HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2003 Council MinutesAPPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3
4
5 DATE : February 24, 2003
6 TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M.
7 TIME ENDED : 12:21 A.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; City Engineer, Jim Studenski; City Planner, Jeff Smyser;
14 Police Chief Dave Pecchia (part); and City Attorney, Bill Hawkins
15
16 SETTING THE AGENDA
17
18 Mayor Bergeson noted there were two e-mails concerning one of the agenda items, and he asked that
19 staff distribute copies of those before the items were discussed.
20
21 The agenda was approved as presented.
• 22
23 CONSENT AGENDA
24
25 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as submitted. Councilmember
26 Reinert seconded the motion.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 ITEM ACTION
31
32 A. CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES:
33
34 i) February 24, 2003 (Check No. 67431 -
35 67564, $353,187.32) Approved
36
37 ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 13648 -
38 13672, $99,315.79) Approved
39
40 B. Consideration of approving application for temporary on -sale liquor license for Circle -
41 Lex Lions Club.
42
43 OPEN MIKE
44
45 No one wished to address the Council about items not on the agenda.
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1111 1
2
3
4 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK
5
6 There was no report.
7
8 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH
9
10 There was no report.
11
12 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAVE PECCHIA
13
14 Consideration of Public Safety Annual Report — Chief of Police Pecchia presented a summary of
15 the 2002 Annual Report, indicating it had been a very interesting year with homeland security issues.
16 He talked about the focus groups conducted in 2002, and stated the City had received a federal grant
17 which allows them to have a full-time officer at the elementary school. He added they have started
18 DARE programs at Rice Creek and Lino Lakes Elementary Schools.
19
20 Chief of Police Pecchia stated they have developed a new mission statement, and reaffirmed their
21 value statement, and they strive to adhere to those statements. He mentioned that included in the
• 22 report is an organization chart, stating that they take direction from the City Council through the City
23 Administrator. He indicated the report shows the 2002 employees and the areas they are assigned to,
24 adding that one officer is on leave with the Peace Corps, with an anticipated return date later this year.
25 He stated they recognize officers quarterly, and there are stories about each of the 2002 officers
26 recognized in the annual report.
27
28 Chief of Police Pecchia stated that crime prevention is the number one use of the department's
29 resources, and they have several proactive programs, including `Crime Free Multi -housing Program'
30 and `Crime Prevention through Environmental Design'. He indicated the City participates in the
31 McGruff House program, which provides kids with a safe haven to go to if they have a problem. He
32 stated they have several special safety programs, including the Public Safety Citizen Academy, with
33 20 residents participating in 2002 and 17 more in 2003. They have received a Safe and Sober grant
34 for the last three years and also have received the Cops in Schools grant as mentioned earlier. He
35 indicated they have also received funds to provide bullet-proof vests to all officers and purchase new
36 technology.
37
38 Chief of Police Pecchia advised that the National Night Out event in Lino Lakes now has 26
39 neighborhoods participating, and the department is offering safety camps, self-defense for women and
40 mothers and daughters, and expanding the neighborhood crime watch program. He stated they are
41 very proud of their Drug Recognition for Parents program, developed when they found parents were
42 not aware of what some paraphernalia was used for. This seminar is held several times during the
Allk 43 year, and they have been asked to provide it to the St. Paul School and other areas, such as Edina and
NIF 44 North Branch.
45
2
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
• 1 Chief of Police Pecchia indicated they have an Active Threat Team, which is trained to effectively
2 end a threatening situation, and is much different than it was in the past. He stated that emergency
3 management has taken a significant amount of their time in the last year, and included in the report is
4 a copy of the Lino Lakes Police Department response to national alert levels, which describes what is
5 done at each level of emergency. He stated the department has received 2600 hours of training in
6 handling emergencies and national threats.
7
8 Chief of Police Pecchia indicated they have added a motorcycle fleet, with a one dollar per year lease.
9 He stated they have a yearly budget of $2,016,400, with the majority of that being salary and benefits.
10 He indicated that because of this, if there are major cuts, it will mean personnel cuts for the
11 department. He stated the 2002 Public Safety Budget was 29% of the overall City budget, and stated
12 they had a 9% increase in calls for service during the year. He indicated the report shows that by
13 month, weather can have an affect on the number of calls, with cold weather being a deterrent to
14 crime. He advised of the following statistics:
15
16 • 2000 citations
17 • 1 fatality
18 • 49 personal injury
19 • 211 property damage
20 • 115 car hit deer
.21
22 He stated the increased population in the city caused the 9% increase in calls. He added the top calls
23 for service, at 15% of calls, was for suspicious activity, which tells them the program to encourage
24 people to call if they see something odd is successful.
25
26 Chief of Police Pecchia advised that Part 1 crimes, as compared to cities similar in size, show that
27 Lino Lakes remains the safest community of those checked. He added this was true for communities
28 in Anoka County for Part 1 crimes also. He stated for Part 2 crimes, they slipped to the third safest
29 community.
30
31 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to accept the 2002 Public Safety Annual Report as presented.
32 Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Chief of Police Pecchia indicated a copy of the Annual report would be in the Citizen's Library, and a
37 second copy at the Police Department.
38
39 Focus Group Update
40
41 Chief of Police Pecchia indicated that the focus groups are continuing, and he expects they will
42 involve more citizens going forward.
II 43
44 Consideration of Contract with I.M. Peterson Auction Services for Unclaimed Property — Chief
45 of Police Pecchia explained that the department has found it would be more cost effective and
3
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
111 1 efficient to have a private entity collect property from the unclaimed property room and auction it on a
2 quarterly basis. He indicated the department had a net profit of $169.00 in 2001 and a loss of $19.00
3 in 2002 by doing it themselves, after expenses. He believes it would be a significant profit if they
4 combine their property with others, and would also keep their property room empty.
5
6 Councilmember Dahl asked if they would remove it from the property room quarterly, or if it would
7 be an ongoing thing. Chief of Police Pecchia indicated it would be quarterly, since by ordinance they
8 are required to keep property for a number of days, then they check all the reports and if the items are
9 not mentioned, they notify the auction house.
10
11 Councilmember Dahl stated she thinks it is a very good idea. Mayor Bergeson asked what the length
12 of the contract would be. Chief of Police Pecchia the department would try this service for a year.
13
14 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the Annual Contract with I.M. Peterson Auction Services
15 for Unclaimed Property for 2003. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER
20
21 There was none.
•22
23 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT, MIKE GROCHALA
24
25 Consideration of Resolution No. 03-27, Accepting Bid for Black Duck Lift Station
26 Improvements, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala advised that the
27 City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized staff to advertise for bids to
28 reconstruct the Black Duck Lift Station at the January 13, 2003 City Council Meeting. He stated the
29 engineers estimated construction cost was $321,500.00. He indicated there were five bids received,
30 ranging in price from $289,920.01 to $404,869.90. He indicated the low bid of $289,920.01 was
31 received from Northdale Construction Co., Inc., and was 9.8% under the engineers estimate and
32 $78,579.99 under the low bid previously rejected in August of 2002.
33
34 Community Development Director Grochala stated that the project is being funded from the City's
35 Trunk Utility Area and Unit Fund. He stated SEH, Inc., the City's Engineering Consultant for the
36 project is recommending award of the contract to Northdale Construction Company, Inc., for the bid
37 amount of $289,920.01.
38
39 Community Development Director Grochala advised that Staff is recommending acceptance of this
40 bid.
41
42 Councilmember Dahl moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-27, Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract
VP43 for the Black Duck Lift Station to Northdale Construction Co. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded
44 the motion.
45
4
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
4110 1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3 Resolution No. 03-27 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
4
5 Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 06-03, Vacating of a Drainage and Utility
6 Easement, Outlot A, Spirit Hills, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala
7 advised that this is a housekeeping issue in regard to Spirit Hills. He stated that the original plat of
8 Spirit Hills dedicated a drainage and utility easement covering an existing wetland on Outlot A. He
9 indicated that since then, a wetland replacement plan has been submitted and subsequently approved
10 by Rice Creek Watershed District to facilitate development of this site. He stated the approved
11 grading and drainage/wetland mitigation plan has been implemented on the site; therefore there is no
12 longer a public purpose for the existing drainage and utility easement.
13
14 Community Development Director Grochala advised that Staff is recommending approval of
15 Ordinance 06-03 Vacating the Drainage and Utility Easements on Outlot A.
16
17 Councilmember Carlson asked where the wetland mitigation occurred. Community Development
18 Director Grochala explained that additional drainage was added to the original development on the
19 southeast corner of the site, and the wetland replacement plan took that into consideration.
20
21 Councilmember Carlson stated there was a delay with the Rice Creek Watershed District on
• 22 Tomahawk Trail because of Public Value credits. She asked if credits from this could be used to
23 assist that development. Community Development Director Grochala stated they were different
24 issues, and the credits have to meet certain criteria. He does not believe this could be considered in
25 the Tomahawk Trail development.
26
27 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve FIRST READING and adopt Ordinance No. 06-03,
28 Vacation of a drainage and utility easement for Outlot A, Spirit Hills. Councilmember Carlson
29 seconded the motion.
30
31 Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember Dahl
32 voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Mayor Reinert voted yea.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Ordinance No. 06-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
37
38 Keefe Estates Residential Subdivision
39
40 i) Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance 05-03, Rezoning Certain Real
41 Property to Planned Development Overlay (PDO) District, Michael Grochala
42
dik 43 Community Development Director Grochala advised that the applicant, James Keefe, is requesting a
44 rezoning of his property to Planned Development Overlay District to allow for a rural cluster
5
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 subdivision consisting of three buildable lots. He stated each of the lots would be accessed from a
2 proposed private roadway lying within a proposed outlot.
3
4 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that Mr. Keefe currently owns 37 acres, a 10
5 acre parcel and a 27 acre parcel. He stated that the property would be zoned R -X, Rural Executive
6 District, with a lot size minimum of 10 acres without sewer and water. He stated the PDO allows for
7 some flexibility, and added this has gone through Planning and Zoning, with several conditions,
8 contained in Staff's report.
9
10 Community Development Director Grochala stated that the proposed lots are 2.3 acres; 1.99 acres and
11 32 acres, with the later having the existing homestead and an outlot for the public road. He indicated
12 there was currently a gravel driveway to service the property, and the applicant is proposing to
13 maintain this as a private road operated and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. He added the
14 private roadway will lie within what is proposed as Outlot A. He stated the applicant originally
15 proposed to widen the existing driveway to 20 feet using Class 5 gravel; however a new proposal
16 suggests keeping the existing driveway as it is until an upgrade to Rolling Hills Drive occurs. He
17 indicated the subsequent proposal included an addendum to the association agreement that would
18 require upgrading the private drive within six months of the City upgrading Rolling Hills Drive. He
19 noted that 20 feet is the minimum required width for an access road to accommodate emergency
20 vehicles as set forth in the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
21
•22 Community Development Director Grochala stated the Park Plan and Development Guide identifies a
23 proposed trail corridor within the property, however further investigation is needed to see if it would
24 fit within the proposed plans. He indicated a Ghost Plat has been provided to see how Lots 2 and 3,
25 Block 1, could be subdivided in the future with the extension of sewer and water after 2010. He
26 stated the ghost plat shows it would be possible.
27
28 Community Development Director Grochala advised that Staff believes the proposed rezoning to
29 PDO District is consistent with the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan, and the associated subdivision
30 allows for future sewer and water. He indicated the Planning and Zoning Board considered many
31 factors, including density, present and future land uses, performance standards, overburden on the
32 City's public service capacity and traffic impact. He added that the Planning and Zoning Board held a
33 public hearing and reviewed the request at its February 12, 2003 regular meeting, and recommended
34 approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report,
35 with the following modifications:
36
37 1. That the private drive be a minimum of 20 feet in width and meet a seven ton gravel
38 road design.
39 2. That Staff continue to evaluate the feasibility and need for the trail easement and
40 continue to work with the applicant on this issue.
41
42 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that it is Staff's recommendation to approve
43 the rezoning, and to approve the preliminary plat with the following conditions:
44
6
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 1. The proposed private road shall be improved to a minimum width of twenty feet and
2 include a permanent cul-de-sac at its northern terminus. The roadway shall be surfaced
3 with gravel or a suitable material and meet a seven ton road design. The roadway section
4 shall be determined by the City Engineer to insure the adequacy of the roadway to support
5 emergency vehicles.
6 2. A Homeowners Association shall be established to insure the continued operation and
7 maintenance of the private roadway. The association agreement shall be subject to the
8 review and approval of the City Attorney prior to final plat approval.
9 3. All wetlands on the subject property shall be delineated and shown on the final plat.
10 4. Public drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the city and cover all wetlands
11 on the subject property.
12 5. An easement for public trail purposes shall be dedicated to the City extending from
13 Rolling Hills Drive to the north property line of the subject property pending further
14 review by City staff. A payment in lieu of parkland dedication shall be required if it is
15 determined that a trail corridor is not feasible.
16 6. The developer shall place a covenant over Lot 1, Block 1 restricting future subdivision of
17 the lot until such time as public sanitary sewer and water is available to service the site in
18 conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Such covenant shall be subject to
19 review and approval by the City Attorney. As part of the subdivision, it is required that
20 the applicant create one greater 32 acre lot, to remain within the density requirements.
21 7. The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City to insure completion
�I 22 of necessary roadway improvements. Such agreement shall be entered into in conjunction
23 with final plat approval.
24 8. The Rezoning is approved.
25
26 Councilmember Carlson asked about the easement for the two and one-half acre exception parcel,
27 which does not have an easement to the road. Community Development Director Grochala stated this
28 was a question for the City Attorney. He stated the existing exception parcel on the southwest end of
29 the plat did not show an easement on the title information. He asked if the City could request an
30 easement for that parcel. City Attorney Hawkins asked if this was off the cul-de-sac. Community
31 Development Director Grochala indicated that was correct, demonstrating on a site map. City
32 Attorney Hawkins offered his opinion that an easement could be required for this parcel.
33
34 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve FIRST READING, and adopt Ordinance 05-03, Rezoning
35 from R-X, Rural Executive to R-X, Rural Executive/Planned Development Overlay (PDO).
36 Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion.
37
38 City Administrator Waite Smith noted that the ordinance numbers were inconsistent between the
39 agenda and the staff report, and asked for clarification on the correct number. Community
40 Development Director Grochala stated it should be 05-03.
41
42 Mayor Bergeson stated he will vote in favor of the ordinance, since all the criteria have been met, but
Mr43 will vote no on the second part, approving preliminary plat, because he does not think the road is
44 adequate.
45
7
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember Dahl
2 voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Mayor Reinert voted yea.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 Ordinance No. 05-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
7
8 ii) Consideration of Resolution 03-28, Approving Preliminary Plat, Keefe
9 Estates, Michael Grochala
10
11 Community Development Director Grochala indicated he had no additional information. He
12 indicated in response to the Mayor's comments, Staff first required bituminous roadway, however
13 after a lengthy discussion at the Planning and Zoning Meeting, Staff laid out the minimum
14 requirements according to the fire codes, which is 20 feet. He indicated the City usually does not
15 approve private streets, and when they are approved it is usually in conjunction with townhomes
16 where it is sometimes more appropriate. He noted that as indicated in the report, when the City has
17 altered on width, it has not altered on materials. He stated that at the Planning and Zoning Board
18 meeting it was asked what the intention of the road would be. He reiterated Staff's recommended
19 minimum, and that they believe it should be paved, as the possibility exists that down the road it will
20 not be maintained and could become a city liability. He added that it will be in the association
21 agreement to maintain the road, but ultimately this is the City Council's discretion.
• 22
23 Councilmember Carlson clarified that the larger portion of the lot will be set aside and cannot be
24 subdivided again until water and sewer were available. She asked if this did not present an
25 opportunity for development of the road at that time. Community Development Director Grochala
26 indicated it could. He stated the property to the west of the access area is a Stage 2 development area,
27 slated for sewer and water after 2010. He indicated they could come in with sewer and water from the
28 west, where everything would come off the public street, where there would be no need to improve
29 the roadway. He added that they could bring the street into the driveway also to allow further
30 development.
31
32 Councilmember Carlson asked what the length is from Rolling Hills Drive to the cul-de-sac.
33 Community Development Director Grochala stated it was 660 feet. Councilmember Carlson asked
34 how wide it is at the beginning of the property. Community Development Director Grochala stated
35 the driveway tapers, but is about 13 feet at the beginning, with a 60 foot right-of-way. He indicated it
36 tapers from 18 Y2 feet to 12 or 13 feet.
37
38 Councilmember Carlson asked how much right-of-way was claimed. Community Development
39 Director Grochala indicated there was no public right-of-way, but the property easement is 60 feet.
40 City Planner Smyser asked if the easement to the exception parcel the City would require would be
41 public or private. City Attorney Hawkins stated it would be private.
42
al43 Mayor Bergeson indicated that assumptions are being made that some day a future development and
44 road will be here, and asked if the City has adequately addressed the right-of-way for the road if it
45 happens. Community Development Director Grochala indicated that Outlot A provides a 60 foot
8
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
• 1 width right-of-way, which is standard. He indicated in the cul-de-sac they would want a 60 foot
2 radius, when what is being provided is 45 feet. He stated it if were a public street they would want a
3 larger radius.
4
5 Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution 03-28 approving preliminary plat for Keefe
6 Estates. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion.
7
8 Councilmember Carlson stated she would vote to approve because of the 60 foot right-of-way. She
9 believes a 45 foot radius in the cul-de-sac is appropriate because the cul-de-sac would be in the yard
10 of Mr. Keefe. She added the road is 660 feet long, and the City gains an easement they have not had.
11 She stated that in addition, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously in favor, and they are
12 an experienced board, so although it is slightly different, she will vote in favor.
13
14 Motion approved 4-1. Mayor Bergeson opposed.
15
16 Resolution 03-28 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
17
18 Consideration of Resolution 03-29, Approve Final Payment for 2002 Wear Course Project, Jim
19 Studenski — City Engineer Studenski advised that the contractor for the 2002 Wear Course Project,
20 Hardrives, Inc., is requesting City approval of Payment No. 2, which is the final payment, in the
21 amount of $11,235.78. He indicated a copy of the final payment is attached to his report. He added
• 22 the contractor has completed all work and has provided all necessary documentation.
23
24 City Engineer Studenski indicated that the original contract amount was $223,423.10 and the final
25 contract amount is $210,408.59. He stated the total for the project was $31,671.41 under the
26 Engineer's estimate of $242,080.00. He added approval of the final payment will begin the one-year
27 warranty period. He further stated Staff recommends that Resolution 03-29 be approved.
28
29 Councilmember Dahl moved to adopt Resolution 03-29, Approving Final Payment for 2002 Wear
30 Course Project. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion.
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 Resolution 03-29 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
35
36 Consideration of Resolution 03-30, Requesting Design Element Variance for Elm Street
37 Reconstruction, Jim Studenski — City Engineer Studenski advised that State Aid requires that a
38 minimum of 30 -mph in design speed must be maintained for collector roads with ADT < 10,000
39 which is the case for the Elm Street Reconstruction project. He indicated, however, that due to the
40 existing conditions, such as an elevated connecting county road that crosses over I -35W and existing
41 home locations, the design speed cannot be achieved at the west end of the project.
42
Aft 43 City Engineer Studenski indicated that a Design Element Variance is necessary for this project due to
44 these limitations, and Staff is recommending that a 75 -foot centerline radius curve posted for 15 -mph
45 be requested for the two westerly curves of Elm Street at Sunset Road. He added that Staff has
9
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
. 1 addressed this with State Aid staff and approval by their board is required for the variance. He stated
2 that as part of the variance request, State Aid must receive a resolution from the City requesting the
3 variance, which includes a statement that the City of Lino Lakes holds harmless the State of
4 Minnesota in granting the variance. He noted a copy of the request is attached.
5
6 City Engineer Studenski advised that Staff has had the City Attorney review this and he recommends
7 approval of the request, as does Staff.
8
9 Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution 03-30, Requesting Design Element Variance for
10 the Elm Street Reconstruction. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Resolution 03-30 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
15
16 Consideration of Subdivision Regulations
17
18 i) Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance 04-03, Adopting Subdivision
19 Regulations, Jeff Smyser
20
21 City Planner Smyser advised that the City Council approved the first reading of the new subdivision
• 22 ordinance on January 27, 2003. He indicated a number of revisions to the 12/19/02 draft were
23 discussed and added to the text of the document. He explained these changes were listed in the
24 February 10 staff report, after which several other text revisions were made by the Council. He
25 indicated that on February 10, 2003 the City Council tabled the second reading of the ordinance in
26 order to further discuss issues regarding impacts on transportation infrastructure.
27
28 City Planner Smyser advised the main issue remained the Level of Service (LOS). He indicated he
29 received an e-mail from Councilmember O'Donnell concerning Item G. He explained that Staff and
30 the City Council had many discussions about the level of service around new plats, but the issue was
31 unresolved at freeways and interchanges. He stated Staff had added new language after many
32 discussions, which the Council discussed at their work session, and based on that last discussion,
33 additional language has been added. He stated that as it reads now, Item G. states:
34
35 The LOS requirements in paragraphs a. to d. above do not apply to I -35W or I -35E
36 interchanges. Interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka County and
37 the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and a plan must be prepared to determine
38 improvements needed to resolve deficiencies. This plan must take into account traffic
39 generated by the subdivision project, how this traffic contributes to the total traffic, and the
40 time frame of the improvements. The plan also must examine financing options, including
41 project contribution and cost sharing among other properties that contribute to traffic at the
42 interchange.
43
10
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1111 1 Councilmember O'Donnell stated that his comment in his e-mail was that when he reads the new
2 language it is a vast improvement, however he feels there needs to be a trigger to initiate the process
3 to begin work.
4
5 City Planner Smyser stated that the intent is that this plan would have to be completed before
6 approval by the City. Councilmember O'Donnell stated he understands the development would not
7 go through without this plan, but asked what would trigger the process to start working with the
8 proper government agencies to initiate improvements.
9
10 City Planner Smyser stated that the intent was not to get into a LOS survey at all, and whether the
11 LOS was degraded would not be something used to judge the project. He indicated how it would be
12 decided is that the Council could see from the plan how a proposed project would affect the
13 interchange, and the point is to have the plan finished before the City Council approves a project. He
14 added that when improvements on the interchange will be started is very difficult to say. He indicated
15 that he anticipates it would be larger projects that would be deemed to have an effect on the
16 interchange, so they have to be treated differently than regular intersections.
17
18 Councilmember Reinert indicated he was not sure this answers Councilmember O'Donnell's question,
19 which he is questioning as well, which is when do you do the study and when improvements will be
20 made. He stated it is fine to do the study, but if there is no plan as to when improvements will be
21 made, another project will come along and a study will be done, and it will be determined that the
• 22 improvements are needed more now, but nothing will be done about it. He indicated he wants to
23 know what the trigger is, when the improvements will be made after the study is completed, and at
24 what point based on the study does the Council say no to a project based on the level of service.
25
26 City Planner Smyser indicated the exact trigger depends on the project. Councilmember Reinert
27 indicated it was then subjective. City Planner Smyser stated it would be somewhat subjective, but not
28 arbitrary. He gave an example that a development five miles away would add traffic through the
29 interchange, but whether it would have a negative impact on the level of service would depend on the
30 project. If it was a Minnesota Vikings stadium, it would, whereas a 10 unit housing development
31 probably would not. He stated that Lino Lakes and individual developers have no control and little
32 influence on when an interchange is improved. He stated the whole point to this recommendation is
33 that we would have to look and say in 2006 or 2010, this improvement is proposed, and this
34 development will be okay until then. What we are trying not to say is if the bridge is not built, we can
35 have no development in the city, because it would shut the city down. He indicated the timing of the
36 improvements would have to be determined as part of the plan, meaning the plan could say five years
37 from now, because that is when Mn/DOT plans to improve. He stated the whole idea of this is that
38 the interchanges have to be treated differently because of the scope of the improvements required.
39
40 City Planner Smyser stated that Councilmember Reinert's third question is when does the Council say
41 no to a project, which would also be determined after the study was done. He indicated the problem
42 is it is impossible to say when a highway improvement will be done, and if we treat them the same as
•43 local roads, we would be shutting down development in Lino Lakes. Councilmember Reinert agreed
44 that was the problem. He stated one concern he has is needing to leave it arbitrary to be able to allow
45 development, when on the other hand they could create a monster with developer after developer
11
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
• 1 coming with projects and the situation just gets worse and worse. He is afraid this leaves the door
2 open to have a big mess. He stated the two concerns come together with a fine line, and he does not
3 see the line identified well enough to be able to develop and still control the flow of traffic impacting
4 the interchange.
5
6 Mayor Bergeson suggested an additional requirement be added to the plan that it would quantify the
7 impact to the interchange, whether with number of trips or level of service or something that would
8 give the Council an idea of the impact proposed. He added that while they cannot know for certain
9 when improvements will happen, it is important to get the best estimate from the state for the report.
10 He recognized that the state is not bound by the dates they provide but it would give the Council
11 guidance so they would know if a development would have a temporary impact, a long-term impact
12 or a permanent impact.
13
14 Councilmember Carlson stated one concern she has is the costs for improvements. She indicated the
15 Comprehensive Plan states developers should pay for necessary road improvements. She used City
16 Planner Smyser's example of whether a development five miles away should help pay for
17 improvements. She stated that maybe it should not be based on the 10 -unit housing development, but
18 there is past history of projects helping to pay for improvement to intersections. She stated this needs
19 to be addressed so the cost is not back on the taxpayers. She believes in situations when there is a
20 decrease in the LOS, the cost should be assessed to the developer. She added that she does not think
21 Items d. and e. address this, and would propose adding the words "and intersections" so they read as
• 22 follows:
23 d. The existing LOS must be D or better for all streets and intersections providing access to
24 the subdivision. If the existing level of service is E or F, the subdivision developer must
25 provide, as part of the proposed project, improvements needed to ensure a level of service
26 D or better.
27 e. Existing roads and intersections providing access to the subdivision must have the
28 structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the proposed subdivision or the
29 developer will pay to correct any structural deficiencies.
30 She added that for Item g. she would like it to say I -35W and Lake Drive or I -35E and Main Street,
31 for clarification, since these are the two the City has now and is discussing.
32
33 Councilmember Carlson stated she has two more concerns. The first is that the acceptable level of
34 service is moving from C to D, although she did say she would compromise on that point. She
35 indicated she would like to offer Item h., which would say
36 The City does not relinquish any rights of local determination.
37
38 Councilmember Reinert asked for Staff's comments on this. Councilmember Dahl stated she had
39 requested a corrected, clean copy of the subdivision ordinance, but did not receive one. She added
40 that she would like to know why items e, f and g were added, to see how much teeth they have.
41
42 Mayor Bergeson suggested the Council respond to Councilmember Carlson's suggested changes and
43 asked for comments. Councilmember Dahl indicated the changes are fine with her.
. 44
12
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
• 1 Councilmember O'Donnell stated his only issue is with the local determination. He thought that was
2 legislated and would want to be sure they were not giving anything up. City Attorney Hawkins
3 clarified they were talking about a general statement, just making sure they were not giving up any
4 local authority. Councilmember Carlson indicated this was correct. She stated in Item g. it says
5 `Interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka County and the Minnesota
6 Department of Transportation, and a plan must be prepared to determine improvements needed to
7 resolve deficiencies'. She indicated her concern would be that they do not change the city's
8 ordinance.
9
10 City Attorney Hawkins suggested he sees no problem with the language.
11
12 Mayor Bergeson stated it was also suggested to change from `streets' to `streets and/or intersections',
13 which is just clarifying language, and asked if anyone had a problem with that, which no one did.
14 Councilmember Carlson added the additional clarification of Lake Drive and Main Street. Mayor
15 Bergeson stated that anytime the City can be more specific, he feels it is an improvement. He asked
16 City Planner Smyser to give a brief review of how the Council got to this point for Councilmember
17 Dahl.
18
19 City Planner Smyser indicated they were all working with the December 19 draft, and have been
20 making tweaks to it since then. He stated no new draft has been issued or printed since then. He
21 explained that at the last couple of meetings, quite a bit of discussion has taken place regarding
22 transportation. He stated that after one of the City Council's discussions when it was determined
23 what we had was not sufficient, Staff took another try at wording, which was discussed at the work
24 session, and the language from that went out this morning. He admitted there have been a lot of
25 changes, but stated unfortunately that is the process. He reiterated that no one has any other copies or
26 changes than anyone else, but that this ordinance has gone through several versions.
27
28 Councilmember Dahl stated if she understands correctly, a plan is being put in place for deficiencies,
29 and if the development is premature, the City would not finance improvements. City Planner Smyser
30 stated the City would not finance any of it. He stated this is trying to get clear criteria, which says if
31 you degrade the road by this much, you have to pay for improvements. He added that an impact to a
32 certain degree is acceptable, but if more, the developer has to have it fixed. He indicated this section
33 walks through that criteria. He added that just as when there are not sewer pipes, and the developer
34 has to provide them, this is addressing the transportation infrastructure in the same way, with specific
35 criteria. He stated if the Council approves a development in spite of an impact to LOS, fine, but if
36 not, it gives the City the legal right to deny.
37
38 Councilmember Reinert stated the main issue the Council is struggling with is intersections, with
39 specifics on the interchanges.
40
41 Councilmember Carlson stated that looking at the items regarding improvements, Items D. and E., as
42 bringing development in regard to roadways, she asked if that pulls in interchanges and addresses
•43 Councilmember O'Donnell and Councilmember Reinert's comments. City Planner Smyser indicated
44 they were talking about two different things, and asked if she was talking about intersections or
45 interchanges.
13
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1
2 Mayor Bergeson stated he believes the intersection language added by Councilmember Carlson is
3 intended to mean only intersections, but Item g. talks about interchanges. Councilmember Carlson
4 stated that she is actually talking about interchanges being intersections as well. She indicated her
5 point is that when a development changes the LOS of an intersection, the developer should be
6 charged, whether right then or with money set aside for improvements at a later date, so the cost is not
7 impacting the taxpaying citizens.
8
9 City Planner Smyser stated that if they are talking about interchanges in this case, the whole thing
10 falls apart. Councilmember Carlson indicated she was open to other suggestions for cost
11 participation.
12
13 City Planner Smyser indicated that Item g. says, in part,
14 The plan also must examine financing options, including project contribution and cost
15 sharing among other properties that contribute to traffic at the interchange.
16 He indicated that language is there to address who will pay. He stated that since we do not know, the
17 plan would have to lay it out.
18
19 Councilmember Carlson stated she understands that, but she is considering an intersection as any
20 place where two roads intersect. She stated what is missing in Item g. is how to set money aside for
21 the improvements. City Planner Smyser stated it would be part of the study. He indicated we do not
• 22 know now, because there are so many variables out of the City's control. He agreed it was a bad
23 situation to be in, but it is the situation nonetheless. He stated that anything specific will not work.
24
25 Mayor Bergeson indicated that in Item g., the first sentence is clear. He stated that whatever
26 requirements the Council decides to put on the interchange needs to be put in Item g. or subsequent
27 items, since it says all the above items do not apply to interchanges and Item g. applies only to
28 interchanges.
29
30 Councilmember Reinert stated he keeps reading this, and what it says to him is that when developers
31 come in, the Council will look at the intersection, but there is no action language that solves or gets
32 the City any closer to action. He indicated it is obvious Staff does not have any language that will
33 make him more comfortable. He stated his concern is if a developer comes in, the Council will look
34 at it. Then another comes in, and the Council will look at it again, with no action. He indicated that
35 in previous meetings City Planner Smyser had stated that improvements do not get done until the
36 need arises, so what this is saying is we will allow development until the situation gets so bad that the
37 state will look at it. City Planner Smyser stated that unfortunately, that is the way it works.
38
39 Councilmember Reinert indicated that in that case, it seems like the Council is just going through the
40 motions. He stated there is a paragraph stating we can look at the impact, but if the outcome is the
41 same no matter what the impact is, they are wasting their time. He indicated he was getting frustrated
42 that maybe they are kidding themselves, because he does not see anything except words that say we
•43 will look at it. He asked the Council to look at this honestly, and determine if there was anything they
44 could do about it or not.
45
14
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
III1 Councilmember Carlson stated that part of Item g. says:
2 This plan must take into account traffic generated by the subdivision project, how this traffic
3 contributes to the total traffic, and the time frame of the improvements.
4 She stated that the City will not know the cost, but maybe could establish a plan that would determine
5 possibilities.
6
7 Mayor Bergeson indicated he does not think they could do that, because the bridges are within state
8 jurisdiction, and improved with state funds, and he does not believe the City can charge for a state
9 improvement.
10
11 Councilmember Carlson stated she agrees the bridges fall into that category, but other improvements,
12 such as lanes, signals, etc. could be recouped from the developer, but without a plan that specifies
13 this, the City loses the ability to recoup.
14
15 Mayor Bergeson stated they may be talking about a different definition of interchange. He does not
16 know if they can define so it is clear what portion is beyond they City's control. He indicated the
17 bridge is different than the approach to the bridge, and some could be county, some city, and he is not
18 sure how to sort it out.
19
20 Community Development Director Grochala stated he would be concerned about saying too narrowly
21 what the interchange is, since it is usually the bridge and the approach, but could extend further. He
• 22 explained what they were trying to do with Item g. is create a means to an end. He indicated you may
23 have two developments in the same location that could have two different results depending on the
24 timing. He indicated the first development might not push down the LOS, but is setting it up for the
25 next development to fail. He stated the intent of Item g. is that when a developer comes in, they will
26 sit down with Mn/DOT and the other concerned agencies to determine what needs to be done,
27 including assessing the costs. He indicated there is nothing to say the city could not improve the
28 interchange, but they cannot afford to and they do not want to put it on one developer either. He
29 recognized there are issues with the interchange, but the question is can we sit down and determine
30 what needs to be done. He added that Marketplace was a good example. They had been hoping for
31 more but achieved a significant amount of improvement with Marketplace.
32
33 Mayor Bergeson noted that a week ago the Council had Items a. through f. quite clear and
34 straightforward, where they could base a decision on them and be on solid ground. He stated that at
35 that point Item g. said none of this applies to the interchange, and Council directed Staff to tighten up
36 Item g. He indicated the new Item g. is not as ironclad as Items a. through f., but is better than it was
37 and gives the Council sound backup to make decisions.
38
39 Councilmember Carlson stated that cost sharing will result in the least cost possible to taxpayers. She
40 noted she is still trying to find a way to not cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
41
42 Councilmember O'Donnell stated he thinks they are trying to over -engineer this. He indicated since it
•43 is subjective, can language be added to indicate Council has the prerogative to see that a study takes
44 place, including cost solutions, then the Council could base their decision on findings of fact, with
45 timing and cost solutions included.
15
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
• 1
2 Councilmember Reinert asked if that would be legal. City Attorney Hawkins offered his opinion that
3 it would be.
4
5 City Planner Smyser noted at the beginning of the second sentence in Item g. language could be added
6 to say at 'City Council discretion'. He read the third sentence, adding he does not want to get into
7 this is what it will cost, who will pay and when.
8
9 Mayor Bergeson stated it would be similar to an environmental impact study, ordered by the City
10 Council and used to make a decision. Councilmember Reinert stated that based on the timeframe, the
11 Council could approve if they were assured improvements would be made in a timely manner.
12
13 Mayor Bergeson noted Councilmember Carlson had also suggested changes to Items d. and e., and he
14 confirmed there were no objections to those items. He added there was an addition of Item h., and the
15 City Attorney indicated that would be acceptable, again confirming there were no objections to this
16 addition.
17
18 City Planner Smyser read Item g., with the changes suggested. Councilmember O'Donnell indicated
19 when talking about cost sharing, it would be good to add `and jurisdictions'. Councilmember Reinert
20 indicated it should probably say 'all properties', not `other properties'. City Planner Smyser stated he
21 would be worried about using `all', as two years from now everyone might not know and agree to
• 22 what that means like everyone does here today. Mayor Bergeson agreed, saying it could mean anyone
23 that wants to cross the road.
24
25 Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 04-03,
26 Adopting Subdivision Regulations. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion.
27
28 Mayor Bergeson indicated they had only talked about one section of the ordinance, asking if there
29 were any comments on any other sections.
30
31 Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Carlson
32 voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Mayor Bergeson voted yea.
33
34 Ordinance 04-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
35
36 City Planner Smyser indicated he would like to thank the task force, staff and the numerous boards
37 that reviewed and had input in this ordinance, stating a tremendous amount of work has gone into it
38 and they deserve credit for getting this done.
39
40 ii) Consideration of Resolution No. 03-26 Approving the Summary of the
41 Subdivision Ordinance for Publication
42
•43 City Planner Smyser advised that it is required that the City publish all ordinances, however because
44 this ordinance is lengthy, it would be costly to publish it in the newspaper. He stated it is allowed by
45 law for the City to publish a summary of an ordinance rather than the entire ordinance, however this
16
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 must be approved by a 4/5 vote. He indicated the summary would indicate that a full copy of the
2 ordinance is available at City Hall.
3
4 Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-26, approving the summary of the
5 Subdivision Ordinance for publication. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion.
6
7 Mayor Bergeson asked for clarification on the vote requirement, asking if it requires a 4/5 vote, but
8 not a roll call. City Planner Smyser stated that was correct, but a roll call could be done if the Mayor
9 prefers.
10
11 Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted
12 yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Mayor Bergeson voted yea.
13
14 Resolution 03-26 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
15
16 Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 08-03, Adopting Zoning Regulations, Jeff
17 Smyser — City Planner Smyser advised that the Council has approved the Comprehensive Plan, the
18 Growth Management Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance, and this is the last piece.
19
20 City Planner Smyser explained that the revisions to the zoning ordinance resulted from the efforts of
21 the Development Regulations Task Force, City Staff, and the City's planning consultant. He stated
• 22 the ordinance includes numerous clarifications, codifications of past amendments, expanded
23 requirements, and completely new elements intended to implement the comprehensive plan. He
24 further stated the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on the zoning ordinance on
25 January 22 and February 12, 2003. He stated the December 20, 2002 draft was the public hearing
26 draft.
27
28 City Planner Smyser indicated that they have revised the definitions, with a new set provided in
29 Friday's update, and the new Section One should replace the December draft. He noted on page 1-3,
30 the ordinance for years said if public use is not specified, you cannot use it for that. He indicated it
31 was very strict, more than it should be, asking who would have thought 20 years ago there would be
32 an internet sales business. He indicated it now says:
33
34 In any zoning district, whenever a proposed use is neither specifically allowed nor denied, the
35 City Council shall determine if the proposed use is comparable in potential activities and
36 impacts to a use listed within the zoning district and is acceptable related to land use
37 compatibility, traffic, and/or nuisance issues and established conditions and standards
38 relating to development of the use. Where such a determination is made, the requirements
39 established for the listed use shall apply as minimum standards for the proposed use.
40 Additional requirements may be applied to address differences between the listed use and the
41 proposed use.
42
.43 In such cases where, in the judgment of the City Council, there is no comparable use listed,
44 the City Council or Planning and Zoning Board, on their own initiative or upon request from
45 the property owner, may conduct a study to determine if the proposed use is acceptable and, if
17
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
• 1 so, what zoning district would be most appropriate and what conditions and standards should
2 apply to the proposed use. The City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, or property owner,
3 on receipt of the staff study, may initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance consistent
4 with Section 2, Subd.1. of this Ordinance to provide for the particular use under consideration
5 or shall find that the proposed use is not compatible for development within the City.
6
7 City Planner Smyser indicated this may seem like a minor point, but was much needed. He explained
8 that it is being proposed that the site and building plan review process be entirely an administrative
9 function rather than going through Planning and Zoning and City Council review. He indicated if
10 there is a variance request or appeal of the administrative decision by the applicant, it would be
11 brought through Planning and Zoning and Council (page 2-22). He stated this is similar to making
12 minor subdivisions an administrative review. He indicated if a site or building plan does not meet the
13 ordinance, Staff would deny or ask them to make changes.
14
15 City Planner Smyser explained that another change is that planned unit developments (PUDs)
16 normally will be addressed with conditional use permits. He indicated a new set of requirements for a
17 PUD is at Section 2, Subd. 10, page 2-39, and provides for rural clusters as well as urban residential
18 PUDs. He stated any mixed-use development will require a PUD rezoning.
19
20 City Planner Smyser advised that they have reduced the number of categories for accessory building
21 size maximums and provided an increase in the amount of accessory space for small lots, less than 1-
• 22 1/4 acres, to be raised to 1200 square feet from the previous 1120 square feet. He explained that the
23 landscaping requirements have been clarified and updated, and tree preservation requirements for
24 commercial and residential building have been added.
25
26 City Planner Smyser explained that the Central Business District will become General Business, and
27 the CB zone deleted from the ordinance. The Shopping Center district will be deleted, and shopping
28 centers will be conditional uses in the business districts. He added a new single-family residential
29 zone has been created. R -EC, Single Family Estate Conservation, which allows for `clustering' in a
30 single family zone, but requires that any space saved by using smaller lots must become open space.
31 (page 6-12)
32
33 City Planner Smyser stated that Section 2 addresses the processes for rezoning and Conditional Use
34 Permits (CUPs). He indicated the language just developed will be placed on pages 2-6 and 2-7, and
35 noted that they have clarified a lot of housekeeping items. He stated they have added a CUP
36 revocation process, which did not exist before. He noted that if a project gets denied, it cannot be
37 resubmitted for a year. He stated Staff was going to take that out, but the City Council wanted it left
38 in. He indicated this would apply for building site improvements and rezoning as well.
39
40 City Planner Smyser noted that in the Interim Use section on page 2-12, there are now clear submittal
41 requirements, and they have added the process for appeals. He explained that in the case of
42 administrative decisions, this new section explains the process to appeal the decision, making the City
Alk 43 Council the Board of Appeals. He indicated if the City Council approves making site and building
1111. 44 plans an administrative function, then the appeal process is important.
45
18
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
• 1 City Planner Smyser advised that on page 2-17 is the Administrative Permit section. He stated this
2 was already there for cell phone towers and radio towers, but the new language incorporates the
3 amendments staff has been dealing with into one document. He indicated they did not change
4 anything, just cleaned up the citations so it will be easier for Staff to work with it.
5
6 City Planner Smyser reiterated that they are proposing that instead of site and building plans being
7 reviewed by the various boards, Planning and Zoning and City Council, they would be administrative,
8 to reduce the cost for applicants and the City. He indicated the reasoning for this change is that if the
9 ordinance reflects what the City Council wants, then a plan should pass or fail on that criteria. If a
10 variance is needed, it would still go through the process, or, if they are requesting a CUP, it would go
11 through Planning and Zoning and the City Council. He stated that in addition they have added
12 specific submittal requirements, as the previous ordinance did not provide a complete list.
13
14 City Planner Smyser stated that on page 2-30 the LOS and traffic requirements for site plans will be
15 pasted in based on the previous discussion, so CUP and site plans would have the same subdivision
16 requirements. He asked if the City Council was comfortable with changing site plans to
17 administrative review.
18
19 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated that based on the work session discussion, he assumes it would
20 include a clear definition of the appeal process on the response with approval or denial. City Planner
21 Smyser indicated that was correct, that applicants would get a letter, as talked about with minor
• 22 subdivision requests.
23
24 Councilmember O'Donnell reiterated that his point is that anytime there is an administrative process,
25 and a denial takes place, there should be clear communication to the applicant that includes the appeal
26 process. City Planner Smyser agreed, indicating page 2-29 says the Community Development
27 Department will notify the applicant of the decision, and that notification will include the appeal
28 process.
29
30 Councilmember Reinert clarified they would also update the City Council, suggesting that the same
31 language from minor subdivisions be used to avoid another lengthy discussion.
32
33 Councilmember Carlson noted that on page 2-22 it says `Except in the case of minor projects, all site
34 and building plans shall require review from the Community Development Department'. She asked if
35 that were true. City Planner Smyser clarified that the wording needed to be revised if going to an
36 administrative review process.
37
38 Councilmember Carlson stated that it is her understanding that there is normally notification to
39 surrounding property owners, with a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Board, with
40 recommendations that normally occur as a result of that public hearing. She is concerned that this is
41 making it a non-public process. City Planner Smyser indicated they currently do not notify the public
42 for site or building plan review unless it is a CUP or rezoning, which would remain the same process
I43 as always. He stated the CUP, rezoning and preliminary plat public hearings are required by law, and
44 the City could not change them if they wanted to, but the site plan is not public. He asked if the City
45 Council is comfortable with this change.
19
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
• 1
2 Mayor Bergeson stated he had no problem as long as the appeal process was clear. Councilmember
3 Carlson stated she prefers things as public as possible but could compromise. Councilmember
4 Reinert stated they could review further at the next work session.
5
6 City Planner Smyser advised there has been a section in the zoning ordinance that talks about minor
7 subdivisions, and they are deleting that section from the zoning ordinance. He indicated that on page
8 2-39 they put in new requirements for PUDs, indicating that the process covers both commercial use
9 PUDs and rezoning PUDs, noting, however, that rezoning would be mixed use. He pointed out the
10 wording that would allow rural clustering as a PUD, and not require rezoning, and stated this removes
11 30 to 60 days off the time needed to approve. He stated rural clusters would only be allowed outside
12 the Stage 1 and Stage 2 growth areas, in areas designed to be long-term open areas, whereas Stage 1
13 and 2 are designed to have city sewer and water in the near future. He stated urban PUDs would be
14 allowed in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts.
15
16 Mayor Bergeson stated that Staff and the City Council have the conception that a PUD is appropriate
17 when give and take between the City and the developer takes place and they both get things they
18 want. He indicated sometimes it is interpreted by applicants that this is a mechanism for them to get
19 what they want. He stated he does not know how to clarify the concept in the ordinance, but would
20 like to put in some language to that intent. City Planner Smyser stated that open space requirements
21 are what the City Council is looking for, and the reason the City Council is interested is to preserve
• 22 open space. Mayor Bergeson stated that in that scenario it is self-evident, but in some other PUD
23 situations it is not that clear.
24
25 City Planner Smyser stated that page 2-44 says a minimum of 50% of land shall be devoted to open
26 space, which is what the public gets in return. He added that for urban subdivisions, the open space
27 requirement is similar, and on page 2-48 it also says 50% of land in subdivisions shall be open space.
28 He indicated this was a clear trade for allowing subdivisions.
29
30 City Planner Smyser advised that on page 2-47 at the end where it starts with requirements for urban
31 subdivisions, Staff needs to add the language that the sewer management program is allowing for
32 newer designed common septic systems, however if that occurs, the City will require the property's
33 association to be responsible for maintainance, and if not maintained and not fixed by the association,
34 the City has the right to fix it and assess the property owners. He stated this is a big health issue, and
35 this requirement would be a condition of approval and would be in the association agreement.
36
37 Councilmember Carlson asked if when City Planner Smyser was finished with Section 2, the Council
38 could move to the commercial section, specifically the Neighborhood Business piece, noting that only
39 the ordinance is on the agenda, not a specific development. She added, however, that they will
40 discuss the Planning and Zoning recommendation, and that service stations not be included in NB and
41 how motor fuel stations should not be located at certain intersections.
42
.43 Mayor Bergeson clarified that they would discuss the recommendation to remove motor fuel stations
44 from the Neighborhood Business district, but would not be discussing any specific sites or
20
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
111 1 developments, and he reminded the audience this is not a public hearing, however he would allow
2 brief comments from the floor.
3
4 City Planner Smyser stated that page 2-55, as written, provides for a separate review and approval
5 process for concept plans, however after talking about deadlines with the City Attorney, the concept
6 plan process will be voluntary, as it cannot be a separate approval process due to timeframe
7 requirements.
8
9 City Planner Smyser indicated that moving to commercial business, the overall question is the
10 Neighborhood Business district, which is one of the three zoning districts that will remain, adding that
11 they are removing two, the Shopping Center district and Central Business district. He stated that page
12 7-1 defines the Neighborhood Business district, and that currently in the listed uses in all three
13 commercial districts, motor fuel stations are permitted. He advised that the Planning and Zoning
14 Board recommended that gas stations be deleted from the Neighborhood Business district, and two
15 sites in the city be rezoned as Neighborhood Business districts when they are rezoned for commercial
16 use. He indicated Planning and Zoning wanted something in the ordinance that said when these two
17 sites are rezoned commercial, they be Neighborhood Business districts so motor fuel stations would
18 be prohibited. The two sites are Centerville Road and Birch Street, where there is a small area
19 designated as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan on the southwest corner, and Birch Street and
20 Hodgson Road, where there is a small parcel on the southeast corner.
21
• 22 City Planner Smyser advised that at the Planning and Zoning meeting, after a lengthy discussion, they
23 made this recommendation. He indicated the City Council needs to give staff direction as to whether
24 they want to delete motor fuel stations from the Neighborhood Business district and designate two
25 sites to be Neighborhood Business districts when rezoned.
26
27 Mayor Bergeson asked where service stations were allowed. City Planner Smyser replied they could
28 be on any commercial sites not zoned Neighborhood Businees districts, listing numerous parcels
29 available around the city. He stated the two sites in question have not yet been zoned commercial,
30 whereas all the other areas would allow a service station if it meets the general use requirements.
31
32 Councilmember Reinert clarified there were two questions, eliminating motor fuel stations from the
33 Neighborhood Business district and designating two areas as Neighborhood Business districts. He
34 stated he has been looking for some way to limit the number of gas stations for some time, adding that
35 he had suggested a radius limit, or not allowing gas stations on certain intersections, etc., but this
36 option works as well if not better to remove it from the Neighborhood Businees district. He indicated
37 it would give the City Council the option to zone them in where they want them, and he is in favor of
38 this change.
39
40 Councilmember Carlson stated she was in favor also, and liked Councilmember Reinert's thought
41 about controlling with distance, because she does not like when they are congregated in areas. She
42 stated the Planning Board recommended unanimously, and the Environmental Board recommendation
•43 that turned down the development in part because of the service station and car wash in a lake
44 protection zone. She stated Blaine has been successful with their Neighborhood Business
45 designation, and there are a number of points that support a Neighborhood Business district. She read
21
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
II1 several sections from the Comprehensive Plan, many addressing buffer zones and performance
2 standards. She stated that as you read through the Comprehensive Plan, it refers to neighborhood
3 plans, in support of the Planning and Zoning recommendation.
4
5 Councilmember O'Donnell stated he has a different view, but will support the decision. He stated he
6 tends to believe this decision is market driven, but he will do this knowing it will put off any new
7 neighborhood business facilities in the City, which is okay, but he needs to go into it with that
8 understanding.
9
10 Mayor Bergeson reminded the Council there were two issues, indicating he wants to separate the two.
11 He indicated one is what is appropriate for a Neighborhood Business district, the other concerns two
12 specific sites, and he thinks it is wrong to get that mixed up in a zoning ordinance. He stated he has a
13 different view, and does not think motor fuel stations are inappropriate in a Neighborhood Business
14 district, in the right scope and size, adding they are meant to service the neighborhood, and if
15 appropriate in size, they could work. He indicated size could be controlled by regulating the number
16 of pumps. He stated that if all the adjoining cities were having the discussion they are having, there is
17 the potential to not have any stations at County Road J, or other places, or the potential not to have a
18 gas station for two or three or five miles. He reiterated he does not believe it is inappropriate for a
19 Neighborhood Business district. He asked if this was removed, is a Neighborhood Business district
20 even viable. He indicated Councilmember Carlson talked about Blaine and other areas who have
21 done this, but all have a major anchor. He stated when you are talking about strip malls, the gas
I22 station is usually the anchor, and with too many restrictions, this becomes a non -classification.
23
24 Mayor Bergeson stated he is also concerned about the tax base in the city, which is always better with
25 commercial property. He indicated the City Council has put things in place to reduce residential
26 development, and if they reduce commercial development also, it will put a strain on everyone's tax
27 bill.
28
29 Councilmember Reinert indicated it boils down to what is reasonable. He does not want to eliminate
30 all gas stations and have to drive somewhere else, but he does not want to see them on every corner,
31 either. He indicated if the Council does not have tools to regulate, some of the best corners in the city
32 will become gas stations. He agreed it might slow down development, but could position the city for
33 something else more desirable and unique that would not have a chance if all the corners are taken by
34 gas stations. He stated they allowed a station at Spirit Hills, but he would have liked a more
35 comprehensive plan of what was viable on that corner, but that was not possible. He indicated if the
36 Council had a tool to regulate, he goes back to Councilmember O'Donnell's comment about getting
37 something unique. He indicated the Council could always zone it back to regular commercial if they
38 decided a station should go there.
39
40 Councilmember Dahl stated she believes competition is good, for price and because it can bring
41 something better, but when you flood the market, it is not good. She asked how many gas stations
42 Lino Lakes needs, indicating that she believes most residents, like she does, get their gas wherever
43 they are getting something else. She thinks this needs to be discussed before the Council passes it,
44 and she does not want it to be forgotten. She agrees with Councilmember Reinert that if stations are
45 removed now they can always be brought back. She advised that each development is evaluated on
22
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 its own merit, and if the Council felt necessary they could add it in with a variance. She stated she
2 likes quality, not quantity, and there is an Oasis down the block, and another not more than 1000 feet
3 away. She indicated she does not mind the one on Birch and 49th coming in now, although she would
4 have preferred it had not. She indicated she has traveled in other cities, and what comes to mind is
5 Bloomington, on Old Shakopee Road, where all four corners had stations, and only one is left, but all
6 four corners are thriving. She stated she has seen in many communities where they have stations
7 across from each other, then they are left with with empty ones that cannot make it and the sites are
8 not pretty. She does not want that for Lino Lakes. She stated that City Planner Smyser went through
9 what could be potential sites for gas stations all over the city, and she does not think residential
10 development depends on commercial development. She is not in favor of every corner or every other
11 corner having a gas station, and she respects what Planning and Zoning did. She feels if it is legal, it
12 is a good idea.
13
14 Councilmember Dahl stated that it has been said a 1000 times before that commercial development is
15 not why people moved here, adding she could count three stations on her way to 35W and one to 35E
16 from where she lives.
17
18 Councilmember Carlson stated she does make a point of buying gas in Lino Lakes, reiterating there
19 are two issues; gas stations in Neighborhood Business districts and if the two sites should be specified
20 in the zoning ordinance. She indicated that Planning and Zoning had another option, with one
21 member asking about pursuing a distance between stations, but that line of thought was not continued
22 because Staff asked if it should be eliminated from the district and then proposed specific sites. She
23 indicated they had not heard from the City Attorney, but since Planning and Zoning recommended it
24 she assumes they had the legal opinion that this was feasible.
25
26 City Attorney Hawkins offered that he and City Planner Smyser had spoke, and he had a question on
27 the legality of setting up a distance requirement between gas stations, and the basis for doing that,
28 indicating if you could do it for gas stations could you do it for chiropractors, or nail salons, etc. He
29 indicated cities often do this for liquor stores, but you can see the reasons for regulating the frequency
30 of those. He stated that he had suggested eliminating it from the Neighborhood Business district uses
31 as an option.
32
33 Councilmember Carlson asked if specific sites could be designated as Neighborhood Business
34 districts. City Attorney Hawkins indicated if it was on the zoning map. Mayor Bergeson asked about
35 designating them in the ordinance. City Attorney Hawkins offered that zoning ordinances have a
36 zoning map attached. He indicated it may be more appropriate in the Comprehensive Plan, but he is
37 not eager to bring an amendment to the Metropolitan Council. He stated it would be unusual, but
38 agreed it could be put in the wording of the ordinance.
39
40 Councilmember Carlson asked if they could put in the zoning ordinance that sites not currently zoned
41 commercial will be zoned Neighborhood Business. City Attorney Hawkins indicted they could.
42
it43 Mayor Bergeson stated he was concerned they are making this much too complicated, and putting too
44 much in the ordinance. He indicated they would have a discussion about rezoning specific sites and
23
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
I1 he thinks it would be appropriate to discuss then. He added that what is appropriate for this
2 discussion is what is allowed in a Neighborhood Business district.
3
4 Councilmember O'Donnell agreed, and stated he gets concerned when the Council gets granular with
5 an ordinance, because although an ordinance can be changed, it is a time consuming process. He
6 agrees to remove gas stations from the Neighborhood Business district, but not the specific sites.
7
8 Councilmember Reinert agreed, stating the ordinance should set up paramenters as to how the
9 Council will do the zoning, but not zone. He indicated if they were to do this, where do they stop.
10
11 Councilmember Carlson stated she respectfully disagrees, knowing the Council could legally do what
12 was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board, and believing they will not have another
13 opportunity. She stated if future areas come up they could be zoned Neighborhood Business, adding
14 one site could be the site by the Athletic Complex, where they could again have two gas stations at
15 the same intersection. She stated the proper suggestion that puts into effect what the Planning and
16 Zoning Board recommended is that areas not already commercial be Neighborhood Business districts.
17 She stated the question is if the Council is not going to achieve this, how are they going to implement.
18
19 Mayor Bergeson stated they would implement when owners of property come with a proposal. He
20 indicated he is quite uncomfortable incorporating within an ordinance the rezoning of a property
21 without any input from the owners. He believes the City would be on slippery legal ground, and it is
22 inappropriate to roll into the ordinance. He stated that what goes into the Neighborhood Business
$
23 district can make that decision.
24
25 Councilmember Carlson indicated they have three business districts, one limited and the rest general.
26 She stated there was no Neighborhood Business districts now and no areas asking for Neighborhood
27 Business designations. She suggests there will not be any Neighborhood Business districts in the city.
28 She stated General Business would suffice for any area if not excluding businesses such as stations.
29
30 Councilmember Reinert stated he feels it is not proper procedure, and the Council would be over -
31 reaching their authority. He indicated if they were going down the road of rezoning in an ordinance
32 then they should table this and hold a series of meetings on what to rezone. He thinks it is out of line
33 to do so.
34
35 Councilmember Dahl asked for clarification from Councilmember Reinert, on what he agrees with
36 and what he does not.
37
38 Councilmember Reinert stated he is looking for a tool to limit gas stations. He indicated the process
39 Planning and Zoning went through would limit them by removing them as a use in the Neighborhood
40 Business district, so he is in favor of this, but he does not feel we should take it further and rezone
41 specific properties tonight.
42
43 Councilmember Dahl asked if Councilmember Carlson would separate the two issues and clarify if
44 she agrees with Councilmember Reinert.
45
24
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 Councilmember Carlson stated she agrees with Councilmember Reinert that stations should not be in
2 the Neighborhood Business district, but she disagrees with point two, because if it is legal to say areas
3 not zoned business should be zoned Neighborhood Business when they are changed, we should do
4 that.
5
6 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that Planning and Zoning recommended to
7 eliminate gas stations from the Neighborhood Business district, and identify areas where
8 Neighborhood Buriness would be an appropriate use. He stated he would be concerned about all
9 areas not zoned business becoming Neighborhood Business districts. He indicated this would put
10 some of the prime space around the City as Neighborhood Business, which was not the intent of the
11 Planning and Zoning Board.
12
13 Councilmember Dahl asked about Birch Street and Hodgson Road, wondering if it could be general
14 business that could facilitate gas stations, or would it only be able to be Neighborhood Business. She
15 indicated that if they remove the second part of the recommendation from Planning and Zoning, she
16 does not want it to come back and bite them later by finding out the business can get around it.
17
18 City Planner Smyser stated that under the Comprehensive Plan, it says Commercial Use, not what
19 district it should be zoned. To say that Neighborhood Business does not include gas stations as a use
20 does not provide for a specific zone on a specific property.
21
I22 Councilmember O'Donnell stated he still thinks zoning is a separate action. He indicated the Council
23 could at any time pass a resolution to zone an area as Neighborhood Business, they do not have to
24 wait for a developer to come in. City Planner Smyser stated this was correct.
25
26 Councilmember Carlson asked what would be the legal basis for that decision. City Planner Smyser
27 indicated the Comprehensive Plan shows it as Commercial Use, it is up to the Council to decide what
28 kind of commercial.
29
30 Councilmember Carlson stated City Planner Smyser went through the sites verbally and indicated
31 they were General Business. City Planner Smyser stated those were two different maps. He indicated
32 that when rezoning, they look at the Comprehensive Plan, both the map and the specific instructions
33 for a particular site. He stated they would then determine which zoning districts would be allowable
34 for that parcel.
35
36 Councilmember Carlson asked what the Comprehensive Plan says about these two specific sites. City
37 Planner Smyser indicated it does not say a specific district that would be appropriate.
38 Councilmember Carlson asked which district it supports. City Planner Smyser stated the City
39 Council would need to decide that, and read the wording from the Comprehensive Plan for those two
40 sites. He indicated that in his opinion it could be any of the three.
41
42 Councilmember Carlson stated the question here is we have two specific sites. She indicated there is
it43 enough information on one, but not on the other, however Staff does know what the commercial plans
44 are. She asked based on that, what Staff's recommendation would be. City Planner Smyser indicated
45 Staff has not made a recommendation.
25
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1
2 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that the Neighborhood Business district was
3 more restrictive in the past ordinance, so it was not utilized. He stated that as the ordinance is laid out
4 now, they could go forward with using Neighborhood Business because of the changes that have been
5 made. City Planner Smyser clarified that until now, gas stations were allowed in Neighborhood
6 Business districts.
7
8 Councilmember O'Donnell stated he agrees with Planning and Zoning, he just does not think the
9 ordinance is the place to rezone.
10
11 Councilmember Reinert stated they should get through the ordinance and get it in place so the
12 Council can use the Neighborhood Business.
13
14 Mayor Bergeson stated this was not a public hearing, however he will take some comments. He
15 reminded the audience that the hour was late, and to please be concise.
16
17 Jeff Kerr, 456 Hawthorne Road, indicated he was confused on where the Council was going. He
18 asked if they were going to vote tonight on gas stations.
19
20 Mayor Bergeson indicated they need two votes to put this ordinance in place, and hopefully the first
21 will be tonight. He stated that based on the discussions so far, Neighborhood Business districts will
22 not include gas stations as a use. He indicated the second vote would be in two weeks, and tonight
23 they would just be voting in general, not on specific spots.
24
25 Mr. Kerr asked if the vote in two weeks would be a public hearing. Mayor Bergeson stated that
26 unless it is tabled tonight, which he hopes will not happen because he wants to get it done, the second
27 vote would be scheduled for March 10, where they will discuss, and hopefully do the second vote.
28
29 Mr. Kerr stated there were a lot of people here tonight, but a lot had to leave because it was getting
30 late. He asked if there was a way to make it more open. Mayor Bergeson asked what could be more
31 open. Mr. Kerr stated as a concerned citizen, what would be his next move. Mayor Bergeson
32 indicated he could come to the meetings, adding they would be briefly discussing it at the work
33 session on March 5.
34
35 Mr. Kerr asked when they would be voting tonight. Mayor Bergeson indicated when they were done
36 with the discussion.
37
38 Councilmember Reinert clarified this is an ordinance to address zoning, not a rezoning hearing on a
39 specific site. He added it does not address the corner Mr. Kerr is concerned with specifically. Mr.
40 Kerr stated they were looking at two sites, and asked if this was correct. Councilmember Reinert
41 indicated it was, with some being residential.
42
43 Mayor Bergeson stated he does not know of other issues in the ordinance that will create a lengthy
44 discussion. Councilmember Reinert asked if they could get an update from Staff on the corner Mr.
45 Kerr is concerned about.
26
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
8 1
2 City Planner Smyser first clarified that tonight is not the first time the ordinance has been discussed.
3 He indicated there was a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning meeting, with a notice in Quad
4 Press, where they always will be. He indicated Planning and Zoning had two meetings on this issue,
5 as they scheduled a special meeting to continue the first discussion.
6
7 City Planner Smyser stated that on the Bruggeman proposal, the plan for commercial development
8 has gone to the Planning and Zoning Board, but they have not received any proposal on the residential
9 development. He clarified that the moratorium on residential development only expired two days
10 ago. He stated Planning and Zoning tabled the proposal after the first meeting, as Staff was not
11 prepared to make a recommendation, and it will be continued on March 12 at 6:30 p.m.
12
13 Councilmember Reinert indicated he used to look at the public notices before he got involved, and
14 mentioned they could be somewhat confusing. He asked how this development is referred to in the
15 notices. City Planner Smyser indicated he does not remember specifically, but it is Bruggeman
16 homes or property, then will say rezoning and conditional plat or something to that effect. Mayor
17 Bergeson asked that Staff find out the actual title. Councilmember Reinert clarified that Bruggeman's
18 name is always attached. City Planner Smyser stated they usually list the developer or owner, the
19 location and the action.
20
21 Brian Olson, 511 Hawthorne Road, stated he had a couple of questions. He indicated that during the
22 process of the Planning and Zoning meeting, they mentioned there would be follow-up. He stated he
23 would appreciate clarification on that. He also indicated he has heard a rumor that the developer for
24 the proposed gas station on Birch is already pulling out.
25
26 Mayor Bergeson indicated he has heard that the specific tenant that had been lined up will not be
27 involved, but not that the developer was pulling out. Mr. Olson asked if they had any more
28 information on that gas station. Community Development Director Grochala stated it will still be a
29 gas station, but the lessee will change.
30
31 Mr. Olson stated traffic will be a major issue, and asked the Council to consider that when they get to
32 that issue.
33
34 Greg Schlink representing the Bruggeman property, indicated they have a proposal with the City for
35 Commercial rezoning, but not the residential being discussed. He stated he highly objects to any
36 rezoning taking place without the opportunity to present their plans and discuss. He indicated the
37 marketing comments were of interest, and assured the Council market studies have been done and
38 provide information to support. He stated he would like to attend the workshop, as he feels they have
39 not had an opportunity to state their case and feels like decisions are being made for them without the
40 proper information.
41
42 Mayor Bergeson indicated the application will move from Planning and Zoning to the City Council
3 43 and they will have a discussion on it at the work session.
44
27
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
I1 City Administrator Waite Smith stated the March 5 work session is going to be difficult, as they will
2 be going off-site and then coming back for a shorter work session. She indicated an agenda will be
3 posted.
4
5 A resident named Gary in the 6000 block of Briar Road indicated he has grave concerns about this
6 issue. He stated it was disappointing to hear about revenue, but nothing about pollution. He stated he
7 has been to other meetings that have not been an open forum. He asked if stations are approved on
8 one corner, why are they needed on another. He indicated that the applicants say their voices are not
9 being heard, but it is the neighbor's voices that are not being heard.
10
11 Mayor Bergeson indicated the Bruggeman development is not on the agenda, but will be heard at the
12 Planning and Zoning meeting on March 12 as a public hearing.
13
14 The resident stated it was hard to hear the Mayor talking about revenue and not the other issues.
15 Mayor Bergeson stated he was speaking about general Neighborhood Business, and not a specific site.
16 The resident stated he would like to have his voice heard. Mayor Bergeson reiterated that the
17 Planning and Zoning Board meeting on March 12 would be his opportunity.
18
19 Dana Skibsted, 6471 Hodgson Road stated she was directly across from the Bruggeman site. She
20 understands the Environmental Board does not like the proposal. She realizes it will be business
21 there, and accepts that, but believes Bruggeman can function without a gas station. He stated
22 Highway 96 and Highway 49 are always buzzing. He thinks the area can be great, and if Council
23 takes the gas station out of Neighborhood Business there are viable options.
24
25 Councilmember Carlson asked if Mr. Kerr could be called with the results of what happens tonight,
26 and he could let the others know the results. Mr. Kerr indicated he would do that.
27
28 Mayor Bergeson called a short recess at 10:42 p.m. The meeting was resumed at 10:48 p.m.
29
30 City Planner Smyser asked if the Council had a decision on the gas station question. Mayor Bergeson
31 indicated he believes an informal poll would show four in favor of deleting. City Planner Smyser
32 asked about the second part, designating two sites as Neighborhood Business.
33
34 An informal poll was taken, with Councilmember O'Donnell voting nay, Councilmember Carlson
35 voting yea, Mayor Bergeson voting nay, Councilmember Reinert voting yea, but not within the
36 ordinance, and Councilmember Dahl voting yea.
37
38 Councilmember Dahl asked what service businesses included. City Planner Smyser indicated they
39 massaged the actual uses to make them more general, adding they used to have 46 retail uses, but they
40 were all retail. He indicated in the packets Council received on Friday with the new definitions, under
41 Commercial Use, you'll see Service Business On -Site and Off -Site, on page 1-17. The uses permitted
42 are as follows:
:43 15. Service Business Off -Site A company that provides useful labor, maintenance, repair
44 and activites incidental to business production or distribution where the service is
28
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 provided at the customer's location, including delivery services, catering services,
2 plumbing and sewer service, and other uses of similar character.
3 16. Service Business On -Site An establishment that provides useful labor, maintenance,
4 repair and activites incidental to business production or distribution where the
5 customer patronizes the location of the operation, such as banks (not including drive -
6 through facilities), copy centers, Laundromats, dry cleaners, funeral homes and
7 mortuaries, appliance repair, tailor shops, travel bureaus.
8 He indicated gas stations are allowed under a conditional use permit, but are not a permitted use.
9
10 Councilmember Dahl clarified that when it says included, is that the only thing, or does it mean 'such
11 as'. In other words, is it all inclusive or limited to just what is listed. City Planner Smyser indicated
12 it could be more, going back to 1-3 that says:
13 Whenever in any zoning district a proposed use is neither specifically allowed nor denied, the
14 use shall be considered prohibited. In such cases, the City Council or Planning and Zoning
15 Board, on their own initiative or upon request, may conduct a study to determine if the
16 proposed use is comparable in potential activites and impacts to other uses listed within the
17 zoning district and is acceptable related to land use compatibility, etc....
18 Councilmember Dahl indicated that makes her nervous.
19
20 City Planner Smyser indicated he will delete gas stations from Neighborhood Business district uses
21 for now, but nothing more. He indicated they had left off with the beginning of Section 3, General
22 Provisions. He stated there were a lot of important pieces here. He pointed out the diagrams
23 included, which show fence requirements, with pictures. He stated they had added a number of
24 things.
25
26 City Planner Smyser stated there was a lot of discussion at the Task Force meetings about Accessory
27 Buildings, on page 3-24. He referred to Item 8, Rural and Residential Zoning District Accessory
28 Buildings. Under 8.a.4. it says 'One attached garage not to exceed one thousand one hundred twenty
29 square feet or equal to the size of the house foundation'. He indicated this is confusing. He believes
30 the task force, in taking out the wording `whichever is greater', intended to make it say whichever is
31 smaller, but he is not sure that is what the community wants. He indicated there are not a lot of
32 houses with a footprint 1120 square feet or smaller, but there are some. He reiterated that the
33 ordinance now says whichever is greater, but the task force was intending to make it whichever is
34 smaller.
35
36 Mayor Bergeson asked if that was a three or four car garage. City Planner Smyser indicated it would
37 be four car or more.
38
39 Councilmember Reinert asked if the intent was to not have a garage bigger than the house. City
40 Planner Smyser indicated that was correct. He stated they should do whatever the community wants;
41 some want more storage space, some do not like the big garages.
42
I43 Councilmember Reinert stated it was aesthetically better to have a garage be smaller than the house,
44 and he believes the intent is a good one.
45
29
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 Councilmember Dahl stated that a two -car garage is not typical anymore, most are three or four stalls,
2 but many four stalls she has seen are two in front and two behind, so you do not have a four -car
3 width. She asked what the square footage would be for a normal three -car garage. Councilmember
4 O'Donnell indicated 590 or 600 square feet. He stated 1120 square feet is pretty liberal.
5
6 Councilmember Carlson clarified that for 20 acres or greater they can have an accessory building as
7 well. City Planner Smyser stated that was correct, for R, R -X, RBR and PSP districts, which were 20
8 acres or more, there was no maximum size requirement. He stated that the next smaller size lot,
9 which is 10 acres to less than 20 acres, the combination of accessory building can not exceed 500
10 square feet, and the attached garage cannot be over 1120 square feet.
11
12 Councilmember Carlson asked for clarification that there was no maximum size. City Planner
13 Smyser stated that it should be changed to indicate no maximum size for accessory buildings.
14 Councilmember Carlson indicated she thought it should be no minimum size. He stated this repeats
15 in all sections, stating 1120 or equal to the size of the house, whichever is smaller.
16
17 Councilmember Dahl indicated she thought they should leave off the `whichever is smaller' piece.
18 City Planner Smyser reread what is currently there, indicating it is not clear, and where before it said
19 `greater of the two', he thinks the intent of the Task Force was to say 'not bigger than 1120'.
20
21 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if 1120 would be the maximum. City Planner Smyser indicated a
:22 house could be a three story, with a 600 square foot foundation, and this would only allow a 600
23 square foot garage. He indicated this is what the Task Force wanted to do. He asked if the Council
24 was okay with this.
25
26 Jeff Joyer, 8174 Lake Drive, indicated this is a hot topic with the public. He indicated that unless the
27 Council has strong feelings, it would seem more garage space is better. He agreed that 1120 is a
28 double garage, double deep, but it does not make sense to make it more specific in size when it is
29 such a hot topic with the public.
30
31 Councilmember Carlson said she can understand it where you can have accessory buildings, but asked
32 if it followed thru to any districts where there can be only a garage. City Planner Smyser indicated
33 only the smallest allowed lot, where it does not allow additional accesory buildings. He stated that
34 the size of allowed attached garages are the same for all lots, the difference is how much additional
35 space is allowed, and those decrease with the size of the lot. He indicated the smallest category is a
36 total of 1200, for lots 1.5 acres or smaller.
37
38 Councilmember Carlson stated the reason she asks is that the Council has received several variance
39 requests from people who want more space. She asks how this changes from the previous variance.
40
41 City Planner Smyser indicated there would be no change unless the Council approves the wording of
42 `whichever is smaller'.
S43
44 Councilmember Carlson indicated that it would seem the Council is going in the wrong direction if
45 they approve this wording. Mayor Bergeson asked what the smallest allowable footprint is in the city.
30
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 City Planner Smyser indicated it was 850 square feet. Mayor Bergeson asked if that would
2 accommodate a three -car garage.
3
4 Community Development Director Grochala indicated it would, but stated that with this approach not
5 everyone would get the same size garage. City Planner Smyser indicated if the Council was
6 concerned about that, they should keep the wording at `greater than'.
7
8 City Planner Smyser stated that no pole barns would be allowed in commercial and industrial zones,
9 as stated on page 3-29 and 3-20. He indicated pole barns in these areas are not the kind of buildings
10 the City finds consistent with its planning in these areas.
11
12 Councilmember Reinert asked if this reduces pole barn usage to large residential and rural lots. City
13 Planner Smyser indicated it did, stating commercial developments should be quality buildings with
14 good revenue, and pole barns do not provide that. He stated that the ordinance also prohibits new
15 land zoned commercial or industrial unless it is serviced by city sewer and water.
16
17 Mayor Bergeson asked if the 50% add-on to pole barns is still in here. City Planner Smyser indicated
18 he was not sure, he would have it look it up.
19
20 City Planner Smyser indicated that on page 3-30, it talks about refuse and recyclable material, and
21 dictates that garbage cans, waste containers and recycling bins shall be kept in the rear or side yards.
22 He stated the City receives a number of complaints about garbage bins being out in front, and he
23 asked if the Council wanted to keep that in or delete it. Mayor Bergeson asked if was deleted, would
24 that mean people could put their garbage cans anywhere. City Planner Smyser stated that was correct.
25 Mayor Bergeson indicated they should leave it in, and eventually have a discussion about making the
26 location more stringent.
27
28 City Planner Smyser stated that page 3-38 was very confusing. It starts to talk about storage, then
29 goes to screening, and says with three vehicles you do not have to be screened but with more you
30 have to screen. He recommends deleting this section, since the City has other screening requirements,
31 and has always had countless trouble with this section.
32
33 Councilmember Carlson asked if the Council could have a clean, corrected copy of the ordinance by
34 Friday. City Planner Smyser indicated that would be possible.
35
36 Councilmember Reinert stated the recommendation to remove the screening section seems
37 reasonable.
38
39 City Planner Smyser stated that on page 3-63, they will be adding a statement that says `Single Family
40 lots shall only have one driveway'. Councilmember Reinert asked if this would apply without
41 conditions or exceptions, no matter how big the lot or if it is a corner lot. Community Development
42 Director Grochala indicated no exceptions, adding corner lots is where they always have a problem.
43 Councilmember Reinert clarified not even on a 10 acre lot. Community Development Director
44 Grochala stated it says single family residential.
45
31
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 Mayor Bergeson indicated that when you get into rural areas, you are cutting off the back access. City
2 Planner Smyser stated they could clarify it to say single family residential zoning districts.
3
4 City Planner Smyser stated that on page 3-90, Subdivision 13, the section had been stricken
5 originally, but it was decided to keep it in. This section reads:
6 SUBD. 13. Farming Operations. All farms in existence upon the effective date of this
7 ordinance and all farms which are brought into the city by annexation shall be a permitted use.
8 All dwelling units and structures for processing of farm goods shall require a building permit
9 and conform to all requirements of the Building Code. The City Council may require any new
10 farm operation to secure a conditional use permit in the event of the following:
11
12 A. The farm is adjacent to or within four hundred (400) feet of any dwelling unit
13 and may be detrimental to living conditions by emitting noise, odors,
14 vibrations, hazards to safety, and the like
15 B. The farming operations are so intensive as to constitute an industrial type use
16 consisting of the compounding, processing, and packaging of products for
17 wholesale or retail trade and further that such operations may tend to become
18 permanent industrial type operation that cannot be termed a normal farming
19 operation
20
21 Councilmember O'Donnell asked what the thinking was in taking this out. City Planner Smyser
22 stated this is commercial guided residential. He indicated they do not want someone expanding their
23 business, or in case of a fire they do not want them to replace it because it is a non -conforming use.
24 He stated they had thought the farms were all in rural zoning, but have found that not all are.
25
26 City Planner Smyser stated that page 3-96 talks about Co -Location Requirements for cell towers. He
27 indicated that the applicants used to have to prove there was nothing else within one mile that could
28 be used to put an antenna on, now that has been increased to two miles.
29
30 City Planner Smyser advised that page 5-4 talks about Conditional Uses in rural zoning. He indicated
31 it has been recommended that tree services be added as a conditional use to the rural zone. He stated
32 that someone wants to put a tree service on a site currently zoned rural, however the guided long
33 range zoning is residential, even though the buildings are there now. He explained that Planning and
34 Zoning recommended changing the ordinance to allow a tree service to be in a rural zone.
35
36 Mayor Bergeson indicated there were adjacent buildings, and asked if a tree service would be allowed
37 there. City Planner Smyser stated it would not. Mayor Bergeson clarified that making all those
38 buildings have the same zoning would not solve the issue. City Planner Smyser confirmed that was
39 correct, and indicated they would have to be changed to industrial use, unless the Council were to add
40 tree service to General Business.
41
42 Mr. Joyer indicated he was representing the Flanagans, and the tree service. He indicated that the tree
I43 service owner was proposing to buy the property to store equipment for his tree service, which would
44 require storing equipment overnight, in a fenced area. He stated this was a less intense use of the
45 property versus the auto body shop, which typically has about 30 cars and operates at night and on
32
1
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 weekends. He indicated they have strong support from the neighbors, since this would be less
2 intrusive than the current auto body shop. He stated that this has been through two Planning and
3 Zoning meetings, and they had directed Staff to find a way to allow it. He reiterated that the
4 neighbors want it there, as currently Flanagan could move another auto body shop in without City
5 Council approval because he has an existing special use permit.
6
7 City Planner Smyser stated the Planning and Zoning recommendation was to allow the tree service in
8 rural districts. The justification is that is what these two owners want. He indicated the property
9 would be used to store equipment. Councilmember Carlson asked if it would be only to store
10 equipment or would they be operating the business from there also.
11
12 City Planner Smyser stated he did not know if they would have an office there, it would mostly be to
13 store equipment, some inside and some outside.
14
15 Councilmember Carlson indicated she understood that they would not be working on-site on trees, but
16 would leave in the morning and come back in the evening. City Planner Smyser indicated it would
17 not be the business address, but they could potentially have an office there. He added the address on
18 paper does not affect what happens on the site. He indicated he would have a problem saying
19 equipment storage should be added to rural zoning. He stated if this was going to happen it should
20 allow tree service, not equipment storage.
21
22
23 it would, and they would have to come up with wording for the second reading. Mayor Bergeson
Councilmember O'Donnell asked if it would be a conditional use permit. City Planner Smyser stated
24 asked if the conditional use permit goes with the owner or the land. City Planner Smyser stated with
25 the land, adding that currently there is a conditional use permit for the auto body shop.
26
27 Councilmember Reinert mentioned that they are not really talking just about this site, they are talking
28 about the entire city. He stated if this was added in the ordinance it would allow this to happen
29 anywhere in the city. He stated the Council cannot look at this as if they are writing something for
30 this piece of ground only.
31
32 Mayor Bergeson asked if there are many rural properties in the city that are this small. City Planner
33 Smyser stated there were quite a few existing, but the City does not allow new ones. He stated there
34 were a number of them on Ash Street, and some on Rolling Hills Drive.
35
36 Councilmember Reinert asked if a tree trimming service could pop up in any of those areas if the
37 Council agrees to this. City Planner Smyser indicated that was correct. Councilmember Reinert
38 asked where this type of service would normally be zoned. City Planner Smyser stated it would be in
39 an industrial zoning district.
40
41 Councilmember Reinert stated that for this service to operate at that location is fine, but to change the
42 ordinance so he can operate seems to be the wrong rationale for changing it. City Planner Smyser
43 stated that Staff did not support the recommendation. He indicated Planning and Zoning
44 recommended it, but he needs a clear decision from the Council.
45
33
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 Councilmember Reinert asked if there was a defining factor for Planning and Zoning to vote
2 unanimously. Mr. Joyer stated that at the first Planning and Zoning meeting they recommended
3 having a neighborhood meeting. At the second meeting the neighbors had ten conditions, which the
4 tree service owner agreed to, and the neighbors were relieved because the auto body shop has been an
5 issue for the last few years.
6
7 Councilmember Reinert indicated that only covers this location, but what the Council is considering it
8 for the entire city. He asked if Planning and Zoning took that into consideration. Mr. Joyer stated
9 that one Planning and Zoning member said he had a tree service next to him and they have been a
10 good neighbor.
11
12 Councilmember Carlson asked if Mr. Joyer had any knowledge of where other cities place their tree
13 services. Mr. Joyer indicated most operate on the go, it is just a matter of where to put the equipment.
14
15 Councilmember Reinert indicated he knows the area, and it is probably okay for it to be there, but to
16 pass an ordinance that would allow it to be there seems extreme. Mr. Joyer advised that Staff
17 recommended doing it this way as a means of making it work. He indicated Planning and Zoning did
18 not specifically say to put it in the ordinance like this, they simply instructed Staff to make it work.
19
20 Councilmember O'Donnell stated the only other way is to rezone the site, which would require a
21 change to the comprehensive plan. However, he agrees with Councilmember Reinert that they do not
122 want to open it up across the city.
23
24 Councilmember Reinert stated he could see in a year another situation coming up and all of a sudden
25 the City has a bad situation.
26
27 Councilmember Carlson stated to change the zoning for this parcel would be spot zoning.
28 Councilmember O'Donnell agreed.
29
30 Mayor Bergeson stated he would like to talk about it at the next work session. Councilmember
31 O'Donnell concurred. Councilmember Reinert asked if there was any other way to do this without
32 changing the ordinance. Councilmember Dahl asked if Staff could check on other options. Mayor
33 Bergeson stated he believes they already have done that.
34
35 City Planner Smyser indicated Staff did not know any other way to do it. He stated Planning and
36 Zoning were clear that they did not want it rezoned, that the change needed to be in the ordinance.
37
38 Councilmember Carlson asked that Staff find out what other cities do. City Planner Smyser stated it
39 is a contractor type of business, the same as having a backhoe, or other big equipment, such as for a
40 landscaping service. He stated they allow them when everything is kept inside.
41
42 Councilmember Carlson asked that Staff find out where other cities allow this type of business.
S43
44 Councilmember Carlson stated there was a small correction on page 4-1, where Neighborhood
45 Business was not deleted. She added that on page 3-4, it discusses 10 acre and 1 acre lots, which is
34
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
I1 the situation they had on Ash Street. She indicated that when comparing it to the old ordinance she
2 found if someone had exactly eleven acres, they could split to one acre and eleven acres if the existing
3 house was on the one acre, and the one acre does not include road right-of-way. She indicated this
4 only applies to single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992. She stated that this is unfair to
5 those with 12 acres that have to give up the road right-of-way, indicating that the Council is coming
6 back after the fact and changing the situation for people who may be relying on being able to split
7 their property for financial reasons.
8
9 City Planner Smyser asked if she was saying the City should allow one -acre lots including right -of -
10 way and easements. Councilmember Carlson stated that was what our ordinance had said, and she
11 would suggest we don't change our ordinance. Community Development Director Grochala indicated
12 that when you take out everything else, you end up with a lot smaller than what is allowed for
13 residential lots with sewer and water.
14
15 Councilmember Reinert stated that was the situation on Ash Street. The owner had bought 11 acres
16 specfically to keep one and break off 10, according to the City's ordinance. He indicated it does not
17 seem fair to change the rules after the fact.
18
19 Mayor Bergeson indicated they could do a variance. City Planner Smyser stated that this assumes we
20 are changing something, and he does not believe they are. He indicated you cannot build on road
21 right-of-way, and the lot needs to have one acre of buildable land.
22
23 Councilmember Dahl indicated you may not be able to build on it, but it is included on the tax
24 statement. Community Development Director Grochala indicated the problem is in the wording,
25 which was not cleared up before. He stated that the one acre lot was buildable land only, while the 10
26 acre lot could include driveway and everything else.
27
28 Councilmember Dahl stated that was what they just did on Ash Street. City Planner Smyser indicated
29 they also said you need only 200 feet of road frontage, not the 330 feet that you used to need. He
30 stated that to make a rural lot with sewer less than one acre is not a smart idea.
31
32 Mayor Bergeson noted that there used to be a two and one-half acre minimum for rural lots, but they
33 do not try to grandfather in five acre parcels. Community Development Director Grochala stated that
34 they were not changing the ordinance, simply clarifying the language.
35
36 Councilmember Reinert indicated he agrees, and if there is a unique situation they could handle it
37 with a variance, but as a matter of policy, less than one acre lots do not make sense.
38
39 Councilmember Carlson asked if the 10 acre parcel could be smaller, to accommodate the road right -
40 of -way needed for the one acre parcel. Community Development Director Grochala indicated they
41 would be creating a 10 acre lot after the split. Councilmember Carlson clarified that if someone had
42 an eleven acre parcel, she is asking if the Council could grant a variance so you have one acre of
43 buildable land and the second parcel smaller to accommodate the road right-of-ways.
44
35
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
I1 City Planner Smyser drew a picture of a sample 11 acre parcel, which illustrated Councilmember
2 Carlson's point that the larger parcel would need to be less than 10 acres. City Administrator Waite
3 Smith clarified that they would be requesting, for example, a 1.25 acre lot, to be one acre buildable
4 and .25 acre for the right-of-way, and a 9.75 acre lot, and the Council is wondering if they could grant
5 a variance for that second parcel to be only 9.75 acres rather than 10 acres.
6
7 Councilmember O'Donnell suggested they deal with it on a one-on-one basis.
8
9 Councilmember Dahl indicated she has a question on page 3-73, but could be jump started to vote if
10 they could discuss it at the work session. Mayor Bergeson asked how many more significant items
11 City Planner Smyser wanted to cover. Community Development Director Grochala asked if the City
12 Council had any more.
13
14 Councilmember Carlson asked if the item Councilmember Dahl brought up could be discussed at the
15 work session. City Planner Smyser stated it could.
16
17 Councilmember Carlson asked if they were allowing big vehicles because they are in the city now.
18 City Planner Smyser stated that trucks up to 11,075 pounds are automatically allowed, but if someone
19 is in a residential zoning district, or a rural zoning with less than two and one-half acres, they cannot
20 have anything more than 11,075 pounds unless they meet the requirements outlined.
21
22 Councilmember Carlson asked if someone could have more than one truck. City Planner Smyser read
23 the item again, indicating there has always been a permit for parking vehicles on the books, and what
24 they did was clarified it to say this applies to residential zoning districts and rural lots less than two
25 and one-half acres only. He stated if someone has a rural parcel over two and one-half acres, they can
26 have big equipment there, such as contractors and truckers, but below two and one-half acres and
27 residential, it is not a good idea to exceed this weight limit.
28
29 Councilmember Carlson asked what type of vehicles would fit within the 11,075 pound maximum.
30 City Planner Smyser indicated delivery trucks, UPS trucks, etc. Councilmember Carlson stated this
31 would then allow delivery trucks to be parked in residential areas. City Planner Smyser stated that the
32 current ordinance allows them now, what is changing is that under two and one-half acres in rural
33 zones you cannot have anything bigger than this.
34
35 Councilmember Carlson stated that where she is going is that maybe a trucker brings home his truck
36 in a rural zone, but this is also opening it up to businesses where they may be bringing employees.
37 She added that rural executive homes could be affected also. She stated if she built her dream home
38 and then found out the City was allowing a business with multiple trucks to operate next to her, she
39 would not be happy.
40
41 City Planner Smyser stated to change this would be eliminating a lot of businesses. Councilmember
42 Carlson indicated it would not if they only allowed families. Mayor Bergeson stated they could not
43 do that. Councilmember Carlson agreed that they have not looked at it thoroughly, but she believes it
44 could be done.
45
36
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
I1 Mayor Bergeson stated his recommendation would be to take the first vote. Councilmember Carlson
2 stated that normally they expect to make very few changes after the first vote. She asked if they make
3 a lot of changes, will that be an issue.
4
5 City Attorney Hawkins offered that it may have been the Council's practice not to make a lot of
6 changes, but there are not requirements that they cannot.
7
8 Community Development Director Grochala stated it was important to note that the ordinance has
9 gone through the Task Force, the Planning and Zoning Board and numerous Boards, so there has been
10 a lot of review already. He indicated that for most points the changes are really smaller ones.
11
12 Councilmember Carlson indicated that because there have been a lot of changes, if they could get a
13 clean copy before the work session it would be good. City Planner Smyser asked that the Council
14 keep in mind a clean copy would remove the strike out changes. Councilmember Carlson asked if it
15 would be possible, then, to get a summary of the changes, including those discussed tonight.
16 Councilmember O'Donnell suggested that the changes be typed in italics.
17
18 Mayor Bergeson asked that Staff do the best they can, and added that maybe they could indicate
19 which subjects or topics Staff wants to present at the work session so the Council knows which areas
20 to review. City Planner Smyser indicated he did not think he would be able to have that ready for the
21 Friday packets. Mayor Bergeson asked, then, that if Council has subjects they want to discuss, they
I22 let Community Development Director Grochala know so the others can be prepared for the
23 discussion.
24
25 Councilmember Reinert moved to approve FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 08-03, Adopting
26 Zoning Regulations. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion.
27
28 Mayor Bergeson stated that he will vote for this, because it is important for the city, but for the record,
29 he is opposed to dropping gas stations from the Neighborhood Business district.
30
31 Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Carlson
32 voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Mayor Bergeson voted yea.
33
34 Ordinance 08-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office.
35
36 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
37
38 A) Approval of January 8, 2003 Council Work Session Minutes.
39 B) Approval of January 13, 2003 City Council Minutes.
40
41 These issues were tabled until the March 10, 2003 City Council meeting.
42
43 NEW BUSINESS
44
45 A) Approval of January 22, 2003 Council Work Session Minutes
37
i
COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APROVED
1 B) Approval of February 5, 2003 Council Work Session Minutes
2
3 These issues were tabled until the March 10, 2003 City Council meeting.
4
5 COMMUNITY CALENDAR February 25, 2003 THROUGH March 10, 2003:
6
7 A) Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 6:30 p.m., Environmental Board Meeting
8 B) Monday, March 3, 2003, 6:30 p.m., Park Board Meeting
9 C) Wednesday, March 5, 2003, 5:30 p.m., Council Work Session
10 D) Thursday, March 6, 2003, 7:00 a.m., EDAC Meeting
11 E) Monday, March 10, 2003, 6:30 p.m., City Council Meeting
12 ADJOURN
13
14 There being no further business, Councilmember Dahl moved to adjourn at 12:21 a.m.
15 Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, March 24, 2003.
20
21
22
23
24 Ann Blair, Cfigy Clerk erge'•n, Mayor
25
26 Transcribed by:
27 Karen Whaley
28 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
29
38