Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/2003 Council MinutesAPPROVED I1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 5 DATE : February 10, 2003 6 TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M. 7 TIME ENDED : 9:47 P.M. 8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmembers Carlson, O'Donnell, Reinert, and 9 Mayor Bergeson 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : Councilmember Dahl 11 12 Staff members present: Director of Administration, Dan Tesch; 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); Public Services Director, Rick DeGardner (part); City 15 Fire Chief, Milo Bennett (part); Police Sergeant Kurt Rausch (part); and City Attorney, Bill Hawkins. 16 17 SETTING THE AGENDA 18 19 Councilmember Carlson requested that Items 7C and 7D be switched in their order. 20 21 Mayor Bergeson requested that Item 4B be removed, noting it will be heard at a later date. 22 23 The agenda was approved as amended. S24 2S CONSENT AGENDA 26 27 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as submitted. Councilmember 28 O'Donnell seconded the motion. 29 30 Motion carried unanimously. 31 32 ITEM ACTION 33 34 A. CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES: 35 36 i) February 10, 2003 (Check No. 67352 — 37 67430, $220,655.87) Approved 38 39 ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 13622 — 40 13647, $20,156.96) Approved 41 42 B. Consideration of Resolution No. 03-15, approving premises permit renewal application 43 for Centennial Youth Hockey Association to conduct lawful gambling at Shirley Kaye's. 44 45 46 OPEN MIKE •47 48 A. Lino Lakes History Project; Betsy Friesen COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 • 2 Betsy Friesen addressed the Council concerning the Lino Lakes History Project. She indicated Jerry 3 Berg and Amy Donlin were also present to make a presentation to the Council of papers from Mr. and 4 Mrs. Art Hawkins, who have lived in Lino Lakes for 50 years. 5 6 Ms. Friesen stated a lot of research has been done, and the History Committee has been very involved 7 with Centerville in this project. She indicated they have determined that this area had been populated 8 earlier than they had expected. She has recently attended archeology seminars that included pottery 9 from the area that was over 2000 years old. She indicated they still have a lot of questions, and are 10 currently trying to determine where some of the local names came from, but their biggest find 11 recently has been records that were kept in a safe in a pole barn behind the Senior Center. They have 12 received permission to bring them to City Hall, and have been going through them. She indicated 13 they were very exciting because some of the records go back to the 1860's, with mentions of 14 roadwork on River Stage Coach Road and other things. She added it was fascinating to go through. 15 16 Ms. Friesen stated Amy Donlin was here to present some paperwork from the Hawkins'. She 17 indicated when they originally approached Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins, the couple thought they really did 18 not know much about the history of the city; however, as they talked they began to relate stories for 19 the past 50 years which provided a lot of interesting information. The papers here this evening 20 represent the first installment of many, many records Mr. Hawkins has stored in his barn. 21 22 Amy Donlin indicated she did not have a formal presentation for the Council, but has found the 23 history project fascinating and is happy to be able to contribute. She indicated that in working at the • 24 Wargo Nature Center she has seen the archeologists bring in many artifacts from around the area and 25 she encourages anyone who is interested to attend the Wednesday night open sessions to see for 26 themselves. She indicated the sessions are every Wednesday from 5:00 — 8:00 p.m. through the 27 remainder of February and possibly into March. 28 29 Mayor Bergeson thanked Ms. Donlin and her family for sharing their valuable records with the city. 30 31 B. Centennial High School 32 33 Ms. Cindy Dupay indicated she was representing Centennial High School, whose drama department 34 has been given the opportunity to apply to attend the Fringe Festival in Scotland. She indicated this is 35 a great honor for the school, and she is hoping for a letter of recommendation from the Mayor to 36 accompany their application. 37 38 Mayor Bergeson indicated staff has put together a letter of recommendation and he hopes to have it 39 signed for the school this evening. 40 41 No one else was present for open mike. 42 43 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK 44 45 There were no finance department reports to consider. 46 .47 48 2 •1 2 3 Recognition of outgoing Advisory Board Members, swearing in of New Advisory Board 4 Members and consideration of approval for other appointments — Mayor Bergeson noted that the 5 Council had recognition plaques for outgoing Advisory Board Members, although neither was present 6 to receive the award. He indicated the awards were for Joe Zych, for service on the Planning and 7 Zoning Board from January, 2000 until December, 2002; and for Bill Hicks, for service on the 8 Economic Development Advisory Board from April, 2001 until December, 2002. 9 10 Mayor Bergeson indicated he had a list of Advisory Board Appointees and Councilmember Liaison 11 Appointments to various boards for City Council approval. 12 13 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the recommendations for Advisory Board Members and 14 Councilmember Liaison positions as presented. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. 15 16 Motion carried unanimously. 17 18 Mayor Bergeson indicated he would read the names of each appointee and have them come forward 19 so City Attorney Hawkins could administer the oath of office. The appointees are as follows: 20 21 Rob Rafferty Planning and Zoning 22 Paul Tralle Planning and Zoning 23 Pamela Taschuk Park and Recreation •24 William Kusterman Park and Recreation 25 Rod Kukonen Environmental 26 Teresa O'Connell Environmental 27 Roger Jensen Economic Development Advisory Committee 28 Julie Jeffrey-SchwartzEconomic Development Advisory Committee 29 Harvey Karth Economic Development Advisory Committee 30 31 Mayor Bergeson noted that Mr. Karth was a very active participant in local government, being a 32 former mayor and serving on various boards over the years. 33 34 City Attorney Hawkins administered the oath of office to the new appointees. 35 36 Consider Approval of Resolution 03-23, Authorizing Contracts for Mold Remediation and 37 Project Monitoring and Management at Civic Complex, Dan Tesch — Director of Administration 38 Tesch advised that during the December 16, 2002 Council meeting, the City Council authorized Staff 39 to advertise for bids for mold remediation in City Hall and the Police Station. He stated sealed bids 40 were opened at City Hall on January 28, 2003, with five bids being submitted varying from $51,470 41 to $140,011. He indicated Diversified Contracting, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. The City's 42 consultant, Institute for Environmental Assessment, has reviewed the proposed bid and the 43 company's qualifications. He indicated Staff has received the required documentation from DCI 44 including a certificate of liability insurance and performance bond, and therefore recommends 45 authorization to award the contract to DCI for $51,470.00. 46 • 47 Director of Administration Tesch stated that the mold remediation work is going on now, between the 48 hours of 5:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., and should be completed by February 11, 2003. He indicated the COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH 3 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 second contract under consideration this evening is for retaining IEA to oversee the mold remediation • 2 process. He stated IEA would provide an on-site manager throughout the duration of the project, 3 record and document the cleaning process, provide visual clearance criteria when the units have been 4 cleaned, fungal sample collection, and provide a final report to include sampling, photo 5 documentation, observations and conclusions. He indicated the proposed cost is $12,850. 6 7 Director of Administration Tesch advised Staff recommends retaining the Institute for Environmental 8 Assessment for monitoring and management of the mold remediation work described above. 9 10 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution 03-23 approving contracts for mold 11 remediation and project monitoring and management at civic complex. Councilmember Reinert 12 seconded the motion. 13 14 Motion cathed unanimously. 15 16 Resolution 03-23 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 17 18 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAVE PECCHIA 19 20 Consideration of Renewal of the Animal Control Contract to Otter Lake Animal Care Center, 21 Dave Pecchia — Chief of Police Pecchia advised that Lino Lakes has used Otter Lake Animal 22 Control Center as their contract holder for the past seven years. He stated this is the annual renewal 23 of their contract, with two changes from last year's contract. He indicated there would be a $1.00 •24 increase in the boarding fee, which is currently $12.00, and a $5.00 charge to vaccinate any dogs 25 brought to the facility for kennel cough, which would be charged back to the owner if the owner 26 claims the dog. 27 28 He stated Staff is requesting that the contract be renewed for calendar year 2003. 29 30 Councilmember Reinert moved to approve renewal of the contract with Otter Lake Animal Control 31 for the calendar year 2003. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. 32 33 Motion carried unanimously. 34 35 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER 36 37 Consideration of Resolution 03-21, Approving Quitclaim Deed for Trail Easement, Outlot A, 38 Pheasant Hills Preserve 4th Addition, Rick DeGardner — Public Services Director DeGardner 39 advised that the paved trail located along the north side of Birch Street between Pheasant Hills Drive 40 and Sherman Lake Road is located on property currently owned by the Pheasant Hills Preserve 41 Homeowners Association. He stated the Pheasant Hills Preserve Homeowners Association has 42 agreed to permit the City of Lino Lakes to acquire a fifteen -foot wide trail easement where the trail is 43 located. He indicated the survey and legal description is attached. He stated the trail easement will 44 provide public access for this trail, and the City of Lino Lakes will assume responsibility for 45 maintenance. 46 • 4 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 Public Services Director DeGardner advised that Staff recommends approval of Resolution 03-21 • 2 directing the City Attorney to execute a quitclaim deed for a fifteen -foot wide trail easement on 3 Outlot A, Pheasant Hills Preserve, 4th Addition. 4 5 Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution 03-21 approving a quitclaim Deed for Trail 6 Easement, Outlot A, Pheasant Hills Preserve 4th Addition. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the 7 motion. 8 9 Motion carried unanimously. 10 11 Resolution 03-21 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 12 13 Consideration of Resolution 03-22, approving City of Lino Lakes/Centennial School District 14 No. 12 Site Agreement, Rick DeGardner — Public Services Director DeGardner advised that the 15 proposed site agreement under consideration combines the existing Rice Lake Elementary School Site 16 Agreement, the existing Centennial Middle School Site Agreement, and addresses Blue Heron 17 Elementary School. He stated under the agreement, the City of Lino Lakes will be responsible to 18 maintain the outdoor recreation facilities at the Centennial Middle School, Rice Lake Elementary 19 School, and Blue Heron Elementary School. In return, the Parks and recreation Department will be 20 given first priority use of Middle School Gym 1 from 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; 21 and Rice Lake Elementary Gyms B/C on Tuesday and Thursday from 6-10 p.m. He indicated 22 additional scheduling of the facilities will be governed by the District's Community Use of Facilities 23 Policy No. 2060 that was approved by the School Board in September. .24 25 Public Services Director DeGardner stated that the Site Agreement also addresses concerns Staff has 26 had regarding the cancellation of pre -approved gym space with little notice. He indicated this 27 agreement would be automatically renewed annually unless either party provides written notice at 28 least thirty days prior to January 1 of each year. He stated he has attached a copy of the proposed Site 29 Agreement for Council review, and indicated Staff recommends approval of Resolution 03-22. 30 31 Mayor Bergeson stated that when this topic came up several weeks ago, there was a difference of 32 opinion on scheduling. He asked if this has been worked out. Public Services Director DeGardner 33 indicated it has. 34 35 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution 03-22 approving City of Lino Lakes/ 36 Centennial School District No. 12 Site Agreement. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. 37 38 Motion carried unanimously. 39 40 Resolution 03-22 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 41 42 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT, MIKE GROCHALA 43 44 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-16, Adopting Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and 45 Authorizing its Submittal to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as Part of the City's 46 Application for Enrollment in the State of Minnesota's General National Pollution Discharge . 47 Elimination System Phase II Permit, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director 48 Grochala advised that this Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan stems from the Clean Water Act, as 5 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 required by Statutes Chapters 115 and 116, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7001. He stated the City's • 2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program includes six Best Management Practices for control 3 measures including Public Education & Outreach, Public Involvement Participation, Illicit Discharge 4 Detection & Elimination, Construction Site Runoff Control, Post -Construction Storm Water 5 Management in New/Re Development and Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal 6 Operations. He indicated it also includes measurable goals for each of the BMP's, including, as 7 appropriate, the months and years in which the City will undertake required actions, including interim 8 milestones and frequency of the action in the narrative; estimated yearly timelines in which the City 9 will implement each BMP; and the person responsible for implementing and/or coordinating each 10 component of the Phase II Storm Water Program. 11 12 Community Development Director Grochala noted that his name has been added to each Best 13 Management Practice, but anticipates this will change as each is reviewed and implemented. He 14 stated Staff recommends approval of the plan and submittal to the Minnesota Pollution Control 15 Agency. He indicated that included in Council's packet is the letter drafted to PCA with his 16 comments, which includes addressing the criteria used to determine TMDL. 17 18 Councilmember Carlson asked if the Environmental Board had reviewed the plan. 19 20 Community Development Director Grochala stated they did not, but the Environmental Board will be 21 reviewing the Surface Water Management Plan implemented last summer, and these pieces will be 22 included in the Surface Water Management Plan. 23 • 24 Councilmember Carlson indicated this was an important document, and addresses important points 25 for the City, and she is concerned about not having the Environmental Board comments. She stated 26 she values their opinion, and as an established Board, feels Council should have their comments as 27 we are proposing more use of this plan. She asked when the submittal deadline was to PCA. 28 29 Community Development Director Grochala stated it had to be to PCA by March 10, and while there 30 was another Environmental Board meeting at the end of February, it would not have time to come 31 back to City Council. 32 33 Councilmember O'Donnell asked when the City could anticipate hearing back on acceptance of their 34 letter. 35 36 Community Development Director Grochala stated he did not expect a response, other than 37 acknowledgment that their application has been received. He indicated this is a new project for PCA 38 also and they had a great number of cities to deal with. He stated that in regards to the TMDL listing, 39 the only thing they would anticipate hearing back on is the removal of the lakes as requested. 40 41 Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-16, Adopting a Storm Water Pollution 42 Prevention Plan and Authorizing its Submittal to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 43 Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 44 45 Councilmember Carlson indicated she would vote no, as she wishes the Environmental Board had 46 reviewed the plan. She stated the purpose of the Clean Water Act was to make sure the lakes were .47 fishable and swimmable and there are serious concerns in those lakes as they exist. She indicated it is 6 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 probably a good application, but she wishes the Environmental Board had reviewed prior to it coming • 2 to the City Council. 3 4 Mayor Bergeson asked since this is part of another document that will be reviewed at a later date, is 5 there any reason the Environmental Board cannot review this plan as part of that other document. 6 7 Community Development Director Grochala stated that will probably happen. He indicated the only 8 thing under review right now is the Best Management Practices; the TMDL is not being considered, 9 just listed. He stated that down the line if the issue would come up, the Environmental Board would 10 have the opportunity to review. 11 12 Motion carried 3-1, Councilmember Carlson opposed. 13 14 Resolution No. 03-16 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 15 16 Consideration Second Reading of Ordinance No. 03-03, Vacating of a portion of a drainage and 17 utility easement for Lot 2, Block 2, Pheasant Hills Preserve 4th Addition, Michael Grochala — 18 Community Development Director Grochala advised that Mr. Dale Vancil has submitted an 19 application for the vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility easement on his property, consisting 20 of approximately 295 square feet to the rear of his home. He stated that since the area to be built 21 upon was sodded and did not appear to the applicant to be reasonably part of the wetland area, the 22 applicant contacted City Engineer Jim Studenski to ask for a vacation of the easement area. 23 S24 Community Development Director Grochala stated that there are areas within the established 25 easement area that are above the 902 -foot elevation, which defines the 100 -year flood plain elevation. 26 He indicated that because of this, Staff is recommending vacation of the area noted on the attached 27 survey, with the condition that all portions of the lot outside of the drainage and utility easement that 28 are below the 902 -foot threshold elevation be filled so that an elevation at or above 902 is achieved. 29 He stated that Rice Creek Watershed has also reviewed and approved this vacation. 30 31 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve SECOND READING and adopt Ordinance No. 03-03, 32 Vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility easement for Lot 2, Block 2, Pheasant Hills Preserve 4th 33 Addition with conditions as outlined by Staff. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. 34 35 Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Carlson 36 voted yea. Mayor Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Dahl was absent. 37 38 Motion carried unanimously. 39 40 Ordinance No. 03-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 41 42 Consideration of Resolution 03-17, Denying Minor Subdivision, NE 1/ NE 1/4 of Section 9, SSR 43 and W Development, LLB, Jeff City Planner Smyser — City Planner Smyser advised that an 44 application was received by SSR & W Development in 2001 for a minor subdivision. The Planning 45 and Zoning Board considered the application on November 14, 2001. He stated the staff report 46 included the recommendation that the minor subdivision be approved only if a road easement is • 47 dedicated to the City that includes the eastern 66 feet of the site. The Planning and Zoning Board 48 agreed that a road easement is appropriate but recommended that it be 33 feet instead of the full 66 7 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 feet, indicating the other 33 feet would be acquired when and if property to the east develops. He 2 stated that since then, the City has learned this is not a workable solution, due to the fact that if you 3 open up the easement to one person, you have to open it to all. Since the easement would lead to an 4 isolated location, it is not in the public's best interest to allow this easement. 5 6 City Planner Smyser advised that the City cannot limit the use of an easement owned by the City to 7 specific persons and exclude others. He stated that if the City were to allow certain persons to use the 8 easement, they would have to open it to the public, which eliminates the partial easement option as 9 proposed. He added there are public safety issues to consider, as the contemplated easement would 10 not be improved. He stated the easement would pass in front of only a few houses, would lead to 11 nothing but a remote, isolated area, and would be difficult for emergency vehicles to access, including 12 police patrols. 13 14 City Planner Smyser stated that because of the information gained through additional research, staff is 15 recommending denial as the property would not have proper access, and is a classic example of 16 landlock. 17 18 Councilmember Carlson stated that when this went to the Planning and Zoning Board on November 19 14, 2001, Staff originally proposed a 66 -foot strip going to Main Street and a 66 -foot strip along the 20 remainder of the property on the east. Referring to the visual map, Commissioner Carlson indicated 21 that Planning and Zoning stated in the larger, square section the easement should be 33 feet and when 22 the property to the east was developed the other 33 feet should be taken. She indicated the 66 -foot 23 section is off -center if you look closer. She stated that when Planning and Zoning approved after they • 24 changed it to 33 feet, there was a City Council work session to discuss. She referred to the notes from 25 the work session, held on November 21, 2001, indicating two items came out of it, one was that the 26 northern piece should be 33 feet and and the Council sent the two parties to reach a compromise, 27 which they did not. She stated that since that time, the other property owners extended their driveway 28 to Main Street, which they had a legal right to do. She added that Anoka County agreed Mr. Racutt 29 could have access to Main Street. 30 31 Councilmember Carlson indicated that she has not heard anything that has changed since Planning 32 and Zoning approved and City Council told the parties to seek a compromise and suggested the 33 33 feet. She stated this seems like an arbitrary decision, and asked what is new to the equation. 34 35 City Planner Smyser stated that what is new is that the City has learned that they cannot restrict 36 access to a City easement. He indicated that at the time, they felt they could allow the two property 37 owners near the easement to use it, without opening it to the public, but this is not the case. He stated 38 this information came out during recent discussions and Staff now feels this is not a viable option. 39 He indicated if this were open to the public there would be many safety issues, and he cannot 40 recommend doing something contrary to public interest. 41 42 Councilmember Carlson stated she understands, but added there are legal issues involved with this as 43 well. She indicated she has a copy of a letter sent to City Planner Smyser that she received as she 44 arrived this evening. She stated she has not had a lot of time to review, but wondered if there were 45 other items the Council should be aware of, and any other information Mr. Racutt could provide to 46 the Council. 4047 8 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 City Planner Smyser stated he did not know what letter Councilmember Carlson was referring to. • 2 Councilmember Carlson indicated City Planner Smyser had received it December 6. She stated 3 maybe this should not be discussed at a public meeting, but wonders if there is other information the 4 Council should be aware of and she would like to hear from Mr. Racutt or his attorney. 5 6 Mayor Bergeson asked for City Attorney Hawkins opinion. City Attorney Hawkins offered his 7 opinion that the reasons cited are sufficient for denial. 8 9 Mayor Bergeson asked for public input. 10 11 Mr. Tim Nazelle, Mr. Morton's attorney, asked that Council approve this minor subdivision, citing 12 that his client has a purchase agreement he is trying to execute. He stated there is a lawsuit filed by 13 Mr. Racutt against Mr. Morton to force execution of the purchase agreement, and his client is just 14 trying to move forward with the purchase agreement. 15 16 Councilmember Carlson asked Mr. Nazelle to address the point raised by City Planner Smyser about 17 an easement being open to the public and how that would apply to the purchase agreement. Mr. 18 Nazelle stated he could not comment on that, as it is a jurisdiction issue, but the goal of his client is to 19 proceed with the purchase agreement. 20 21 Mayor Bergeson indicated this is not a court, and the Council could not get involved in legal issues. 22 23 Mr. Don Fuller stated he was filling in for Mr. Racutt's attorney, and is not completely familiar with •24 the history, but indicated there were a few things he wanted to address. He stated that the 25 recommendation of Staff made in November, 2001 is nothing more than what they are asking for 26 now. He offered that regarding the public safety concerns on the easement, the City Planner indicated 27 it would cause a dead-end street, but he does not see the problem in that, as there are any number of 28 dead-end streets in Minnesota. He stated there was litigation going on, and he is hoping if the City 29 approves the minor subdivision, this litigation would be resolved. 30 31 Mayor Bergeson stated it has been a year or more since this was last at the City for action. He asked 32 if there was an urgency or legal requirement for making a decision tonight. 33 34 City Planner Smyser stated there was no urgency, but not necessarily a reason to delay, either. He 35 added that in reviewing the letter from Mr. Racutt provided by Councilmember Carlson, a lengthy 36 reply was prepared, which he obviously does not have with him at this time, but he feels it is not 37 relevant to this discussion. He indicated that the building permit for the house had nothing to do with 38 this issue. He stated that the subdivision would create a flag lot, and the City does not allow flag lots, 39 therefore they are recommending denial. He indicated he could provide the Council with a response 40 to Mr. Racutt's letter but it is really not pertinent to the subdivision request. 41 42 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated he assumes the 33 -foot easement would temporarily be used as 43 a driveway to the parcel. He asked if there would be engineering standards it would need to adhere to 44 if it were a public road. 45 46 City Planner Smyser indicated that typically, if it were a road, it would require construction, including •47 grading, blacktop, etc. As a driveway it would be a half -mile long, not paved, just a long dirt 48 driveway. He indicated he has concerns about getting emergency vehicles through. He added the 9 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 concern that if someone can use it, all can use it, and it becomes a public road that goes nowhere, to • 2 an isolated area, and he does not like the idea of a public road leading to nowhere. 3 4 Councilmember Reinert inquired as to whether if it were a public road, and constructed the way it 5 needed to be, would it need to be maintained by the City. City Planner Smyser indicated it would. 6 7 Councilmember Reinert asked about Councilmember Carlson's comments on having a 66 -foot parcel 8 with 33 feet dedicated and 33 feet not dedicated, to be used as a driveway. He stated he did not 9 understand her thought on that. 10 11 Councilmember Carlson indicated that going back to the November 21, 2001 work session minutes, 12 this is in the 2010 road area, so it will be some time before development occurs if the City holds to 13 their road ordinance. She wondered if it would be possible to put the driveway on the 66 foot part 14 and leave the easement to the City to avoid concern of opening it to the public. She indicated that if a 15 road is constructed, and she says if because there is a proposed road to 776" and across, and they made 16 a commitment they would not send shopping center traffic into the neighborhood, there is a question 17 in her mind if a connection would be made. 18 19 Mayor Bergeson asked where the easement is at this time. City Planner Smyser demonstrated the 20 various existing easements on the site map. 21 22 Mayor Bergeson clarified there was not an existing easement to Main Street. City Planner Symser 23 indicated this was correct. .24 25 Mayor Bergeson asked for a motion. Councilmember Carlson indicated she would make a motion 26 but does not believe it will go very far. 27 28 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the Resolution recommended by the Planning and Zoning 29 Board with changes as discussed at the City Council work session on November 21, 2001. 30 31 Councilmember Reinert asked if she was denying Resolution 17-03, which was currently before 32 them. Councilmember Carlson indicated she was, with the substitution of the resolution 33 recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. 34 35 Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion for discussion. 36 37 Councilmember O'Donnell clarified that the motion on the table was for a 33 -foot easement along the 38 east side to Rondeau, with the second 33 feet coming when the property to the east is developed. He 39 asked if part of the motion was for the driveway to be put outside of the easement. 40 41 Councilmember Carlson asked for a comment from Mr. Racutt's attorney if they would accept this. 42 43 City Planner Smyser indicated that was what they were requesting. Mr. Racutt's attorney indicated 44 they would agree. 45 46 City Planner Smyser stated that what is being suggested is construction of a new driveway outside of .47 the easement, with the City being responsible to prevent use of the current driveway. 48 10 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 Councilmember O'Donnell asked what the City would do to remove the road, and what that would 2 cost. 3 4 Councilmember Reinert indicated that to prevent use of the road it would have to be made into an 5 unusable road, at the owner's expense. He stated this was an engineering question, and asked what 6 the options would be, and how realistic to implement. 7 8 City Engineer Studenski stated that an earth berm, or barricade would need to be erected to abandon. 9 He indicated the City has this situation elsewhere. He added with the construction of the driveway 10 next to it, you could have some people trying to use that for access, but they would be crossing 11 private property to get there. He indicated this could be done. 12 13 Councilmember Carlson clarified this would be a dirt road, not paved. She stated her only concern 14 about building the driveway to the east is that is where the trees are, but if there is a public safety 15 concern, in order to provide Mr. Racutt access to drive in, there may not be another option. She 16 stated when she makes these decisions, she looks at the Staff recommendation, which is now different 17 than when it went to the Planning and Zoning Board. She added she has looked at the Planning and 18 Zoning recommendation and the minutes from the November 21 work session with the City Council, 19 and if there is good reason to do this differently from what Staff said, she is ready to move, but she 20 does not see good reason to do it differently. She stated that it appears with a decision they can 21 resolve the legal issues and should. 22 23 City Planner Smyser demonstrated a driveway sketch for the Council, indicating it would be a 1,200- •24 foot berm, or further, to prevent the use of this strip of land. He stated it would be an expensive 25 undertaking, and asked if the City would pay for it. He stated the applicant would have to pay for all 26 the dirt that would need to be brought in for the driveway, just to service a house back there, adding 27 then they have to keep people off the old road. He reiterated this is an isolated area and he is 28 concerned about what will happen. He stated Mr. Racutt rejected this originally. He mentioned there 29 have been several police calls back there, and the area is just plain scary. He indicated he is not 30 happy about creating access to an isolated area. 31 32 Councilmember O'Donnell asked where the new driveway to Main Street was on the neighbor's 33 property in relation to this. City Planner Smyser stated he did not know. He stated this was another 34 concern, having two driveways out to Main Street, if in the future they connect Rondo, they would be 35 very close to that intersection. He feels that is too much happening traffic -wise in a short distance. 36 37 Mayor Bergeson indicated there was a motion on the floor to deal with. He stated he believes 38 Council should refer this back to Planning and Zoning, based on the new information from staff and 39 the issues of the right-of-way, and have it go back through the process. He indicated it did not come 40 to City Council in a formal way, it came at an informal work session long ago. 41 42 Councilmember Reinert agreed, saying there seems to be unknown information needed to make a 43 decision, such as who pays, how much would it be to create an unusual solution to this problem. He 44 indicated if he had to vote tonight, he would deny, but he supports Mayor Bergeson's 45 recommendation to send it back to the Planning and Zoning Board. 46 •47 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated it appears there is a workable solution, but not all the answers 48 are available tonight. He agrees with the Mayor, and withdraws his second. 11 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 • 2 Councilmember Carlson stated rather than sending it back to Planning and Zoning, since this is a 3 legal issue and Council has discretion, could it be sent back to a work session, where the attorney's 4 could provide more information. 5 6 Mayor Bergeson asked City Attorney Hawkins if a second could be withdrawn. City Attorney 7 Hawkins gave his opinion that it could. 8 9 Mayor Bergeson indicated the motion made by Councilmember Carlson was seconded but the second 10 was withdrawn. He asked for another second. Hearing none, he asked for another motion. 11 12 Councilmember Reinert moved to send Resolution No. 17-03 Denying Minor Subdivision to 13 Planning and Zoning Board for their review. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 14 15 City Attorney Hawkins asked if there were any time constraints. City Planner Smyser asked for an 16 opinion from City Attorney Hawkins. He stated in January, 2002 the applicant waived his right to the 17 deadlines. Recently the City received a letter rescinding that waiver, so he believes the clock should 18 start with receipt of that rescission. He indicated that he believes this is a subdivision issue, rather 19 than a zoning issue, which means they automatically have 120 days. 20 21 City Attorney Hawkins offered his opinion that this probably does not fit under 1599, but the City has 22 provisions of other ordinances. He indicated he would feel more comfortable if the parties reached a 23 consensus to allow this to go back to the Planning and Zoning Board and then come through the . 24 process to City Council. 25 26 City Planner Smyser stated the City could extend, even if the deadline were 60 days, but he agrees it 27 would be better to get a consensus. 28 29 Mayor Bergeson called for a brief recess at 7:55 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:02 p.m. 30 31 City Planner Smyser indicated this issue could go to Planning and Zoning Board on March 12 and 32 come back to the City Council on March 24, to which all parties have agreed. 33 34 Councilmember Carlson asked if this had been agreed to by both attorneys for Mr. Morton and Mr. 35 Racutt. City Planner Smyser indicated it was, and the City would send them letters confirming the 36 dates agreed upon. 37 38 Councilmember Carlson asked how the new subdivision ordinance defines improved streets. 39 40 City Planner Smyser indicated this was a good question. He stated minor subdivisions would require 41 frontage on improved streets, or would require a variance. 42 43 Councilmember Carlson stated they had an applicant come to a work session who had a business he 44 wanted to move. Council told him he would fall under current ordinance even though the request was 45 in the early stages. She wants to make sure they are being consistent. 46 • 12 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 City Planner Smyser stated he believes that request would have been approved prior to the ordinance 2 taking effect, but now the application has been pulled, and it is a new situation. Councilmember 3 Carlson stated her point is she wants to be consistent. 4 5 Mayor Bergeson indicated they may need the guidance of the attorney for these issues. He indicated 6 requests were bound to come in during the process of changing the ordinances, and they would need 7 to ask for guidance in handling. 8 9 Motion carried unanimously. 10 11 Resolution 03-17 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 12 13 Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-03, Subdivision Ordinance, Jeff Smyser 14 - City Planner Smyser distributed a new cover page for the ordinance, indicating the new page has 15 the ordinance number and a more formal introduction. He also noted it is Chapter 1001, not 1000. 16 17 City Planner Smyser advised this is the second reading of this ordinance, with the first reading having 18 taken place on January 27. He stated there were a number of things done in the interim, including 19 reconciling the definitions with the draft of the new zoning ordinance, which represents the bulk of 20 the new draft Council received. He stated the rest of the items changed were suggestions from the 21 first reading, which have been incorporated into this document, reflected in the updated pages 22 Council received and are bulleted on the summary report. He stated definitions for Level of Service 23 have been added, represented by sections A through F on the last few pages. .24 25 Councilmember Carlson indicated she had three points to cover. She stated on page 1002.4, she 26 remembers Council making comments in two areas that have been addressed, but she is wondering 27 who suggested item g. She asked for clarification on the point and requested to know who on the 28 Council made it. 29 30 City Planner Smyser stated that section had been rewritten by staff, as a question came up regarding 31 what would happen if the existing level of service(LOS) is A or B and the ordinance says you cannot 32 reduce; if you have an A, can it reduce to a B. 33 34 Councilmember Carlson stated she has no problem with the first two points in this section, her 35 question is on item g., which states The LOS requirements in paragraphs a. to d. above do not apply 36 to I -35W or I -35E interchanges. Interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka 37 County and the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation.' She stated this was not in the first two draft, and 38 the way she reads this it would be acceptable to have a LOS F if the money is not available to 39 improve, and LOS F is not acceptable. 40 41 Mayor Bergeson stated he wonders if the question is not in jurisdiction, indicating you cannot require 42 improvements if funding is not available. 43 44 City Planner Smyser stated they were touching on the problem. He indicated the City does not have 45 the ability to say you cannot put in a development if LOS is lower than D and the City does not have 46 the authority to make improvements. He stated the way it was written before, saying no one could • 47 develop if LOS was D or lower, could mean that we shut down economic development in the City 48 because just about anything by those interchanges would bring in enough traffic to be a problem. He 13 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 stated the City does not want to eliminate development if Mn/Dot does not have money to improve • 2 those interchanges. If we do, there goes the shopping center. He stated if the Council is more 3 concerned about the level of service than the shopping center, they can remove that wording. 4 5 Councilmember Carlson stated she was concerned about this being added now. She indicated 6 Council has gone through three drafts already, and the ordinance has been through the Boards, and 7 she wants to know how this was put in at this stage. 8 9 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that at the first reading it was determined that 10 this section needed some work. While not specific to g., Council discussed their concerns and 11 indicated where the issues were. He stated Staff met to rewrite the section based on those discussions 12 and in trying to finalize it and put this through, realized there was a problem with the interchanges. 13 He stated the interchange improvements are so big Lino Lakes cannot do them, but development in 14 that area would be contingent upon the improvements. He indicated the main two areas are Lake 15 Drive and Main Street, both projects that are consistently pushed back by Mn/DOT. He stated those 16 intersections will be evaluated in projects, but it was difficult to apply the same requirements to those 17 interchanges as to local roads where the City has more jurisdiction. He indicated that usually when 18 discussing improvements we are talking about turn lanes, stoplights and those types of improvements, 19 while with the interchanges we are talking about more lanes, bridge improvements and things that are 20 out of the City's realm. He stated the intent in putting this item in the ordinance would be to look at 21 those intersections but allow approval based on the fact that projects are coming up in the next five 22 years or ten years without having to wait. He stated it would be difficult to say no development until 23 improvement when that may be six years out, but the City is in the position to say no to anything until • 24 then if they choose. 25 26 Mayor Bergeson stated that when Councilmember Carlson asked who suggested this, he had made 27 some comments, while not specific to this, about both State and Federal government being more 28 reactive than proactive, and how they tend to plan projects based on poor conditions rather than future 29 need. He indicated the County is this way as well, however they try to work with the cities to address 30 growth to some extent. 31 32 Councilmember Carlson stated she is concerned about not setting City standards at those two areas. 33 She indicated it appears the City is going against their Comprehensive Plan that speaks about 34 developing roads. She realizes the City cannot fund a bridge, and does not want to delay 35 development, but when the LOS gets down to E or F, it does not create a safe intersection for the 36 citizens. She indicated this was not just a matter of waiting at the light a little longer, it was not safe. 37 She stated that dropping the LOS requirement from C to D makes her concerned, but this feels like 38 they are not upholding the Comprehensive Plan to have developers finance and the City is going to be 39 building ahead of their infrastructure, which the Comprehensive Plan is meant to prevent. 40 41 Councilmember Carlson indicated her second point was on page 1007.2, Item 5, which states 'All lots 42 shall have frontage on an improved public street that provides the required lot width at the minimum 43 front yard setback, except multi -family or planned unit developments that provide access via private 44 roads or drives. Flag lots are prohibited.' She stated it seems every minor subdivision has had a 45 problem lately; Racutt and Keefe, the subdivision on Ash where they gave a variance. She asked if 46 this is restricting owners who want to subdivide into large lots from doing so to the extent it is 11047 unreasonable. She indicated this should apply when doing a large number of homes, but she is 14 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED •1 uncomfortable applying it to small property owners. She is afraid they will not be able to subdivide, 2 but a bigger developer could purchase the property as part of another development and subdivide it. 3 4 Mayor Bergeson stated he feels the frontage requirement is good in the ordinance, his question would 5 be how much frontage should be required. He indicated he does not want to get in the business of 6 creating lots that do not have frontage. 7 8 Community Development Director Grochala stated this is intended to protect the public from 9 incurring costs to improve roads later. He stated that whether it is two lots or ten, the suggestion is 10 you will have a public road to access your home. He indicated the cost gets thrown on the public 11 when the cost should be handled up front. He stated private roads are not the best either, but the City 12 does have some townhomes with association maintained roads. 13 14 Councilmember Carlson stated she was looking at the Stage 1 growth area after 2010, which could be 15 subdivided into large parcels like Keefe, with only two lots. She indicated it makes more sense to put 16 in the road when the property moves into low density sewer, and do the sewer and water at the same 17 time. She stated she looked for the improved street definition, but did not see it. She indicated if we 18 require improved streets to put in two lots, it prevents landowners from doing it, because the costs are 19 too high for two lots. 20 21 Community Development Director Grochala asked if it was too expensive for the landowner to do, do 22 you want the City to have the burden. He stated the Keefe property was a 40 acre parcel with 23 frontage, subdivided years ago, with no access, creating problem one. Fifteen years later another 10 • 24 acres was divided off without public access, now there are three lots out there, and everyone says 25 'Poor Keefe doesn't have a public street'. Some of these problems we have created for ourselves and 26 we need to prevent more. 27 28 Councilmember Carlson indicated the house on the ten acres is forty years old. She understands the 29 need for public streets, but it seems like it will not allow landowners like Keefe to subdivide. 30 31 Mayor Bergeson indicated there is a public responsibility to not create situations where there is no 32 access for emergency vehicles, etc. He indicated there are some situations in the City already that we 33 have to live with, but for new subdivisions it is important to have adequate access for emergency 34 vehicles. 35 36 City Planner Smyser indicated one of the problems is that in Minnesota cities are not allowed to 37 charge improvement fees. What this means is you cannot charge a person for something that will 38 help them but is not attached to their property, so taxpayers end up paying. By not requiring frontage 39 road, that is the problem that is set up. He indicated the landowners are making money off the 40 property when they sell part of it, they have to pay for that right. The City has to maintain a proper 41 infrastructure, and if we do not require road improvements at development, we may not be able to 42 later. The purpose of planning and regulating is to try to avoid these situations. He indicated that 43 while this may mean saying no to some people we would want to say yes to, it is not fair to make the 44 taxpayers anti up later. 45 46 Councilmember Carlson indicated that page 1006.4 refers to a change in how minor subdivisions are gib 47 approved. She indicated that City Planner Smyser had mentioned there are only about three per year, 48 so she is wondering why it is necessary to change the procedure for such few cases. 15 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 2 City Planner Smyser indicated the process to approve minor subdivisions is only changing at the very 3 end where staff reviews to see if it meets all the requirements. This is set up to allow minor 4 subdivisions to be handled by staff unless a variance is required. He stated we are only saying that 5 Staff would do what a resolution would do if it went before the City Council. 6 7 Councilmember Carlson asked again, if there are only three a year, why would we need staff to 8 handle instead of going through Planning and Zoning where more information can be gathered, and 9 then go on to the City Council as we do now. 10 11 City Planner Smyser stated this was a larger issue. He indicated this recommendation was made to 12 save time and money for the applicant and the City, but if Council wants to return this to Staff and 13 say they do not want Staff approving, applicants need to go through the process, Staff will change it. 14 15 Councilmember Carlson indicated she can see the cost savings benefit for the applicant, but it seems 16 often Staff will deny, and she is concerned about taking away the process for those who want to go to 17 the Planning and Zoning Board to make their case. She asked if it was possible to allow it to go 18 through the process of going to Planning and Zoning only if denied. 19 20 City Planner Smyser indicated the ordinance gives instructions for appealing. 21 22 Councilmember Carlson stated that was different. She is thinking something more along the lines of 23 what the process is now, where Staff says their recommendation is not to approve, but it can go to the di24 Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. She wants applicants to have the right to go to the 25 Planning and Zoning Board if they want. She indicated it is the `squeaky wheel' theory, where some 26 people will just accept the denial rather than appeal. 27 28 Councilmember Reinert stated when this came up before, the recommendation from the City Council 29 was that if denied, the applicant would be told they could apply for appeal, and we added the 30 language `Staff would inform the applicant if denial did occur, that City Council would be informed 31 at the next session that a minor subdivision request had come in and was denied so a timely report 32 was received.' He stated these two points should be added to the wording. 33 34 Councilmember Carlson indicated one point was added. The wording changed from 'periodic' to 'as 35 they occur'. She thinks what Councilmember Reinert is saying is good, but perhaps applicants should 36 be told the City Council would be informed at their next session and the applicant was invited to 37 attend. 38 39 City Planner Smyser indicated it comes down to the City Council. If you want all minor subdivisions 40 to come before the City Council, that is what Staff will do. If you want them handled 41 administratively, that is what Staff will do. Rather than figure something in between, he feels it 42 should be one way or the other. He stated Staff thought it would be more efficient to handle 43 administratively, but if Council is concerned, they should table the ordinance and let staff rewrite it 44 and bring it back. 45 46 Mayor Bergeson stated he did not understand why item a. can't stay as it is, and if the case is clear •47 cut, be handled administratively, but if not clear cut, go to a different process. If it is clear all 48 requirements are met, he cannot see why staff cannot approve. 16 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 • 2 Community Development Director Grochala indicated it becomes quasi -administrative then. He 3 stated we would be saying we might approve, but if we deny you have to go to the Planning and 4 Zoning Board. He indicated they are already hearing complaints that Staff is being subjective, and 5 this would intensify that impression. He stated there are timing issues, and applicants may think Staff 6 is randomly making them go through a longer process by denying. 7 8 Councilmember Reinert stated he thought this could be resolved with one sentence added to the end 9 of item b. He understands Staff's intent to expedite the process, indicating if we added 'in the event 10 of denial, applicant is informed of appeal options and City Council is informed of denial at next work 11 session', if would solve the concerns. 12 13 Councilmember Carlson stated she was thinking in the same direction. She indicated we did add 'as 14 they occur', and wonders if it could be added to invite the applicant to the work session following 15 denial. Councilmember Reinert stated it would be the applicant's option if they wanted to attend. 16 17 City Planner Smyser asked that they imagine how this would happen. He stated that Staff had 18 intended that when it came up, they would send a memo concerning the denial. Now he is hearing it 19 should be put on the work session agenda, where the Council would send it to the Planning and 20 Zoning Board to get their approval and then it would come back to City Council. He stated they were 21 trying to save the applicant and the City some time, now the process is fatter because it would come 22 to the City Council up front and in the back. He stated if Council is concerned about people not being 23 treated fairly, they should keep the process as it is. .24 25 Councilmember Reinert assured City Planner Smyser this was not an indictment on Staff, they just 26 wanted to make sure City Council was notified of denial and the applicant was notified of their 27 options. 28 29 Mayor Bergeson stated that the piece missing is when talking about appeal, it does not say when 30 denied, staff would be proactive of notifying the applicant of their rights. He stated they are not 31 talking about big, experienced developers, but small owners, and Council just wants to make sure 32 Staff is proactive in telling them their options. 33 34 Community Development Director Grochala stated he feels this is being set up to be a situation where 35 landowners can just say `I do not meet the requirements so I'll just go ask the Council'. 36 37 Councilmember Reinert stated he does not know if it is necessary to invite them to the work session, 38 his only concern is they are informed of their options, and City Council is informed of the denial. 39 40 Councilmember O'Donnell asked how applicants were notified of a denial. City Planner Smyser 41 indicated by letter. Councilmember O'Donnell asked if the appeal process could be added to the 42 letter, then they would know their options right away. 43 44 Community Development Director Grochala stated that the reality is if someone is denied because 45 they do not meet the ordinance, they need a variance, which should be identified at application. A 46 variance request would automatically go to Planning and Zoning and then on to City Council. • 47 17 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 City Planner Smyser stated if it meets the requirements for approval by City Council, it should be • 2 approved by Staff. If it does not meet them, then it should not be approved. He thinks setting 3 yourself up to have people break the rules is a curious thing to do. 4 5 Mayor Bergeson stated that while it has been a long time since he has had a speeding ticket, he 6 believes it says right on the ticket you can pay this fine, or here is the process if you want to appeal. 7 He indicated all they are talking about is something similar, saying your request has been denied, and 8 here is the process if you want to appeal. He thinks they may be making more of this than it needs to 9 be, if the process to appeal is added to the denial letter it should be sufficient. 10 11 Councilmember Carlson stated while she has never had a moving violation, she is thinking about 12 another situation on Oak, where a minor subdivision was allowed. She just wants the process to be 13 easy for the smaller, less sophisticated person to get to their public officials. 14 15 Mayor Bergeson stated Council has a responsibility to uphold the ordinances. 16 17 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated they have each said the same thing three times. He asked how 18 they wanted to document this, asking if it should be in the letter. 19 20 City Planner Smyser indicated item a. covers approvals, and item b. covers denials. If they indicate in 21 there that the findings shall be sent to the applicant along with the appeal/variance process, it should 22 be okay. 23 gh 24 Councilmember Reinert added `along with a copy to the City Council'. City Planner Smyser 25 indicated that was covered in 1006.6 — Reports to City Council. 26 27 Councilmember Carlson clarified this only applies to residential property, not commercial or 28 industrial. 29 30 City Planner Smyser stated that was correct, citing 1006 — 2, paragraph 4 says residential only. 31 Councilmember Carlson indicated she wanted to make sure it clarifies a residential unit, not other 32 developments in a residential area. City Planner Smyser indicated it did. 33 34 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if the minor subdivision definition needs to state that. City Planner 35 Smyser indicated they tried to get around it be saying three or fewer residential parcels, tracts or lots, 36 but they could clarify the definition. 37 38 Councilmember Carlson asked if they needed a definition of what an improved street is, as it could 39 vary. City Planner Smyser indicated an improved road was always paved in his mind. 40 41 Community Development Director Grochala stated there was a definition in the street ordinance. 42 Councilmember Carlson asked if it included sewer and water. Community Development Director 43 Grochala indicated it was only the street. 44 45 Mayor Bergeson asked that a reference be added to indicate as defined in the street ordinance, 46 whatever that document is titled. • 47 18 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 Councilmember Carlson stated she still had a problem with the one on the roads. She stated on • 2 anything else she could compromise, but taking out all levels of service at the interchanges concerns 3 here. She understands about not having the funding to do them, but by taking out all level of service 4 requirements she views it as a safety concern. She reread paragraph g. of 1002.5, indicating it gets 5 into the Comprehensive Plan and the EAWs. 6 7 Councilmember Reinert asked if interchanges included overpasses and underpasses. City Planner 8 Smyser indicated it did. 9 10 Councilmember Carlson stated she looked at the information on Eaglebrook Church, and wondered 11 why do an EAW if when we look back in our ordinances we have no guidelines.. She indicated she 12 could compromise on the drop in LOS from C to D, although D is not good either. She read the 13 criteria for D, and indicated she was not fond of having that in there, but to have nothing on the 14 interchanges when relating to the Comprehensive Plan and EAW, you are really tossing the point of 15 an EAW out the window. 16 17 Councilmember Reinert indicated Councilmember Carlson had a good point. 18 19 Mayor Bergeson asked how the City would go about influencing the State on improvements. 20 Councilmember Reinert stated they were really talking about the County, in the example of the 21 bridge. 22 23 Community Development Director Grochala stated that whether County, State or Federal money, you •24 are really talking about who has jurisdiction. All of these projects get programmed through the State 25 Application Program, whether road improvements, maintenance versus reconstruction, etc., there is 26 always competition. He stated the City could apply for it to get moved up, but it is a political process 27 that the City does not control. He indicated he does not think EAW is a reason to approve or deny a 28 project, it is just one more thing to consider. He added that given the City's inability to control when 29 those projects are done, it would be eliminating any economic development in that part of the city. 30 31 Councilmember Carlson stated she knows these are timed projects, with 35W slated for 2006, and 32 stated there is a meeting on March 26th with Centerville and Hugo to discuss 35E, but asked if more 33 could not be done with temporary signals to improve the level of service rating. 34 35 Community Development Director Grochala stated signals will not help, noting that level of service 36 includes delays. He gave an example of a two lane bridge, with no room for a turn lane without 37 expanding the bridge itself. 38 39 Councilmember Reinert asked what the LOS of 35W and 35E interchanges were right now. 40 Community Development Director Grochala indicated he did not know, he thought it was F several 41 years ago, and knows there was an evaluation when Target went up, stating that some improvement 42 north of there helped, but he would have to check the studies. 43 44 Mayor Bergeson indicated he did not want to put something in place that would prevent the Town 45 Center, although he does not know what the LOS would be with or without the Town Center, he 46 would be concerned that they are not putting wording in the ordinance that would prevent the Town •47 Center from moving forward. 48 19 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED •1 Community Development Director Grochala indicated it would be completely reasonable to expect 2 that there are different levels of service at each ramp. He stated they could address some issues 3 during development but could realistically have an interchange with different LOS at different legs. 4 5 Councilmember Carlson asked that they look at item f. on page 1002.4 and .5. She read the 6 paragraph, which states The traffic generated from a proposed subdivision shall not require City 7 street improvements that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital Improvement Plan. However, 8 the City may, at its discretion, consider developer -financed improvements to correct any street 9 deficiencies.' She stated item g. does not have such requirements, and she recommends passing 10 tonight without item g. and passing item g. as an amendment. She is concerned about leaving this 11 wording in there. 12 13 Mayor Bergeson indicated the issue is really the bridge, and the point is they cannot do anything 14 about that. He stated it seems working with the developers, they could require some things with the 15 development in regards to the approach to those areas, but the bridge itself is beyond the City's 16 jurisdiction. 17 18 Councilmember Carlson commented on Senator Mark Kennedy's attendance at the last joint meeting, 19 indicating there was some discussion that he would be bringing something forward federally to 20 address the bridge. 21 22 Community Development Director Grochala indicated the intent of the coalition is to get money for 23 that, but at the same time there is no guarantee. He stated the other problem was that even if the gik 24 money was available today, there would still be three years of construction. He indicated this was a 25 difficult situation, and Staff had addressed how it could work, and this was the best they could come 26 up with. 27 28 Councilmember Reinert stated that if the recommendation is to pull out item g. and add as an 29 amendment, he would offer to table the ordinance and discuss at the next work session. 30 31 Mayor Bergeson asked how the calendar looked, and how much time they had. 32 33 City Planner Smyser indicated the moratorium expires February 20. Growth management has been 34 approved, and will be filed in a few days. He indicated this ordinance will not be in place when the 35 moratorium expires, but would be before anything could come before the City Council. He stated 36 there was a risk to delaying two weeks, but the zoning ordinance would not be approved before then 37 either, but would be before any projects get to the City Council. He indicated they could probably 38 wait two weeks if that is what Council wants to do. 39 40 Mayor Bergeson indicated another option is to pass as it is written, and refine through an amendment. 41 42 Councilmember Carlson stated she agrees with Councilmember Reinert's suggestion to take it back to 43 a work session, or she would support passing it without item g. so it would go before the Boards for 44 additional perspective as an amendment. She stated that once the ordinance is passed, it is difficult to 45 change it. 46 • 47 Councilmember Reinert asked if there were any suggestions from Staff on how to deal with item g. 48 besides what it says now. 20 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 • 2 City Planner Smyser indicated they talked about it a lot, and this is the best they could come up with 3 at the time. He added it is a difficult issue, putting control over something they have no control to fix. 4 He stated it is a tough situation with no easy way out. 5 6 Councilmember Reinert asked for a comment from Staff, if the ordinance is passed without item g., 7 what effects on the interchange there would be. He asked for their opinion whether to pass without 8 item g. or pull back to a work session. 9 10 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that without item g. in there, item d. says 'the 11 existing LOS must be D or better for any street providing access to the subdivision. If the existing 12 level of service is E or F, the subdivision developer must provide, as part of the proposed project, 13 improvements needed to ensure a level of service D or better.' He stated that is what they would fall 14 back to, meaning if you are developing adjacent to the interchange, you would be responsible for 15 brining the LOS to a D or not developing. 16 17 Councilmember Reinert asked Community Development Director Grochala to define adjacent. 18 Community Development Director Grochala indicated it would mean Lake Drive or Main Street. 19 Councilmember Reinert asked if adjacent is actually abutting. Community Development Director 20 Grochala indicated adjacent was his word, but it actually says providing access, which for the Town 21 Center would be Lake Drive. 22 23 Councilmember Reinert clarified that it is not the street adjacent to the subdivision. Community • 24 Development Director Grochala indicated it was not adjacent, but the street providing access to the 25 subdivision. He stated this case is unique. In most subdivisions you have a street which allows 26 access to the subdivision, but this is a greater area. 27 28 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated he recommends tabling the second reading and bringing it back 29 to a work session to iron out. 30 31 Mayor Bergeson confirmed they were okay with the timing. Councilmember Reinert indicated the 32 concern is the moratorium expires February 20, so the exposure is anything that may come in on 33 Monday, February 24. City Planner Smyser indicated the ordinance does not take effect for five 34 weeks. Community Development Director Grochala indicated it would be okay to push it out two 35 weeks. 36 37 Councilmember Carlson indicated that if you look at the draft from September 4, 2002, it appears to 38 be a much stronger ordinance than it is now. She read several paragraphs relating to the LOS. She 39 indicated that the draft required LOS C or better, and there was more teeth to have the developer pay 40 for improvements. She stated she feels they lost some of the ability to say no around an intersection 41 if it does not meet a level of service. She indicated instead of four levels, there are now eight, and the 42 minimum has gone from C to D. She feels it is a weaker ordinance. 43 44 City Planner Smyser reminded the Council there has been a lot of discussion since that draft. 45 46 Mayor Bergeson indicated he would support Councilmember O'Donnell's recommendation to spend • 47 more time on this so they do not pass something the did not intend to pass. He stated since there were 48 different opinions on implications of passing without item g., if they are still within their timeframe 21 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 he feels the ordinance would benefit from continued discussion. He stated he is concerned because • 2 staff puts a lot of work into these ordinances and comes up with their best solution, and sometimes 3 the Councils solutions do not improve the situation, but he thinks it is worth the time to see where it 4 will go. 5 6 Councilmember Reinert asked if this were going to be passed at the next City Council meeting, and 7 the City would be exposed for another five weeks, should the moratorium be extended for five more 8 weeks. He also asked that Staff find out for the work session what LOS the overpass on 35W is at 9 now. Community Development Director Grochala asked that it be added `if that information is 10 available'. 11 12 Councilmember Reinert stated it would be helpful to know what it is now. He stated that concerning 13 extending the moratorium, does it make sense to do that. Councilmember Carlson asked what it 14 would take to do that. 15 16 City Attorney Hawkins stated that in his opinion, he did not think the Council had time to do that. It 17 would have to be adopted by Council, then be posted in the paper for 30 days. Mayor Bergeson 18 indicated the City always has some exposure, it is part of what they deal with. He added they would 19 just have to make prudent decisions along the way. 20 21 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to table the second reading of Ordinance No. 04-03, Subdivision 22 Ordinance until the February 24 City Council meeting. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. 23 Ali 24 Mayor Bergeson asked that Council get all their issues on the table before the work session so this 25 ordinance can pass the next time through. 26 27 Motion carried unanimously. 28 29 Consideration of Resolution 03-18, approve fmal payment for 2001 Wear Course Project, 30 James Studenski — City Engineer Studenski advised that the contractor for the 2001 Wear Course 31 Project, North Valley, Inc. is requesting City approval of Payment 2 in the amount of $4,466.10. He 32 indicated a copy of the final payment is attached. The contractor has completed all work and has 33 provided all necessary documentation. He indicated the original contract amount was $88,530.50 and 34 the final contract amount is $89,322.00. He stated the over run of $791.50 was from more 35 bituminous material used than what was in the contract amount. He indicated the total for the project 36 was $9,854.50 under the Engineer's estimate of $99,176.50. 37 38 City Engineer Studenski stated it was Staff's recommendation to accept the final payment of 39 $4,466.10 and begin the one year warranty period. 40 41 Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-18, Approving Final Payment for 2001 42 Wear Course Project. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. 43 44 Motion carried unanimously. 45 46 Resolution No. 03-18 can be found in the City Clerk's office. •47 22 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED •1 Consideration of Anoka County Agreement for Residential Recycling Program for 2003, Marty 2 Asleson — Community Development Director Grochala explained Lino Lakes receives SCORES 3 funds each year from Anoka County. He stated the funds for 2002 are $37,453.60, and are the 4 primary source of the Lino Lakes recycling budget. He indicated the Anoka County Agreement 5 provides for the cooperative effort between Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes. 6 7 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-24 approving the Anoka County 8 Agreement for Residential Recycling Program for 2003. Councilmember Reinert seconded the 9 motion. 10 11 Motion carried unanimously. 12 13 Resolution 03-24 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 14 15 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-20, Receive petition and Authorize a Feasibility Report for 16 Lois Lane Utility Improvements, James Studenski — City Engineer Studenski advised that the City 17 has received a petition from residents and property owners on Lois Lane, west of Highland Meadows 18 West and north of Country Lane, for preparation of a report on sanitary sewer and water service. A 19 copy of the petition is in Council's packet, as well as a map showing the parcels. He stated sanitary 20 sewer and water main are currently existing at the east end of these lots from the Highland Meadows 21 West subdivision. 22 23 City Engineer Studenski explained that when the City has received utility petitions from di24 neighborhoods in the past, the first step has been to hold a neighborhood meeting before any formal 25 study is prepared. He indicated that at the neighborhood meeting, they discuss the public 26 improvement process, the City Charter, the location of existing utilities and an overview of the 27 construction process. Typically, the study would follow the neighborhood meeting. He stated that 28 the study will address, on a preliminary basis, design, cost, assessment, schedule, and other issues as 29 they relate to providing City utility service to this area. 30 31 City Engineer Studenski indicated Staff recommends to receive the recommendation and authorize a 32 feasibility report for Lois Lane Utility Improvements. 33 34 Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-20, Receive Petition and Authorize a 35 Feasibility Report for Lois Lane Utility Improvements. Councilmember Carlson seconded the 36 motion. 37 38 Motion carried unanimously. 39 40 Resolution No. 03-20 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 41 42 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 43 44 There was no unfinished business to consider. 45 46 NEW BUSINESS •47 48 There was no new business to consider. 23 COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED •1 2 COMMUNITY CALENDAR February 11, 2003 THROUGH February 24, 2003: 3 4 A) Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 6:30 p.m., Planning & Zoning Board Meeting 5 B) Monday, February 17, 2003, City Hall Closed in Observance of President's Day 6 C) Wednesday, February 19, 2003, 5:30 p.m., Council Work Session 7 D) Monday, February 24, 2002, 6:30 p.m., City Council Meeting 8 Mayor Bergeson asked that when Staff is preparing the work session agenda they allow time for an 9 extended discussion of the subdivision ordinance. 10 11 ADJOURN 12 13 There being no further business, Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adjourn at 9:47 p.m. 14 Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. 15 16 Motion carried unanimously. 17 18 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, April 28, 2003. 19 .20 21(- 22 Ann Blair, C. Clerk 23 24 Transcribed by: 25 Karen Whaley 26 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 27 • 24