HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/2004 Council MinutesCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
1
111 2
3 CITY OF LINO LAKES
4 MINUTES
5
6
7
8 DATE : April 21, 2004
9 TIME STARTED : 5:34 p.m.
10 TIME ENDED : 10:10 p.m.
11 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Carlson, Dahl, Reinert,
12 Stoltz and Mayor Bergeson
13 MEMBERS ABSENT : None
14
15 Staff members present: City Administrator, Gordon Heitke; Community Development
16 Director, Michael Grochala; City Engineer, Jim Studenski (part); City Planner, Jeff
17 Smyser; Administration Director, Dan Tesch (part); Public Services Director, Rick
18 DeGardner (part); Utilities Supervisor, Tim Hillesheim (part); City Attorney, Bill
19 Hawkins (part); and City Clerk, Ann Blair (part).
20
21
22 CENTURY FARMS NORTH, JEFF SMYSER
23
24 Park Dedication — City Administrator Heitke stated there were questions at the last
• 25 Council meeting regarding park dedication fees for Century Farms North development.
26 The City Attorney clarified his legal opinion in a memo that was included in the Council
27 packets. The City Attorney is also present this evening to answer any additional
28 questions.
29
30 Councilmember Carlson asked if the City has been asked to change the $28,000 per acre
31 for other development within the City. City Planner Smyser advised he is unaware of
32 another time the City was asked to change the land value to $28,000 per acre. He noted it
33 has been a long time since the City had a land/cash combination for the park fees.
34
35 Councilmember Reinert clarified that the $50,000 price was used because legally the City
36 can only base the land to that value.
37
38 City Attorney Hawkins advised that legally the City could only base the land up to that
39 value. The City has the obligation to keep the Park Ordinance current. The park
40 dedication fees need to be reviewed. The $50,000 number was initially proposed by the
41 developer. That number is very realistic in terms of today's market.
42
43 Councilmember Carlson requested the Personal Identification Number (PIN) for the
44 property in relation to land value.
45
46 Community Development Director Grochala stated that when this development started,
47 the City was only looking for a land dedication. The City requires a 10% land dedication.
• 48 Technically, the City only has a difference of 2,000 sq. ft. The trail improvements and
49 sidewalks made up for that difference.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
• 2 Councilmember Dahl stated land values have gone up since the plat was started. If the
3 land value increases, the park dedication should also increase.
4
5 City Attorney Hawkins stated he thought there was some provision within the last Park
6 Plan for adjustments to park fees. If there is not a provision, the new Park Plan should
7 include a provision.
8
9 Councilmember Stoltz suggested the Park Plan eliminate a land value amount within the
10 park dedication fee.
11
12 Final Plat — City Planner Smyser advised the final plat was reviewed at the last Council
13 meeting. All outstanding issues have been resolved and staff is recommending approval.
14
15 Councilmember Carlson asked if the check the City received was for a stoplight.
16 Community Development Director Grochala advised the dollars received are for traffic
17 signalization.
18
19 Councilmember Carlson stated that it needs to be very clear within the meeting minutes
20 that the dollars received, in the amount of $25,500 are for a stoplight.
21
22 This item will appear on the regular Council agenda Monday, April 26, 2004, 6:30 p.m.
23
24 PARK DEDICATION FEES, RICK DEGARDNER
•25
26 City Administrator Heitke advised there were comments about adjusting the park
27 dedication fees at the last Council meeting. Staff has indicated the fees would be adjusted
28 in conjunction with the new Comprehensive Park Plan.
29
30 Public Services Director DeGardner stated the dollar values related to land values are in a
31 resolution as opposed to the Park Ordinance. Changing the resolution is not very
32 difficult. The City is updating the Comprehensive Park Plan with consultant Jeff
33 Shoenbauer. It makes sense to adjust the park fees based on the new Comprehensive
34 Park Plan. After Council review of the plan and approval, staff will review the park fees.
35 It is anticipated that the Comprehensive Park Plan would come before the Council at the
36 end of June.
37
38 City Attorney Hawkins stated there has been a lot of litigation in Minnesota regarding
39 this issue. There has to be a connection between the development and what the City is
40 asking dollars for. Once the connection has been proven, the City needs rough
41 proportionality. The City cannot come up with an arbitrary number. That is where the
42 Comprehensive Park Plan comes in. The City can make reasonable changes to the park
43 fees based on the Comprehensive Parks Plan and the park needs within the City. The
44 park fees should be reviewed every year along with other City fees.
45
46 Public Services Director stated that from his perspective, the value of land is irrelevant.
47 The City typically asks for 10% land dedication. The City needs to adjust the park fees
411 48 but the land values are not an issue. This is the first land/cash dedication since Highland
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
1 Meadows. The land value only comes into play when the City asks for less that 10% land
2 dedication.
3
4 Mayor Bergeson stated the City should discuss and review the park fees after the
5 Comprehensive Park Plan is completed and approved. Those fees should be reviewed
6 annually along with other City fees.
7
8 Councilmember Dahl advised she received information regarding park fees from other
9 cities. Their justification for the fees includes a fair market value of land and is raised
10 10% every year.
11
12 Public Services Director DeGardner stated the park dedication fees would be based on
13 future park needs for the entire City at full development. Park dedication fees are
14 determined at the time of final plat approval. No new development will be coming
15 through the City process prior to the review of the park fees.
16
17 LOCAL HISTORY PROJECT, ANN BLAIR, GORDON HEITKE
18
19 City Clerk Blair advised a few weeks ago, there was a meeting between Gordon Heitke,
20 Ann Blair, Betsy Friesen and Jerry Berg of the Lino Lakes History Project to discuss the
21 overall status of the existing history project. At this meeting, Volunteer Coordinator
22 Friesen expressed her interest in expanding her activities to preserving a couple of
23 privately owned buildings in Lino Lakes. She was interested in seeing the City of Lino
• 24 Lakes become a "Certified Local Government" in order to be eligible to apply for historic
25 preservation grants. Jerry Berg indicated that he wants to see the City require
26 archaeological surveys done in conjunction with excavations in Lino Lakes, whether or
27 not they are required or recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office of the
28 Office of the State Archaeologist.
29
30 City Clerk Blair also advised an e-mail was received last week from Betsy Friesen in
31 regard to fundraising for local preservation projects. The fundraising question needs an
32 immediate answer, but this is a good time to review the Council's interest in: 1)
33 expanding the scope and activities of the Lino Lakes History Project and 2) becoming
34 eligible for historic preservations grants through the formation of a Historic Preservation
35 Commission and becoming a Certified Local Government.
36
37 City Administrator Heitke stated the City originally committed to doing just the history
38 project, but has also discussed doing what is necessary to apply for grants. Staff needs to
39 know if the Council wishes to expand the scope of the original commitment to this
40 project.
41
42 Mayor Bergeson stated he thought the project entailed interviewing residents about the
43 history of the City.
44
45 Councilmember Carlson stated the Council needs to get a report from the coordinator on
46 the status of the activities that were originally approved in the resolution.
47
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
1 City Administrator Heitke stated there are many concerns regarding the recent activities
• 2 within the history project such as the fundraising and archaeological surveys.
3
4 City Attorney Hawkins advised the City needs to be very cautious with fundraising.
5 Fundraising needs to have a very formalized procedure and the City needs to know what
6 the funds are for. He noted the City could make a donation to other historic agencies,
7 such at the County's Historical Society.
8
9 City Clerk Blair advised there are possiblegrants, such as the Bricks and Mortar Program,
10 but these are for City owned property. The City would have to match any funds received
11 from a grant dollar for dollar, plus pay the administration costs.
12
13 Councilmember Reinert stated he would like to see the project go in the direction that
14 was outlined in the original resolution.
15
16 City Administrator Heitke advised he would meet with the volunteers to discuss the
17 intent of the original project.
18
19 PARK PLAN, RICK DEGARDNER
20
21 Public Services Director DeGardner advised staff is working on the Comprehensive Park
22 Plan. The Park Board met with the Environmental Board a few weeks ago to discuss the
23 plan. The next step is public input. Meetings will be held in June. Information regarding
• 24 the plan will also go out in the City newsletter. Staff wants to ensure the Council is
25 comfortable with the plan so staff can move forward. A presentation will be made at the
26 April 29 joint meeting.
27
28 COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN/WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES,
29 JIM STUDENSKI
30
31 City Engineer Studenski advised the City's Comprehensive Water Plan was last prepared
32 in 1991. Since that time, the System has undergone substantial expansion and
33 modification to service both existing and new development. City staff was ordered by
34 City Council to revise the Comprehensive Water System Plan to more accurately reflect
35 existing conditions as well as identify future system needs. Preparation of the
36 Comprehensive Water System Plan has been completed and staff is requesting Council
37 approval.
38
39 Mr. Kevin Anderson, TKDA, noted the report was previously distributed to the Council.
40 He reviewed the main points of the report indicating the existing water system is
41 generally in good shape. However, because of population increases the well capacities
42 are showing wear. Consideration to adding two additional wells should be taken in the
43 near future. Another option is to manage the peak demand during the day. That can be
44 accomplished by watering bans and water rates based on usage.
45
46 Mr. Anderson advised the DNR could fine cities for exceeding their approved water
111 47 appropriation. He noted there is not a recommendation at this time in regard to water
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
1 quality within the City. However, the City should consider treatment to the water quality
4111 2 at some point in the future.
3
4 Mr. Anderson reviewed the recommendations outlined in the report in relation to the
5 trunk system, water storage and possible improvements.
6
7 Community Development Director Grochala stated well #5 was included in the Five -Year
8 Capital Improvement Plan so there is a funding source for those costs. The
9 Comprehensive Water Plan will help the City better plan for the water system within the
10 City as development occurs.
11
12 Councilmember Carlson referred to the memo from staff recommending a sprinkling ban.
13 She asked how the City Administrator would further restrict water usage. Utilities
14 Supervisor Hillesheim stated that if a well goes down or there are extremely dry
15 conditions further restricts may be implemented. The intent of the sprinkling ban is to
16 even out the water peaks.
17
18 Public Services Director DeGardner advised staff has tried to prolong the addition of
19 wells and a sprinkling ban. However, the City needs to implement a sprinkling ban to
20 adhere to water appropriations set up by the DNR in order to obtain necessary permits for
21 an additional well. Staff intends to inform the public this year regarding the sprinkling
22 ban. The sprinkling ban would not go into effect until next year.
23
•24 This item will appear on the regular Council agenda Monday, April 26, 2004, 6:30 p.m.
25
26 BLACK DUCK LIFT STATION PROPERTY, MICHAEL GROCHALA
27
28 Community Development Director Grochala advised the Council authorized the
29 reconstruction of the Black Duck Sanitary Sewer Lift Station in 2003. As part of the
30 project, the lift stations was relocated from the west side of Black Duck Drive to City
31 owned property on the east side of the street. The old location was a 30' x 30' parcel
32 obtained in 1972 when the station was constructed.
33
34 Community Development Director Grochala stated with the removal of the lift station the
35 parcel is no longer needed for public purposes. The adjacent property owner has
36 expressed his interest in the parcel to remove the "notch" in his property. Staff is
37 recommending that the parcel be sold to the abutting property owner for the nominal fee
38 of $1.
39
40 Community Development Director Grochala advised the sale of the City property must
41 be completed by ordinance. Staff is proposing to place this on the City Council agenda in
42 May.
43
44 The Council directed staff to move forward with the sale of the City owned property to
45 the abutting property owner for a fee of $1.
46
•
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
1 PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE 12TH ADDITION BRIDGE (ISLAND), JEFF
• 2 SMYSER
3
4 City Planner Smyser advised Mr. Ed Vaughan has submitted additional information
5 regarding a bridge to his proposed island development. The submitted information
6 includes several photos and figures of different types of bridges. A narrative refers to
7 specific elements from the different bridge types. The question before the City now is if
8 the information is adequate to make a decision on whether or not there is the potential for
9 significant environmental effects.
10
11 City Planner Smyser stated the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has not yet
12 been completed, pending complete information on the bridge. Once the information is
13 sufficient, staff will need to prepare findings and a recommendation on whether or not an
14 Environmental Impact Statement is warranted.
15
16 Mr. Vaughan distributed a packet of information on the bridge and reviewed the
17 drawings.
18
19 Mayor Bergeson stated the Council asked for more detail at the last meeting. The
20 Council also asked Mr. Vaughan to work with staff to resolve the issues and provide
21 specific details on the bridge. He stated he does not believe Mr. Vaughan has done that.
22 He asked Mr. Vaughan again to work with staff before the issue comes before the City
23 Council.
24
25 Community Development Director Grochala expressed concern that staff does have many
26 pictures but they need to be put all together. Many more details are needed including
27 materials, dimensions, location, etc.
28
29 Mayor Bergeson asked Mr. Vaughan to make an appointment with staff. This item will
30 be placed on a future agenda when all information has been gathered.
31
32 Mr. Vaughan indicated he would work with staff on the details regarding the bridge.
33
34 Mayor Bergeson called for a short recess at 8:10 p.m.
35
36 Mayor Bergeson reconvened the meeting at 8:19 p.m.
37
38 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, MICHAEL GROCHALA
39
40 Pavement Management Plan — Community Development Director Grochala stated as
41 discussed at the Joint City Council/Charter Commission meeting on April 8, 2004, staff is
42 working with TKDA to update the Pavement Management Plan that was originally
43 prepared by BRW in 1996. The purpose of the plan is to identify the optimal pavement
44 management program (including reconstruction and maintenance) to maximize the life of
45 City streets at the minimum cost to the community. Staff is anticipating completion of
46 the plan by July of 2004.
47
•
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
1 2004 Street Reconstruction Referendum — Community Development Director Grochala
2 stated staff is requesting direction from the Council regarding street reconstruction
3 projects. Due to time constraints and project planning purposes the Council needs to
4 determine if a referendum for street reconstruction will be held in November of 2004.
5
6 Community Development Director Grochala advised TKDA is completing feasibility
7 studies for certain areas of the City that were authorized as part of the original Five Year
8 Plan. If the City proceeds with a fall 2004 referendum several questions will need to be
9 addressed. For example:
10
11 1. Should sanitary sewer and water extensions be included in the feasibility studies?
12 Most of the reconstruction areas lack these services.
13
14 2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, is staff to assume that the City would facilitate the
15 Comprehensive Plan amendments that would be required in most situations.
16
17 3. Is there a standard assessment policy that staff should be using as a basis for
18 assessments for the street portions of the projects i.e., benefit, percentage of
19 project cost?
20
21 Community Development Director Grochala advised these are just some of the questions
22 related to proceeding with a project. If the City wants a referendum on this year's ballot
23 staff needs to begin feasibility studies. However, the City needs some procedural policies
24 in plan in regard to the projects. He stated it may be beneficial to do a City survey when
25 the Pavement Management Plan is complete.
26
27 Councilmember Reinert stated he believes the City needs more time for a referendum to
28 make a fair assessment of the process.
29
30 It was the consensus of Council to not include a street reconstruction project on the 2004
31 ballot.
32
33 MARILYN DRIVE/COUNTRY LANE UTILITIES PETITION, JIM STUDENSKI
34
35 City Engineer Studenski advised the City has received a petition from residents and
36 property owners on Country Lane and Marilyn Drive for sanitary sewer and water
37 service. When the City has received utility petitions from neighborhoods in the past, the
38 first step has been to hold a neighborhood meeting before any formal study is prepared.
39 At the neighborhood meeting, discussion are held regarding the public improvement
40 process, the City Charter, the location of existing utilities, and an overview of the
41 construction process. A feasibility study would follow the neighborhood meeting.
42
43 City Engineer Studenski advised the area of the petition is defined as Low Density
44 Unsewered Residential. It is outside of the Stage 1 and 2 Growth Areas. Country Lane is
45 outside of the MUSA boundary.
46
47 Staff is requesting Council direction on how to proceed with this petition to extend City
48 utilities.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
1
• 2 Mayor Bergeson suggested holding a neighborhood meeting before a feasibility study is
3 done to discuss the costs associated with the large lots in that area. Community
4 Development Director Grochala advised residents want to know the actual number for the
5 costs of extending City sewer. If a number is given prior to the feasibility study, it is a
6 guess and typically on the high side. Costs associated with the feasibility study, meetings
7 and staff time is $6,000 - $10,000.
8
9 Councilmember Reinert suggested obtaining more names on the petition before moving
10 forward.
11
12 City Engineer Studenski advised the City could send a letter to other residents in the area
13 indicating the City received a petition and inquiring about interest. The letter could also
14 indicate costs would be very high due to the large lots.
15
16 Mayor Bergeson stated the City has to respond to the current petition. The City also
17 needs a policy in regard to petitions and moving forward with feasibility studies.
18
19 The Council directed staff to move forward with a letter to residents in the area and
20 obtain an opinion from the City Attorney regarding a petition policy.
21
22 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETINGS
23
• 24 Joint EDAC, Environmental Board, P & Z, Park Board — Park Plan and I -35W
25 Master Plan — City Administrator Heitke advised the meeting is scheduled on April 29,
26 2004, 6:00 p.m.
27
28 Review of Comprehensive Plan — City Administrator Heitke advised the meeting is
29 scheduled on May 3, 2004. The meeting will be a joint meeting with the Planning and
30 Zoning Board with the intent of reviewing issues in relation to the Comprehensive Plan.
31 The next step would be to determine if any action should be in regard to those issues.
32
33 Councilmember Carlson expressed concern regarding reviewing the Comprehensive Plan
34 with the Planning and Zoning Board. There was a lot of planning that went into the
35 Comprehensive Plan that included citizens and public input. She indicated she has a
36 concern of taking a citizen's comprehensive plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for
37 review. The correct process should be the other way around.
38
39 Community Development Director Grochala stated the City is obligated by law to review
40 the Comprehensive Plan every ten years. Revisions can be made as often as necessary.
41 The Planning and Zoning Board is the planning board for the City and should be included
42 in the review. Any amendments made to the Comprehensive Plan must go through the
43 public process.
44
45 Councilmember Reinert stated he believes it is a good idea for the Council to meet with
46 the Planning and Zoning Board to get their input on the Comprehensive Plan.
ID47
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21, 2004
APPROVED
• 1 Councilmember Carlson stated she would like to vote on having the review with the
2 Planning and Zoning Board.
3
4 City Administrator Heitke stated that in accordance with statutory regulations the
5 Planning and Zoning Board has a very big role in the Comprehensive Plan and any
6 possible amendments.
7
8 Councilmember Dahl stated the City had a Comprehensive Plan Task Force and the
9 Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Plan. At the goal setting session staff indicated
10 any possible amendments to the Plan would be reviewed by the City Council. The
11 Council should have an annual meeting with the Planning and Zoning Board. Any
12 changes made to the Plan must go before citizens. She stated she believes any possible
13 changes to the Plan should be presented to the City Council first.
14
15 Councilmember Stoltz clarified that the intent of the meeting is for staff to present
16 information and issues within the Comprehensive Plan.
17
18 The Council determined a vote would be taken in regard to having a joint meeting with
19 the Planning and Zoning Board to review the Comprehensive Plan issues.
20
21 Community Development Director Grochala stated it would be a good idea to change the
22 date of the meeting if the Council is going to take a vote Monday night.
23
•24 City Administrator Heitke advised staff would document the intent of the meeting.
25
26 Councilmember Stoltz suggested the Council review the intent of the meeting at the next
27 work session.
28
29 Community Development Director Grochala advised the Tri -Cities Coalition has
30 tentatively scheduled a meeting May 20, 2004, 6:30 p.m. — 8:00 p.m. Food will be served
31 at 6:00 p.m. The intent of the meeting is to give an update on the work that has already
32 been done, the joint powers agreement and rename the group.
33
34 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS, APRIL 26, 2004
35
36 The joint City Council/Planning and Zoning Board meeting was added to the regular
37 Council agenda.
38
39 There were no other changes to the regular agenda.
40
41 The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
42
43 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
44 May 10, 2004.
45
46
4110 47
48
9
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
• 3 Ami Blair ity Clerk Jo ►F : erges , Mayor
4
APRIL 21, 2004
5
6
7 Transcribed by:
8 Kim Points
9 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
10
11
•
•
10