Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-2020 Council work Session PacketCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, August 3, 2020 Council Chambers 6:00 P.M. 1. Nature’s Refuge Final Plat, Katie Larsen 2. Birch Street Roundabout Landscaping, Michael Grochala 3. CARES Act Proposed Expenditures, John Swenson 4. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council 5. Review Regular Agenda 6. Adjourn WS – #1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 1 Date: August 3, 2020 To: City Council From: Katie Larsen, City Planner Re: Nature’s Refuge PUD Final Plan/Final Plat Background Staff will present the attached August 10, 2020 regular Council agenda item regarding Nature’s Refuge PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. Attachments 1. August 10, 2020 Agenda Item 6A a. Please note Attachment 6-Development Agreement is To Follow Requested Council Direction None. Discussion Only. 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: August 10, 2020 TOPIC: Nature’s Refuge i. Consider Resolution No. 20-81 approving PUD Final Plan/Final Plat ii. Consider Resolution No. 20-82 approving Development Agreement VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Preferred Builders, Inc., submitted a land use application for PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Nature’s Refuge. The proposed residential development is a 61 lot single family conservation subdivision located north of Main Street and west of Lino Lakes Elementary School. The development contains 3 parcels totaling approximately 95 gross acres. This plan review is based on the following revised plan sets: • Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Construction Plans prepared by Carlson McCain dated January 16, 2020 • Grading, Development & Erosion Control Plans prepared by Carlson McCain dated March 6, 2020 • Preliminary Plat and Plan Set prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 12, 2019 • Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 7, 2019 • Net Area Exhibit prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 12, 2019 • Site Landscape Plan prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 27, 2019 • Final plat prepared by Carlson McCain received April 28, 2020 Previous Council Actions: • June 25, 2018: Ordinance No. 05-18 approving the rezoning of property from R-1, Single Family Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development • June 25, 2018: Resolution No. 18-70 approving PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND Zoning 2 On June 25, 2018, Council adopted Ordinance No. 05-18 approving the rezoning of the property from R-1, Single Family Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development to provide the following flexibilities: 1. Reduced minor collector road right-of-way width from 80 feet to 60 feet on Street A and Street C 2. Reduced front setback from 40 feet to 30 feet on Street A (Glenwood Drive) and Street C 3. Reduced paved road surface width from 32 feet to 30 feet (back to back) on cul de sac Street D and cul de sac Street E Street A is now Glenwood Drive. Street B is Basswood Drive. Street C is Haywood Drive. Street D is Hazelwood Court. Street E is Elmwood Court. Density The site is guided for low density residential development which requires a density of 1.6 to 3.9 units per net acre. The revised net density is 1.68 units per acre which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s guided land use and density. Wetlands and wetland buffers make up 57 acres (60%) of protected open space. The following chart implements Met Council’s formula for calculating net density. Preliminary Plat (6-15-18) Revised Preliminary Plat (6-12-19) Gross Area (acres) 95.05 95.05 Wetlands & Water Bodies (42.33) (42.33) Public Parks & Open Space 0.00 0.00 Art erial ROW (1.33) (1.33) Other (Utility Transmission Easement) (0.40) (0.40) Other (Wetland Buffer Area) (15.10) (14.73) Net Area (acres) 35.89 36.26 # of Units 61 61 Gross Density (units/acre) 0.64 0.64 3 Net Density (units/acre) 1.70 1.68 Zoning Requirements The site was rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development with Ordinance No. 05-18 to allow flexibility in right-of-way width and setback from minor collector road. The regulations and performance standards of the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district will be in effect unless otherwise stated in Council resolution or Development Agreement. Lot Comparison R-1 vs. Nature’s Refuge Standard R-1 Requirements Proposed Nature’s Refuge Min. Lot Size1 10,800 sf Min. = 10,800 sf Ave. = 13,164 sf Min. Lot Width 80 ft Min. = 80 ft Min. Lot Depth 135 ft Min. = 135 ft Building Setback (feet) -From Local Streets 30 ft 30 ft -From Collector or Arterial Streets 40 ft 30 ft (Street A-E)2 40 ft (Main Street) -Rear --Principal 30 ft 30 ft -Accessory 5 ft 5 ft -Side --Principal 10 ft 10 ft --Accessory 5 ft 5 ft Buffer Adjacent to Collector 15 foot Provided Impervious Surface 40% Verified with Building Permits 1Net area required is 10,800 sf of contiguous buildable land 2PUD flexibility approved by Council A 15 foot wide landscape buffer has been provided along CSAH 14 (Main Street) outside of the existing 100 foot wide private utility easement and is contained in an outlot that will be owned and maintained by a homeowner’s association (HOA). A 6 foot high privacy fence is proposed along Lot 1, Block 6 that will provide screening along CSAH 14. Shrubs and plantings are provided along the exterior side of the fence. Building Type and Construction 4 At the time of building permit, each individual single family dwelling unit will be reviewed for compliance with Section 1007.043(2)(a) General Building Provisions and the R-1, Single Family Residential requirements regarding floor area, garage and design, and construction standards. Subdivision Ordinance Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Resolution No. 18-70 approving the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat details in the findings conformity with the comprehensive plan and zoning code. The PUD Final Plan/Final Plat is consistent with the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat. Blocks and Lots The preliminary plat has 61 single family lots and 6 outlots. The final plat has 61 single family lots, but 7 outlots. Outlot G has been added. It contains an existing detached structure belonging to 801 Main Street. This outlot will be deeded to 801 Main Street and combined. The detached structure will then be legally located on their property. The remaining outlots are for stormwater management facilities, wetland areas, open space, and trail corridors. Ownership of each outlot (City, HOA, developer etc.) shall be as follows and detailed in the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) documents. Outlot Purpose Ownership A Wetlands HOA B Lake 300, wetland, open space and trail corridor HOA C Trail Corridor HOA D Lake 200, Pond 100, Pond 400, wetland, open space & trail HOA E Trail & Utility Corridor HOA F Landscape Buffer & fence HOA G 801 Main Street-Detached Shed Deed to 801 Main St and combine Streets and Alleys CSAH 14 (Main Street) is a Principal Arterial road. Streets A (Glenwood Drive) and Street C (Haywood Drive north of Glenwood Drive) are identified as minor collector roads in the Transportation Plan and provide a north-south corridor. The 1999 Anoka County TH 242/CSAH 14 Access Management Plan identifies at-grade full access at Wood Duck Trail and CSAH 23 (Lake Drive) and restricted movements along the site’s corridor. The site plan has been reviewed by Anoka County Highway Department. They have identified the need for additional right-of-way (70-75 feet) and right and left turn lanes on CSAH 14 (Main Street). 5 Twelve foot wide east bound and west bound turn lanes have been shown on the site plan. Detailed construction plans have been submitted with the PUD Final Plan/Final Plat and are being reviewed by Anoka County. The internal road system (Streets A thru C) has 60 foot wide right-of-ways and 32 foot wide (back to back) paved road surface. Street D (Hazelwood Court) and Street E (Elmwood Court) are cul de sacs with 60 foot wide right-of-way and 30 foot wide (back to back) paved road surface. The intersection of Street A and CSAH 14 (Main Street) has an 80 foot wide right-of- way and 42 foot wide (back to back) paved road surface. Sidewalks are proposed along the east side of both Glenwood Drive and Haywood Drive. Haywood Drive terminates in a temporary dead-end to the west, abutting 8024 Wood Duck Trail. This stub provides opportunity for future extension and residential development to Wood Duck Trail. This is consistent with the County Access Management Plan. Haywood Drive also terminates in a temporary cul de sac to the north and provides opportunity for future extension to the north. Street B (Basswood Drive) provides future access to Lino Lakes Elementary School to the east. In 2017, the school began a building remodeling and parking lot reconstruction project. An opportunity to eliminate the school’s west driveway and connect with Nature’s Refuge was identified as a safety benefit. The City and Anoka County are working with the school district to complete this connection. Ultimately, it is the school districts decision when to make this connection. Easements Standard drainage and utility easements at least 10 feet wide are provided along all lot lines. Easements at least 20 feet wide are provided over utility pipes. Drainage and utility easements are dedicated 10 feet above the high water level over stormwater drainage ponds and 10 feet outward from the delineated wetland boundary. This requirement is satisfied because easements have been dedicated over the entire outlots. Rear lot lines also have a minimum 10 foot wide easement. A 100 foot wide private utility easement in favor of Great River Energy exists along the southern boundary of the development. Landscaping shall be allowed in the drainage and utility easements covering the 15 foot wide landscape buffer area in Outlot E and Outlot F. Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Per the revised Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 7, 2019, all of the site’s stormwater eventually flows to ACD 32 and to the west. Stormwater leaves the project boundary at two locations: via ACD 32 and a small portion of the property discharges to a ditch along Main Street. The total proposed post-development impervious surface area is approximately 10.4 acres. 6 Soils on the site are classified as Hydrologic Soil Group A/D. Groundwater elevations ranged from 898 feet to 904 feet. The revised Stormwater Management Plan and plan sheets identify four (4) stormwater ponds, two (2) infiltration basins and Wetland C on site. Wetland C will be enhanced and excavated to provide extended storage of treated stormwater. Pond 100 and Pond 400 are required for stormwater management. Pond 200 and Pond 300 are material excavation ponds. The storm water ponds and trails are located near the wetlands and upland buffers. This strategic design is the basis of the City’s greenway system by creating a multi-functional greenway corridor intended to provide areas for stormwater management, upland buffers for wetland protection and natural resource conservation, and open space and trails for people. A ma intenance access trail is provided around Pond 200. This access trail will be graded, but will not require gravel or paved improvements. The site will be mass graded in one (1) phase. Residential home development will occur over several years. Utilities Public water, sanitary and storm sewer utilities will be installed within the development. Sanitary Sewer A 21” trunk sanitary sewer main located along CSAH 14 (Main Street) serves the site. An 8” and 10” sanitary sewer pipe serves the site internally. Future development to the north will potentially require a lift station. Sanitary sewer will also be stubbed to the west to accommodate future development. Watermain A 12” trunk watermain located along CSAH 14 (Main Street) serves the site. An 8” and 16” watermain serve the site internally and loops the system to CSAH 14 (Main Street). Watermain will be stubbed to the west and north property boundaries for future development. Public Land Dedication The City will require cash in lieu of land dedication. Per the City’s Park, Greenway & Trail System Plan, a neighborhood park is not programmed for this area. Lino Lakes Elementary School is immediately adjacent to the development. Nature’s Refuge 61 lots x $3,000 = $183,000 Trail Construction Costs Credit = ($55,000) TOTAL = $128,000 7 The Park, Greenway & Trail System Plan identifies the need for a future city trail running north-south through the development along greenway corridor. Due to concerns regarding potential impacts to the rare plant species behind Lots 1-4, Block 5, an 8.5 foot wide paved trail will be constructed on the west side of the development along Pond 100 and 200 utilizing the maintenance access path. Outlot C of the revised plans accommodates a 25 foot wide trail corridor as required in the original review comments. Plans have been revised to show a future 10 foot wide trail along CSAH 14 (Main Street). The timing of this trail construction is based on availability of funds and acquisition of additional right-of-way along those parcels not part of the plat (e.g. 625 and 635 Main Street). The section of sidewalk extending along Street A from Main Street to Street B has been revised to an 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Credit has been given for trail construction costs. The Park Board reviewed the plans on February 5, 2018. The Board recommends collecting park fees to potentially fund enhancements at Lino Lakes Elementary School. Tree Preservation The goal of tree preservation is to minimize unnecessary loss of habitat, biodiversity and forest resource and to replace removed trees in areas where tree cover is most critical. The revised Tree Inventory Report prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 15, 2018 identifies 1,151 significant trees on site and per Sheet L1, 415 existing trees will remain. The Tree Preservation Plan identifies the basic use area and environmentally sensitive areas. There are 201 trees within these areas proposed for removal. This requires 138 replacement trees for mitigation. The developer and Environmental Coordinator determined the best location for replacement trees along trail corridors and open space areas. The Environmental Coordinator also reviewed the Tree Preservation Plan and made suggestions for removal of hazardous or unhealthy trees. There are 14 non-significant trees proposed for removal. No mitigation is required for these trees. Landscaping Boulevard trees are required at the rate of one (1) tree per lot frontage for single family. There are 61 single family lots requiring 66 boulevard trees. There are 84 boulevard trees proposed which is compliant with the ordinance. Open area landscaping standards required 1 large tree and 3 large shrubs per 2,000 sf. Per the Landscape Plan, there is 432, 506 sf of open area requiring 216 overstory trees and 661 large shrubs. Sheet L1 indicates 415 existing trees plus an additional 216 open area trees and 661 shrubs which is compliant with the ordinance. Special attention has been made to create a landscape buffer along the west side of the development abutting the residential properties along Wood Duck Trail. 8 A 15 foot wide landscape buffer has been provided along CSAH 14 (Main Street) outside of the existing 100 foot wide private utility easement and is contained in an outlot that will owned and maintained by a homeowner’s association (HOA). A 6 foot high privacy fence is proposed along Lot 1, Block 7 that will provide screening along CSAH 14. Shrubs and plantings are provided along the exterior side of the fence. Landscaping shall be allowed in the drainage and utility easements covering the 15 foot wide landscape buffer area in Outlot E and Outlot F. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) As previously noted, in 2006 a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the original Nature’s Refuge concept because the proposed 278 housing units exceeded the 250 housing unit threshold. The EAW thoroughly analyzed potential impacts to wetlands, rare plant and animal species, floodplain, water quality, noise, traffic and archeology. It was determined the project did not have the potential for significant environmental effects and the Council passed Resolution No. 07-06 making a Negative Declaration on the Need for an EIS. The scope and size of the current proposed Nature’s Refuge (61 housing units on 95 gross acres) is much smaller than the original 2006 proposal (278 housing units on 232 gross acres). An EAW is not required for the current proposed Nature’s Refuge because the 62 housing units do not exceed the 250 housing unit threshold. Traffic Study The Traffic Study prepared by Spack Consulting on June 4, 2018 based was reviewed during the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat process. The development is forecasted to generate approximately 565 new trips per day with 45 new trips in the a.m. peak hour and 60 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Per the traffic study, the existing LOS is C and the 2021 Build LOS is C. The proposed development meets the subdivision ordinance requirements. Wetlands A WCA Notice of Decision for the wetland boundary delineation was approved by RCWD on June 16, 2016. Seven (7) wetlands were delineated on site totaling 41.66 acres. ACD 32 is not classified as a wetland. A revised WCA Permit Application for wetland sequencing and mitigation was prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on April 5, 2019. The project area is located within in the RCWD Lino Lakes Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan (CWPMP) area. The intent of the CWPMP is to preserve/enhance high-priority wetlands/wetland corridors. Six (6) of the 7 wetlands are in the Wetland Management Corridor (WMC). The exception is Wetland 1. Wetland buffer easements covering 14.73 upland acres will protect the WMC. Wetland impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of wetland bank credits. In summary, post-development wetland hydrological regime is equal to predevelopment conditions, wetland water quality is higher overall than pre-development conditions, and 9 wildlife habitat structure improves overall post-development likely due to removal/conversion of cropland to permanent upland buffer. Per Sheet W1, Wetland Buffer Exhibit prepared by Carlson McCain revision dated June 15, 2018 and the Kjolhaug Wetland Application revision dated April 5, 2019: Wetland Summary Total Delineated Wetlands 41.66 acres Permanent Wetland Impact 1.7041 acres Temporary Wetland Impact 1.3148 acres WMC Buffer Area 14.73 acres Wetland Bank Credit 2.8408 credit from Brad Moen bank The applicant has submitted draft conservation easements over the applicable wetlands. Rare & Endangered Species Minnesota endangered and threatened species must be considered when submitting a wetland replacement plan. A rare plant survey identified portions of three populations of state- threatened plant species that would be impacted by the development. A Takings Permit Application has been submitted to the MNDNR for their review and approval. Impacts to this habitat have been minimized by reducing the road right-of-way width and setback and relocating the trail to the west side of the development. Federal endangered species of concern in the region include the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Based on the tree species present onsite and the fact that there are no known NLEB hibernacula or roosting colonies in the project vicinity, negative effects to the NLEB or its habitat are not expected. Floodplain The 2015 DFIRM indicates Zone A floodplain on site, mainly over the easterly wetland complex and along ACD 32. Per RCWD modeling data, the east floodplain base flood elevation is 904.5 and the west floodplain elevation is 904.2. Per March 14, 2019 revised Sheet FP, Floodplain Exhibit, 215 cy of floodplain fill is required related to the Street C/ACD 32 ditch crossing. Proposed floodplain mitigation is 47,700 cy. A FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is not required because floodplain impacts do not encroach into any single family lots. Growth Management Policy 10 Per the Comprehensive Plan (page 3-27), an annual average of 230 units per year over each 5 year phasing period not to exceed 345 units in any 1 year is allowed. At the end of the 5 year phasing period, unallocated units will be averaged out over the next 5 years. Nature’s Refuge is proposed to be graded and developed in one (1) phase. Homeowner’s Association (HOA) A homeowner’s association (HOA) shall be responsible for the ownership and long term maintenance of the items detailed in Resolution No. 20-81, HOA Declaration and/or Development Agreement. Development Agreement A Development Agreement shall be drafted by the City, executed by the City and the developer and recorded by the developer. Title Commitment The City Attorney reviewed the title commitment and final plat and has the following comments: 1. The signatory on the plat does not match up with the title work. The plat is drafted to be signed by Preferred Builders, Inc. The title work shows title in preferred Properties and Management, LLC, a Wyoming LLC. 2. There is a mortgage on the property reflected in paragraph 18 of Schedule B, Part II. As the mortgage company is not a signatory, you will need to do the consent you have done in the past. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement Under the City’s and RCWD Programmatic Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement, the City will be responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management facilities related to Pond 100, Pond 400, Infiltration Basin 10, Infiltration Basin 20, ACD 10- 22-32 ditch crossing culvert and outlet structure. RCWD is responsible for maintenance of ACD 10 -22-32 per a recorded Easement for ditch maintenance. RCWD is requiring a declaration of stormwater maintenance for Lake 200 and Lake 300 in which the HOA is responsible for maintenance. Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) RCWD issued a CAPROC for Permit #17-122 on May 22, 2019. Findings of Fact The Findings of Fact for the Rezoning and PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat are detailed in Ordinance No. 05-18 and Resolution No. 18-70, respectively. The Findings of Fact for the PUD Final Plan/Final Plat are detailed in Resolution No. 20-81. 11 RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed the PUD Final Plan/Final Plat on July 10, 2019. The Board recommended approval of the development with a 6-0 vote. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Engineer Memo dated July 22, 2019 2. Environmental Coordinator Memo dated July 29, 2020 3. Resolution No. 20-81 4. Final Plat 5. Resolution No. 20-82 6. Development Agreement Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Mem orandum To: Katie Larsen, City Planner From : Diane Hankee PE, City Engineer Date: July 22, 2019 Re: Nature’s Refuge Final Plat Review Project No. 011406-000 We have reviewed the Final Plat documents received April 28, 2020 for the Nature’s Refuge development including: • Final Utility Plan Set prepared by Carlson McCain • Final Grading Plan prepared by Carlson McCain • SWMP rev 6 prepared by Carlson McCain The following are our review comments that should be responded to in writing by the applicant. Carlson McCain Responses in Brown 12/20/19 City comments are in blue. Responses in purple. Responses in Light Blue 06/06/19 The applicant shall submit an updated Geotechnical Report, SWMP, and RCWD approval for ACD 10-22-32 realignment, per our comments below. Engineering • General The Nature’s Refuge development includes 95 acres north of CSAH 14 (Main Street), west of CSAH 23 (Lake Street) and east of Wood Duck Trail. The revised project proposes 62 single family houses and associated infrastructure. This property was ori ginally part of a larger development of which an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (E AW) was prepared. The evaluation concluded that the project did not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW included a comprehensive analysis of the area which we incorporated as part of our review for Nature’s Refuge. The site has relatively flat topograph y, with elevations ranging from 904 to 914. Much of the site is below 905, which is the approximate elevation of the delineated we tlands on the site. The geotechnical conditions of the site indicate that there is one foot of topsoil overlaying glacier outwash including silt y sand and poorly graded sand. Sandy lean clay was found 29 and 40 feet below grade. The groundwater elevation at the south end of the site is 904 and 898 at the north end of the site. 1. Street C shall be extended to the north side of Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 10-22-32. This includes the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain and culvert crossing reconstruction/extension. The road bed shall be graded and restored for future extension and pavi ng. Street C extended to the north extents of the property. 2. Sheet 13 (Preliminary Site and Utility Plan) shows an Outlot C in the same locations as previously identified Outlot B. Outlot lettering updated 3. Each plan sheet should include an accurate legend. Legend updated. 4. This project is assumed to be phased with Blocks 3, 4, & 5 being constructed as Phase 2. Noted. 2 phases proposed. Proposed all as one phase. Noted, Final plans are shown as one phase. 5. Standa rd Detail Plates from the City of Lino Lakes General Specifications and Standa rd Detail Plates da ted February 2018 should be used in the “Details” section of the plans. Contact Ed Young quist at the City of Lino Lakes for PDF versions. The city detail plates will be added in with final grading plans as well as final street and utility plans. City of Lino Lakes 2020 Standard Detail Plates shall be used. 6. Applicant to include pedestrian curb ramps in final plat. Pedestrian ramps shown in final Utility and Street Construction plans. • Grading, Erosion and Sedi ment Control The Na ture’s Refuge development proposes the mass grading of 62 new single-famil y lots. It includes the extension of streets and utilities northerly from Main Street (CSAH 14). A project SWPPP was submitted and reviewed. Comments: 1.The applicant shall submit the earthwork volume data for excavation and embankment. Earthwork balance is attached. 2.The applicant shall ensure that the proposed grading is not in conflict with the existing elevation south of Street B at the edge of the site. FES added to catch runoff in the created low area. 3. Label pre-drainage and post-drainage directional flow arrows. This is shown on the drainage figures in the SWMP. Drainage arrow need to be shown. Drainage arrows added. 4. Show locations for stockpiles and BMP measures for stockpile management. Stockpile locations will be determined by the grading contractor. BMP measures are detailed in the SWPPP. 5.The applicant shall show a screening berm along Main Street (CSAH 14) and grades to accommodate a trail, see comments in the transportation section. A berm is not possible with the drainage swale in the Outlot D. A 15’ landscape easement has been added along B4 L15-17 and a screening fence along B7 L1. 6. The applicant shall add redundant perimeter control measures spaced 5’ apart where a 50’ buffer cannot be maintained from wetland or surface water areas. Areas include the eastern portions near Sta 3+00, Sta 6+50, Sta 7+50, Sta 12+00. Redundant perimeter silt fence added along entire length of wetland east of blocks 5 and 6 and east of Street C. 7. The applicant shall review drainage being directed onto adjacent private property: • Water from Street B and A is directed to east and may require an easement from the landowner to drain to the proposed FES. Grading has been revised. Sidewalk revised to 8 feet and placed against curb to allow for additional grading to the east. • West side of L2B8? Grading has been revised on the west side of L2B8. A FES has been added and swale elevations added. Better define/pull back, into the yard from both the north and south, the swale on the west side of L2B8. Slope steepened along the driveway to 3:1 to provide a better swale. Easements revised accordingly. 8. Better define the grading for the future trail along Main St. and edit not to say “Grade 10’ trail for future construction”. Note sheet 4 of the sanitary profile does not show the trail cut in please edit. Future grading shaded back in the exception piece and a note added. Trail to slope into Main Street where there is curb and slope away where there is none. This may change when the county decides to expand the street in the future. Note that correspondence we have received from the county, the road will be expanded, but no date has been determined yet. Also per conversation with the county, see updated turn lane layout and slopes from edge of bit to infiltration basin. • Stormw ater Management The existing site is undeveloped and has Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 10-22-32 flowing through the site from east to west. The site also contains several wetlands. The Nature’s Refuge development proposes a storm sewer and ponding system. The system shall meet the City’s and Rice Creek Watershed District’s (RCWD) Stormwater Management requirements. The total proposed impervious surface is 7.8 acres. They are proposing that the impervious areas be managed through storm water ponds, infiltration basins and wetlands and discharging to ACD 10-22-32. Basin NWL HWL Pond 100 902.5 905.2 Pond Lake 200 901.5 902.6 Pond Lake 300 902.0 Confirm 902.5 Pond 400 901.8 902.7 Basin 10 N/A 907.3 Wetland C 902.0 903.1 Per the submitted modeling the rate control for the site does not increase. The majority of the discharge leavi ng the site is through ACD 10-22-32. A CAPROC has been approved by RCWD for reference. Noted. Comments: 2. RCWD is the ditch authorit y for ACD 10-22-32 and is responsible for the maintenance, function and capacity of the ditch. The City of Lino Lakes would be responsible for Pond 200 maintenance and function. The ditch, and its associated rights, extend east and shall not be routed through the pond. The easement will extend around the north end of the pond to provide RCWD with the access needed. This has been discussed with the wa tershed. Appli cant shall address water quali ty calculations, and confirm whether Pond 200 is necessary for water quality treatment for the impervious surface increase. If the pond is not necessary to meet water quality treatment, then similar to Pond 300, Pond 200 is recommended to be private and be maintained by the Home Ow ners Association. If Pond 200 is necessary for water quality treatme nt, the applicant shall work with the City as well as the RCWD Ditch Authority . Pond 200 should be 2 cells separating ACD 10-22-32 into one basin, and the City Pond into a second basin as needed for water quality. Pond 200 is not necessary to meet NURP requirements. Pond 200 and Pond 300 are not necessary to meet NURP requirements and should be identified as something other than a pond (lake, basin, etc.) and are also recommended to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Designations for Pond 200 and 300 changed to Lake. 3. Pond 300 is not considered a stormwater pond. It doesn’t meet the requirements for water quality treatment due to the depth. It was not included as part of the water quality calculations. It is recomme nded that this borrow area should be private and maintained by the Home Owners Association.. Comment Noted This shall be called out in the agreement and provided by the developer. 4. The applicant needs to adjust the location of the outlet control structures such that City can access and maintain. Specific to Pond 200. Access is provided to outlet control structures. Access is shown on plans via maintenance bench around pond and bituminous trails where ponds/lakes are not accessible from the road. 3A. Applicant to confirm that RCWD Ditch Authority to maintain outlets and culverts within ACD 10-22-32 easement and submit information to the City. Waiting for verification from RCWD. RCWD has noted they will not maintain the culvert and outlet. 5.The applicant shall include the 10-day snowmelt event in modeling and update the proposed 10-da y snowmelt HW Ls on the plans. 10-day snow melt added to the models and report. Applicant shall include the modeled 10-day snowmelt HWLs on the plans. 10-day snow melt results are shown on the plans and will be included in the updated SWMP. 6.The applicant shall confirm the amount of new impervious. There are different numbers in Section 1.2 and Section 2.5 of the Stormwater Management Plan, Secti on 2.2 of the Stormwater Pollution Pre vention Plan (SWPPP), and the HydroCAD modeling. New impervious area has been recalculated and confirmed. Addressed for Stormwater Management Plan and HydroCAD. Applicant shall update the SWPPP. SWPPP updated per SWMP updates. SWMP revision 5 dated 5/13/19 still contains three different net new impervious surface areas. Applicant has confirmed that the impervious surface reported in the RCWD CAPROC (8.7 acres) is the correct amount. This aligns with HydroCAD modeling, and water quality requirements for this amount are being met. The City recommends the applicant update their SWMP to reflect this number. SWMP updated to relate to 8.7 acres of proposed new impervious. 7.See Table C3 in RCWD Rule C: St ormwater Management Plans for maximum curve numbers for existing conditions and adjust modeling accordingl y. See section 4b for adjustments to curve numbers for proposed conditions. Curve numbers changed to match RCWD rules 8.The applicant shall confirm that the names of wetlands match between the existing conditions map and the existing conditions HydroCAD model. Node IDs are changed 9.The applicant shall provide the wetland susceptibility class, bounce, and inundation periods for impacted wetlands. See Table C4 and section 8 in RCWD Rule C. None of the wetlands provide retention or significant bounce in existing or proposed conditions because there is not a we ll-defined storage or outlet component. The submitted HydroCAD model indicates that wetlands on the site have storage and outlets. Please provide wetland susceptibility class, bounce, and inundation periods for impacted wetlands. Summary will be provided in the updated SWMP. The total bounce in the wetlands is less than 1 foot for the 100-year rainfall event. The outlets and storage are modeled as natural overflow weirs with typical undulating bottoms for storage. Wetland summary not provided in SWMP revision submitted; applicant must show with final SWMP revision wetland summary requirements noted above are being met. SWMP is updated with wetland summary bounce and inundation requirements. 10. The applicant shall refer to Table C5 in RCWD Rule C for soil infiltration rates. Comment Noted Applicant shall update infiltration rate in HydroCAD model for IB10 to be consistent with soil boring and Table C5. Soil boring SB-2 was placed in the infiltration area. The soil was described as silty sand overlying coarse-grained sand. This is consistent with an infiltration rate of 0.45. 11.The applicant shall update wa ter quality standards to be consistent with the requirement to treat 1.1-inches of runoff for new or reconstructed impervious surface per section 6c of RCWD Rule C. See Table C1 in RCWD Rule C for the TP removal factor for stormwater ponds and apply as necessary. The applicant shall verify that the site is meeting water quality treatment standards. Meeting the standards is not feasible on this site due to the high water table. The applicant needs to meet water quality standards for the site. Please update Appendix C to account for the TP removal factor indicated for stormwater ponds (Table C1 in RCWD Rule C or Table 2 in Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances Chapter 1011). The applicant shall consider including a water quality discussion in Section 2 of the Stormwater Management Plan. Updated TP removals will be included in the updated SWMP Updated TP not included in the revised Appendix C. Per RCWD CAPROC, water quality requirements are being met. It is recommended that applicant include a water quality discussion in section 2. RCWD has approved this plan. Please verify that the city will require this. All ponds are designed to NURP standards. All ponds, basin expansions, the addition of infiltration, and enhancement of wetlands should cover TP requirements. Very little water is running directly offsite. The majority of the site is running through at least two of these (if not more) storm water practices. Total required water quality treatment removal for the 8.7 acres of impervious surface is being met by volume reduction and NURP ponds. Calculations are found in Appendix C of the SWMP. 12.The applicant shall verify HWLs for ponds. In some instances, they differ betwee n the HydroCAD modeling and the plans. HW Ls confirmed. The applicant shall revise the HWLs on the plans to match HydroCAD modeling. Plans are updated. Applicant shall clarify why two different 100-yr HWL and 10-day Snowmelt elevations are shown on the plans. Smaller text shows HydroCAD water levels. Larger text shows water levels provided by RCWD. Both are shown to compare the two. 13.The applicant shall clarify the intent of the low area on Outlot D. If intended to be a stormwater pond, please include it in modeling. Node added 14.The applicant shall revise the ACD number it varies throughout the Stormwater Management Plan and SWPPP narratives. Comment Noted and ditch ID consistent in report Addressed in Stormwater Management Plan. Applicant shall update the SWPPP. SWPPP updated per the SWMP. 15.The applicant shall verify the lot lines on Lot 12 Block 4, Lot 4 Block 1, and Lot 5 Block 1. It appears the structures may encroach on the drainage and utilit y easements. Plan updated. The applicant shall verify the lot lines on Lot 24 Block 7. It appears the structure may encroach on the drainage and utility easement. Lot lines revised in this area as well as pad locations. 16.The applicant shall include the bottom elevation of the infiltration basin on the grading plans. Elevations added. Applicant shall verify the bottom elevation, as it differs between HydroCAD model, plans, and Appendix C. Verify the culvert outlet elevation; outlet should be above the exfiltration elevation. As a note: planting medium is not necessary below the bottom of the infiltration basin. The infiltration is not intended to provide above-ground retention to prevent oversaturating the back yards of the adjacent lots. The area is a flat infiltration swale area. The plan and HydroCAD Model now show the outlet elevation equal to the infiltration basin bottom. Note that with this design, infiltration volume credit cannot be claimed for IB10 and the SWMP must be updated. Volume of infiltration is the ponded volume (volume from basin bottom to the outlet elevation). Outlet for infiltration basin 10 raised 0.5’ above bottom of basin. Per RCWD comments, infiltration volumes have been updated. 17.The applicant shall verify the retention volume calculation for Pond 400 in Appendix C as there appears to be an error. The volumes are correct. 18.If needed, the opportunity may exist to maximize infiltra tion at the infiltration basin b y constructing the basin to minimize the separation between the bottom of the basin and the water table. The basin needs minimum 3 feet separation from the water table and cannot be lowered. 19.The applicant shall verify that the HWL of the Infiltration Basin is 2.0 feet below the low entry elevations of surrounding buildings. Separation requirement is met 20.The applicant shall display and label emergenc y overflows with spot elevat ions and drainage arrows at all ponds and sags, specificall y at the intersection of Street A and Street C and at the cul-de-sac of Street C. EOF’s added. 21. The applicant shall confirm that there is a 10-ft. setback between the HW L of the infiltration basin and the drainage and utility easements. HW L is covered by easement. 22. The applicant shall verify that the top berm of stormwater ponds is 2 ft. above the HW L of the pond. Berm updated. 23.The applicant shall label the safety bench on the plans. It shall be at least 10-ft wide. The pond slope cannot be greater than a 3:1 slope. Comment noted. The applicant shall label the safety bench on the plans. Safety bench label added. 24. The storm sewer system and grading in the rear yards of Lot 1-3 Block 1 should be evaluated to eliminate the middle structure and provide one EOF. The CB between Lot1 & 2 should be moved north onto Lot 2 so that it is not on the property li ne. This is not possible to maintain minimum slopes. 25. The applicant shall update the drainage area characteristics for Pond 100 in Appendix C. While the calculations appear to be correct, the applicant shall update all ponds in Appendix C to indicate that 1.1” of runoff is the required water quality volume for new impervious area. Included in the updated SWMP 26. The applicant shall confirm the elevations of the broad crested rectangular weir outlets of Ponds P200. Weir elevation updated in the model 27. The applicant shall verify NWLs (Pond 300, Wetland C) and 100-year HWLs (Pond 400) in Table 1. Note that infiltration basins do not have NWLs. Normal water levels verified. 28. It is highly recomme nded (MPCA Stormwater Manual) that pond liners be installed at wet po nds in A or B soils. The MPCA stormwater manual recommends a liner for ponds in A or B soil to maintain permanent pool. The ponds on the development intersect the water table so a liner is not necessary. The applicant shall note that proposed water quality ponds are not within a Source Water Protection Area therefore they are not required to have a liner. However, it will be the responsibility of the Developer to show that the proposed dead pool volume can be maintained after construction. Based on the water levels of the wetlands on-site, the dead pool volumes of the proposed ponds are assumed to be maintained post construction. 29. The applicant shall confirm that the starting elevations for the HydroCAD modeled storm pond storage start at the bottom of the pond (and not below). Specific to Ponds P200. Pond 200 starts at 901.5 and the v-notch weir is set at 901.5. 30. On the Anoka County ditch system, there shall be consideration for beaver guards at all surface water structures Beaver guards will be discussed and confirmed with the ditch authority. 31. The applicant shall provide a design option, in coordination with RCWD, of culvert 3 that would reduce the susceptibility to being plugged by beavers. Please verify this is needed or can be something the City takes care of? This is not an engineering design standard. The ditch will be maintained by RCWD and Lake 200 will be the responsibility of the home owners association. If a Beaver prevention devise is used it would installed with the culvert and to be included in the plans. We will send the engineering information as we receive it. Plans updated with Clemson beaver pond leveler. The applicant shall send the Beaver device to the ditch authority for approval/acknowledgement. 32. The applicant shall include flumes at the west end of Street C or provide information as to how the runoff will be maintained on site. See updated plans. The end of Street C will be directed south to the FES added with this revision. • Water Supply There is an existing 12 inch diameter trunk watermain located along CSAH 14 (Main Street). The Nature’s Refuge development is proposed to be served by extending 8-inch diameter DIP watermain from an existing 8-inch diameter DIP watermain stub where Street A meets Main Street (CSAH 14), and installing 1-inch diameter Type K copper services. The City’s Comprehensive Plan requires that a 16 inch diameter trunk main be extended north/south in this area. The proposed watermain extends west and north for future connection / looping. Comments: 1.The applicant shall loop the system along the west side of Lot 25 Block 4 from Street C to Main Street. Watermain loop added. The watermain on L1B8 shall be located (moved east) under the trail in the outlot verses in an easement on the west side of the lot. Watermain relocated under the trail in Outlot E. 2.The applicant shall install 16 inch diameter trunk wa termain from Main Street north through the development. Along west side of Lot 25 Block 4 and to the north extents of Street C. Trunk oversizing credits will apply. Watermain sizing updated. 3.Watermain shall be extended north along Street C under ACD 10-22-32. Watermain extended to the northern property line. 4.16 inch Gate Valves should be added east of Street D and just south of the ditch crossing. Valves added 5.The existing hydrant along Main St will need to be relocated for the trail. The existing hydrant should be moved when the trail along Main Street is installed. See comments on trail below. Also, by moving the hydrant, their will need to be a temporary easement provided in the exception piece and will have to be placed at the right of way line. The installation of the trail and hydrant relocation would be better constructed when the additional right of way is acquired by the county. 6.Trees should not be planted on top of the watermain (20’ clear above) on Outlot E and shall be 10-15’ back from the trail. Landscape plans revised. • Sanitary Sewer There is an existing 21 inch diameter trunk sanitary sewer located along CSAH 14 (Main Street). The Nature’s Refuge development is proposed to be served by extending 8-inch diameter PVC sanitary sewer throughout the development from an existing sanitary sewer manhole in Main Street (CSAH 14) just south of Outlot E, and installing 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC services. The City’s Comprehensive Plan requires that the sanitary system serves the future lift station and forcemain of Sanitary Sewer Sub-District 2K, discharging to the northernmost proposed manhole in Street C. Comments: 1.The applicant shall increase the mainline sanitary sewer in Street C and D to 10 inch diameter at minimum grade 0.28%. Trunk oversizing credits will appl y. Sanitary sewer sizing updated. 2.The existing sanitary sewer stub at Main St and Street A shall be properly abandoned and plugged at the Manhole. Note added to abandon. 3.The applicant shall add a note that sanitary services require the contractor to provide X, Y and Z GPS coordinates of wyes and service ends for future locating requirements. This will be noted on final construction plans. 4.The applicant shall add a note that sanitary sewer pipe be installed with a tracer wire. A tracer wire box shall be provided at the surface for the ends of the sanitary sewer service tracer wire to provide access to wire ends for future locating requirements. This will be noted on the final construction plans. 5.Sanitary Sewer shall be extended north along Street C under ACD 10-22-32. Sanitary sewer extended to the northern propert y line. 6.Sanitary Sewer shall be extended west along Street C from the most westerly manhole to the same extent as the watermain. Sanitary stub added. 7. L2B8 should call out a cleanout on the sanitary sewer service. The service has been extended into the lot (to be installed with development). Cleanouts are shown every 100’ • Transportation The Na ture’s Refuge subdivision is proposed on the north side of Main Street (CSAH 14) between Lake Drive (CSAH 23) and 4th Avenue. Acce ss will be from a new street connection (Street A) to Main Street (CSAH 14). The development will be set for future extensions to the west, north, and to Lino Lakes Element ary. To improve access control on Main Street, the City is working with School to remove their west access and connect to Nature’s Refuge. A Traffic Study e valuating the Nature’s Refuge development was submitted by Spack Consulting. The development includes 60 single family homes that are anticipated to generate approximately 565 new trips per day, 45 new trips in the a.m. peak hour and 60 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Comments: 1. The Study needs to provide an anal ysis of the existing LOS with and without the proposed development as outlined in the Section 1001.013(2)(c). See revised memo from Spack. The revised Traffic Study addressed a portion of this comment. The Study should also consider what the impacts are for an interim analysis a year after the development is completed as well as the no-build conditions without development for comparison. The May 17, 2018 revised Traffic Study addressed a portion of this comment: on page 5 for the planning level screening analysis b y including the 2015 no-build analysis. Howe ver, an interim year was not considered to address when improvements with a two lane facility may be need prior to the 4 lane facility being constructed. In addition, the Intersection Anal ysis on page 7 and 8 did not include the 2015 no-build or interim year analysis. Following discussions with the developers engineer an updated revised Traffic Study dated June 4, 2018 was prepared to address the remaining portion of the comment. The Stud y now includes the analysis of the interim 2021 conditions with the proposed development with existing geometric conditions. Noted per comment above. 2.Projected traffic from any future phases of development (extension of Street B, Street C, and Lino Lakes Elementary) that would use Street A to access Main Street (CSAH 14) should be included in the analysis. See revised memo from Spack. 3.It is anticipated that Street A would require designated turn lanes at Main Street. The Study should evaluate the intersection of the new Site Ac cess Street (Street A) and Main Street (CSAH 14) for both safety and operations. It is anticipated that Anoka Count y Highwa y Department will require right and left turn lanes on CSAH 14 (Main Street). The turn lane construction shall be add throughout the preliminary plat documents. Turn lanes denoted throughout the plans. Detailed turn lane construction plans will be part of the final construction plans. Turn lane construction plans shall be submitted. Turn lane plans attached. Plans submitted to Anoka County for review. The curb should extend from the east into the development? Looking at street plans and turn lane plans there would be a gap in the curb. Applicant to detail how the curb will drain and the ditch for the turn lanes. Generally, how is the drainage from the turn lanes being accommodated? Plans have been revised and submitted to the county – Per discussion with the county, drainage across the intersection is ok. A 20-scale blow-up of the intersection with regards to drainage can be found on sheet T2. Curb to wrap into the site on the east side of the entrance and be removed on the west to match existing drainage patterns. 4. Upgrading Main Street (CSAH 14) to a 4-lane roadway has been identified by both Anoka Count y and the City for some time in the future but has not been programed. Therefore, should the analysis show that existing conditions do not require improvements at Street A and Main Street (CSAH 14), documentation should be provided of when in the future with the existing lane configurations the improvements would be needed. See revised memo from Spack. 5.Assuming that the intersection of Main Street (CSAH 14) and Lake Drive (CSAH 23) will be addre ssed in the future, no further analysis over what is included in the current Traffic Study would be required. Comment noted. 6. Street A and Street C shall be 32 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb. The plans current l y show back of curb. As discussed, 32’ back to back is acceptable. 7.The cul-du-sac widths can be reduced to 28 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb. Cul-de-sacs have been updated to 28’ back to back. As discussed, 28’ back to back is acceptable. Cul-de-sacs shall be 30’ back to back. Cul-de-sac widths updated to 30’ back to back. 8.The ACD 10-22-32 crossing shall be wide enough to accommodate the road, a 5 foot buffer and an 8.5 foot wide trail with 4:1 side slope tapers. Ditch crossing updated. Street C extended to the northern property line. 9.The future trail extension along 10-22-32 should be relocated to the same crossing as Street C. Thus there would only be one ditch crossing. Ditch crossing updated. 10.There is a future trail planned along the north side of Main Street. The plans shall include the grading for this trail. This will likely also require hydrant relocation. Grading for a future trail has been incorporated. Hydrants will be relocated at the time of trail construction. The trail should be constructed from L2B8 to Street A. From a quick review at this area, the proposed trail is set 8 feet behind the proposed curb line. In order to construct the trail, there will need to be approximately a 10 to 15 foot grading easement in the exception piece. The trail would be better constructed when the county is able to acquire this portion of right of way. Staff agrees additional right of way or easement would be needed. Noted. 11.The applicant shall remove the trees identified in the Landscaping Plan from the sight line triangle of Street A and Main Street (CSAH) 14. Revised per city comments. 12.Trees at the intersection of Street A & C should be moved from the site lines. Landscape plans revised. 13.A bituminous trail is recommended through this site. As noted in the we tland section of this report the proposed location, along Lots 1-6 Block 3, is within the 25 foot buffer and should be relocated. The proposed trail location is allowed by RCWD rules and will therefore not be relocated. According to RCWD Rule F 6(e)(7)(iii) – Buffer may enclose a linear surface for non-motorized travel no more than 10 feet in width. The linear surface must be at least 25 feet from the wetland edge. The area of the linear surface will not be eligible for replacement credit. For projects proposing non- motorized travel no more than 10 feet in width, the linear surface may be reduced to less than 25 feet from the wetland edge based on compelling need and a TEP recommendation to the District in support that the wetland protection afforded is reasonable given the circumstances. Per Kjolhaug Environmental Services. 14.The proposed sidewalks were reviewed. Pedestrian curb ramps will be required, and reviewed with the final construction plans. Comment noted. 15.Street C temporary cul du sac should have continual curb and gutter and temporary paved eyebrows. The storm sewer will need to be adjusted. Temporary cul-de-sac and storm sewer has been updated. 16. The Revised Traffic Study provided a summary of the Level of Service for each intersection movement for CSAH 14 and Street A. It concludes that in the build 2030 and build 2030+ conditions the southbound left turn would operate at a LOS F. Are the recommended improvements discussed on page 9 of the Study included with the build analysis? If not, what is the change in Level of Service with these improvements? What is the Level of Service for the interim year (see comment #1)? What is the Level of Service in the no-build condition? This comment was not addressed in the May 17, 2018 revised Traffic Study. Following discussion with the developers engineer an updated revised Traffic Study, dated J une 4, 2018 was prepared which did address the comment. The Study concluded that a southbound right turn lane would be needed at the CSAH 14 and Street A intersection. It appears the preliminary plat roadwa y width accommodates this and should be verified with the final plat (striping plan). Noted per comment above. 17. The applicant shall move the trail crossing to the intersection of Street C and Street E. Trail crossing updated. Ped crossing signs and striping should be added. Noted. Pedestrian signs and striping will be added in final plans. Striping added on site plans. 18. The applicant shall widen the sidewalk in front of Block 8, Lot 1 to 8.5 feet between the trail connections. Trail in front of Lot 1, Block 8 updated. L1B8 shall be 8.5’ wide concrete sidewalk vs trail. Revised to concrete. 19. The applicant shall show striped crosswalks for the trail crossings with the final plat. Crosswalk markings added. Please add to the intersection of Street C and Street E. Striping added to preliminary and final plans. 20. Applicant shall adjust slopes on the back side of the trail to be a 4:1 specifically at the ACD 10-22-32 ditch crossing. This may require extending the culvert length. Side slopes of trail checked, and are proposed at 4:1 slope. 21. The applicant should install a fence or guardrail on the east side of the trail near Sta. 8+25. Fence/Guardrail to be installed. 22. It is suggested that the applicant move the trail crossing near Sta. 8+25 to the south, away from the ditch crossing. Note: the low point location would be adjusted so that the catch basins do not interfere with the pedestrian ramps. Trail crossing unable to be moved. 23. Street lights shall be shown on the plans. Street lights have been added to final signing and striping plans. There should be a street light at the intersection of Street A and Main Street. The light at Street B could be moved and mid-block light location adjusted. Street lights adjusted. 24. The roadway typical sections shall include the city’s standard 2’ of subgrade replacement. The geotechnical report does not specifically identify that the in place material meets the subgrade specifications. Detail revised to show 2’ subgrade replacement. 8” of Class 5 and 2’ of Select Granular required. Please edit detail. Revised streets sections to newer details. Note that 6” of class 5 and an approved subgrade are shown. See response received below from Paul Gionfriddo with Haugo regarding the subgrade section. The soils encountered in the borings are predominantly poorly graded sand poorly, graded sand with silt or silty sand which correspond to the ASTM Classification SP, SP- SM and SM, respectively. Soils meeting the ASTM Classifications SP or SP-SM have P- 200 contents less than 12 % and soil meeting MN/DOT specifications for Select Granular Borrow must have P-200 content less than 12%. The on-site soils Classified as SP or SP-SM already meet the MN/DOT requirement for select granular. This is generally discussed in the Pavement Section (Section 4.11) in the geo report and we recommended using an R-Value of 50 for pavement design. Paul Gionfriddo HGTS 612-271-8185 Please update standard detail plates to be 2020. • Wetlands and Mitigation Plan The Na ture’s Refuge development site includes 7 wetlands on 41.55 acre s as outlined in the WCA Notice of Decision approved b y RCWD. The plan proposes to fill 2 acres of wetlands, some of whi ch are denoted as “high priority wetlands” in the cit y’s Comprehensive Plan. A wetland sequencing application wa s submitted by Kjolhaug Envi ronmental Services to RCWD on January 8, 2018 and is currently incomplete. Approval of a complete sequencing application and submittal and approval of a wetland replacement plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. Wetlands are being reviewed by the Environmental Coordinator. Noted. Wetlands on the project are located within the Wetland Management Corridor and will require mitigation as noted in Rice Creek Watershed District’s Rule F (Wetland Alteration), Section 6(b). Wetland 1 is not located within the WMC. All other wetlands are located within the WMC. Per Kjolhaug Environmental Services. 1. An average 50-foot buffer (25-foot minimum) will be required around all wetland areas following construction. It does not appear that the proposed buffers meet the minimum buffer requi rement in all locations. In an effort to minimize impacts to wetlands yet meet project purpose and need, proposed WMC buffer does not meet minimum requireme nts along some areas of proposed wetland fill. A variance application for these areas will be submitted to RCWD for review with the revised Wetland Permit. Per Kjolhaug Environmental Services. 2. A 10-foot bituminous trail is proposed within the upland buffer adjacent to the wetland in Outlot B. This trail must maintain 25-feet from the edge of the we tland. The City’s Environmental Coordinator is reviewing the wetland buffer areas. Noted. 3. Two deep (30+ foot deep) ponds (Pond 200 and Pond 300) are proposed adjacent to wetlands within the project. The adjacent wetlands are denoted as “high priority wetlands” in the city’s Comprehensive Plan and are noted as having exceptional vegetative diversity. The applicant shall take steps to ensure that the ponds will not drain the adjacent wetland areas. In the WCA Wetland Replacement Plan, the developer shall provide a plan to protect adjacent wetlands, the plan shall also include a mitigation plan if the wetlands are impacted post construction. With regards to pond construction and potential drainage effects on adjacent wetlands: • Pond 300 in the northeast portion of the development area will be a maximum of 22 feet deep, has a predicted NWL of 902-ft, and has no outlet (no outlet structure or emergency overflow). In reality, the open water portion of Pond 200 will be the elevation of the local water table and will vary throughout the year as the water table does because the pond does not have a controlled outlet to stabilize water levels. Because the pond does not have an outlet to drawn water down, it will not drain nearby wetlands (there is no where to drain the water if there is no outlet). For these reasons, drainage effects to Wetlands 3, 3a, or 3b from Pond 200 construction are not expected to occur. A similar pond with no outlet was constructed onsite sometime after 1991 near the proposed wetland banking wetland. That large, deep, open-water pond was excavated adjacent to wetland and has not resulted in wetland drainage. • Pond 200 will be excavated in around the west end of ACD 10-22-32 (west of the current ditch crossing). The ditch currently drains freely to the west (no controlled outlet). Water levels in the ditch were measured at 901.5-feet by the engineer. Therefore, newly constructed Pond 200 will have an OSC with V notch weir invert of 901.5-ft with the top of the weir at 902.5-ft. The adjacent wetland the southeast (Wetland 2) will have a NWL of 902.0-ft, and will have a raised outlet (EOF only) at 902.5-ft. Wetland 2 will need to be inundated with over 6 inches of water to outlet to Pond 200. That occurrence alone, usually occurring early in the growing season, will meet wetland hydrology requirements. For the remainder of the growing season, Pond 200 and adjacent Wetland 2 water levels will fluctuate with precipitation events and normal seasonal water table level variations. For these reasons, drainage effects to Wetland 2 from Pond 200 construction are not expected to occur. • Wetland 4 to the northwest of Pond 200 will not have an outlet, will not be connected to Pond 200, and will be physically separated by the pond maintenance bench/berm. For these reasons, drainage effects to Wetland 4 from Pond 200 construction are not expected to occur. • The current and proposed ditch crossing culvert invert elevations and size are equal pre and post development. Therefore, drainage effects to upstream wetlands are not expected to occur. Per Kjolhaug Environmental Services Appli cant is submitting a geotechnical report addressing the existing wetland & soil conditions and present any proposals to protect the adjacent wetlands as needed. See attached Wetland permit application. Geotechnical report to be submitted when received. 4.A review of the DNR’s Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) Database revealed that rare fea tures have been recorded in or near the wetlands on the property. In 2002, toothcup (Rotala ramosior), a state threatened species, was located within one wetland that is proposed to be filled. Autumn fimbry (Fimbristylis autumnalis) and Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) have also been recorded near the project site. The developer will need to coordinate with the DNR to obt ain a permit for the take (destroy, dig up, dispose of, possess, or transport) of threatened or endangered species. MnRAM guidance and the 2017 Native Plant Communities Assessment Final Report prepared by CCE S have been reviewed. Based on this review and for WCA/RCWD purposes, vegetation quality for all wetlands onsite was determined to be low, with an associated RCWD wetland degradation status of marginally to severely degraded. Specifically: (1) rare plants found onsite are not persistent and therefore item i of the special features tab in MnRAM does not apply and vegetation quality is Low, and (2) although the Native Plant Communities Assessment Final Report identified rare species onsite, the report also states that (paraphrasing) “these rare species were located within areas dominated by crops or agricultural weeds. While state-listed species do occur within cropland and farmed wetland areas, their presence alone is not enough to classify these areas as native plant communities or rare native plant communities.” Rare plants were primarily found in disturbed, annually farmed wetland fringe areas. Per Kjolhaug Environmental Services. 5.The ghost plat shown in Outlot B on the north end of the project (Sheet 10) appears to propose future wetland impacts. These impacts should be taken into account during the sequencing efforts discussed by the Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel. Road alignments should be considered that would minimize future wetland impacts. The ghost plat is now shown to be proposed and has been modified to prevent wetland impacts. A permit to take has been submitted to DNR by CCES for all rare species located in the development footprint (areas that will be physically altered/graded/converted to another use). It is important to note that the presence of rare species onsite is largely a function annual soil disturbance/farming practices. Once farming practices on the site cease (with or without development), rare species occurrence on the site is predicted to drop. Per Kjolhaug Environme ntal Services. • Geotechnical A geotechnical evaluation was completed in response to the concerns over draining the adjacent Pin Oak wetland and impacts to adjacent wells. 1. The introductory paragraph and overall report shall provide recommendations for not only “dewatering” but also reference the” large borrow areas (Ponds 200 & 300) adjacent to existing wetlands”. To be provided with updated Ge o report. 2. The applicant shall provide a map of identifyin g the location and quantity of piezometers and another map of auger probes. To be provided with updated Ge o report. 3. The applicant shall provide an evaluation of subsurface geologic feature mapping that can suspend water, or drain with the ground water flow in the absence of geologic “lens”. The Minnesota Ge ologic surve y would be a good reference and soil augerings, mentioned above, to verify lens or no lens. To be provided with updated Ge o report. 4. The applicant shall provide a document specifically outline the plan to address well impacts and a plan to address wetland impacts that may occur as a result of this development. The plan may include items sugge sted in geotechnical memo, clay berms and clay lining of the borrow areas. To be provided with updated Ge o report. 5. We recommend that the City, through the Development Agreement, require securities for mitigation costs associated with protecting the adjacent Pin Oak we tland and adjacent wells. Noted. Wetlands are being reviewed by the Environmental Coordinator. Noted. • Floodplain The floodplain within the Nature’s Refuge development is a Zone A. The 2015 DFIRM base flood elevation (BFE) from RCWD modeling identifies the BE F elevations of 904.5 (easterly floodplain) and 904.2 (westerly floodplain). The applicant is proposing to fill 37 cubic yards of floodplain and mitigat e onsite. There are 29,533 cubic yards of floodplain mitigation proposed on site. 1. Floodplain impacts are proposed on site due to stormwater ponding and structures, and Lots 4-5 Block 3. A LOMR will be required. The applicant shall provide a copy of the CLOMR application to the City. The LOMR is to be in place prior to final plat. This is not required as the floodplain boundary does not encroach any of the lots. Noted. The applicant is not proposing FEMA floodplain changes at this time. • Drainage and Utility Easements The municipal infrastructure proposed with the Nature’s Refuge Preliminary Plat is generally within public right of way, easements and outlot. 1. Anoka Count y requires 75 foot right of way be dedicated along Main Street (CSAH 14). Right of wa y updated along Main Street. 75 feet of right of way provided. 2.The right of way shown i n the Ghost Plat shall be dedicated with the Plat. Ghost plat is now shown to be proposed. 3.Street A, at Main Street (CSAH 14), will require turn lanes and thus additional right of way. Turn lanes added. No further Right of Wa y required. 4.Lot 25 Block 1 shall have a 20 foot drainage and utilit y easement for watermain looped connection. Easement added. 5.Lot 5 Block 1 shall be chamfe red at the northeast corner to accommodate future access to Pond 100. Plan updated and access path added. 6.Bituminous trails shall be within 25 foot easements if not within right of way or outlot. Bituminous trail is only proposed in right of way or an outlot. Trail easements should be dedicated. Trail easements will be provided with separate document. Ownership of Outlots also to be determined. • Development Agreement A development agreement will be required with the final plat. Comment noted. • Grading Agreement Not applicable at this time. Comment noted. • Stormw ater Maintenance Agreeme nt A Stormwater Maintenance agreement will be required with the final pl at. Comment noted. Per RCWD CAPROC (5-22-2019; Permit 17-122), the applicant will be responsible for submitting a maintenance agreement to the District, under which the applicant will be responsible for maintaining pond and crossings of the public drainage system (ACD 10-22-32) to ensure drainage function is maintained. The storm sewer system and treatment ponds may be covered under the City’s programmatic agreement. The maintenance agreement to be coordinated with the owner. In Process with owner. A draft Declaration for Stormwater Management should be submitted for review. Where RCWD is referenced the City should be added. A figure to identify City maintained verses HOA maintained should be submitted. • Permits Required The following permits shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Comment noted. Permits will be obtained. Permits #3 & #4 will be obtained prior to final utility construction. The applicant should identify the status of permits below. Comments: 1. NPDES Construction Ge neral Permit 2. City of Lino Lakes Zoning Permit for Grading 3. Minnesota Department of Health Watermain Extension Permit 4. MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit 5. Anoka Count y Permit for Work Within the ROW 6. Rice Creek Watershed Permit for Erosion and Sediment Control 7. Rice Creek Watershed Permit for Wetland Alteration 8. Rice Creek Watershed Permit for Stormwa ter Management (Rule C) 9. Rice Creek Watershed Permit for Floodplain Alteration (Rule E) 10. Rice Creek Watershed Permit for ACD 10-22-32 Alteration 11. FE MA Letter of Map Revision 12. DNR Permit for the Take or Endangered or Threatened Species Incidental to a Development Project. 13. DNR Water Appropriations Permit (for Construction Dewatering) • US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit If you or the applicant has any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diane Ha nkee at (651) 982-2430 or diane.hankee@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us.  Page 1 Memo To: Katie Larsen From: Andy Nelson Date: July 29, 2020 Re: Environmental Coordinator Comments Environmental has the following comments about Nature’s Refuge: • Tree protection fence shall be installed then approved by the City Forester prior to any construction activities occurring on the site. Tree protection fence should appear on the Tree Preservation Plan; Grading, Development, and Erosion Control Plans at the correct dimensions (one foot radius from trunk per inch diameter at breast height) as called for in the Details Plate. • Update Planting Notes on Site Landscape Plan to match Details Plate on tree protection fence specifications. Tree protection fence should be installed at one foot radius from trunk per inch diameter at breast height (DBH) for all existing trees to be saved. • Trees in Open Space areas and around storm water ponds should be fire- resistant species, such as oaks, to allow for future maintenance with prescribed fire. Replace trees that are not fire-tolerant with oaks. Environmental 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 20-81 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUD FINAL PLAN/FINAL PLAT FOR NATURE’S REFUGE WHEREAS, the City received an application for Nature’s Refuge PUD Final Plan/Final Plat approval hereafter referred to as Development; and WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the proposed Development based on the following plans and information: • Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Construction Plans prepared by Carlson McCain dated January 16, 2020 • Grading, Development & Erosion Control Plans prepared by Carlson McCain dated March 6, 2020 • Preliminary Plan Set prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 12, 2019 • Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 7, 2019 • Net Area Exhibit prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 12, 2019 • Site Landscape Plan prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 27, 2019 • Final plat prepared by Carlson McCain received April 28, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council the approved the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat with Resolution No. 18-70 on June 25, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the Development on July 10, 2019; and WHEREAS, the proposed Development is not considered premature and meets the performance standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The final plat substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed below. 2. The City Attorney reviewed the status of title/property ownership related to the final plat and has comments as noted below. 3. A Development Agreement has been drafted and shall be executed. 4. Conditions attached to approval of the preliminary plat have been fulfilled or secured by the Development Agreement. 5. All fees, charges and escrow related to the preliminary or final plat have been paid in full. 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves Nature’s Refuge PUD Final Plan/Final Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Outlots A thru F shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA). a. The developer is responsible for the installation and establishment of landscaping and fences. b. The HOA i s responsible for the long term maintenance of landscaping and fences except for boulevard trees. The City shall install and maintain boulevard trees. 2. Outlots A, B and D are protected by a recorded Easement (Conservation) and Declaration (Wetland Buffer). a. The developer is responsible for the installation and establishment of landscaping and vegetation per Attachment B of the Declaration. b. The City shall inspect and accept such landscaping and vegetation. c. The HOA is responsible for the long term maintenance of the landscaping, vegetation and wetland monument signs. 3. Outlot G shall be deeded to 801 Main Street and the two (2) parcels shall be combined. 4. Per the City’s Programmatic Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with RCWD, the City will be responsible for maintenance of Pond 100, Pond 400, Infiltration Basin 10 and Infiltration Basin 20. ACD 10-22-32 ditch crossing/culvert will also be maintained by the City under a separate maintenance agreement. Lake 200 and Lake 300 are being excavated by the developer for material fill on site and shall be maintained by the HOA and covered by a declaration of stormwater maintenance. RCWD will continue to maintain ACD 10-22-32. 5. A Permanent Trail easement shall be recorded over the trail corridor. a. The developer is responsible for the installation of the trail. b. The City is responsible for long term maintenance of the trail. 6. The existing pole barn and garage near 635 Main Street shall be removed prior to issuance of a grading permit. i. A demolition permit is required. 7. The existing gravel driveway access onto CSAH 14 (Main Street) shall be removed with the issuance of a grading permit. 8. Resolution No. 18-70 approving the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat provided the following flexibilities: a. Reduced minor collector road right-of-way width from 80 feet to 60 feet on Glenwood Street and Haywood Drive. b. Reduced front setback from 40 feet to 30 feet on Glenwood Street and Haywood Drive. c. Reduced paved road surface width from 32 feet to 30 feet (back to back) on cul de sac Hazelwood Court and cul de sac Elwood Court. 9. The regulations and performance standards of the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district will be in effect unless otherwise detailed in Council resolution or Development Agreement. 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the Development subject to the following items being addressed prior to release of final plat mylars: 1. The Development Agreement shall be approved by the City Council, executed and recorded against the property. 2. Any staff comments requiring revisions to the final plat. 3. The final plat and title commitment shall be updated to address the following: a. The signatory on the plat does not match up with the title work. The plat is drafted to be signed by Preferred Builders, Inc. The title work shows title in preferred Properties and Management, LLC, a Wyoming LLC. b. There is a mortgage on the property reflected in paragraph 18 of Schedule B, Part II. As the mortgage company is not a signatory, consent is required. 4. The applicant shall prepare the deeds for Outlots A thru G for City review and approval. 5. Draft copies of the applicable Homeowner’s Association (HOA) documents shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording including but not limited to the following: a. Articles of Incorporation b. Bylaws c. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions 6. Draft copies of Easement and Declaration related to the wetlands and buffers shall be revised to include the City of Lino Lakes and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the Development subject to the following items being addressed prior to issuance of grading permit: 1. All comments from the City Engineer Memo dated July 22, 2020 shall be addressed. 2. All comments from Environmental Coordinator Memo dated July 29, 2020 shall be addressed. 3. A copy of the following recorded documents shall be submitted to the City: a. Homeowner’s Association (HOA) documents b. Deeds for Outlots A-G c. Permanent Trail Easement d. Easement and Declaration related to the wetlands and buffer e. Development Agreement 4. Proof that Outlot G and 801 Main Street have been combined shall be submitted to the City. 5. Sheet 2, Preliminary Plat: a. Net Density shall be revised to 1.68 lots per acre. b. Wetland Buffer shall be revised to14.73 acres. c. Street names shall be included. 4 Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 10th day of August, 2020. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ______________________________ Rob Rafferty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 20-82 RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR NATURE’S REFUGE WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Final Plat for Nature’s Refuge with Resolution No. 20-81 on August 10, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City’s subdivision ordinance and conditions of approval require the execution of a development agreement between the Developer and the City of Lino Lakes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the Development Agreement between Preferred Builders, Inc. and the City of Lino Lakes for Nature’s Refuge and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such agreement on behalf of the City. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 10th day of August, 2020. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Rob Rafferty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk WS – Item 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: August 3, 2020 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Birch Street (CSAH 34) Landscaping Improvements Background Anoka County is proceeding with final design of the Birch Street reconstruction project. The City Council directed staff to prepare some basic landscaping options for the two proposed roundabouts. WSB and Associates have drafted a couple options available for consideration. Each roundabout shows a basic concept and an enhanced design. Basic Design: • Includes low grow fescue. This turf can sometimes be difficult to establish, depending on soil types and weather conditions. Once established, it will only need to be mowed 2-3 times a year and requires minimal watering. • The center has a Mugo pine shrub surrounded by three trees, which can either be pine trees or a Hawthorn tree, which is smaller and has a wide horizontal branching pattern. Karl Foerster grass ornamental groupings are located in between so that the island will have appeal during winter as well. Enhanced Design: • Swaths of larger river rock mulch so that it only needs some spraying for weeds for less maintenance. • Smaller swaths of mass perennial plantings between the rock mulch for more summer color. One swath is the yellow daylily and the other catmint, which is a deep purple color. Both are very tolerant of high stress locations. General Notes: The plants selected will handle harsh conditions typical of a median and still survive. The Public Service department is reviewing the options from a maintenance standpoint and staff will provide any comments received at the work session. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council direction regarding landscaping design. Attachments 1. Roundabout landscaping examples K:\016591-000\Graphics\016591_Lino Lakes_Concept PlansLino Lakes, Minnesota July 24, 2020 | WSB Project number: 016591-000 Scale in Feet 20’0’10’ Lino Lakes Birch Street - Roundbout 1 WOOD MULCH BORDER CONCRETE PAVEMENT CENTER ISLAND - (3) PINES OR HAWTHORN TREES - MUGO PINE IN CENTER - KARL FOERSTER GROUPINGS RIVER ROCK MULCH DAYLILY GROUPING CATMINT GROUPING BASIC DESIGN ENHANCED DESIGN LOW GROW FESCUE BASIC DESIGN ENHANCED DESIGN PONDEROSA PINE OR HAWTHORN MUGO PINE KARL FOERSTER CATMINT YELLOW DAYLILY K:\016591-000\Graphics\016591_Lino Lakes_Concept PlansLino Lakes, Minnesota July 24, 2020 | WSB Project number: 016591-000 Scale in Feet 20’0’10’Lino Lakes Birch Street - Roundabout 2 WOOD MULCH BORDER CONCRETE PAVEMENT CENTER ISLAND - (3) PINES OR HAWTHORN TREES - MUGO PINE IN CENTER - KARL FOERSTER GROUPINGS RIVER ROCK MULCH DAYLILY GROUPING CATMINT GROUPING BASIC DESIGN ENHANCED DESIGN LOW GROW FESCUE BASIC DESIGN ENHANCED DESIGN PONDEROSA PINE OR HAWTHORN MUGO PINE KARL FOERSTER CATMINT YELLOW DAYLILY WS – Item #3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item Date: August 3, 2020 To: City Council From: John Swenson, Public Safety Director Re: CARES Act Funded Proposed Expenditures Background As discussed with Council at the meeting on July 27, 2020, staff is working to identify projects and purchases that serve public purpose and are complaint with the CARES Act funding eligibility requirements. As you know procurements and projects must be completed no later than November 15, 2020 which has created a tight timeline. Staff has reviewed the below projects/procurements and determined that they meet the eligibility requirements (necessary expenditures due to COVID-19, not accounted for in the most recently adopted budget, expenditures will be incurred during the covered period of March 1 to November 15, 2020) and is recommending moving forward with them utilizing CARES Act funding. 1. Fire Station #1 Remodel – The kitchen area at fire station #1 would be remodeled and expanded to accommodate social distancing, which is not possible with the current configuration. The total cost for this project will be $66,128. Please note that approximately $6,500 of this does not qualify for CARES Act funding, but funding will be provided through the Bldg and Facilities Fund. 2. Public Safety mobile computer update – Purchase three laptop computers, eight Toughbook laptop computers, and all needed peripherals (docking stations, port replicators, monitors). The total cost for this purchase will be $34,369. This purchase will provide for teleworking capabilities in the Public Safety Department. 3. LiveScan fingerprinting machine – Due to Covid-19 related restrictions and social distancing requirements we have suspended the service of fingerprinting residents for civil matters (adoption applications, employment backgrounds, etc.). The purchase of this LiveScan machine would enable staff to resume offering this service to residents. The total cost for this purchase will $30,000. Attachments Fire Station #1 Remodel Proposal LiveScan Proposal ONE VISION. ONE MISSION. LINO LAKES PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. Lino Lakes Public Safety Department Memo DATE: July 20, 2020 TO: John Swenson, Public Safety Director FROM: Daniel L’Allier, Deputy Director Public Safety - Fire Division RE: Kitchen and Break Area Remodel Last year we started to work towards updating facilities at Fire Station 1. This was a very large project and due to the cost, some of this work was pushed off to the 2020 budget cycle. The work that did not get completed under the 2019 budget cycle is updating the kitchen facilities at Fire Station 1. I am proposing that we move forward with completing these projects. The current kitchen is a hallway, it is very narrow and lacks space to prepare food. The current kitchen is 27 years old and the cabinet doors and drawer fronts are failing off the cabinets (Please see the attached photos). I have included a drawing of the kitchen space. The total for this project is $36,000.00 and will include all demolition and construction, new cabinets and appliances for the kitchen. By completing this project, it will greatly improve the utilization of the training room at Fire Station 1. With upgrading appliances with modern and more energy efficient equipment, it will provide the city with a reliable and cost saving option. Update: February 2020 I met with the General Contractor (Severson Construction) and the subcontractors before starting the kitchen remodel project at fire station 1 to verify their estimates had not changed and that we still would have enough money available in the budget to complete the project. After receiving the update, the estimated cost had increased to $51698.00. The Covid -19 Pandemic arrived and this project was placed on hold. ONE VISION. ONE MISSION. LINO LAKES PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. Update: June 2020 I again met with the General Contractor (Severson Construction) and the cost increased to $58298.00. I invited a 2nd general contractor (Valley Builders) to bid on the project and their cost was $66128.00. I did this because the cost estimate in February 2020 from Severson had increased significantly. To my surprise, the estimate from Valley Builders was even higher than Severson’s estimate. Update: July 2020 I spoke with both General Contractors and they both felt they could hold firm on the estimated cost of the project. The only thing that could cause an increase would be a Covid-19 Laborer issue and that would be an unforeseen problem (something like limited crew size or limited working hours). Both contractors suggested starting as soon as possible to help eliminate the possible Covid-19 concerns. They suggested starting in late November early December, this would have the project complete shortly after January 15, 2021. ONE VISION. ONE MISSION. LINO LAKES PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. Lino Lakes Public Safety TO: Director John Swenson FROM: Captain William Owens DATE: June 17, 2020 RE: LiveScan Device Director Swenson, as you are aware from our previous discussions, suspense files in our criminal justice records is a public safety concern for our agency. Because suspense records are incomplete criminal justice information, they impact our ability to accurately manage our records and have potential to impact our responsibility to issue firearms permits, clearance letters, and effectively assist prosecution of criminal offenses. I requested Records Tech Brooke Jacobson to investigate how we can impact suspense files from our agency. Ms. Jacobson provided the following information: When a criminal justice record is in ‘suspense,’ it means a court disposition cannot be linked to a criminal history arrest record. Suspended court dispositions have a serious impact across the criminal justice system.  An inaccurate criminal history could lead to convicted offenders being cleared for firearms purchases or employment in “sensitive” positions.  Public safety and security is eroded as flight risks increase.  A prosecutor’s efficiency can also be decreased because of the need to manage a noncustodial subject and ensure their processing. If the subject does not cooperate, contempt charged could lead to additional expenditure of time and resources.  The court’s efficiency can also be decreased because of a rescheduled court appearance and the need to spend time and resources correcting suspended court dispositions.  The effectiveness of courts can be reduced. Prosecutors and court personnel may be impeded because of an inability to: o Confirm subject’s identity o Confirm controlling agency (CAG) o Sufficiently review the subject’s criminal history o Successfully prosecute and adjudicate based on current and historical fact When fingerprint cards are not submitted to the BCA, suspended court dispositions can occur. There are a number of reasons why suspense records occur. o A subject being cited and released without booking o A subject appears in court and is not fingerprinted o Poor quality fingerprints were taken and rejected by either Livescan or the BCA without replacements being submitted o Arrest data being formatted incorrectly or omitted, causing rejection by Livescan or BCA o Other poorly-defined or followed business practices A subject having a Suspense record reflects an inaccurate criminal history of an offender. In turn, offenders having a Suspense record, officers do not have a correct criminal history of a subject for charging purposes or safety concerns. Our agency currently has 895 suspense records, the majority of which are DWIs. In 2017, there were 184 and in 2018, there were 91 DWIs arrests made. Suspense began being a priority in December 2017 and resolutions of more than 200 suspense records have been found. With that being said, it takes a significant amount of time to research each record. In previous years many different ideas were brought up in order for subjects to be fingerp rinted to resolve each record. Many have been used and almost all have failed to be a timely or reliable solution. Currently a record is researched to see what is missing, if a fingerprint card is needed then a fingerprint request form is filled out and sent to our contact in Probations. Probations then look up the subject and if they are on probation a letter is sent requesting fingerprints. If they are not on probation then the only option we have is to send a letter which has been drafted with the appropriate State Statute requesting the subject get fingerprinted at the Anoka County Jail. Our agency’s suspense can be greatly reduced with the use of a Livescan. Our officers do not have to leave the city to book a 4th Degree DWI. When they are at base with the subject the whole process can be done at the same time as the DMT. All the information that the officer obtains will then be directly submitted to the BCA, thus reducing our suspense. Ms. Jacobson proposes we “book” all our misdemeanor criminal offenses at the police station. This would meet statutory obligations to fingerprint and photograph subjects and will link the arrest to their criminal prosecution, thereby positively impacting suspense records in Lino Lakes. As Ms. Jacobson implies, the alternative to impacting our suspense files without completing a booking process at our police station, is to have our police officers begin to transport all misdemeanor criminal offenses to the Anoka County Jail for booking. This will impact our service abilities while those officers are out of the city. Beyond criminal suspense files, we may use the LiveScan device to assist us with civil fingerprint services and employment background processes. Currently we use ink and paper to take fingerprints for citizens. Using a LiveScan for this service will allow us to be more efficient and avoid person-to-person contact. BCA requirements for law enforcement agencies “booking” subjects requires fingerprints and photograph.