Lino Lakes Ledger

Council Proceeds With Bond Matters

Following its Sept. 11 public hearing on the matter, the Lino Lakes City Council at its meeting of Sep. 25 authorized city staff to proceed with the issuance and sale of General Obligation (G. O.) Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2006E in the approximate amount of $3,025,000. This would refund most of the outstanding Lease Revenue Bonds Series 1998A that were sold to finance the city's Civic Center Complex.

The bonds are part of a plan to purchase the City Hall and Police Department portions of the complex from the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority, which currently leases the space to the city under a Lease-Purchase Agreement. City Finance Director Al Rolek estimates the city will realize approximately a present value savings of $226,000 over the 12-year term of the bonds.

In addition, Rolek recommended approval of a refinancing of the existing General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1996B, which would save the city approximately $63,000 over the bond term. The city will issue $1,745,000 in G. O.

Water Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2006F, which will be repaid over a 5-year period through utility and trunk fees.

The City Council unanimously adopted Resolution Nos. 06-147 and 06-148 authorizing issuance and sale of the bonds.

Springsted, Inc., the city's bond counsel, has been authorized to negotiate these issues on the city's behalf. Bond proposals will be received by the firm on Monday, Oct. 23; the Council will consider awarding the sale at its meeting that evening.

Business Property Rezoned

The City Council unanimously approved the rezoning of a 1.8-acre parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road from LB (Limited Business) to NB (Neighborhood Business).

Following its airing of various concerns over potential permitted uses for the site consistent with its current LB Limited Business zoning, the Council moved forward with the rezoning in the context of changes to the Zoning Code under consideration in a separate agenda item. The LB zoning had been in effect since 2003 when it was rezoned as part of a larger development project.

Council members were concerned that certain auto-oriented uses permitted under the LB zoning would not be appropriate at this location because of potential negative impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Peter Hilger, Portfolio Design Services, represented Bruggeman Homes, the owner of the Miller's Crossroads property, at the public hearing. Bruggeman Homes went on record as opposing the rezoning.

"It is not in our best interest to . involuntarily give up zoning," Hilger said. Hilger reiterated the desire of the developer to have a drive-thru business, specifically a "coffee house," in the neighborhood. "We received a positive staff report and a Planning Commission recommendation for approval [of the plan]."

He said a dry cleaning tenant had already been lost due to the developer's inability to secure approvals.

Council Member Donna Carlson said that the parcel is in the city's shoreland area, and the plan for the drive-thru failed to meet requirements that a maximum of 60 percent of the site be "impervious," or covered with asphalt and/or buildings.

"It did exceed [the limits of] our Shoreland [Zoning] Ordinance," she said.

Zoning Text Amendments Proceed

The Council proceeded with the first reading of Ordinance No. 09-06, amending the Zoning Ordinance text with regard to uses in three business zones: NB, LB, and GB (General Business). A public hearing was also held, since original public notices for the Planning Commission hearings did not include GB text amendments.

According to the city staff report, the intensity of use within the three districts increases from NB, the most restrictive, to GB, with LB in the middle.

Proposed changes include the following:

The council postponed any decision on staff's recommendation to add extended care facilities, up to 30 residents in size, to the permitted uses in the NB zone.

Council Member Jeff Reinert explained that some "extended legal questions" were raised.

The term "residential extended care facilities" was not defined, Council Member Carlson said, adding "I think we should get the language clear and precise as to what we allow in our residential neighborhoods."