column recently she interviewed
8 Lieutenant Governor Molnau, who talked about legislation she hopes to be involved with to help
9 speed up projects for Mn/DOT. She stated the article didn't go into detail and asked if the Senator
10 could provide any more information on this subject.
11
12 Senator Reiter stated it is still the plan to use bonds for several major projects. She indicated she has
13 authored or co-authored many projects herself and knows Mn/DOT is looking at several different
14 areas, including bridge projects both in the Lino Lakes area and in Anoka. She stated the projects are
15 still going forward, indicating the County has to participate in the bridge projects. She commented
16 that she still presumes funds could come from tobacco money.
17
18 Councilmember Carlson asked if Mn/DOT would be looking for local participation. Senator Reiter
19 stated that where the State can get help locally to further a project they do. She stated that in
20 Shoreview they participate in many of the projects. She indicated she is meeting with two people
21 from the governor's office to discuss, and if she can suggest that Lino Lakes would be interested in
22 participating in some local projects she will do that.
23
S
24 Councilmember Carlson stated this is a tough situation to have come before them and not really know
25 where it is going. Senator Reiter stated her party feels strongly that they have to look at everything,
26 because it may be part of what they have to do in the end. She indicated they would look at
27 everything else to see if raises and salaries can be accommodated.
28
29 Mayor Bergeson stated the aid Lino Lakes receives from the State is $157,000. He asked if that
30 would be frozen or eliminated. Senator Reiter stated some Legislators would love to do away with it
31 completely. She stated that there is not a hard formula to determine how much each city receives.
32 She had asked for the formula in 2001 and again in 2002 and it does not exist. She indicated some
33 people feel the process is unfair, and there are groups in favor of the current way of determining the
34 amount, and others against it. She indicated that in the Sunday paper there was a review about
35 Austin, showing Austin receives 78% of their budget from the State. She commented that this
36 amount allows them to do things other cities cannot. She stated that the amount Lino Lakes receives
37 is probably less than 1 percent of their budget. She believes something will happen with this
38 disparity.
39
40 Mayor Bergeson asked the Finance Director to comment on what portion of their budget was State
41 aid. Finance Director Rolek indicated it was about 2 percent.
42
43 Mayor Bergeson indicated that one of the issues with their participation in the transportation projects
44 was that Lino Lakes is a charter city. This means they have significant limitations on what funds can
45 be spent on road projects and improvements, and may be limited in participating. Senator Reiter
46 indicated that her understanding of Mn/DOT is that they are not looking for funds from each city for
• 47 their projects, only if a city wants to do more than the scope of Mn/DOT's project to be completed at
3
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 the same time. She cited 694 as an example, where Little Canada, Shoreview and Maplewood were
2 consulted and designed trails on bridges and other improvements.
3
4 Senator Reiter thanked the Council for doing their part. She asked that the Council let her know if
5 there is anything happening that they feel is harmful for the city. Mayor Bergeson asked if Senator
6 Reiter would come back in a few months and update the Council. She indicated she had a Town Hall
7 scheduled in Lino Lakes on February 6th at 7:00 p.m.
8
9 Councilmember Reinert asked about the possible wage freeze being presented to the cities. He asked
10 how that would help the State budget, since it is paid by the general fund. He does not see how that
11 would help the State. Senator Reiter indicated that the voters have made it clear they do not want any
12 tax increases. She stated if individual cities grant increases they would probably have to raise
13 property taxes to regain that money. She indicated this is an across the board approach, adding that
14 she just heard this information today as well and does not understand it completely.
15
16 Senator Reiter indicated that the vast majority of the thirteen new senators that were just elected came
17 from local government, whether mayors, council members or board members. She stated that it is
18 difficult for them to implement this type of situation at a local level because they all know what the
19 local government goes through. She commented that while she does not know how this will play out,
20 she knows that the approach is that if it is going to be done to one, it should be done to all. She stated
21 that the LGA needs to be looked at to determine why one city gets so much and others so little.
22
23 Councilmember Reinert stated he agrees, and doesn't understand why one city gets 2 percent and
•24 another gets 20 percent. Senator Reiter stated some get 70 or 80 percent.
25
26 Councilmember Carlson noted Senator Reiter had mentioned other state funds, and asked what those
27 were. Senator Reiter indicated Municipal State aid, which is not often discussed. She stated County
28 and State aid were talked about all the time. She noted that all of the major traffic and work -
29 generated traffic was in the Metropolitan area. She indicated this is another formula that needs to be
30 looked at.
31
32 No one else was present for open mike.
33
34 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK
35
36 Consider Resolution 03-10 Authorizing the Issuance of 2003 Certificates of Indebtedness, Al
37 Rolek — Finance Director Rolek noted that the 2003 budget called for the issuance of Certificates of
38 Indebtedness in the amount of $130,000 to be used for the purchase of capital equipment as part of the
39 equipment replacement program. He stated the City is transitioning from a Debt Program to a
40 Revolving Funds Program. He added that the $130,000 proposed is only a portion of the equipment that
41 needs to be replaced. He stated that the equipment would be sold to the Area and Unit Fund, which has
42 sufficient funds to purchase, and would be repaid through a Special Levy over the next three years.
43
44 Finance Director Rolek indicated that the equipment to be funded with the 2003 Certificate of
45 Indebtedness included:
46 • 3 squad cars
47 • 1 dump truck
48 • 1 plow truck
4
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
•
1 • 1 Half -ton pickup
2 • 1 mower for the parks
3 • A contribution to the Centennial Fire Department for their Equipment Replacement Fund
4
5 Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 03-10 issuing the 2003 Certificates of Indebtedness.
6
7 Mayor Bergeson asked if when the City issues a Certificate of Indebtedness to another City fund, it
8 saves on issuance fees. Finance Director Rolek indicated it does, because there are no bids that need
9 to be done and no issuance costs, so it saves them money.
10
11 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution 03-10 Authorizing the Issuance of 2003
12 Certificates of Indebtedness. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion.
13
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15
16 Resolution No. 03-10 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
17
18 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH
19
20 Consider Approval of Agreement with Local 49, Dan Tesch — City Administrator Waite Smith
21 advised that the City has employees in four unions. The City has negotiated a proposed labor contract
22 with the Local 49 bargaining unit, which represents fourteen employees in the Public Works and
23 Public Services departments. The contract includes market adjustments effective January 1, 2003, to
24 positions below the average for metro area cities of similar size according to the DCA Stanton Salary
25 Survey; three percent general adjustment effective January 1, 2003; effective September 1, 2003 the
26 employer and employee will share 50/50 any increase in premiums for the lowest priced family health
27 care plan; ten dollar increase in annual clothing allowance for each contract year; and a change to the
28 pay for being required to carry on-call pager, from $20 per day to one hour of pay at employee's
29 current rate for each day required to carry pager. This is a very small difference. She stated a new
30 provision of the contract is double pay for being called out on Thanksgiving or Christmas weekend, if
31 the weekend is connected to the holiday.
32
33 City Administrator Waite Smith stated it is Staff s recommendation that the Council approve the
34 proposed 2003 labor contract with Local 49.
35
36 Mayor Bergeson stated that in spite of comments earlier, the City has spent a lot of time negotiating
37 and reviewing and coming to the terms of this contract. He feels the City should move ahead with
38 approval.
39
40 Councilmember Reinert stated he agrees. He indicated the proposal is new, and not approved yet, and
41 stated a lot of what gets proposed downtown does not happen. He recommends that the City move
42 forward and see what happens as time progresses. He indicated he does not want to stop the work the
43 Council does because of a possible situation downtown.
44
45 Councilmember Carlson indicated she supports going forward. She indicated that while technically
46 Councilmembers would be able to keep their increase, as they've already received one check with the
47 increase, if it turns out a freeze would be placed on the others, she would recommend as a good
48 gesture that Council freeze theirs. She noted that it would only be about a $150.00 difference.
5
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1
• 2 City Administrator Waite Smith indicated that Council has already received their increase, as have the
3 union employees with two-year contracts.
4
5 Councilmember Reinert moved to approve the agreement with Local 49. Councilmember Carlson
6 seconded the motion.
7
8 Mayor Bergeson indicated that if government at all levels is still having financial problems at the end
9 of the contract it may have an effect on future contracts, but he believes this contract has been
10 negotiated in good faith.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Consider Approval of Agreement with LELS (police officers), Dan Tesch — City Administrator
15 Waite Smith advised that this is a new contract with a new association called L.E.L.S., representing
16 the police officers. This contract covers last year and this year, as the police officers were with the
17 Teamsters and switched, so the contract had to be re -negotiated with the new organization. She
18 advised that as with the other unions, a 3% annual adjustment was negotiated for both years, with a
19 one-half percent market adjustment in 2002 to bring the officers' salaries in line with officers in other
20 cities of similar size. She stated that in addition, the contract provides a $25.00 increase in both years
21 for a clothing allowance, and a $500.00 contribution towards family health insurance premiums. In
22 2003, the city and employee will split the premium increase over $500.00. She stated Staff
23 recommends approval of the contract.
• 24
25 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the agreement with LELS. Councilmember O'Donnell
26 seconded the motion.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 Consider Approval of Non -Union Salaries for 2003, Dan Tesch — City Administrator Waite Smith
31 advised that there are ten non-union city employees, with the other 55 city employees in unions. She
32 stated staff is recommending that these employees receive the same 2003 salary increase negotiated
33 by the city's four unions, which is three percent. In addition, staff is recommending market
34 adjustments to salaries for two positions that are below the average for similar size metro area cities:
35 Public Services Director, one percent; and Finance Director, two percent. She stated the non-union
36 employees traditionally receive the same health care benefits as unionized employees, which for 2003
37 is 100 percent coverage of the premium for single coverage and $500 plus one-half of any increase in
38 family coverage. She indicated Staff recommends approval of the salary increases.
39
40 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve non-union salaries for 2003. Councilmember Dahl
41 seconded the motion.
42
43 Councilmember Carlson indicated there was one comment that was not covered in the summary,
44 which is that non-union employees who received a market adjustment in 2002 would not receive an
45 increase this year.
46
▪ 47 Motion carried unanimously.
• 48
6
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
.1 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAVE PECCHIA
2
3 There were no Public Safety Department Reports to consider.
4
5 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER
6
7 There were no Public Services Department Reports to consider.
8
9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT, MIKE GROCHALA
10
11 Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 02-03, Vacating Park Land, Pheasant Hills
12 Preserve 9th Addition, Tanda Gretz — Associate Planner Gretz advised that agenda item 7A is the
13 second reading of Ordinance 02-03, the Vacation of Park land located in the Pheasant Hills Preserve
14 9th Addition, off Timberwolf Trail. She indicated that the parkland, which was to be used to provide
15 trail access to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes, was originally shown on the Final Plat of Pheasant
16 Hills Preserve 9th Addition as located to the east of Lot 5, Block 1. The developer actually
17 constructed the parkland trail to the west of this lot, however.
18
19 Associate Planner Gretz explained that as a result of this situation, the City has acquired easements
20 from the owners of the property on which the parkland trail is located, with the trail now both secured
21 and constructed. Ordinance 02-03 seeks to vacate the original parkland, as shown on the Final Plat of
22 Pheasant Hills Preserve 9th Addition. This action was taken at the advice of City Attorney Bill
23 Hawkins. The vacated land would then revert to the two adjacent property owners, each receiving a
•
24 10 -foot strip of land along their side property lines.
25
26 Associate Planner Gretz explained that as Ordinance 02-03 would vacate the original parkland and
27 conclude and finalize this outstanding issue, staff would recommend approval of Ordinance 02-03.
28
29 Councilmember Reinert moved to approve SECOND READING and adopt Ordinance No. 02-03,
30 Approving the Vacation of Park Land, Pheasant Hills Preserve 9th Addition. Councilmember Dahl
31 seconded the motion.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35 Ordinance No. 02-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
36
37 Consideration of Resolution No. 02-168, Approving Site and Building Plan Review, UDOR,
38 Inc., Tanda Gretz — Associate Planner Gretz advised agenda Item 7B is an application, submitted by
39 Gordon Johnson, for a Site Plan Review for a building addition for the UDOR Company, located at
40 500 Apollo Drive. The UDOR building was first constructed in 1994 and was 6,000 square feet in
41 size. A 2,400 square foot addition was approved in 1999. The applicant would again like to expand
42 and is asking approval for a 3,600 square foot addition to be used for cold storage/warehousing and
43 testing.
44
45 Associate Planner Gretz advised that UDOR is located in the Apollo Business Park, surrounded by
46 similarly zoned businesses. The proposed addition would extend the building to the southeast,
• 47 similar to the addition that was approved in 1999. Access to the addition is to be entirely internal: it
7
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 is to be an extension of the previous addition, to be used primarily for storage and some testing, with
• 2 no exterior docking bays or doors proposed. All required setbacks for the addition are met.
3
4 Associate Planner Gretz explained that while the applicant has submitted no full -view elevation plans,
5 construction drawings of the proposed addition show a building constructed of rock -faced block,
6 similar to the existing building in terms of material and height. There are no additional parking stalls
7 proposed, as plans for the original building constructed in 1994 provided adequate parking both for
8 the original building and a planned 6,000 square foot expansion.
9
10 Associate Planner Gretz noted this second addition, then, fulfills the 6,000 square foot expansion area
11 envisioned in the original plans for the UDOR building. One of the conditions of approval for those
12 original plans was that landscaping be done between the building and 35W, once all additions had
13 been completed. As a result, such landscaping can now be done, and staff has made this one of the
14 conditions of approval for this Site Plan Review.
15
16 In terms of grading and drainage issues, Associate Planner Gretz pointed out that City Engineer
17 Studenski has reported that the submitted plans meet City requirements. There are several items
18 relating to drainage calculations, which were submitted after the Planning & Zoning Board meeting,
19 and still need to be addressed. These items are listed as conditions of approval, and must be
20 completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer before building permits will be issued for the
21 project.
22
23 Associate Planner Gretz advised that this report was presented at the November 13t meeting of the
24 Planning & Zoning Board. After consideration of the issues, the Board voted to approve the proposed
11, 25 Site Plan Review, with conditions of approval.
26
27 Associate Planner Gretz stated that as the proposed addition appears to meet all requirements, staff
28 would recommend approval, with the following conditions:
29
30 1.) Silt fencing shall be staked at the top of the ponding area, rather than on the sides, to
31 prevent erosion during construction.
32 2.) No additional lighting is to be added without review.
33 3.) Landscaping should be completed within one year of issuance of the building permit.
34 4.) The trees to the east of the building are to remain preserved where possible. The applicant
35 is to allow staff to review any plans regarding removal of trees, with replacement trees to
36 be added as staff directs if any trees are removed.
37 5.) Show on the plans where all the roof drains for the existing and proposed expansion
38 buildings are located.
39 6.) Show on the plans identification for the stormwater pond overflow location along with an
40 engineered defined overflow structure that includes erosion mitigation measures.
41 7.) Show on the plans the location, size, and elevation of the proposed equalizer storm pipe
42 between the ponds. Follow the City of Lino Lakes' engineering standards in choosing
43 piping materials and installation procedures.
44 8.) Stormwater ponds will require permanent easement agreements.
45 9.) The City will require a stormwater maintenance agreement.
46
•47 Associate Planner Gretz indicated she could answer questions from Council members, and that Mr.
48 Johnson is also available to answer any questions members might have for him.
8
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1
i2 Councilmember Carlson asked if the wording concerning the type of block could be added to the
3 conditions to formalize in writing the intent. Specifically it would say 'the proposed addition must be
4 constructed of rock faced block to match the existing building in terms of construction material and
5 height'.
6
7 Councilmember O'Donnell asked for clarification, as the report indicates it was approved by the
8 Planning and Zoning Board by 1-4 vote. He asked if it was clear it was approved. He then corrected
9 his statement noting that it was approved with conditions 1 through 4.
10
11 Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-168, Approving a Site Plan Review for a
12 3,600 square foot Building Expansion for the UDOR Company (Apollo Business Park, Block 2, Lot
13 1) with the 9 conditions outlined by Staff and the 10th condition that the proposed addition be
14 constructed of rock faced block to match the existing building in terms of construction material and
15 height. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 Resolution No. 02-168 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
20
21 PUBLIC HEARING — Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 03-03, Vacating Drainage and
22 Utility Easements, Lot 2, Block 2, Pheasant Hills Preserve 4th Addition, Tanda Gretz — Associate
23 Planner Gretz advised that agenda item 7C is an application from Mr. Dale Vancil for the Vacation of
•24 a 295 -square foot area of a drainage and utility easement on his property, located at 1561 Merganser
25 Court, in the Pheasant Hills Preserve 4th Addition. The vacation is requested so that a home addition
26 and patio area can be constructed.
27
28 Associate Planner Gretz indicated the need for a vacation came to light when Mr. Vancil went to pull
29 building permits and was advised that the proposed project area was within an easement area. Since
30 the proposed project area was covered by turf grass and did not appear to Mr. Vancil to be part of the
31 wetland which the easement was to protect, he contacted City Engineer Jim Studenski to pursue a
32 Vacation.
33
34 Associate Planner Gretz noted that overall, the subject property is surrounded by similarly zoned and
35 guided properties, with properties to the east of it also containing large portions of their rear yards in
36 easement areas, which exist to protect a wetland to the north. The boundaries of the easement area on
37 the Vancil property — as shown on the Final Plat - are defined by the elevation of 902 feet, which is
38 the 100 -year flood elevation: thus, everything under 902 feet is under easement; everything at or
39 above 902 feet is outside the easement area. Grading on the lot, however, does not conform to
40 elevations shown on the Final Plat: there are areas within the easement area that are above the 902
41 foot threshold, and area outside the easement area that are under the 902 foot threshold level.
42
43 Most specifically, Associate Planner Gretz noted that the elevation of Mr. Vancil's proposed project
44 area is above the 902 feet threshold, even though it is shown on the final plat as existing within the
45 easement area. It is for this reason, that both City Engineer Jim Studenski and the Rice Creek
46 Watershed District have approved the Vacation of the easement area.
• 47
9
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 As a result, Associate Planner Gretz explained that staff is recommending approval of this vacation,
O' 2 but with a condition attached: A new survey of the lot has been done in an attempt to understand and
3 document site conditions. The survey has indicated an area to the west of the home, outside of the
4 easement area, that is below 902 feet, and thus within the 100 -year flood elevation. Due to this
5 condition, staff would recommend the following:
6
7 1.) All portions of the lot outside of the drainage and utility easement which are below the 902 -foot
8 threshold elevation must be filled so that an elevation at or above 902 feet is achieved. A building
9 permit will not be issued until the City Engineer is satisfied that this condition has been met.
10
11 Associate Planner Gretz indicated she could answer questions Council Members might have on this
12 issue, and stated that Mr. Vancil is here to answer any questions members have for him.
13
14 Councilmember Carlson asked when the lots would be graded. Associate Planner Gretz indicated this
15 would be done at the time of construction.
16
17 Councilmember Carlson indicated there are so many situations where grading plans are not followed,
18 she would like to see the regulations expanded so this does not happen so often in the future.
19
20 Councilmember Dahl moved to approve FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 03-03, Vacating a
21 Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement for Lot 2, Block 2, Pheasant Hills Preserve 4th Addition.
22 Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion.
23
0 24 Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted
25 yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Mayor Reinert voted yea.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 The City Clerk noted that a Roll Call was not completed for the Second Reading of Ordinance No.
30 02-03, Vacating Park Land, Pheasant Hills Preserve 9th Addition. Mayor Bergeson asked that it be
31 done at that time.
32
33 Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted
34 yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Mayor Bergeson voted yea.
35
36 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-11, Minor Subdivision and Variances, James Keefe,
37 Michael Grochala — This item was removed from the agenda.
38
39 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that this item will come back before the
40 Council. He stated it is going to the Planning and Zoning Board on February 12, 2003.
41
42 Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 01-03, Establishing Growth Management
43 Provisions, Jeff Smyser — City Planner Smyser advised that the Growth Management Ordinance,
44 Ordinance 01-03, is the first part of the package of ordinances that will implement the new
45 Comprehensive Plan. The Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance are the other two main
46 pieces of the package. The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on Ordinance 01-03 on
ip47 January 8 and the Environmental Board heard it January 23.
48
10
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 City Planner Smyser indicated the Environmental Board had suggestions he will get into as he goes
• 2 through it with Council. He stated there were a few things he wanted to point out, and distributed a
3 handout that details some additional proposed changes. He indicated he would start with the easier
4 issues and go back to the hard ones afterwards.
5
6 City Planner Smyser advised that in Section 2, paragraph 5 he would like to change the wording from
7 The goal for new growth in the city is an average of 147 new housing units
8 to
9 The goal is to limit new growth in the city to an average of 147 new housing units.
10 He stated the Environmental Board was receptive to this change.
11
12 Councilmember Reinert indicated he had no problem with this change. Councilmember O'Donnell
13 agreed. Councilmember Carlson stated that `limit' is the word used in the Comprehensive Plan so
14 she agrees with this change.
15
16 City Planner Smyser indicated he wanted to add a sentence to the end of paragraph 5 to clarify
17 something he saw in reviewing it on Friday. The sentence states
18 This 147 growth target refers to units in future plats, not to units on lots in final plats
19 approved prior to 2003.
20
21 Mayor Bergeson asked where the sentence would be added. City Planner Smyser indicated it would
22 be tacked onto the end of the paragraph.
23
24 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if this wouldn't increase the number of units. City Planner Smyser
25 stated they cannot prevent lots already approved from being built on.
26
27 Councilmember Carlson asked to have the language repeated. City Planner Smyser indicated it was
28 on the memo he passed out, and repeated the sentence wording.
29
30 Councilmember Carlson asked how long it would take the City to reach their limit. City Planner
31 Smyser indicated they were going to closely regulate the number of plats approved, but previously
32 approved plats are not included in the 147 and will not be counted.
33
34 City Administrator Waite Smith explained that the actual number of houses built in 2003 could be
35 157, with 147 on plats approved in 2003 and 10 built on plats approved in 2002. City Planner Smyser
36 confirmed that was the case.
37
38 Councilmember Carlson stated that was the question she was asking. She added there was a good
39 chance that not all the plats approved in 2003 would also be built in 2003. She asked how many
40 years it would take before the City had used up their inventory. City Planner Smyser indicated
41 probably in 2005.
42
43 Councilmember Carlson asked how that fit with limiting growth. Mayor Bergeson stated it still has
44 the word limited, and still says limited to an average growth of 147.
45
46 City Planner Smyser reminded Council that there will be phasing plans on all new plats that come in.
ak 47 He stated Council will have the ability to approve only a portion with the phasing plans. For instance,
mir 48 he indicated a new plat that has 150 lots could be approved for only 50 lots this year. He stated this
11
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 would be tracked on the spreadsheet created. City Planner Smyser indicated the Council could
• 2 regulate the number of lots through approval of plats and phased approval of final plats.
3
4 City Administrator Waite Smith stated that concerning Councilmember Carlson's question on how
5 does this limit growth, there is another number involved of 147 times 7 years. City Planner Smyser
6 indicated that was correct. City Administrator Waite Smith stated that each year they would be
7 subtracting the number of lots approved from that higher number.
8
9 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated another guiding principal in growth management is considering
10 how many lots are in the current inventory. City Planner Smyser stated yes, but that nothing could be
11 done about what is there now.
12
13 Councilmember O'Donnell clarified as long as the number doesn't exceed the three-year lot
14 inventory. City Planner Smyser indicated this was incorrect. Councilmember O'Donnell stated that
15 one of the qualifiers states that a three-year inventory cannot be exceeded. City Planner Smyser
16 stated again that lots already approved are not part of this ordinance, and the inventory starts at zero.
17
18 Councilmember Reinert indicated the total number of homes for the seven-year period is 1029. He
19 stated that with the ability to go over the 147 units by 20 percent each year, it would be possible to get
20 to the last two years and not be able to approve anymore homes. City Planner Smyser indicated that
21 was correct.
22
23 Councilmember Reinert stated this would be a difficult situation and would be challenged if it
dik 24 happens. He referred to the City Attorney as to whether the City would be on firm ground.
25
26 City Attorney Hawkins stated his opinion that the City can do this. He indicated he had given an
27 opinion at the last meeting, adding that other areas have done it successfully.
28
29 Mayor Bergeson asked about the change of wording adding the words to limit growth. He stated he
30 didn't hear City Planner Smyser say specifically what it would be. City Planner Smyser indicated in
31 Section 2, at the bottom of the page, paragraph 5, where it says goal for new growth it would now
32 read goal is to limit new growth. He apologized for the confusion and added that the Task Force that
33 worked on this and the Planning and Zoning Board deserve a lot of credit.
34
35 Councilmember Carlson asked how the three-year lot inventory was determined. City Planner
36 Smyser stated he didn't provide the matrix and spreadsheet this time, but he has a copy if anyone
37 wants one.
38
39 Councilmember Carlson asked if it is three years times 147 per year or if it is based on a different
40 formula. City Planner Smyser indicated the three-year inventory would include 147 times 3 plus the
41 existing inventory. He stated it will decrease over time because the existing lots will be built on.
42
43 Councilmember Carlson questioned if the 2003 inventory would be 147 plus the existing inventory,
44 then 147 additional each year. City Planner Smyser indicated it would. He asked Council to keep in
45 mind that developers will be building on more lots each year than the 147 until the current inventory
46 is used up. He stated there have been 240 or 250 homes built each year recently, but that number will
Ali 47 decrease each year. He indicated that if the City sticks to only approving 147 a year it will get to only
1111, 48 having 147 built each year.
12
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
•1
2 Councilmember Reinert asked if the inventory included 147 lots per year plus the 20 percent higher
3 or lower allowed. City Planner Smyser indicated it did not. Councilmember Reinert indicated that
4 would make the numbers self-regulating. City Planner Smyser indicated affirmatively, stating the
5 math works out.
6
7 Councilmember Reinert stated the City will be tested on this, and when they are tested, he wants to be
8 sure they win.
9
10 City Planner Smyser stated the only other change he had was at the end, adding paragraph 18, which
11 is a clause that says if this goes to court and is thrown out, only the piece that was challenged is
12 thrown out, not the entire ordinance. He stated that since Councilmember Rienert and City Attorney
13 Hawkins asked the questions he was going to clarify, he had no additional changes.
14
15 Mayor Bergeson stated that there was previously a public hearing on this ordinance and there would
16 not be one now, however he would take brief comments from the audience if there were any.
17
18 Amy Donlin, 6100 Centerville Road stated she was on the Task Force to develop this ordinance and
19 she regards it as the meat and potatoes of the entire growth management process. She indicated that
20 she asked often during the meetings when growth would be discussed. She stated that as a Task
21 Force member she did not feel part of the process. She indicated the Task Force received a copy of
22 the finished ordinance later in the process, adding that Mr. Smyser did not discuss all the items. She
23 read excerpts from a letter written by her father concerning growth in Lino Lakes, and indicated that
•24 under this ordinance the Council would be approving a city one-third larger than intended. Instead of
25 20,500 people there would be 30,000. She stated that if there was a good reason for jumping this far
26 above what had been intended, Staff should let others in on it as Board Members and citizens. She
27 stated it seems as if the City is reaching the levels of the Comprehensive Plan seventeen years
28 prematurely. She stated the City has explaining to do to the citizens.
29
30 Ms. Donlin indicated that what City Planner Smyser did not discuss is the Environmental Board's
31 discussion of paragraph 7A through 7D. She stated that the paragraphs contain so many holes there
32 would be no way to uphold it. She indicated it basically says `if you support the city or provide a
33 service, we'll let you do what you want to do'. Ms. Donlin stated that paragraph 16 also was not
34 discussed, which has huge implications. She feels the ordinance is not ready to pass as it stands and
35 needs to be looked at in depth.
36
37 Mike Trehus, 675 Shadow Court, stated there is a mistake in the ordinance for the second reading.
38 He indicated that Item 16 says This growth management policy shall not apply to the area of "The
39 Village". He stated this is a gross mistake, as the number of dwellings approved could be 547 instead
40 of 147. He mentioned that paragraph 5 says a goal of 147, however as Councilmember Reinert
41 pointed out the Council has the right to go 20 percent over that each year. He feels it needs to be re -
42 worded to say a maximum of 129 per year. He stated that these two errors stand out, and asked the
43 Council if Lino Lakes was going to limit housing or not. He indicated that he had hoped stronger
44 statutes would help limit the runaway development, as the numbers are staggering. He stated that the
45 language City Planner Smyser is proposing be added to paragraph 5 is a contradiction of what has
46 been discussed. He stated the average needs to be retroactive to include what has been done already,
S
47 if not back to 1995, at least to 1998.
48
13
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 Community Development Director Grochala stated Staff had attended each of the Environmental
S2 Board meetings, including the one mentioned by Ms. Donlin, which went on for another hour after
3 Ms. Donlin left. He stated that he had received a memo asking that he look at Item 7, which the
4 Council had brought up prior to that meeting. He indicated Staff is correct that it all comes back to
5 1,029 dwellings in seven years. By providing that number, there cannot be a 20 percent increase each
6 year. He stated that at the second Environmental Board meeting there was a change in paragraph 16,
7 inspired by a concern about the growth policy. He indicated there is a concern about being above the
8 numbers with The Village. He indicated the ordinance as presented is the result of ongoing work
9 with the City Attorney and City Planner Smyser. He stated they tried to be true to the Environmental
10 Board's comments, and knows the ongoing discussion is 'are we being true to the Comprehensive
11 Plan'. He indicated this is an improvement in 2003 with a moderate growth plan. He reviewed that
12 there had been three plans presented, low growth, high growth and a combination of the two.
13 Unfortunately, the moderate growth plan was not implemented properly in 1997 and not formally
14 adopted until 2002 after a lot of hard work. He stated everyone is aware Lino Lakes has surpassed the
15 projections absent of any enforcement until now, however all that can be done is to go forward today.
16 He stated that Lino Lakes has averaged 240 new homes a year, with only slightly less last year at 216.
17 He indicated that this growth management policy is still a significant reduction to what has been done
18 in recent years, and is a positive step.
19
20 Councilmember Carlson read paragraph 16, stating this had been discussed last week, and in itself,
21 was not adequate. Additional language has been added. She indicated that because Lino Lakes is
22 exempting the Village,they cannot exclude other developments. , By leaving this point in here, we
23 open the door to other developments as well, however narrow.
AK 24
111, 25 City Attorney Hawkins stated that in theory, another developer meeting all the right criteria could
26 come in and ask to have the plan amended because we cannot write an exemption for one piece of
27 property, particularly one where the City owns part of the land.
28
29 Mayor Bergeson stated the key words there are plan amendment. He stated that anyone could request
30 to have the plan amended, but if the Council doesn't see fit to do it, it stops there.
31
32 Councilmember Reinert stated that in reading the memo from City Attorney Hawkins, it says if
33 someone came in and requested a development similar to The Village, the Council would have the
34 right to say no. City Attorney Hawkins stated that he was asked to determine if excluding The
35 Village from the Growth Management Ordinance was unlawful.
36
37 Councilmember Reinert stated the question on the table is can the City prevent having to approve
38 another development such as The Village. City Attorney Hawkins stated his opinion that if they met
39 the exact same criteria, which would be extremely difficult, and were able to convince the Council to
40 amend the Comprehensive Plan, then another development could happen. He added that it is very
41 unlikely that another developer could meet all of the criteria.
42
43 Councilmember Reinert asked if a developer could force the Comprehensive Plan amendment. City
44 Attorney Hawkins stated he was being asked to speculate, but they would have to meet all of the
45 criteria.
46
•
14
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
.1 Councilmember Reinert asked if that included multi -use zoning. City Attorney Hawkins indicated
2 affirmatively, stating that zoning is a legislative decision. Councilmember Reinert stated that was the
3 Council's control.
4
5 Councilmember Carlson stated she had asked when the proposal for The Village first came up, and
6 was still asking, about The Village being presented as a demonstration project. She indicated she has
7 a concern with a couple other areas of the City named as possibilities,if Lino Lakes will be asked to
8 follow through and duplicate this.
9
10 Mayor Bergeson indicated that he took demonstration project to mean in Lino Lakes as an example
11 for similar projects in other cities, not that Lino Lakes would be asked to participate in additional
12 developments.
13
14 City Planner Smyser stated that in order to be a Livable Communities Project, Lino Lakes would have
15 to be part of the application. He indicated no one could tell the City they had to participate unless the
16 City wants to.
17
18 Councilmember Carlson stated she has seen one proposal for The Village, and realizes you cannot
19 build apartments in pieces, but asked if there were other ways the project could be done like a
20 Comprehensive Plan Amendment or spreading out the units over the length of the 2020
21 Comprehensive Plan.
22
23 City Planner Smyser stated he hasn't seen a sketch plan for The Village yet. He added there are
MI24 infinite possibilities until something definite comes in. He asked that the Council keep in mind that
25 what is being said is only 147 dwellings, except for The Village. He stated that the direction from the
26 Council was to exempt The Village, so that is the direction Staff has taken. If that decision is now
27 going to be reversed, it would put the process back three or four months and Staff would have to re -
28 look at the whole plan. He stated he hopes that is not the case.
29
30 Councilmember Carlson stated the Council doesn't need a crystal ball to see that The Village will
31 likely be 400 or more units. She stated the first proposal was in the range of 200, and the second
32 proposal was 380 units. She indicated she would not be surprised to see 400 units, and if that is the
33 case the City will be much above the 147.
34
35 Mayor Bergeson stated the first developer is gone, and there has been no proposal from the landowner
36 and current developer. He added that the City owns part of the property and has some say in how it is
37 developed.
38
39 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that with The Village the City does not know
40 how many units there will be. He indicated it is unfair to break it out and divide it through 2020,
41 because the City does not know how many units to break out. He stated that the Council decision was
42 147 dwellings not counting The Village, and with that basis they laid out the growth plan until 2010.
43 He added that anything after that would need a plan amendment. He asked if The Village were
44 included, would it be broken out over ten years, as this would have a significant impact on developers
45 and landowners. He stated that they have a growth management plan and a significant amount of
46 work has gone into it. He feels it will aid in the development of the community and spur new
•47 infrastructure as far as the interchange goes. He stated that The Village is in a unique area and has no
48 negative impact on the surrounding areas. He advised it is in the City's best interest to set it aside.
15
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1
•
2 Councilmember Reinert asked if the Council took the units to be built at The Village and divided
3 them out, would the City not need to have a Comprehensive Plan amendment and go before the Met
4 Council. City Planner Smyser stated it would bring more problems with the Comprehensive Plan
5 than with the Met Council. He indicated it would be more of a problem to try to implement the
6 Comprehensive Plan.
7
8 Councilmember Reinert stated he was trying to determine if the conversation taking place was a real
9 scenario. He agreed with Councilmember Carlson that he would rather see 200 units than 400 units at
10 The Village, however he did not see how they could do anything except exclude it.
11
12 City Planner Smyser indicated that including the units at The Village would decrease the units
13 available elsewhere in the City to less than 100 a year, which would be very difficult to implement.
14 He stated there were probably sites that are ready to go that would push that for a number of reasons.
15 He indicated that reducing to that number would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and he
16 would have to think about what would need to be changed if the Council decides to do that.
17
18 Councilmember Reinert commented that the Council looked at the Comprehensive Plan that was
19 discussed years ago, and were now having new discussions. He questioned if the Council was doing
20 what the citizens want.
21
22 Mayor Bergeson stated the problem with dividing The Village and subtracting out some units each
23 year is that it will be many months before the City knows what that number is. He feels the Council
24 needs to put this ordinance in place and then that is where the City will go. He asked if all of the
25 changes were in the latest draft. City Planner Smyser indicated they were in the latest draft and the
26 memo distributed. He indicated the changes from the memo were to paragraph 5, adding paragraph
27 18 and amending paragraph 16.
28
29 Councilmember Carlson asked him to repeat the way paragraph 5 would read, which he did. Mayor
30 Bergeson asked him to read paragraph 18, which was read as well.
31
32 Councilmember Reinert moved to approve SECOND READING and adopt Ordinance No. 01-03,
33 Ordinance Creating a Growth Management Policy with the changes recommended by staff in the
34 memo dated January 27, 2003. Mayor Bergeson seconded the motion.
35
36 Councilmember Carlson indicated that if this is the best we can do as a Council, she would join in
37 voting for it; however, she stated that the Council was not doing what they set out to do.
38
39 Councilmember Reinert stated that growth in the City couldn't be managed until today. He stated
40 that 147 was agreed to and noted it took a long time to get here. He indicated that only as of today
41 will the Council have a tool to manage growth that has not been available until now. He stated that
42 they are achieving the goals of the city.
43
44 Mayor Bergeson indicated he was somewhat skeptical of how growth management will play out over
45 the next couple of years, and felt the Council may get legal challenges. He stated he was not sure this
46 was in the best interest of homeowners, landowners, or developers in Lino Lakes. He noted that Lino
.47 Lakes would be making a contribution to urban sprawl, because if development can not happen here it
48 will happen in Forest Lake Township or Columbus Township. He stated that this is the plan the
16
•
•
•
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 Council embarked on many years ago with the intent of ending up where the majority said they could
2 live with it even if it is not exactly what they wanted to do. He believes that has been accomplished.
3 He noted that the responsible thing to do is put in place those ordinances that will accomplish growth
4 management in a timely manner, adding that the Comprehensive Plan was not implemented in a
5 timely manner. He stated the Comprehensive Plan doesn't mean much without the ordinances to
6 support it.
7
8 Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted
9 yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Mayor Reinert voted yea.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 Ordinance No. 01-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
14
15 Mayor Bergeson thanked all those who worked on the ordinance.
16
17 Mayor Bergeson called for a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:57 p.m.
18
19 Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 04-03, Adopting Subdivision Regulations, Jeff Smyser
20 - City Planner Smyser advised that the subdivision ordinance regulates the division of land to create
21 new parcels and is the next piece in being able to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance
22 No. 04-03 is the product of a year of work by the citizen task force, City staff, and the planning
23 consultant. The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on this ordinance on August 14,
24 2002. The City Council received a revised draft, then held a special work session on October 30,
25 2002 to discuss the draft ordinance and provide guidance to staff on several key issues. Since then,
26 staff has been working to refine numerous aspects of the subdivision process, which will be very
27 important in implementing the growth reduction desired by the community and described in the
28 comprehensive plan. The draft under consideration tonight is dated December 19, 2002.
29
30 City Planner Smyser presented the following general points of interest:
31
32 Better list of definitions in Sec. 1001. These are still being coordinated with definitions in the zoning
33 ordinance. Some revisions may yet be appropriate. Staff will have the definitions completed for the
34 second reading of the subdivision ordinance.
35
36 Improved lists of submittal requirements for preliminary plats, final plats, and minor subdivisions.
37 There have been problems in the past from applicants being unclear what they needed to submit.
38
39 Clear descriptions of what is specifically required and prohibited in order to eliminate ambiguity and
40 confusion. This includes plat design, procedural steps, and development agreements. Provides clear
41 instructions on 'Thou shalt do this' or 'Thou shalt not do that'.
42
43 City Planner Smyser explained that as staff has been re-examining aspects of the ordinance, a few
44 corrections are appropriate. Those corrections are attached to the staff report and have been provided
45 for the Council's review. The intent is to incorporate these changes into the ordinance with the
46 approval of the first reading.
47
17
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
•1 City Planner Smyser presented the following specific highlights:
2
3 Premature Subdivision Standards and MUSA Allocation Criteria: These are included in the General
4 Provisions, Sec. 1002. A proposed plat will be compared to these standards to ensure there is
5 adequate infrastructure to support the plat.
6
7 Road or Highways to Serve the Subdivision: There have been many discussions on the level of
8 service necessary. The question raised is can a development be denied if it does not make a bad
9 situation worse. This has been revised to mandate that the level of service, graded A through F, must
10 not degrade due to the development, and if currently an E or an F, must be improved as part of the
11 proposed project to ensure a level of service D or better.
12
13 Several items refer to the City's growth management policy: this is Ordinance 01-03, which will set
14 out specific methods to monitor growth and keep it at the desired level.
15
16 Concept Plan Review: An informal concept plan step has been added. It is not mandatory but is
17 strongly recommended. Staff expects most developers will participate. This was called a sketch plan
18 but has been changed to concept plan.
19
20 Preliminary Plat: Requirements are laid out and include a tree preservation plan and a phasing plan.
21
22 Tree Plan: The tree plan requirements do not mandate preserving a specified number or
23 percentage of trees. Rather, they require a complete inventory of all significant trees on the site. The
•24 inventory will indicate which trees will be affected by the development. City staff and the developer
25 will discuss the potential for saving trees, and the plan will then clearly list which trees will be lost
26 and which will be saved. If trees are lost that were designated to be saved, they must be replaced at a
27 2:1 ratio.
28
29 Phasing Plan: The required phasing plan for each plat will specify a schedule for the final platting of
30 portions of the development. Staff then can track exactly how many lots will be created in each of
31 several years in the future. This section links the ordinance to the growth management policy. In
32 fact, there is some overlap. There are two changes proposed for this section, as shown on Attachment
33 A. In paragraph 2 of 1004.8 it is recommended to add `if applicable under the growth management
34 policy'. Phasing plans are only required for subdivisions of 40 lots or more. Also a sentence added
35 to paragraph C, which reads `Plans for the construction of streets and facilities for sanitary sewer and
36 water also must take into consideration the phasing plan'. The second change is on 1004.9, paragraph
37 6. This paragraph will be entirely replaced with new wording, which states `Traffic study for the
38 subdivision including existing and projected traffic generation, distribution, capacity of existing
39 streets, and levels of service. Projections shall include conditions both with and without the project'.
40
41 Final Plat: Requirements include bringing final plats through the Planning & Zoning Board as well
42 as the City Council. Because of the importance of the phasing plans, staff thought it a good idea to
43 have the P & Z aware of how the growth management system is working.
44
45 It was noted on 1005.4, paragraphs 5a and 5b address final grading and utility plans and are important
46 points for growth management. This was rephrased at the direction of Council from a work session
•47 and instructs that grading can be performed on the entire site but sanitary sewer or water facilities can
48 not be built until final plat approval.
18
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
12 Paragraph 2b was also added on page 1005.5 to ensure that 40% of lots from previous phases have
3 improvements before the next phase is brought for final plat. This is to make sure progress is being
4 made and land is not just platted and left.
5
6 Paragraph 4 of page 1005.6 makes it very clear that work on sewer, water and streets may only be
7 done in areas included in the approved final plat.
8
9 Minor Subdivisions: Changes to this section include page 1006.1 paragraph 2, which should read
10 unsewered residential areas. Original discussions included commercial and industrial lots but Staff
11 believes they should use the plat process to address grading issues and the avoidance of breaking off
12 small sections at a time. It was noted that there are some lots in sewered areas that are big enough to
13 divide into plats. While it is not something that will occur often, the potential is there. These would
14 need to be handled through the normal plat process.
15
16 Paragraph 4 was also added for further clarification.
17
18 An important change from our current procedures is that the draft ordinance states that minor
19 subdivisions would be reviewed administratively, rather than go through the P & Z and City Council.
20 This change is intended to reduce the time and expense—for the applicant and the City—for
21 relatively simple lot splits. With clear requirements for lot dimensions, wastewater treatment and
22 water facilities, upland minimums, etc., it is clear whether or not a proposed lot split meets City
23 requirements. If the application meets the requirements, it should be approved with little delay.
ik 24 Applicants always have the opportunity to request a variance from the requirements or appeal the
25 staff decision. A variance or appeal would then go through the Planning & Zoning Board and City
26 Council. Periodic reports would be provided to City Council summarizing submitted minor
27 subdivision applications and outcomes regarding approval or denial.
28
29 Design Standards: There are a number of design requirements included in the new ordinance.
30
31 Land in electricity transmission or pipeline easements cannot be used to fulfill the minimum buildable
32 land requirement for a lot. (page 1007.2)
33
34 Clarification that every new lot must have the minimum lot width fronting on a public street. (page
35 1007.2, paragraph 5.)
36
37 Access management requirements for access to collectors and arterials. (page 1007.2, paragraphs 6.
38 and 7.)
39
40 Setbacks must be shown for each lot on the plat drawing. (1007.3, par. 8 and 1004.4, paragraph 10)
41
42 Minimum 10' buffer around all wetlands, and buildable lot area cannot include this buffer. As with
43 the pipeline and electricity transmission easements, these buffer areas cannot be used to fulfill the
44 minimum buildable land requirement for a lot. (1007.3, paragraph 9)
45
46 Conservation subdivision open space categories and ownership requirements are listed. Conservation
•
47 subdivision design is not mandatory. If this option is chosen by the developer, ownership and
48 management of the open space must be addressed.
19
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1
• 2 A diagram has been provided to demonstrate easement requirements. (1007.9)
3
4 A joint trench requirement for utilities has been added. This has been the City's practice, but it has
5 not been formally adopted by ordinance. (1007.10)
6
7 Park Dedication: The City adopted new park dedication requirements in 2001. The new subdivision
8 ordinance includes these with no changes. It would be useful to review the park dedication fees at the
9 end of 2003 for possible increase.
10
11 Tree Preservation: Section 1009 addresses the Tree Preservation requirements of subdividers. Item
12 3a on page 1009.2 requires the preparation of a tree inventory by a licensed professional to
13 encompass the entire property. In the Tree Replacement section on page 1009.4 Staff is proposing
14 the addition of the wording 'that was supposed to be saved but was' to paragraph 1 as outlined in
15 Attachment A. This will clarify an issue that has been difficult for developers and landowners to
16 understand.
17
18 Improvements: Section 1010 lists elements of a new development that must be installed, and
19 mandates certain ones as the developer's responsibility. The new development agreement
20 requirements include a final grading survey to ensure that the grading plan was implemented by the
21 developer, which addresses the concern Councilmember Carlson raised earlier. Developers will not
22 be able to start building houses until grading plans are completed to specification. Based on previous
23 conversations the words 'and prior to approval of the final plat' will be removed from line one of
•
24 Section 1010.6.
25
26 City Planner Smyser explained that much of the work in the last few months has focused on the
27 timing of the site work in relation to the preliminary and final plat approvals. In order to implement a
28 Growth Management Policy with restrictions on growth, it is necessary that the Subdivision
29 Ordinance strictly control what work occurs when. After discussion with the City Council at a work
30 session, staff revised the ordinance to reflect Council direction.
31
32 City Planner Smyser noted that grading of the entire site can occur after preliminary plat approval,
33 with a development agreement that covers the grading. This agreement can include construction of
34 street, water, and sanitary sewer in the first phase. However, this construction cannot actually occur
35 until the first phase received final plat approval. Subsequent phases must then have additional
36 development agreements to address construction of streets, water, and sewer.
37
38 Financial Security, Enforcement, Severability, Supremacy and Effective Date and Signatures: These
39 final sections refer to the policies and provide a brief overview.
40
41 City Planner Smyser pointed out that the staff report contained pages that listed corrections to be
42 made as part of the approval of the first reading of the ordinance. Staff recommended the Council
43 approve the first reading of Ordinance 04-03, with the corrections listed on Attachment A.
44
45 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if all comments from City Council and the Boards had been
46 considered and a clean copy would be provided for the second reading. City Planner Smyser
•47 indicated they had and a clean copy would be available.
48
20
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 Councilmember O'Donnell asked about the park dedication fees. He indicated that determination of
41) 2 fees was part of the City fee schedule and wouldn't change the ordinance when reviewed. City
3 Planner Smyser indicated that was correct and thanked Councilmember O'Donnell for the
4 clarification.
5
6 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if more specifics on tree trunk size and height could be shown
7 under Tree Replacement (1009.2). City Planner Smyser indicated it would be referred back to the
8 definitions on page 1001.9, which gives strict definitions of what qualifies under Tree Replacement.
9
10 Councilmember O'Donnell asked for clarification that occupancy permits would also be held up in
11 case there were final grading changes during building. City Planner Smyser indicated that is
12 addressed in the zoning ordinance.
13
14 Councilmember O'Donnell confirmed that there are two checks to make sure grading was done as
15 specified. City Planner Smyser stated grading was addressed with the developer originally, then
16 again with a survey at time of building permit and finally before the occupancy permit is issued.
17 Councilmember Reinert clarified this was three checks. City Planner Smyser indicated affirmatively.
18
19 Councilmember Carlson referred to page 1001.3, the definition of buildable land. She stated she
20 understands why parkland was taken out, but not why slopes in excess of 18 percent was removed.
21 City Planner Smyser indicated that they have reviewed the entire buildable land issue from all angles.
22 He stated the goal was to get to a point where buildable land meant the same thing to everyone. He
23 stated that with slopes there is some interpretation leeway to determine where the edge of the slope
.
24 starts. Therefore to simplify it was determined that buildable land means anything that is not wetland.
25 City Planner Smyser indicated that steep slopes are difficult to build on physically anyway and would
26 probably prevent people from asking to build. Staff wanted one definition for everything. He stated
27 that this provides a clearer definition and since there is not a lot of topography in Lino Lakes this
28 shouldn't be a problem.
29
30 Councilmember Carlson indicated that based on the likelihood that we won't see this she can let it
31 pass, but she's concerned it could leave a loophole that may increase density. City Planner Smyser
32 stated that was correct, if there was a piece of property with a lot of slopes it could increase the
33 density, possibly by one additional house.
34
35 Councilmember Carlson indicated on page 1002.3 and 1002.4, paragraphs 3a and 3b are being
36 changed from level of service C to level of service D. She asked if definitions could be provided for
37 C and D. City Planner Smyser indicated he would provide that to City Council.
38
39 Councilmember Carlson stated that paragraph 3d could be interpreted in several ways. The paragraph
40 states:
41 The traffic generated from a proposed subdivision shall not require City street improvements
42 that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital Improvement Plan or the developer shall
43 pay to correct any street deficiencies.
44 One way to interpret this would be that road work was being offered and developers may not be
45 required to pay for improvements. She indicated her husband read the paragraph and thought the
46 purpose was to protect developers from the City asking them to pay for more than they should. City
•47 Planner Smyser indicated that paragraph will need to be reworked.
48
21
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
•
1 Councilmember Carlson stated that in Section 1002.7 addressing MUSA there is a list of criteria to be
2 considered to determine if MUSA will be allocated. She asked what would happen if MUSA was not
3 available. City Planner Smyser indicated that number 8 in this list indicated that the area of MUSA
4 allocation must be consistent with the growth management policy established by the Lino Lakes
5 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the growth management policy states that there is a limited about
6 of MUSA available and when it is gone, that is it.
7
8 Councilmember Carlson read the first paragraph of Section 1003.3, which says:
9 The Community Development Department shall review the concept plan and shall determine if
10 the project crosses any mandatory thresholds for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
11 (EAW), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or Alternative Urban Area -Wide Review
12 (AUAR) pursuant to Minnesota Rules. If such documents are required, the Community
13 Development Department shall notify the developer of the requirement.
14 She asked what happens if the mandatory threshold is not crossed.
15
16 City Planner Smyser stated it is always important to review. He indicated what would typically
17 happen would be a petition to have an EAW done anyway. He stated the Council always has the
18 option to look at the situation and ask for an EAW. For a discretionary EAW the applicant would
19 volunteer to have done or the Council could ask for it. This situation would not be very common.
20
21 Councilmember Carlson gave an example using Highway 49. She indicated there may have been an
22 Environmental Impact Statement and she is aware there was some historical preservation research
23 that took place. Now the bridge is finally freezing over. If the County was willing to do an EAW and
S
24 the results come in and Council wants to do an EIS, could Council decide to do that on their own or is
25 a citizen petition required or even accepted at that point. City Planner Smyser stated it would
26 probably be out of their hands at that point. He indicated that under the law the highest level of
27 government is responsible. If it is a County project, the County does it. He indicated a typical
28 situation would be to do an EAW under state law and an EIS under county law.
29
30 Councilmember Carlson asked what happened in instances where the City is the highest level of
31 government. City Planner Smyser indicated they have faced this. If they receive public comments
32 they have a responsibility to address them. Staff brings the information to the City Council with a
33 recommendation if an EIS is necessary or not.
34
35 Councilmember Carlson asked if it is Council decision that an EIS is necessary, is it staff decision
36 that it crossed the mandatory threshold. City Planner Smyser indicated the threshold is in the
37 handbook.
38
39 Councilmember Carlson asked about final approval or denial. She indicated that with Stonybrook
40 they approved lots for 2002 and 2003. She asked how effective it was to divide the project or if this
41 is covered in the developer's agreement. City Planner Smyser indicated they have to come in for final
42 approval within one year of preliminary approval. He stated final plats in phasing plans will not work
43 quite the same. If the developer got preliminary approval in November, they won't be building then.
44 The plan was for 50 lots in 2002 and 50 in 2003. As long as they build they are final. Some lots will
45 carryover, but if it takes too long the City will be able to ask what is happening. It is very possible
46 they could finalize both sections in 2003, which is okay, it just shifts to a little later. When Staff
•47 reviewed the spreadsheet they knew it would not be exact.
48
22
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 Community Development Director Grochala indicated this may need to be discussed. He stated
• 2 Stonybrook may come in with final plats for both sections. City Planner Smyser stated this was still
3 okay.
4
5 Councilmember Carlson indicated she has no concern with the procedural change for minor
6 subdivisions when Staff approves, especially since they took out industrial and commercial
7 subdivisions. She used the example of the subdivision on Ash Street that came to Council even
8 though the recommendation was to deny, stating she was concerned that if someone was turned down
9 they should be able to come to their elected official. She doesn't like the fact that they would have to
10 appeal to come before Council. She understands this is only the first reading but wanted to discuss it.
11
12 Councilmember Reinert added that he thought anytime Staff did not approve they would give a report
13 to City Council at a work session that something was denied. He stated it was the right of the citizen
14 to come before Council and he thought the process was that anytime Staff prepared to deny the
15 applicant was told they could go to the Planning and Zoning Board or the City Council. In cases
16 where the applicant chose not to do this the City Council would be informed of what was happening.
17 He added this was a courtesy to City Council and shouldn't be a big burden on staff as there are only
18 one or two a year being reviewed. City Planner Smyser indicated the ordinance says Staff will
19 provide reports to the Council on approvals and denials.
20
21 Councilmember Carlson asked that the word `periodic' be crossed out of that paragraph, as it is too
22 vague, and the wording 'as they occur' be added.
23
.24 Councilmember Reinert indicated final grading had been covered, as had approval of minor
25 subdivisions. He indicated his next concern was on phasing. He stated the Council had agreed that
26 phasing would not be required for less than 40 lots, but he asked if the Council could require phasing
27 if they chose. If not, a developer who wanted 28 lots would assume they could get all 28 lots this
28 year. He would like to have the option of requiring phasing for smaller developments if necessary.
29 City Planner Smyser indicated the wording says 'Each phase of a preliminary plat shall be consistent
30 with growth management criteria of the City'. He indicated the growth management policy indicates
31 plats under 40 do not have to be phased.
32
33 Councilmember Reinert indicated his concern was if several developers come in with several plats in
34 the same year, the Council will not be able to approve them all. If they were able to phase them all
35 they could let them get started. City Planner Smyser said if the developers agree that would work.
36 Councilmember Reinert asked if they would have to agree to it. City Planner Smyser stated there was
37 nothing to mandate phasing for less than 40 lots. He indicated that he wouldn't expect many small
38 developments, and reminded Council that they did not have a lot of MUSA to give out.
39
40 Councilmember Reinert indicated he didn't want to take away the City's options or developers to
41 think they could get all at once if there were other options.
42
43 Mayor Bergeson stated if there were only 25 lots left in the City and someone came in wanting 40,
44 they wouldn't have the right to 40 that year and would have to voluntarily phase the project.
45 Councilmember Reinert said if a developer came in with 39 lots and the City had 25 left, with the
46 ability to go 20 percent over that, the developer may be able to make an argument not to phase the
•47 project.
48
23
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
•1 Mayor Bergeson asked about EIS and other environmental regulations. He stated they had talked
2 about the threshold, and if the threshold is exceeded various studies are required, some by petition.
3 He indicated it was important Staff reported on thresholds when Council may want to consider,
4 before making that decision. He wanted to make sure Staff was required to report to the Council even
5 if under the threshold so the Council knew whether it was 2 percent under the threshold or 90 percent
6 under. For the Council to be able to make use of the studies it is important for Staff to make this
7 information available.
8
9 City Planner Smyser indicated that would happen naturally. He stated that if anything was close, or
10 controversial, the Council would hear from the citizens. He indicated if any area was a hot topic the
11 Council would hear about it and ask Staff, who would review and report back, just as it did with the
12 church.
13
14 Mayor Bergeson asked about the level of service on traffic, indicating that all of the possibilities may
15 not be included. He asked if there was a level of service A. City Planner Smyser indicated there was.
16 Mayor Bergeson stated that with A, a development might move it to a B, which might be reasonable.
17 He asked City Planner Smyser to consider this and respond later.
18
19 Mayor Bergeson indicated that on page 1007.2, paragraph 5 says 'All lots shall have frontage on a
20 public street'. He thought it should say 'an improved public street'. City Planner Smyser indicated
21 this was an important point. He asked the Council to recall the subdivision by old Main Street, where
22 the City asked that the developer dedicate the easement and they would approve the subdivision. He
23 didn't know where else it may come up but the City has said it will approve the easement when it
•
24 approves the subdivision. Mayor Bergeson stated a lot of agreements have been made over the years
25 that need to be honored.
26
27 Mayor Bergeson asked about Section 1007-4, and if anything about density bonuses should be
28 included. City Planner Smyser indicated that would be addressed in the zoning ordinance. He stated
29 there has been a lot of discussion surrounding this and it could be included as a condition of use in
30 zoning, adding that ultimately it would come to City Council.
31
32 Mayor Bergeson stated his opinion on the tree preservation portion that sometimes you get better
33 results if you let the developer clear out the area and determine appropriate sizes and locations of
34 trees after the fact instead of saying they have to keep this and keep that. He added that the best
35 results always include some preservations but good results can be accomplished with fewer rules.
36
37 City Planner Smyser indicated there was a lengthy discussion with the task force concerning this and
38 it is a compromise as written. The ordinance doesn't say anything has to be saved, but that the entire
39 site needs to be reviewed to see what is best. The scenario Mayor Bergeson presented may be viewed
40 as the best scenario in some cases.
41
42 Mayor Bergeson indicated there has been a lot of discussion, but nothing that should preclude
43 Council from approving the first reading. He did not hear anything that could not be addressed
44 between the first and second reading.
45
46 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 04-03, Adopting
•
47 Subdivision Regulations with the corrections listed on Attachment A. Councilmember Carlson
48 seconded the motion.
24
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
411
1 2 Mayor Bergeson asked that for the work session Staff goes through this discussion and makes
3 changes based on Council and Staff suggestions, then report back on what makes sense and what
4 needs additional discussion.
5
6 Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember Dahl
7 voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Mayor Reinert voted yea.
8
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-12, Authorizing Preparation of Comprehensive Sanitary
12 Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Water Plan, Michael Grochala — Community Development
13 Director Grochala advised that the City's Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Comprehensive
14 Water Plan were prepared in 1990 and 1991, respectively. Since that time, both systems have
15 undergone substantial expansion and modification to service both existing and new development.
16 Staff is of the opinion that both plans need to be revised to more accurately reflect existing conditions
17 as well as identify future system needs.
18
19 Community Development Director Grochala explained that the Sanitary Sewer Plan will be updated
20 in conformance with the Metropolitan Council's requirement for the preparation of a Tier II Sanitary
21 Sewer Plan. The water plan will include, in part, reconstruction of the current digital computer model
22 to better evaluate new modifications or expansions of the City's water system. This item was
23 previously requested by the City's Fire Chief.
.24
25 Community Development Director Grochala advised City staff recommends the adoption of
26 Resolution No. 03-12, Authorizing Preparation of Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and
27 Comprehensive Water Plan.
28
29 Mayor Bergeson indicated neither of these plans are referred to in the Comprehensive Plan.
30 Community Development Director Grochala indicated they are referred to as utility plans.
31
32 Mayor Bergeson asked if they were another tool to determine if things are premature. City Planner
33 Smyser indicated they were, and they are referred to in the Comprehensive Plan.
34
35 Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-12, Authorizing Preparation of
36 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Water Plan. Councilmember Dahl
37 seconded the motion.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 Resolution No. 03-12 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
42
43 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-13, Authorizing Preparation of Feasibility Study, CSAH 10
44 (Birch Street)/CSAH 49 (Hodgson Road) Improvements, Michael Grochala — Community
45 Development Director Grochala advised that on November 20, 2002, the City received a project
46 review letter, from Anoka County, identifying the minimum required improvements for CSAH 49
•47 (Hodgson Road) and CSAH 10 (Birch Street) to facilitate the development of Spirit Hills Commercial
25
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1 Center as well as proposed future development on the Miller Farm, located immediately to the south.
• 2 The letter identified the need for many improvements.
3
4 Community Development Director Grochala explained that since the responsibilities for the
5 improvements are shared between two developers it is staff's opinion that a City prepared report
6 would be advantageous to insure that a coordinated improvement plan is prepared. Both developers
7 have requested that the city prepare the report and have agreed to equally split the costs of its
8 preparation. Therefore, at staff's request, TKDA, the City's Engineer, has submitted a proposal to
9 prepare a feasibility study for the above referenced improvements for a not to exceed cost of $7,400.
10 The feasibility study is intended to better delineate the extent of improvements and associated costs.
11
12 Community Development Director Grochala advised City staff recommends the adoption of
13 Resolution No. 03-13, Authorizing Preparation of Feasibility Study, CSAR 10 (Birch Street)/CSAH
14 49 (Hodgson Road) Improvements.
15
16 Councilmember Dahl moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-13, Authorizing Preparation of Report on
17 Improvement CSAH 49/CSAH 10. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 Resolution No. 03-13 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
22
23 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
.24
25 There was no unfinished business to consider.
26
27 NEW BUSINESS
28
29 Meeting Minutes of December 9, 2002 City Council Meeting
30
31 Meeting Minutes of December 16, 2002 City Council Meeting
32
33 Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2003 Council Work Session
34
35 Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2003 City Council Meeting
36
37 City Clerk Blair indicated a request had been made to pull the two January meeting minutes.
38
39 Councilmember Carlson asked that a correction be made to the Meeting Minutes of December 16,
40 2002 on page 9. She would like wording added to indicate that she said 'as the whole Council is not
41 present and it is possible it would fail on a 2:2 vote'.
42
43 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the December 9, 2002 City Council Meeting and the
44 December 16, 2002 City Council Meeting, as amended. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion.
45
46 Motion carried unanimously.
•47
48 COMMUNITY CALENDAR JANUARY 28, 2003 THROUGH FEBRUARY 10, 2003:
26
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2003
APPROVED
1
• 2 Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 6:30 p.m., Environmental Board Meeting
3
4 Monday, February 3, 2003, 6:30 p.m., Park Board Meeting
5
6 Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 5:30 p.m., Council Work Session
7
8 Thursday, February 6, 2003, 7:00 a.m., EDAC
9
10 Monday, February 10, 2003, 6:30 p.m., City Council Meeting
11
12 Mayor Bergeson reminded Council about the final board interviews that will be conducted on January
13 29, 2003.
14
15 ADJOURN
16
17 There being no further business, Councilmember Reinert moved to adjourn at 10:41 p.m.
18 Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, April 28, 2003.
23
• 24
25 „ A
26
27 Ann Blair, Clerk
28
29
30
31
32
•
Transcribed by:
Karen Whaley
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
27