HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-2016 Council PacketEXPANDED AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, June 27, 2016
***********
6:30 p.m.
(Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16)
City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and Rafferty
City Administrator: Jeff Karlson
CLOSED MEETING, 5:30 P.M.
Council Work Room
Prior to the Work Session, the Council will convene for a closed meeting to discuss a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Lino Lakes and LELS.
COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M.
Community Room (not televised)
1. Discuss Condensing Units Repair/Replacement Options
Referred to July work session
2. Review Regular Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.
Roll Call - Council Members Rafferty, Kusterman, Manthey, Maher, and Mayor
Reinert were present
Pledge of Allegiance
Open Mike / Public Comment - none
Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items
The agenda was approved as amended to remove Item 3A.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) June 27, 2016 (Check No. 103901 through 103989 in the
amount of $566,030.08
B) Consider approval of June 6, 2016 Work Session Minutes
Council Member Kusterman absent
C) Consider approval of June 13, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider Resolution No. 16-63, Approving a Temporary On-Sale Liquor
License, a Cabaret License, an Exemption for Gambling Permit and Parade
Run permit for the Annual St. Joseph’s Catholic Church August Festival
E) Consider Approval of Check No. 103816 to Jorgenson Construction in the
amount of $102,805.02.
F) Consider Resolution 16-66, Peddler License for Insight Pest Solutions
Council Agenda -2- June 27, 2016
EXPANDED AGENDA
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Manthey, to approve the
Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1F, as presented, was adopted;
Council Member Kusterman abstained from voting on Item 1B
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with LELS Local
No. 299, Jeff Karlson
Deleted from agenda
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Promotion of Paid On-Call Firefighters to rank of Fire Lieutenant
Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
the promotions as recommended, was adopted
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A) Consider Resolution 16-60, Authorizing Application for Abatement/Addition
of Special Assessment, 550 Lilac Street, Michael Grochala
Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve
Resolution No. 16-60 as presented, was adopted
B) Consider Resolution No. 16-62, Accepting Feasibility Study, NE Drainage
Area Study, Diane Hankee
Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve
Resolution No. 16-62 as presented, was adopted
C) Watermark PUD Residential Community, Katie Larsen
i) Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-16 to Rezone Property from
R, Rural and R-BR, Rural-Business Reserve to PUD-Planned Unit
Development
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Manthey, to approve 2nd
Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 04-16 as presented, was adopted:
Yeas, 4; Nays none (Absent – Maher)
D) Arnt Construction Company, Inc. Temporary Batch Plant, Katie Larsen
i) Consider Resolution No. 16-58 Approving Interim Use Permit for Temporary
Batch Plant
Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve
Resolution No. 16-58 as amended to allow traffic on northbound Otter Lake
Road, was adopted
Council Agenda -3- June 27, 2016
EXPANDED AGENDA
ii) Consider Resolution No. 16-59 Approving Site Improvement Performance
Agreement
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Kusterman, to approve
Resolution No. 16-59 as presented, was adopted
E) Consider Resolution No. 16-61, Calling for Hearing on Tax Increment Financing
Plan, Clearwater Creek Business Park, Michael Grochala
Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
Resolution No. 16-60 as presented, was adopted
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to adjourn at 7:25 p.m. was
adopted
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
June 27, 2016 through July 11, 2016
Monday, June 29 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board
Thursday, July 2 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC
Monday, July 4 CLOSED INDEPENDENCE DAY
Tuesday, July 5 6:00 pm, Council Chambers Council Work Session
Monday, July 11 6:00 pm, Community Room Park Board
Updated 6/24/2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, June 27, 2016
***********
6:30 p.m.
(Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16)
City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and
Rafferty
City Administrator: Jeff Karlson
CLOSED MEETING, 5:30 P.M.
Prior to the Work Session, the Council will convene for a closed meeting to discuss a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Lino Lakes and LELS.
Council Work Room
COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M.
Community Room (not televised)
1. Discuss Condensing Units Repair/Replacement Options – To Follow
2. Review Regular Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.
Call to Order and Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Open Mike / Public Comment
Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) June 27, 2016 (Check No. 103901 through 103989 in the
amount of $566,030.08
B) Consider approval of June 6, 2016 Work Session Minutes
Council Member Kusterman absent
C) Consider approval of June 13, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider Resolution No. 16-63, Approving a Temporary On-Sale Liquor
License, a Cabaret License, an Exemption for Gambling Permit and Parade
Run permit for the Annual St. Joseph’s Catholic Church August Festival
E) Consider Approval of Check No. 103816 to Jorgenson Construction in the
Amount of $102,805.02.
F) Consider Resolution 16-66, Peddler License for Insight Pest Solutions
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
Council Agenda -2- June 27, 2016
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with LELS Local
No. 299, Jeff Karlson
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Promotion of Paid On-Call Firefighters to rank of Fire Lieutenant
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A) Consider Resolution 16-60, Authorizing Application for Abatement/Addition
of Special Assessment, 550 Lilac Street, Michael Grochala
B) Consider Resolution No. 16-62, Accepting Feasibility Study, NE Drainage
Area Study, Diane Hankee
C) Watermark PUD Residential Community, Katie Larsen
i) Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-16 to Rezone Property from
R, Rural and R-BR, Rural-Business Reserve to PUD-Planned Unit
Development
*Council may vote to dispense with full reading of ordinance
* Roll call vote is required for adoption of the ordinance
D) Arnt Construction Company, Inc. Temporary Batch Plant, Katie Larsen
i) Consider Resolution No. 16-58 Approving Interim Use Permit for Temporary
Batch Plant
ii) Consider Resolution No. 16-59 Approving Site Improvement Performance
Agreement
E) Consider Resolution No. 16-61, Calling for Hearing on Tax Increment Financing
Plan, Clearwater Creek Business Park, Michael Grochala
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
June 27, 2016 through July 11, 2016
Wednesday, June 29 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board
Thursday, July 2 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC
Monday, July 4 CLOSED INDEPENDENCE DAY
Tuesday, July 5 6:00 pm, Council Chambers Council Work Session
Monday, July 11 6:00 pm, Community Room Park Board
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2016
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
DATE : June 6, 2016 4
TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5
TIME ENDED : 10:10 p.m. 6
MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Rafferty, 7
Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 8
MEMBERS ABSENT : Councilmember Kusterman 9
10
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development 11
Director Michael Grochala; City Planner Katie Larsen; City Engineer Diane Hankee; 12
Finance Director Sarah Cotton; Public Safety Director John Swenson; City Clerk Julie 13
Bartell 14
15
1. Review 2015 Annual Audit, CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP – Finance Director 16
Cotton noted a written presentation before the council and introduced auditor 17
representatives. 18
19
Daniel Persaud, CliftonLarsonAllen, began the PowerPoint presentation (on file). He 20
noted review of internal controls, adding that there were no weaknesses indicated. They 21
do review legal compliance and found no exceptions. Regarding required 22
communications, he noted the reasonable assurance, new accounting policies, significant 23
accounting estimates, the change in estimate for depreciation and adjustments. 24
25
The council reviewed slides indicating cash and investments, expenses and the 26
expendable net position. Mr. Persaud reviewed with the council a graph of the city’s 27
revenues and expenditures in order to see any significant changes. It was noted that the 28
change in finance systems has allowed the depreciation within funds to occur more 29
regularly. 30
31
Chris Knopik, CliftonLarsonAllen, continued the presentation. He reviewed information 32
on expenditures and transfers from the city funds. In looking at the water and sewer 33
fund, there is a one year dip in operating income but it is really related to the effect of the 34
previously explained depreciation catch-up and it will correct itself next year. Another 35
graph indicated that the spendable position of the water and sewer funds is rising. Debt 36
service for the next five years was presented in a graph. Also pointed out was the City’s 37
receipt of the GFOA Certificate of Excellence in Finance Reporting and Governmental 38
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements. He noted finally that the change in 39
financial software is something they watch very carefully but that has been well managed 40
by the city. 41
42
Council Member Manthey noted the debt service graph and asked, looking past five 43
years, would it be typical to see debt going up and down? Mr. Knopik explained that it is 44
average to see debt coming on as other is paid off. Mayor Reinert suggested that 45
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2016
DRAFT
2
maintaining an even line on debt is favorable and allows the city to keep taxes from 46
rising. 47
48
It was noted that the audit consultants will be at the city council meeting to again present 49
the audit results. 50
51
2. VLAWMO Joint Powers Agreement – Mr. Grochala introduced Stephanie 52
McNamara, Administrator of the Vadnais Lakes Area Water Management Organization 53
(VLAWMO). The organization is created by a joint powers agreement among several 54
jurisdictions. 55
56
Ms. McNamara noted that VLAWMO represents a small area of Lino Lakes (Lake 57
Amelia) but the city is beautiful and they are happy to provide representation. They are 58
working on their ten year update of the water management plan. There are a few changes 59
proposed to the joint powers agreement and they are outlined in the staff report. At the 60
request of the Mayor, Ms. McNamara reviewed the changes proposed within the JPA. 61
62
Council Member Rafferty, who represents the City on the VLAWMO Board, confirmed 63
that the changes are basically updating and although this group represents a small portion 64
of the city, the work they do is important and he’s glad to be involved. 65
66
The council concurred that they will consider approval of the JPA at the council meeting. 67
68
3. 550 Lilac Assessment Appeal – Community Development Director Grochala 69
explained that the council considered this matter at a previous work session. It involves 70
an outstanding SAC fee and the sale of some property. He reviewed the history that 71
brings the matter forward and that is outlined in the staff report. Currently, the matter is 72
to be considered in court but the date for that hearing was moved to allow more 73
investigation and discussion. The charges under discussion have actually already been 74
paid to the Metropolitan Council from the city’s funds. 75
76
Mayor Reinert noted that the council has discussed different ways to approach this 77
situation – abatement, no change or a compromise. He sees that the building did receive 78
some benefit. He feels that the penalties attached are related to administrative errors so 79
they aren’t appropriate charges at this point. Also he recalls that Mr. Selehi paid for title 80
insurance services but now they will not assist with this problem. 81
82
Council Member Maher recalled that funds were put into escrow in order to allow a 83
liquor license at the property to go forward. 84
85
The council concurred that there should be no fees charged for late payment, etc. That is 86
not appropriate. 87
88
Mayor Reinert noted that the city would incur legal fees to go to court. He asked Mr. 89
Salehi if splitting the $6,300 (no late fees would be charged) would be acceptable. 90
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2016
DRAFT
3
91
Mr. Salehi noted that he has already spent $3,000 in attorney fees. Further he has paid 92
the value for the building in 2010 and now he is losing money. 93
94
Council Member Rafferty said he is inclined to waive only the fees. He sees there have 95
been improvements to the property and the $6300 assessment should stand. 96
97
The council discussed the schedule of when the assessment actually appeared against the 98
property. Originally, the city wasn’t aware of the sale and was still dealing with the 99
previous owner. 100
101
Community Development Director Grochala noted a process that would allow the costs to 102
be reassessed to the property and spread over five years for payment. 103
104
Mayor Reinert remarked that the council is attempting to work this out in a fair and 105
reasonable way for Mr. Salehi and for the taxpayers. He suggests that Mr. Salehi let the 106
city know when he has made a decision on the offer to settle the matter. 107
108
4. Watermark – Mattamy Homes – City Planner Larsen presented an update on the 109
proposed development (presentation on file). Actions for the council are included on the 110
next council agenda. 111
112
The mayor asked the council bring forward any concerns: 113
114
- Don’t see anything problematic; the developer has responded to concerns as they 115
come up; 116
- Don’t like townhomes; would like to see larger lots; homes without three-car 117
garages are not desirable; 118
- Pricing information was requested (low to high); current projects run mid-200’s to 119
$500,000 - $600,000; 120
- What will the home owner association (HOA) include (staff explained the 121
elements of the master HOA; the townhomes will have additional HOA and each 122
neighborhood will probably have sub HOAs; much will be market driven); the developer 123
representative explained that an HOA is actually set up after a development occurs; 124
- Traffic is a concern for the mayor – there will be a lot of cars using 20th Avenue 125
and he wonders about moving that to a four-lane; it will be very busy at certain times. 126
Staff explained that traffic counts don’t warrant a four-lane roadway based on study; 127
- The berm and screening was mentioned by the mayor, making sure that is 128
adequate especially adjacent to interstate; 129
- The mayor asked about the concept that the project would be divided between 130
three different school districts and is there a way to deal with that. The developer 131
representative explained that they are already looking at the prospect of adjusting lines 132
but there is little likelihood of achieving one school district for the whole area. A council 133
member noted that open enrollment is an option when considering schools; 134
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2016
DRAFT
4
- Council Member Maher suggested that the developer choose one garbage 135
collector to avoid problems in the future; 136
- Mayor Reinert doesn’t want all the park dedication fees to be absorbed ahead of 137
time; he’d like to see some of that funding available to work with; the council discussed 138
phasing of park development. 139
140
Mayor Reinert noted that this is the largest development to occur to this point in Lino 141
Lakes. He asked about issues because it’s important to understand if there’s something 142
that should change prior to considering formal council approval. 143
144
Les Winter, a city resident who was present in the audience, said, regarding the school 145
district question, you can request the legislature to change the taxation from one school 146
district to another. 147
148
The mayor noted that the matter will be on Monday’s agenda but if more time is needed 149
that is okay. 150
151
5. NE Area Drainage Study – City Engineer Hankee noted that the feasibility study 152
for this project will come to the council on June 27; it has been reviewed by the 153
Environmental Board. An option for a more green, open channel has been developed. 154
Another consideration is flexibility for future development and that resulted in a new 155
alignment. 156
157
Katy Thompson, WSB and Associates, noted comments heard on the proposal and 158
options developed. In the end, going with Option 4 outlined in the report seemed to 159
provide the most. They have met with Rice Creek Watershed District about using the 160
existing ditch but upgraded. Using an open channel makes more sense than a large pipe 161
for future development considerations. 162
163
Ms. Hankee indicated that staff is working on grant opportunities. 164
165
Mayor Reinert noted the $4 million plus cost; how would that be funded. Staff noted 166
estimates included in the staff report. Ms. Hankee explained the funding concept of 167
utilizing city Surface Water Management funds and seeking grants, perhaps through the 168
watershed district. The mayor wondered how much would be coming from the 169
Watermark development and staff noted it is in the area of $2 million but some of that 170
would be going back to them for their work on the system. Community Development 171
Director Grochala further discussed financing and noted that staff may soon be speaking 172
with the city’s financial advisor, Springsted, Inc. about financing options. 173
174
Mayor Reinert asked about timing for the project and Ms. Thompson noted that Mattamy 175
really needs to have something in place as they move ahead. The matter is coming to the 176
council soon. 177
178
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2016
DRAFT
5
6. FEMA Floodplain Update – City Engineer Hankee and Katy Thompson of WSB and 179
Associates reported. Ms. Hankee noted that staff had previously been directed by the 180
council to provide additional information to impacted residents. They are proposing a 181
newsletter update and a website that could be linked to the city’s website. (The proposed 182
website and features included was reviewed.) 183
184
Mayor Reinert noted that city resident Brian Fossey is present and he’s been involved in 185
some research on the subject. Mr. Fossey suggested that the process for the update has 186
been ambiguous and the overlay used is not definitive and he has found that the resulting 187
maps are not very precise. It’s got a plus or minus of two feet and then you bring in the 188
contures. It’s an especially difficult process and in a low lying area such as Lino Lakes 189
and there is great impact. He received notice from his mortgage company that they will 190
need flood insurance even though they built their home with original knowledge of the 191
elevation and now that’s not enough. He mentioned that there is a website noted by city 192
staff that provides additional insight. From that he learned that to qualify for a reduced 193
insurance cost, he needs a certain certificate. He’s concerned that FEMA should be 194
notifying property owners and not mortgage companies. He is also concerned that 195
people who don’t have a mortgage don’t find out about the situation and may pass on a 196
property without proper knowledge. He also touched on the process of going through 197
FEMA for a map change. He has discovered that FEMA seems to be rolling this out 198
nationwide and he’s actually spoken with people from other states. The most recent 199
development is that the City of Anoka has residents impacted and they are taking an 200
aggressive stand in fighting this (helping property owners to get an exclusion). There are 201
questions arising about whether or not FEMA should have rolled this out with the data 202
they have used. 203
204
Ms. Thompson explained the large scale review that the FEMA takes and how 205
discrepancies can occur. 206
207
Mr. Fossey noted that there are exceptions on record based on past information. Ms. 208
Thompson explained that the system can be unfair but currently it is based on certain 209
rules. 210
211
Mayor Reinert suggested that he would like to see a different track. This is based on 212
erroneous data and FEMA will continue to practice this unless they are challenged. Ms. 213
Thompson noted that there are cities on the west coast who have been fighting it for ten 214
years. She added that FEMA doesn’t actually create the data but are provided with it and 215
will continue to use that until it is corrected if need be. Mayor Reinert remarked that it 216
is a mess and it can’t be allowed to proceed unchecked; Ms. Hankee added that Anoka 217
County has put this on their radar screen also and may be asking more questions. 218
219
Mayor Reinert asked how the city can back away from its involvement and Mr. Grochala 220
suggested the city would have to remove its flood plain ordinance and would then no 221
longer quality for flood insurance. Mr. Grochala suggested that “the chain” is mostly 222
involved and that is something that could be restudied. Mayor Reinert suggested that 223
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2016
DRAFT
6
developing something more accurate would be more palpable for people. Mr. Grochala 224
noted the finer information would still not be available without survey. Mr. Fossey added 225
that everyone that he knows who has purchased the flood insurance have been told that 226
the rates will be going up significantly next year although he doesn’t know why. 227
228
Mayor Reinert noted that information given and proposed is good and it’s also good to 229
hear of the county and a congressman pushing back on this. He can’t live with the 230
mistakes and bad data involved in this whole process. 231
232
Council Member Manthey asked Mr. Fossey if the mortgage company gave him a 233
timeline and he responded that he was allowed 45 days to sign up. Ms. Thompson added 234
that the timeline would depend upon the lender. 235
236
Ms. Hankee reviewed the council’s direction to get information to the residents and to 237
join efforts to challenge the bad information involved in the process. Ms. Thompson 238
noted that the city can participate in an accreditation process that will lower premiums for 239
those people that continue to need the coverage. Mayor Reinert suggested the city 240
should proceed on that. 241
242
Staff and the council discussed the involvement of the Rice Creek Watershed District in 243
providing data used for the maps. Mayor Reinert indicated that he will contact them for 244
further discussion. 245
246
7. American Legion Parking Lot – Community Development Director Grochala 247
noted the written staff report. The city has pretty much explored options from its 248
standpoint. The Legion has recently indicated that they are discussing submitting a 249
formal proposal that may include financing. 250
251
8. Business Subsidy Criteria Amendment – Community Development Director 252
Grochala explained that there is a council and EDA item coming to the council on 253
Monday involving this subject matter. There is certain criteria that are in place and 254
changes are recommended by the city’s bond counsel. The amendments are included in 255
the staff report and were reviewed by staff. The process will include a public hearing 256
and legal staff will be present. 257
258
Mayor Reinert asked what prompts the changes and Mr. Grochala noted a development 259
and timing that are linked to cleaning up the criteria. 260
261
9. United Properties 35E Distribution Center/TIF Request – Community 262
Development Director Grochala noted that this project has been discussed and is moving 263
to the advisory board process. The development site itself is 56 acres and it would 264
consist of an 8 acre building. A preliminary estimate of new value is about $18 million. 265
There are flood plain implications, public improvements for streets, and the developer is 266
requesting tax increment. The city’s financial consultants are looking at an application. 267
The city would capture six years’ worth of increment to be provided back (estimate $1.2 268
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2016
DRAFT
7
million). More information will be coming to the July work session. The ballpark for 269
tax base would be about $700,000 but that includes payments to local, school, county. 270
This would be an expansion project of Distribution Alternatives, an existing business in 271
town. He discussed that the developers have looked at land in Centerville also. 272
273
The report is intended to be an update for the council as the matter will next be going to 274
the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff is recommending it be postponed because there is 275
some outstanding information needed. 276
277
The council discussed the job element. Staff indicated the possibility of 120 full time 278
jobs and some seasonal based on the warehouse nature of the facility. 279
280
Looking ahead, Mr. Grochala expects they will be at the next work session and a public 281
hearing scheduled at the council level following that. 282
283
10. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions – 284
285
North Metro Telecommunications – Council Member Maher reported that the board 286
reviewed the results of a recent 2015 audit. There is interest in expanding services to 287
cities through use of their drone. HD upgrade is on schedule. 288
289
Mayor Reinert noted there was an awesome event last weekend at the new fire house. It 290
was well done by the public safety department. 291
292
11. Monthly Progress Report - Administrator Karlson reviewed the written report. 293
294
- Veterans Memorial, Mr. Karlson asked if council would like to discuss further based on 295
council visits to four possible sites. Council Member Rafferty said he doesn’t have new 296
information but would still speak in favor of the civic center location and against adding a 297
memorial to an open space that may be use for activities. Other council members and 298
the mayor suggested that they could support the island area with some persuasion. 299
Community Development Director Grochala noted his idea of a recreation area/complex 300
that is named for veterans and would support the American Legion baseball team on 301
fields. That concept could include a smaller monument but be a place to bring kids and 302
families regularly. 303
304
12. Review Regular Agenda – The regular council agenda of June 13, 2016 was 305
reviewed. 306
307
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. 308
309
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 310
June 27, 2016. 311
312
313
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2016
DRAFT
8
314
315
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 316
317
COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 2016
APPROVED
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
4
DATE : June 13, 2016 5
TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 6
TIME ENDED : 8:28 p.m. 7
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, Maher, 8
Manthey, and Mayor Reinert 9
MEMBERS ABSENT : none 10
11
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael 12
Grochala; City Planner Katie Larsen; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; Finance Director Sarah 13
Cotton; City Engineer Diane Hankee; and City Clerk Julie Bartell 14
15
PUBLIC COMMENT 16
17
No one was present to address the council regarding a matter not on the agenda. 18
19
SETTING THE AGENDA 20
21
The agenda was approved as amended to remove Item 3D, to be discussed at a closed meeting on 22
June 27, and to moved Item 6D forward for discussion, and to add a new item requested by Council 23
Member Maher. The council also removed a payment to Jorgenson Construction from the 24
expenditures for further discussion and consideration at a future meeting. 25
26
CONSENT AGENDA 27
28
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended. Council Member 29
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 30
31
ITEM ACTION 32
33
Consideration of Expenditures: 34
35
June 13, 2016 (Check No. 103800 – 36
103900, $435,860.53) Approved 37
as amended 38
39
May 23, 2016 Council Work Session Minutes Approved 40
41
May 23, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes Approved 42
43
Consider Resolution 16-36, Approving a Special Event 44
Permit for F & M Bank Approved 45
COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 2016
APPROVED
2
46
Consider Resolution 16-46, Peddler License for Rove 47
Pest Control Approved 48
49
Consideration of not waiving monetary limits on tort 50
liability per MN Statute 466.04 Approved 51
52
Consider Resolution No. 15-69, Approving a Special 53
Event Permit for Fiesta Cancun Approved 54
55
Consider approval of May 23, 2016 Board of Appeal Approved 56
Minutes 57
58
Consider Resolution No. 16-52, Approving the Renewal 59
of Liquor, Wine, Beer and Dance licenses for the 60
2016/2017 licensing period Approved 61
62
Consider approval of Resolution 16-53, 2016/2017 63
Tobacco License Renewals Approved 64
65
Consider approval of May 23, 2016 Closed Council 66
Minutes Approved 67
68
Consider Resolution 16-57, Peddler License for Aptive 69
Pest Control Approved 70
71
FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 72
73
2A) Consider Accepting 2015 Audit Report, CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP- Finance Director Sarah 74
Cotton introduced representatives of CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, who performed the city’s audit for 75
2015. Following their report, she recommends that the council accept the results of the audit. 76
77
Chris Knopik, CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, reviewed a Powerpoint presentation (on file). Thanks were 78
offered to city finance staff for their assistance in conducting the audit. This being the first year they 79
have worked with the city’s new Finance Director, it speaks well for the process in place to allow for 80
a smooth transition. 81
82
Council Member Kusterman moved to accept the results of the 2015 audit as presented. Council 83
Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 84
85
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 86
3A) Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 01-16, Regarding Open Burning Permits – City 87
Administrator Karlson noted that staff is recommending that the council approve 2nd Reading and 88
adoption of this ordinance that changes the city code to indicate that open burning permits will now 89
be issued by the City’s Fire Division. 90
COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 2016
APPROVED
3
Council Member Kusterman moved to waive the full reading of the ordinance as presented. Council 91
Member Maher seconded the motion. 92
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the 2nd Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 01-06 93
as presented. Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried: Yeas; 5; Nays none. 94
3B) Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 02-16, Regarding Enforcement of State Fire 95
Code – City Administrator Karlson noted that staff is recommending that the council approve 2nd 96
Reading and adoption of this ordinance that authorizes the city’s public safety director to administer 97
and enforce the provisions of the Minnesota State Fire Code. 98
Council Member Rafferty moved to waive the full reading of the ordinance as presented. Council 99
Member Maher seconded the motion. 100
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the 2nd Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 02-16 as 101
presented. Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried: Yeas; 5; Nays none. 102
C) Amendments to Licensing Ordinance 103
i. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 03-16, Amending Title 104
600, Chapters 601, 611, 612 and 615 of the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances Relating to Business 105
and Activity Licenses 106
City Clerk Bartell noted that staff is recommending that the council approve 2nd Reading and adoption 107
of this ordinance that changes several areas of the city code that are needed in order to allow the city 108
continued access to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension data base for the purpose of conducting 109
background checks for city licensing and employment purposes. 110
Council Member Maher moved to waive the full reading of the ordinance as presented. Council 111
Member Kusterman seconded the motion. 112
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the 2nd Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 02-16 113
as presented. Council Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried: Yeas; 5; Nays none. 114
ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-49, Authorizing Summary Publication of Ordinance 115
No. 03-16 - City Clerk Bartell requested that the council approve the resolution authorizing summary 116
publication. 117
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 16-49 as presented. Council Member 118
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 119
120
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 121
4A) Consider acceptance of CenterPoint Energy Community Partnership Grant – Public Safety 122
Director Swenson explained that staff is requesting acceptance of a grant to be used toward the update 123
of communications equipment. He noted that CenterPoint Energy will be making a formal presentation 124
at the June 27, 2016 council meeting. 125
Council Member Maher moved to accept the grant as recommended. Council Member Rafferty 126
seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 127
4B) Consider hiring of two PT Community Service Officers – Public Safety Director Swenson 128
reported that there are two CSO positions open within the Police Division, one being the addition of a 129
COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 2016
APPROVED
4
position to support the ACE Program. Based on a thorough hiring process, he is recommending hiring 130
two candidates. Mayor Reinert recalled the council’s discussion about the ACE program that gives 131
residents a second chance on tickets; it’s been very popular and additional staff is needed and would be 132
supported by revenue from the program. 133
Council Member Maher moved to approve the hiring of Jonathan Tomczik and Nicholas Small as 134
recommended. Council Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 135
136
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 137
138
There was no report from the Public Services Department. 139
140
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 141
142
6A) Century Farm North 6th Addition: i. Consider Resolution No. 16-43 Approving PUD 143
Final Plan/Final Plat 144
ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-44 Approving Development Agreement 145
iii. Consider Resolution No. 16-45 Approving Maintenance Agreement for Stormwater 146
Management Facilities 147
148
City Planner Larsen noted that city staff has been working with the developer on this project for a 149
couple of years. She reviewed the history that brings the project to this point including the location 150
of the project, the number of lots included, park dedication fees anticipated, land use and 151
transportation plan compliance, planning and zoning review. The resolution before the council 152
approves the final plan and final plat, development agreement and a maintenance agreement. She 153
noted the presence of the developer. Mayor Reinert noted that the development has been reviewed by 154
the council several times and so the council is quite familiar. 155
156
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-43 as presented. Council Member 157
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 158
159
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-44 as presented. Council Member 160
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 161
162
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-45 as presented. Council Member 163
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 164
165
6B) Watermark PUD Residential Community: i. Consider Resolution No. 16-50 Approving 166
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 167
ii. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 04-16 Rezoning Property from R, Rural and 168
R-BR, Rural-Business Reserve to PUD, Planned Unit Development 169
iii. Consider Resolution No. 16-51 Approving PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary 170
Plat 171
172
City Planner Larsen reviewed the details of the proposed development (using a PowerPoint 173
presentation, on file): 174
COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 2016
APPROVED
5
- Location within the city; 175
- Challenges of the site including lack of natural amenities and soil conditions; 176
- The inclusion of the northeast drainage project; 177
- The broad picture AUAR of the past and how that fits this development; 178
- The master planning process involved; 179
- The inclusion of recreation and open space consistent with guidance for the area; 180
- A trail plan for the development; 181
- Although no commercial component is included, nearby commercial will serve the area and 182
create a mixed use; 183
- A density chart indicated net and gross density; 184
- A front view of the different types of homes proposed and proposed square footage for homes; 185
- Key amenities, including a bridge entrance, landscaping and signage; 186
- The Park Board has been working with the developer in creation of a master plan for park 187
development that will be included in the initial stage of construction; 188
- A proposed 4,000 square foot private recreation center, HOA maintained and operated; 189
- The traffic impact study and trips proposed was reviewed; the study included review of peak 190
level of service after improvements; 191
- Cul-de-sacs were reviewed along with the width of the streets within the development and 192
location of hydrants; 193
- Architectural design standards (to be reviewed in greater detail in final plans); 194
- Elevations, with explanation that each will be reviewed further as they come in; 195
- Development agreements that will be coming forward; 196
- Findings of fact; 197
198
Council Member Rafferty requested more information on the exterior of the homes. The exterior 199
materials were reviewed and the developer representative indicated that LP would be the most 200
popular based on current trends in demand. 201
202
Ms. Larsen concluded by noting that the proposed development meets the city’s goals and plans for 203
the area. She reviewed the vote of the Planning and Zoning Board and the action items requested of 204
the council at this time. 205
206
Mayor Reinert stated that this is the largest housing development proposed in the history of the city. 207
It’s a concept that has been on the table for two years. There is a lot to like about the development 208
and many elements the council has argued for during the process. This location is off the interstate 209
but will be protected by a large berm and will include a trail that runs through the development. 210
There is an advantage in not developing the area piecemeal; the master plan bring amenities, better 211
density, savings on utilities, laid out better, etc. He’s fond of having the park amenities developed 212
early in the plan to be utilized earlier. He’d like to see all streets at 32 feet. The traffic patterns 213
would probably develop differently with separate developments also. He also likes the quality of life 214
provided by fifty percent of the lots backing up to open space. He has long been a proponent of low 215
density and sees that this is coming in low. He is aware there is support on the council and 216
anxiousness to move forward but the council could take a couple weeks if necessary for review. 217
218
COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 2016
APPROVED
6
Council Member Kusterman noted that the Planning and Zoning Board voted four to two on the 219
Comprehensive Plan amendments and that relates to lack of commercial included. He’d like to 220
understand more about their concern. Ms. Larsen noted that the area is guided mixed use and she 221
believes those members felt that the guidance should be followed; overall she doesn’t feel they had 222
problems with the development. She added that staff received some insight from experts in the area 223
and feels that commercial isn’t viable. Mayor Reinert noted that this developer doesn’t do 224
commercial as part of their projects so it isn’t a discussion item for them; he sees the commercial 225
coming eventually. 226
227
Council Member Maher noted the inclusion in this project of a water reuse plan to use water from the 228
lake for the townhomes and public park area. City Engineer Hankee explained that the water reuse 229
is limited to those areas because high use is expected and more than that may require the addition of 230
infrastructure to bring water in; expanding the water reuse program would be a consideration for the 231
future. 232
233
The mayor called for the council to voice any concerns about the development. 234
235
The developer representative responded to the mayor’s remark about widening the streets. They have 236
found that buyers want smaller streets to slow the traffic. 237
238
Council Member Manthey thanked city staff, in particular Ms. Larsen, for presenting even small 239
changes regularly so the council has been able to digest changes as they have come forward. He sees 240
this as a win/win even on commercial where people will be moving in to support the current 241
commercial. 242
243
Council Member Rafferty remarked on the process of working with Mattamy Homes. He’d prefer 244
wider streets also and doesn’t necessarily like the variety of widths. Overall he sees that the positives 245
of the development far outweigh the negatives. This comes forward after much hard work and the 246
size of this development and one developer doing it is a real positive. He asked if other Mattamy 247
developments have included the community facility and the developer representative explained where 248
smaller developments have included smaller facilities and a larger development in Lakeville includes 249
a similar size facility. They are looking less at pools and more at work-out facilities which are more 250
popular and are also working on an office setting for resident use (with a coffee bar). 251
252
Council Member Rafferty noted that homeowner associations will be an important element in this 253
development; that will provide necessary rules and regulations in a large development. He wants to 254
see that included up front. 255
256
Council Member Maher asked if there are other developments of this scale already built. The 257
representative said none built at this point but underway. 258
259
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-50 as presented. Council Member 260
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 261
262
COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 2016
APPROVED
7
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 04-16 as presented. 263
Council Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 264
265
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-51 as presented. Council Member 266
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. Mayor Reinert noted that this is 267
preliminary and there will be changes. He asked about staging and Ms. Larsen responded that there 268
will undoubtedly be many stages and but those are yet to be determined. 269
270
6C) Public Hearing; Consider Resolution No. 16-54, Approving Amended and Restated 271
Business Subsidy Policy – Community Development Director Grochala noted that the resolution 272
comes forward from the public hearing held earlier before the city’s Economic Development 273
Authority (EDA). He introduced the EDA’s legal counsel, Julie Eddington, of Kennedy & Graven. 274
275
Ms. Eddington explained that she has been working with city staff on this revised policy that will 276
comply with the Business Subsidy Act in place. This will apply to both the City and EDA. Also the 277
amendment adds a wage goal. 278
279
Mayor Reinert said he sees this as basically a housekeeping item that will keep the city up to date on 280
this policy. 281
282
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-54 as presented. Council Member 283
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 284
285
Mayor Reinert opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, the public 286
hearing was closed. 287
288
6D) Consider Resolution No. 16-55, Approving Acquisition of Permanent Easement, Old 289
Birch Street Cul De Sac – Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the written report 290
requesting approval of a permanent easement relating to the Saddleclub Development. To do the cul-291
de-sac, this easement is required. The cost has been negotiated and will be covered by the developer. 292
293
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 16-55 as presented. Council Member 294
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 295
296
6E) Consider Resolution No. 16-56, Calling for Hearing, I-35W North Corridor 297
Improvements – City Engineer Hankee reviewed the written staff report calling for a hearing to 298
consider the I35W improvements. The majority of the improvements are to the south of the city 299
however a small portion and a noise wall impact the city. The improvements are scheduled for 2022. 300
The public hearing will be to consider municipal consent on the project. 301
302
Council Member Manthey asked if there is already an easement to provide for the wall and City 303
Engineer Hankee said it will be within the existing MnDOT right/of/way. 304
305
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-56 as presented. Council Member 306
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 307
COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 2016
APPROVED
8
6F) Consider Resolution No. 16-48, Approving the Revised Joint Powers Agreement to 308
Protect and Manage the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed - Community Development Director 309
Grochala reviewed the written report. The resolution approves city participation in a revised joint 310
powers agreement with the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed District that represents an area of the city. 311
He briefly reviewed the changes to the agreement. Staff is recommending approval of the action. 312
313
The executive director of the organization attended the council work session and the council fully 314
reviewed changes at that time. 315
316
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 16-48 as presented. Council Member 317
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 318
319
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 320
321
There was no Unfinished Business. 322
323
NEW BUSINESS 324
325
Council Member Maher had indicated that she had a new matter for discussion. She has decided that 326
the information is more appropriate for a work session and she will bring that forward in July. 327
328
COMMUNITY EVENTS 329
330
MONTHLY RECYCLE DAY will be held at Lino Park (7850 Lake Drive) on Saturday, June 18 from 331
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. See city website for a list of accepted items. 332
333
COMMUNITY CALENDAR 334
335
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 336
June 13, 2016 through June 27, 2016 337
Thursday, June 16 6:30 pm, Community Room Charter Commission 338
Monday, June 27 6:30 pm, Community Room Council Work Room 339
Monday, June 27 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting 340
341
ADJOURN 342
343
There being no further business, Council Member Kusterman moved to adjourn at 8:28 p.m. Council 344
Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 345
346
These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, June 27, 2016. 347
348
349
350
351
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 352
353
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Resolution No. 16-63, Approving an Application for a
Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, a Cabaret
License and an Exemption for Gambling Permit and a
Parade Run for the Annual St. Joseph’s Catholic Church
August Festival
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
St. Joseph Church is hosting its annual August Festival on Saturday, August 13 and Sunday,
August 14, 2016.
BACKGROUND
As part of the festival, food and beverages including strong beer and wine will be served.
Although temporary on-sale liquor licenses are issued by the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety, local approval is required. Staff has verified that St. Joseph’s Church is eligible under
local ordinance for a temporary license.
The Church has also made application to acquire a cabaret license. Bands will be playing live
music in the church parking lot on Saturday from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday from
11:00 to 6:00 p.m.
The Church has also applied for an Exempt Permit to allow charitable gambling. Non-profit
organizations are allowed under State gambling laws to apply for an exempt permit if they
conduct fewer than five (5) gambling occasions per year. St. Joseph Catholic Church conducts
fewer than five.
The Church has also applied for a Parade/Run event permit requesting city permission to
conduct this activity. The event is a 5K Run starting at St. Joseph’s Parish church on Elm
Street and running along the routes indicated on the attached map. There will be bathrooms
available at the church as well as basic first aid. It anticipates there will be approximately 100
participants.
The applications and the certificate of liability Insurance has been submitted to cover all of the
above events and is filed in the office of the City Clerk. The proper fees have been paid.
The Police Department has reviewed the application and has signed off on the permit with the
understanding that the applicants will continue to follow their instructions on safety. The
applicant must also have in place all necessary permissions for use of property involved in the
event if private.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of Resolution No. 16-63, Approving an Application for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor
License, a Cabaret License, an Exemption for Gambling Permit and a Parade/Run permit for
the Annual St. Joseph’s Catholic Church August Festival.
ATTACHMENTS
Map of the Race
Resolution 16-53
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-63
Approving Applications for a Temporary Liquor License, Cabaret License,
Lawful Gambling Permit and a Parade/Run Permit for the Annual Festival at
St. Joseph’s Catholic Church
WHEREAS, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church has made application for a temporary on-sale liquor
license, a cabaret license, an exempt lawful gambling permit and parade/run permit for their
annual Summer Festival to be held August 13th and 14th, 2016; and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the applications submitted for festival events (temporary
on-sale liquor, exempt gambling, cabaret and parade/run) for concurrence with city regulations;
and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that volunteers along the 5K run route have a cell phone to call
911 in case of an emergency and to have a first aid kit along the route as well as at St. Joseph’s
Church.
WHEREAS, the Permits are contingent on the background investigations being conducted by
the Public Safety Department; and
WHEREAS, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church has paid the required license fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes,
Minnesota:
That the City Council hereby approves a temporary on-sale liquor license, a cabaret license, an
application for exemption for gambling permit and a parade/run permit for the 2016 St. Joseph’s
Catholic Church Festival.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of June, 2016.
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:
_____________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1E
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Payment of Invoice from Jorgenson Construction, Inc.
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The Council is being asked to authorize Check No. 103846 to Jorgenson Construction, Inc. in
the amount of $120,805.02.
BACKGROUND
During the regular meeting on June 13, the City Council excluded from the approved List of
Expenditures an invoice in the amount of $120,805.02 from Jorgenson Construction for further
discussion.
The Accounts Payable/Payroll Clerk was not informed right away the following day that the
check should be withheld, so it was mailed.
Michael Grochala will update the Council on the status of fire station construction project.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize payment of Check No. 103846.
ATTACHMENTS
Expenditures from June 13th Council agenda, which includes Jorgenson Construction invoice.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1F
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy Clerk
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Resolution No. 16-66, Approving a Peddler License for
Insight Pest Solutions
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
BACKGROUND
A representative from Insight Pest Solutions, 6834 Washington Avenue South, Eden
Prairie, MN has submitted a peddler’s license application to the city clerk's office. The
company representatives who will be working in Lino Lakes Devin Shurtliff , Griffin
Kasper, Eric Adams and Ryan Evans. They plan to travel through Lino Lakes’
neighborhoods going door to door offering Pest Control Services to interested potential
clients.
The City has received all the necessary forms required to issue this company a license.
The Lino Lakes Public Safety Department has performed a background check and
indicated no reason to deny the application.
The application and all other required information is on file in the city clerk's office for
review.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution No. 16-66, approving the issuance of a Peddler License for a six
month period contingent on the background checks.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
COUNTY OF ANOKA
RESOLUTION NO. 16-66
APPROVING A PEDDLER LICENSE FOR INSIGHT PEST SOLUTIONS
WHEREAS, Devin Shurtliff, Representative for Insight Pest Solutions, has submitted a
peddlers license application to the city clerk's office; and
WHEREAS, Insight Pest Solutions has complied with all of the provisions of Chapter 613 of
the Lino Lakes City Code for obtaining the necessary license; and
WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department has conducted a background check on
the company representatives that will be working in Lino Lakes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lino Lakes City Council hereby approves
the request of Devin Shurtliff , Griffin Kasper, Eric Adams and Ryan Evans, Insight Pest
Solutions, to travel throughout Lino Lakes offering pest control services for a period of six-
months. The Public Safety Department has completed the necessary background checks and
indicated no reason to deny the application.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of June, 2016.
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:
_____________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Memorandum of Understanding with LELS Local #299
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The Council is being asked to consider a Memorandum of Understanding that will allow residential cross-
trained police officers to act as paid-on-call firefighters.
BACKGROUND
As part of the integration of fires services in the Public Safety Department, staff recommended a fire
stipend for current police officers who successfully complete all required firefighter training and the
certifications. In September 2014 the City Council approved a $1.30 per hour stipend for staff upon the
successful completion of the State of Minnesota firefighter certification process.
In February 2015, the City and LELS Local No. 299 entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that
specified the following: (1) police officers may volunteer to be trained as Lino Lakes’ firefighters; (2) an
officer will receive premium pay of $1.30 per hour whether performing licensed police officer or
firefighter duties; (3) firefighter-trained officers are not obligated to respond to fire calls while they are
off-duty; and (4) firefighter-trained officers who respond to a fire call while off-duty will be paid at their
overtime rate.
During recent contract negotiations with LELS No. 299, the patrol officers proposed that the
Memorandum of Agreement be revised to include language providing that responses to fire calls, while
officers are off-duty, would be subject to the minimum hours’ provision in Article 14 of their contract.
At the same time, Public Safety Director John Swenson pointed out the department has police officers
living within the required nine-minute response time who wanted to go on more fire calls. Subsequently,
Mr. Swenson proposed an innovative solution that would allow cross-trained officers who live within a
nine-minute drive to respond to fire calls as paid-on-call firefighters.
The attached Memorandum of Understanding effectively creates a program for residential police officers
(“RPO’s”) to act as paid-on-call firefighters while off-duty. The RPO’s would be paid at the top paid-on-
call wage rate and would become eligible for the annual $5,000 contribution towards the statewide
volunteer firefighter pension fund. The City benefits by increasing its number of responders to fire calls
and by not having to pay the regular overtime rate for a cross-trained police officer.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Lino Lakes and
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local No. 299.
ATTACHMENTS
Memorandum of Understanding
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the City of Lino Lakes (“City”) and
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local #299 (“Union”).
WHEREAS, the City and the Union are parties to a 2016-2017 collective bargaining agreement
(“CBA”);
WHEREAS, Union members are licensed police officers whose duties have been limited to law
enforcement;
WHEREAS, the City resolved to utilize and train licensed Lino Lakes police officers in the
capacity of firefighters;
WHEREAS, the CBA does not provide compensation that recognizes the firefighter training or
performance of firefighter duties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that:
1. Lino Lakes’ police officers may volunteer to be trained as Lino Lakes firefighters
(hereinafter cross-trained police officers). The City reserves the right to add or reduce
crossed-trained police officers based on the fire staffing needs of the organization.
2. Upon successful completion of firefighter training (Fire 1, Fire 2, and Hazmat), an officer
will receive premium pay of $1.30 per hour, in addition to any other premium pay, for all
hours worked as a Lino Lakes police officer, whether performing licensed police officer
or firefighter duties.
3. Continuing education for cross-trained officers will occur on-duty when possible or
follow past-practice training guidelines.
4. Cross-trained officers are not obligated to respond to fire calls while they are off-duty.
5. Cross-trained officers who respond to a fire call while off-duty will be paid at their
overtime rate. Cross-trained officers who respond to a fire call shall receive a minimum
of one hour pay at the overtime rate and calculated in 15-minute intervals thereafter.
Cancellation of a fire call while an officer is in transit to the fire hall is not subject to the
minimum hours provision, but is subject to the overtime rate for the officer’s actual
round-trip transit time at the time of cancellation.
6. When a cross-trained officer responds to a fire call in their off-time, the officer is to
respond only in their capacity as a firefighter.
7. Employer will provide firefighter-related equipment (e.g. turnout gear) and any necessary
replacements to all employees who have completed Firefighter 1, Firefighter 2 and
HazMat training. Employer will not deduct such costs from the employee’s Clothing
Allowance.
8. Employer will pay all related fees for firefighter certification and recertification.
9. The term cross-trained residential police officer (“RPO”) shall apply to only those
officers who live within a nine-minute drive from either Lino Lakes Fire Station 1 or
Station 2. Drive time is calculated by normal, non-emergency driving in normal traffic
conditions.
10. RPO’s will bring their turn-out gear home with them or leave their gear at their assigned
Fire Station during their off-duty time. RPO’s will have a 15-minute paid early leave at
the end of each police shift to allow time to bring the turn-out gear to their assigned Fire
Station.
11. RPO’s will be paid at the top hourly wage as set by the City Council in the Resolution
Establishing Compensation Plan for Paid On-Call Fire Personnel.
12. RPO’s shall be eligible for the firefighter pension when the RPO responds to a minimum
of 20% (or the minimum standards established) of eligible fire calls that occur during
their off-duty hours and schedule one Saturday and one Sunday a quarter as the primary
on-call responder. On-call days will be scheduled through the District Chief. An eligible
fire-call is a call that generates a paid-on call firefighter response.
13. For each year an RPO complies with the requirements of paragraph 12 above, $5,000.00
will be contributed to the officer’s firefighter pension fund.
It is the parties’ intent that the Memorandum of Agreement regarding firefighter training and
compensation for police officers signed by the City and the Union on April 25, 2016 and April
29, 2016, respectively, is hereby rescinded by the execution of this Agreement.
It is further agreed that this Memorandum of Understanding shall continue as an addendum to
the current labor agreement until such time as a successor agreement is negotiated.
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE CITY OF
LABOR SERVICES, INC.: LINO LAKES:
(LOCAL #299)
_____________________________ _____________________________
Business Agent Date Date
_____________________________ _____________________________
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 4A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Public Safety Director John Swenson
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Fire Lieutenant Promotions
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The Lino Lakes Public Safety Department is requesting council approval to promote four Paid
On-call Firefighters to the rank of Fire Lieutenant.
BACKGROUND
The Fire Lieutenant promotion process included:
1. Cover letter and resume
2. Leadership & Management Assessment
3. Initial Interview Process – two interview panels
4. Administrative Interview
This promotional process has been extensive and has identified fire lieutenant candidates that
will continue the proud tradition of providing high quality public safety services.
The 2016 Approved Budget is funded for 4 fire lieutenant positions, which provides two fire
lieutenants per fire station.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council approve the promotion of Derek Sadowski, Kevin Sweeney,
Brooke Jacobson, and Jeff Frid to Fire Lieutenant effective July 1, 2016.
ATTACHMENTS
None
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-60 Authorizing Application for
Abatement/Addition of Special Assessment, 550 Lilac Street.
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff if requesting City Council consideration to authorize application for abatement and
addition of special assessment for 550 Lilac Street.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Morteza Salehi, owner of the Apollo Business Center located at 550 Lilac Street, appeared
before the City Council on April 25, 2016. Mr. Salehi was present to request council
consideration to abate a delinquent utility charge that was levied against his property as a
special assessment. The City Council requested that the item be placed on the work session
agenda for discussion.
In March of 2010 a building permit for interior remodel was obtained by the former owner of
the Apollo Business Center. The addition of showers, after the fact, resulted in a Met Council
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) redetermination. Based on the change in use three units of
(SAC), totaling $6,300 became due. No SAC was collected.
Mr. Salehi, acquired the property in September of 2010. Based on his statements he was not
aware of any outstanding fees when he purchased the property.
In 2012, following a SAC review by Met Council Environmental Services, the City informed
the owners that SAC, in the amount of $6,300 was owed. A second notice was sent in February
of 2013.
In October of 2013 the City Council approved an assessment of the property for the unpaid
SAC. The assessment should have been certified against the property for taxes payable in
2014. However, in October of 2014 the City was informed that the assessment had been
erroneously applied against the wrong property.
The SAC was reassessed as an “Add as Omitted” special assessment in for taxes payable in
2015. Mr. Salehi disputed the validity of the SAC since it was charged prior to his acquisition
of the property. He subsequently filed an Objection to Notice of Delinquent Taxes with the
District Court.
Neither the City or Mr. Salehi received any status update to the objection. Mr. Salehi followed
up on his objection in April of 2016 and found that no action had been taken. A hearing was
scheduled for May 10, 2016. The hearing was delayed while the City Council and Mr. Salehi
discussed resolution to the dispute.
Following discussions with Mr. Salehi at the June 6, 2016 work session an agreement was
reached to abate the interest and penalties and split equally the original $6,300 charge. The
$3,150 would be levied as special assessment payable over 5 years. An abatement agreement
providing for the special assessment has been executed by Mr. Salehi for consideration by the
City Council. The proposed interest rate is 4% based on the City’s Public Improvement
Financing Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 16-60, Authorizing Application for
Abatement/Addition of Special Assessment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 16-60
2. Abatement Agreement and Release document
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-60
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT/ADDITION
OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Lino Lakes previously adopted Resolution
No. 14-119, which imposed a special assessment on 550 Lilac Street, PIN 17-31-22-21-
0027 (“Subject Property”) in the amount of $6,835.24; and
WHEREAS, with interest, County costs, and penalties, the total amount of the special
assessment imposed by Resolution No. 14-119 against the Subject Property is now
$9,060.68; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the Subject Property challenged the validity of the
assessment imposed by Resolution No. 14-119 by filing an Objection to Notice of
Delinquent Taxes in Anoka County District Court (File No. 02-CV-15-690); and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed a proposed “Abatement Agreement and Release
of All Claims” regarding the property owners’ dispute; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the Subject Property have indicated a willingness to resolve
the dispute on the terms described in the Abatement Agreement and Release of All
Claims.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino
Lakes as follows:
1. The benefits to the City of Lino Lakes of the proposed Abatement
Agreement and Release of All Claims is at least equal to the costs of the
proposed agreement.
2. Granting the proposed abatement of the special assessment imposed by
Resolution No. 14-119 is in the public interest as it will increase or preserve
the tax base.
3. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to sign the
Abatement Agreement and Release of All Claims and to take any other
steps necessary to finalize the Abatement Agreement and the dismissal of
Court File No. 02-CV-15-690.
4. The Director of Finance is directed to make application for abatement to
Anoka County for:
550 and Lilac Street, PIN 17-31-22-21-0027 in the amount of $9,060.68
(original amount of $6,835.24) to be deleted from Fund #84677.
5. In accordance with the terms of the Abatement Agreement and Release of
All Claims, the Council hereby levies a special assessment against 550
Lilac Street, PIN 17-31-22-21-0027, on the following terms:
A. Principal Amount: $3,150.00.
B. Duration: Five years.
C. Interest Rate: 4%.
D. Fund Number: 85006.
6. The Director of Finance is directed to make application to Anoka County to
levy the special assessment described in Paragraph 5.
7. The Council further requests that the Anoka County Board of
Commissioners takes the appropriate action to assist the City with
resolution of this dispute in accordance with the terms of the Abatement
Agreement and Release of All Claims and this Resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of June, 2016.
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:
______________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
ABATEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS
This Agreement is entered into on _______________, 2016, by and between the
City of Lino Lakes, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Namar Property, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company and Dena Property, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company (Namar Property and Dena Property collectively referred to as
“Owners”).
Recitals
A. Owners hold title to the parcel located at 550 Lilac Street in Lino Lakes, PID 17-
31-22-21-0027 (the “Property”) on which is located a building known as the
Apollo Center.
B. In March 2010, the former owner of the Property obtained a building permit for
construction of an Anytime Fitness facility within the Apollo Center. At that time,
three units of Sewer Availability Charges (“SAC”) became owed in the amount of
$6,300, pursuant to state and local regulations. The SAC were not collected when
the building permit was issued.
C. The Owners acquired title to the Property in September 2010. In November 2012,
the City informed the Owners that SAC in the amount of $6,300 was owed.
D. In October 2013, the City Council approved an assessment of the Property for the
unpaid SAC.
E. Anoka County erroneously applied the assessment against the wrong property.
F. In October 2014, the City assessed the SAC against the Property as an “Add as
Omitted” special assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapter 272.
G. The assessment remains unpaid and as of the date of the execution of this
Agreement, is in the amount of $8,865.13, including penalties, interest and County
costs.
H. The Owners dispute the validity of the SAC given that it was assessed subsequent
to their acquisition of the Property, and filed an Objection to Notice of Delinquent
Taxes (Court File No. 02-CV-15-690).
I. The Parties wish to amicably resolve this dispute without further expense.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, the covenants and promises
contained in this Agreement, including the relinquishment of certain legal rights, and
other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
2
1. The City will take all necessary steps to abate the “Add as Omitted” special
assessment against the Property.
2. The City will replace the “Add as Omitted” special assessment with a special
assessment in the amount of $3,150, payable over five years, at an interest rate to
be determined at the time the special assessment is levied.
3. The Taxpayers agree that the special assessment described in Paragraph 2 is
proper and waive all rights to challenge the special assessment described in
Paragraph 2 of this Agreement.
4. Within one week of the execution of this Agreement, the Owners will file a
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice with the Anoka County District Court, File
No. 02-CV-15-690.
5. In consideration of the City’s abatement of the “Add as Omitted” special
assessment and its replacement with the special assessment described in Paragraph
2, the Owners, for themselves, their heirs, administrators, representatives,
successors and assigns, and anyone who obtains rights or claims from any Owner,
hereby unconditionally releases and forever discharges the City, its current and
former City Council members, agents, employees, representatives, insurers, and
attorneys (“Released Parties”) from any and all actions, causes of action, liability,
claims, and demands whatsoever that are based on the “Add as Omitted” special
assessment and/or the special assessment described in Paragraph 2. This release
of all claims specifically includes, but is not limited to, any claim or demand for
payment by the City based on alleged loss revenue, inability to develop the
Property, or denial of any permit to the Property because of the unpaid assessment
amount, as well as any and all claims regarding the validity of the “Add as
Omitted” special assessment or the Special Assessment described in Paragraph 2
or the authority of the City to levy either special assessment. This release of
claims applies to claims that are known, unknown, asserted, or unasserted as of the
date of this Agreement.
6. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
7. The provisions of this Agreement shall be severable, and if any provision hereof or
the application of any such provision under any circumstance is held invalid, it
shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement or the application of any
provision hereof.
8. The Agreement shall for all purposes be deemed to have been mutually drafted.
3
9. The effective date of this Agreement is the date upon which it is fully executed by
all Parties.
10. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to
the subject matter discussed herein. No Party has relied upon any statements or
promises that are not set forth in this Agreement. No changes to this Agreement
are valid unless they are in writing and signed by all the Parties.
By signing below, each Party acknowledges that it read this Agreement, that it had
an opportunity to review this Agreement with legal counsel, and that it understands
and agrees to be legally bound by this Agreement.
NAMAR PROPERTY, LLC
Dated:______________________
By: ________________________
Morteza Salehi-Mashaei, Manager
313 Heritage Trail
Circle Pines, MN 55014
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Dated:______________________
By: ________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
DENA PROPERTY, LLC
Dated: _____________________
Morteza Salehi-Mashaei, Manager
313 Heritage Trail
Circle Pines, MN 55014
ATTEST:
Dated:______________________
By: ________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
RRM: 232646
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-62, Accepting
Feasibility Study, NE Area Drainage Study
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting council acceptance of the feasibility study for the NE Area Drainage Study.
BACKGROUND
The City Council authorized preparation of a feasibility study for the NE Area Drainage Study
on September 14, 2015 to provide surface water management to land lying north of Main Street
between the City of Hugo and Peltier Lake.
The surface water in the northeast area of Lino Lakes is landlocked inhibiting site improvements
within this area. The area has been historically landlocked until the installation of agricultural
field drains in the early 20th century. These agricultural drains are now at capacity and are
incompatible with future development within the watershed. In addition the agricultural drains
do not provide water quality benefits to the receiving waterbody, Peltier Lake. A majority of this
watershed currently drains to the south via field drains to Clearwater Creek. Clearwater Creek is
impaired for aquatic life and has had a history of significant bank erosion problems.
Multiple alternatives were considered and refined with input from land owners, potential
developers, neighboring communities, the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
As a condition of the project, a Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (CSMP) is in
development. The CSMP and the associated surface water modeling includes regional water
quality best management practices (BMPs), stormwater volume and rate control improvements,
and a new outlet to Peltier Lake. The CSMP also includes design standards for future
developments in the Northeast area. Peltier Lake is impaired for nutrients and it is imperative
that the new system does not adversely impact the lake and other downstream interests.
The proposed project will benefit nearly 1,300 acres and includes:
A new stormwater conveyance system;
Multi-purpose regional stormwater management facilities;
Pedestrian trail extensions; and
Improvements to Peltier Lake Drive
The project will be implemented using a phased approach based on preliminary development
patterns. The phases and cost per phase are as follows:
Development Phase Cost
Phase 1 – Peltier Lake Outlet Improvements $2,248,023
Phase 2 – I-35E Crossing $750,914
Phase 3 – East Side Improvements $639,925
Phase 4 – West Side Improvements $557,491
TOTAL COST $4,196,353
Funding for the project will be through surface water management fees, and potential grants
from Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), Minnesota Board Water and Soil Resources
(BWSR), and the Public Facilities Authority (PFA).
The Environmental Board recommended approval of the feasibility study with the addition that
water quality be improved beyond what is required by permitting and as possible.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 16-62 Accepting Feasibility Study, NE Area
Drainage Study.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 16-62
2. NE Drainage Area Feasibility Study
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-62
ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT
NE AREA DRAINAGE STUDY
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council on September 14, 2015, the City
Engineer was directed to prepare a Feasibility Study related to the NE Area Drainage Study; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified the need to develop a surface water management system to
convey surface water from land lying north of Main Street between the City of Hugo and Peltier
Lake; and
WHEREAS, the Feasibility Report provides information regarding whether the proposed
improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as
proposed; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that:
The NE Area Drainage Study be accepted to provide a plan for improvements to manage surface
water from land lying north of Main Street between the City of Hugo and Peltier Lake.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of June, 2016.
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:
_____________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, MN 55014
June 27, 2016
Northeast Lino Lakes
Drainage
Improvement Project
City of Lino Lakes
Anoka County, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 2029-790
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
NORTHEAST LINO LAKES
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FOR THE
CITY OF LINO LAKES
June 27, 2016
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
763-541-4800
763-541-1700 (Fax)
CERTIFICATION
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Kathleen A. Thompson, PE
Date: June 27, 2016 Lic. No. 52136
Quality Control Review By:
Diane L. Hankee, PE
Date: June 27, 2016 Lic. No. 43338
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
TITLE SHEET
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1
2. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Authorization .......................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Scope ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Data Available ........................................................................................................ 3
2.4. Project History ........................................................................................................ 3
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 5
3.1. Drainage Areas and Drain Tile ............................................................................... 5
3.2. Storm Sewer ............................................................................................................ 5
3.3. Receiving Waters .................................................................................................... 6
3.4. Existing Site Limitations......................................................................................... 6
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................. 8
4.1. Alternatives Considered .......................................................................................... 8
4.2. Proposed Drainage Improvements ........................................................................ 10
4.3. Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management ......................................................... 10
4.4. Storm Water Quality ............................................................................................. 11
4.5. Permits and Approvals .......................................................................................... 11
4.6. Right-of-Way / Easements .................................................................................... 12
4.7. Project Phasing...................................................................................................... 12
4.8. Private Utilities ..................................................................................................... 13
4.9. Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 13
5. FINANCING ................................................................................................................ 14
5.1. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ................................................................ 14
5.2. Funding Sources.................................................................................................... 14
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE .............................................................................................. 15
7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................... 16
8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 17
Appendix A – Figures
Appendix B – Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
October 1, 2015 Draft Performance Specifications
Appendix C – Wetland Report
Appendix D – Summary of Options Considered
Appendix E – Conceptual Layout and Details
Appendix F – Opinion of Probable Cost
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The surface water in the Northeast Area of Lino Lakes is landlocked, inhibiting site
improvements within this area. The area was historically landlocked until the installation of
agricultural field drains in the early 20th Century. These agricultural drains are now at capacity
and are incompatible with future development within the watershed. In addition, the agricultural
drains do not provide any water quality benefits to the receiving waterbody, Peltier Lake.
The Northeast area of Lino Lakes (Appendix A, Figure 1) is bound by Main Street to the south,
the City of Hugo to the east, and Peltier Lake to the west, and Rehbein Street to the north. The
area includes portions of Lino Lakes, Centerville, and Hugo. Land use in this area is
predominantly agricultural. A majority of this watershed currently drains to the south to
Clearwater Creek via field drains. Clearwater Creek is impaired for aquatic life and has had a
history of significant bank erosion problems.
Multiple alternatives have been considered to address the surface water needs for this area and
are detailed further within this report. The proposed project alternative was refined with input
from land owners, potential developers, neighboring communities, the Rice Creek Watershed
District (RCWD), the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources. As a condition of the project, a Comprehensive Surface Water
Management Plan (CSMP) is in development. The CSMP and the associated surface water
modeling includes regional water quality best management practices (BMPs), stormwater
volume and rate control improvements, and a new outlet to Peltier Lake. The CSMP also
includes design standards for future developments in the Northeast Area. Peltier Lake is
impaired for nutrients and it is imperative that the new system does not adversely impact the lake
and other downstream interests.
The proposed project will benefit nearly 1,300 acres and includes:
A new stormwater conveyance system;
Multi-purpose regional stormwater management facilities;
Pedestrian trail extensions; and
Improvements to Peltier Lake Drive
The project will be implemented using a phased approach based on preliminary development
patterns. The phases and cost per phase are as follows:
Development Phase Cost
Phase 1 – Peltier Lake Outlet Improvements $2,248,023
Phase 2 – I-35E Crossing $750,914
Phase 3 – East Side Improvements $639,925
Phase 4 – West Side Improvements $557,491
TOTAL COST $4,196,353
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 2
Funding for the project will be through surface water management fees and potential grants from
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), Minnesota Board Water and Soil Resources (BWSR),
and the Public Facilities Authority (PFA).
This project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint and should
be constructed as proposed herein.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 3
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Authorization
On September 14, 2015, the City of Lino Lakes City Council authorized the preparation of an
engineering feasibility report for the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage System Improvements.
2.2. Scope
The Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project consists of upsizing an existing culvert
outlet to Peltier Lake and providing a new stormwater conveyance system to handle future runoff
from the project area. The project includes a combination of traditional storm sewer and open
channel conveyances, in addition to multi-purpose regional stormwater management facilities.
These facilities will provide flood control and water quality treatment beyond the traditional
permit requirements for development. This project would also alleviate some the capacity issues
with the existing field drains to facilitate development in the project area. The project area can
be seen in Appendix A, Figure 1 and encompasses the northeast section of Lino Lakes, north of
Main Street and east of Peltier Lake, as well as portions of Centerville and Hugo that discharge
water into the study area boundary.
The objective is to develop a reginal storm water management plan to allow development of the
property while protecting existing natural resources. This will be accomplished through storm
water conveyance, water quality improvements, and runoff rate and volume control.
2.3. Data Available
Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following:
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) record drawings
RCWD topographic maps and GIS data
RCWD hydrologic and hydraulic modeling files
City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan [September 12, 2011]
City of Lino Lakes Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways, and Trail System Plan [2004]
City of Lino Lakes Surface Water Management Plan [2005]
City of Lino Lakes I-35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) [2005]
City of Lino Lakes record drawings and GIS data
City of Hugo 2030 Comprehensive Plan [2010]
Anoka County LIDAR contour information
Field observations of the area
Additional references detailed in Section 8
2.4. Project History
A Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) is in development with input from the
RCWD. This plan identifies the existing conditions and proposes a solution to provide surface
water management within the study area.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 4
The CMSP results in the establishment of performance standards to be followed for future
developments in the northeast drainage area. The standards allow for phasing of development
while limiting adverse impacts to neighboring properties and waterbodies. RCWD will use the
CSMP performance standards to permit within the northeast drainage area. The following is a
brief summary of the CSMP performance standards:
Development of regional storage facilities to limit discharges into Peltier Lake
Gated operation of the regional storage facilities to be operated by the City
Minimize the risk of flood impact (downstream or upstream) to downstream structures,
infrastructure, and land currently within the floodplain
Volume control through water reuse within the drainage area
The entirety of the draft performance standards are in a RCWD letter dated October 1, 2015
Appendix B.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 5
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1. Drainage Areas and Drain Tile
The Northeast Area is serviced by three Anoka County drainage systems: Anoka County Ditch
(ACD) 72 and Judicial Ditch (JD) 2 in the north; and ACD 55 in the south (Appendix A, Figure
2). ACD 72 and JD 2 discharge directly to Peltier Lake while ACD 55 enters Clearwater Creek,
or Judicial Ditch (JD) 3, to the south before discharging into Peltier Lake. The remainder of the
study area surface flows directly to Peltier Lake.
The county ditches within the study area are all agricultural drain tile systems that serve an area
of approximately 1,300 acres within Lino Lakes, Centerville, and Hugo. These properties are
entitled to the benefits of the drainage system and, in effect, own the drain tile system under
Minnesota Statues 103E (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1991). The drainage of
the system must be maintained in perpetuity, until such time the assessed land owners choose to
petition RCWD for the abandonment of the drain tile on their property.
The majority of the land in the study area is agricultural (Table 1 and Appendix A, Figure 3) and
drained to the ditch system via unbuffered surface inlets.
Table 1. Existing land uses and areas
Land Use Area
(acres)
Agricultural 896
Farmstead 10
Institutional 0.2
Right-of-Way 38
Park, Recreational, or Preserve 15
Single Family Attached 21
Single Family Detached 37
Undeveloped 276
TOTAL 1,294
The low points in the study area can remain inundated for weeks following the 100-year event
due to the limited pipe capacity in the county ditch systems. Because the low lying areas take so
long to drain back to their normal water levels, the next rain event may compound the flooding
beyond the 100-year flood level. Without any drainage improvements, future developments in
this area are required to design stormwater management facilities to retain 100-year back-to-back
events.
3.2. Storm Sewer
There is storm sewer within the study area in Lino Lakes along Otter Lake Road and the
McDonald’s site. Due to the limited capacity of the existing drain tile system, McDonald’s was
required to install a temporary spray irrigation system to reduce the stormwater volume from
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 6
their site; however this is not a feasible long-term solution. The City of Hugo has stormwater
infrastructure and storage which serves the development along the Lino Lakes and Hugo border.
3.3. Receiving Waters
Peltier Lake has been listed as an impaired waterbody within the greater Anoka Chain of Lakes
since 2002 for aquatic recreation, with the main pollutant identified as excess phosphorus from
watershed runoff and internal loading (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2013). In addition,
the Anoka Chain of Lakes has limited flood storage capacity (Houston Engineering, Inc. 2013).
Any improvements to the drainage system will need to show no adverse impacts to receiving
waters in terms of increased phosphorus loading or flooding potential.
3.4. Existing Site Limitations
Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 55 and ACD 72 drain tiles were designed to provide drainage for
agricultural lands and are already at capacity, limited by the crossings under I-35E. ACD 55 and
ACD 72 both cross under I-35E, as shown in Appendix A, Figure 2, with a total capacity of 1.5
cubic feet per second (cfs) and 0.52 cfs, respectively (RCWD 2014). The City has also identified
this area as being a Runoff Sensitive Area for stormwater rate and volume control given the
limitations of the existing ditch systems (City of Lino Lakes 2005).
The City of Hugo contributes 215 acres of the nearly 1,300 total acres and has an existing flow
rate of 50.3 cfs into the City of Lino Lakes and the ACD 55 drain tile system. The City of
Centerville contributes a minor amount of surface runoff to the study area, which contributes
directly to Peltier Lake.
The existing agricultural drainage system has been subject to repeated blow-outs and tile
ruptures in recent years. In 2014, the Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed the ACD 55 and
72 systems and determined the failures were recurring due to:
Deterioration of the drain tile system, including sections of pipe that have pulled apart, as
well as portions of the system have collapsed or are clogged with sediment; and
The drain tiles being undersized and unable to convey the incoming flows, resulting in a
surcharged system.
During the summer of 2015, RCWD replaced several sections of ACD 55 main trunk and the
ACD 72 main trunk, as well as several lateral branches. The drain tile system does not provide
any water quality benefits to Peltier Lake and field inlets to the system do not have adequate
buffers to prevent sediments from entering the system and Peltier Lake. Simple estimates
indicate that the existing system discharges 588 pounds of phosphorus and 1,028 tons of total
suspended solids to the lake on an annual basis.
The constraints of the drain tile system have limited landowners’ ability to develop their land
consistent with the City of Lino Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan. Development must meet RCWD
Rule C for Stormwater Management Plans, which includes water quality and rate control.
Because the existing drainage system is already at capacity, in some cases, new development
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 7
must limit stormwater discharge rates to no more than 1% of the existing runoff rates (Houston
Engineering, Inc. 2013). In addition to limiting runoff rates, new developments must also treat
their stormwater onsite to meet the water quality and volume reduction requirements of Rule C.
Unfortunately the soils underlying the majority of the study area are poorly suited for infiltration
and cannot meet the volume reduction requirement of Rule C. This has resulted in temporary
infrastructure being built for stormwater irrigation because there was not an alternate way to
meet the RCWD rules for surface water quality and storage.
In addition to poor underlying soils, the study area also has a significant amount of wetlands
(Appendix A, Figure 4), which limit stormwater management opportunities. A detailed wetland
analysis is included in Appendix C.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 8
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1. Alternatives Considered
In consideration of the City’s Comprehensive Plan where this area is guided for urban and mixed
uses (Appendix A, Figure 5) it was determined that the existing drainage system would need to
be addressed. Multiple alternatives were considered based on the future needs of the area (Table
2).
Table 2. Future Land Uses
Land Use Area
(acres)
Commercial 98
High Density Residential 19
Industrial 412
Large Lot Residential 46
Low Density Residential 179
Medium Density Residential 61
Mixed Use 340
Open Water 72
Park, Recreational, or Preserve 16
Right-of-Way 51
TOTAL 1,294
As the existing county drain system is not sufficient to handle the increased runoff from a
developed watershed. Options were considered to provide capacity for development, with the
goal of limiting adverse impacts to downstream landowners and natural resources. The
following options are discussed in greater detail in Appendix D.
Option 1: Existing System to Remain
The existing system is in need of maintenance. The RCWD completed a study in 2014 outlining
system improvements. Even with the system improvements, the capacity of the existing system
is not sufficient to develop the area consistent with the City of Lino Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan.
For property owners to make improvements in this drainage area, per RCWD rules, they may
need to dedicate 45% of their developable land for stormwater management including ponding of
back-to-back 100-year flood events and infiltration requirements. This area has tight soils and
alternatives to infiltration are costly and limited. Spray irrigation is temporarily being used to
meet the RCWD requirements at the McDonald’s site until a regional BMP is constructed.
The existing system does not provide any water quality treatment upstream of Peltier Lake which
is classified as an impaired waterbody. Simple estimates indicate that the existing system
discharges 588 pounds of phosphorus and 1,028 tons of total suspended solids to the lake on an
annual basis. Any proposed project must not impair water quality or flood storage within or
downstream of Peltier Lake.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 9
Option 2: Outlet to Clearwater Creek
This option considers the lands drained by ACD 55 to the east of I-35E and proposes to reroute
the drainage to the south to Clearwater Creek via storm pipe (Appendix A, Figure 6). This
option benefits 710 acres, of which 495 acres are in Lino Lakes. This option is not
recommended due to concerns that the increased discharge could cause bank erosion on
Clearwater Creek.
Option 3: New Outlet to Peltier Lake and Crossing Under I-35E
There is a proposed mixed-use development between 20th Avenue and I-35E. The development
would provide surface drainage via a series of connected ponds from I-35E to the 20th Avenue.
The objective in recommending an alignment from 20th Avenue to Peltier Lake is to minimize
impacts to undeveloped parcels and reduce associated easement acquisitions.
Alternative A – Open Channel Conveyance
This option includes open-channel flow through a ditch system from 20th Avenue to
Peltier Lake along the north property line (Appendix A, Figure 7). While feasible and
consistent with the City of Lino Lakes’ I-35 Final Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide
Review, it requires double the land acquisitions in a northern alignment resulting in the
cost being 20 to 25 percent higher than Alternate B; and thus is not recommended. A
southern alignment was considered, but dismissed when RCWD staff noted they would
not permit the project with a southern alignment because of potential impacts to wetlands
included in the City’s Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan
(CWPMP).
Alternative B - Storm Sewer Pipe Outlet
This option provides a new outlet to Peltier Lake via a 72-inch storm drain that runs from
I-35E to Peltier Lake. This system is capable of capturing the ACD 55 and ACD 72
drainage systems upstream of I-35E, in addition to collecting runoff from the remaining
study area (Appendix A, Figure 8). The area above the pipe could be used for public
greenspace, as well as storm water ponding as this area develops in the future. In the
interim, the landowners could continue to farm on the easement. Because of the size of
the proposed pipeline, it would be a permanent feature on the landscape and a potential
encumbrance that future developers would need to design around.
Option 4 – Peltier Lake Outlet Improvements
This option takes advantage of an existing culvert crossing under Peltier Lake Drive and uses an
existing drainage way to convey stormwater flows from the study area to Peltier Lake (Appendix
A, Figure 9). This option is intended to give affected landowners the most flexibility for future
development. The existing drainage way would be permanently restored to a two-stage ditch
design, while the eastern portion would be a temporary ditch that could be incorporated as part of
future development plans. The intent is that ultimately the alignment would be an aesthetic
feature for future developments, with a meandering low flow channel and floodplain bench that
can be planted to provide biofiltration and additional water quality benefits for Peltier Lake.
Recommended Option
Option 4 is recommended as it provides the needed surface water conveyance and stormwater
runoff rate and flood control, while also providing an amenity to the community. Because it is
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 10
primarily an open channel, the system will not be constrained by a pipe size as is the case under
current conditions, and will be more adaptable to climate change and future development
requirements. The channel can drain the regional storage systems effectively and efficiently,
thereby minimizing the bounce in ponds from successive storm events. It also provides a known
normal water elevation in the low areas, around which the designers may build future
development to be safe from flooding.
Option 4 also includes a new crossing under I-35E near the existing ACD 55 crossing (Appendix
A, Figure 9). Final design and coordination with RCWD and MnDOT will determine if this
crossing is a single crossing or two smaller crossings under I-35E.
4.2. Proposed Drainage Improvements
The Peltier Lake outlet improvement and crossing under I-35E via a storm sewer pipe system is
recommended as the most cost-effective alternative. The proposed project (Appendix A, Figure
9) includes:
Replacing the existing culvert under Peltier Lake Drive
New open channel ditch conveyance from Peltier Lake Drive to 20th Avenue
New 60-inch storm drain crossing under I-35E to proposed regional storage facility
New regional storage facilities, phased with future developments, to provide flood
control storage and additional water quality treatment opportunities
A public greenway corridor with additional water quality features, such as iron-
enhanced filtration or biofiltration
Outlet control structures with gates on selected regional storage facilities to minimize
the risk of adversely impacting flood levels on Peltier Lake
Preserve the agricultural drain tile system to maintain upstream drainage rights until
all land within the study area develops. Drain tile may be abandoned or realigned as
development progresses, at the benefitted landowners’ expense and discretion.
The conceptual layout and system details are provided in Appendix E. Additional design
requirements proposed for land development within the study area are summarized in Appendix
B.
4.3. Storm Sewer and Stormwater Management
The City’s proposed storm sewer system and drainage design requirements will be in
conformance with the City’s performance standards, and as permitted by RCWD.
Construction of a stormwater collection and conveyance system will be necessary to direct
stormwater to the new crossing and constructed channel. This system will reduce flooding
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 11
within the study area and improve drainage conditions throughout the Northeast Lino Lakes
Area.
There are multiple ponding locations proposed with the Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan. At this time, it is proposed to utilize existing wetland complexes
for flood storage by providing an outlet control structure with operable gate at the normal water
level. In the event of a 100-year design storm, the gates can be closed to minimize the risk of
increasing the flood stage on Peltier Lake, and the wetlands would store the water until the gates
are opened after the flood threat on Peltier Lake has passed. The exact location and design of
these regional storage facilities will be determined as the design progresses. It will be expected
that the storage areas will experience a significant bounce in elevation during 100-year storm
event and will need to be planted with a suitable planting palette that can tolerate periodic
inundation to maintain vegetation.
4.4. Storm Water Quality
The study area will include a variety of measures to provide treatment and improve water quality
in Peltier Lake and the Anoka Chain of Lakes to minimize impacts related to this project. All
individual developments will be required to manage stormwater on site to the current and
applicable RCWD rules. It is anticipated the study area will include a water quality treatment
train with sedimentation BMPs located in upland areas designed to remove solids and particulate
matter. This will be combined with surface and media filtration to remove dissolved particulates,
nitrogen, and phosphorus prior to entering the new storm sewer.
The existing and proposed total phosphorus loading from the study area to Peltier Lake were
evaluated at a conceptual level, using event mean concentrations from the Minnesota Stormwater
Manual for the general land use types within the study area.
Without any water quality treatment, the development of the study area would result in nearly
doubling the total phosphorus loading to Peltier Lake annually. The City of Lino Lakes
stormwater management ordinance and the RCWD rules will require water quality treatment
practices be implemented for all new developments. The required BMPs are estimated to
remove roughly 600 pounds of total phosphorus annually, which would result in a total load
reduction of 130 pounds from existing conditions.
Refer to Appendices B and E for proposed design requirements and conceptual details for the
study area.
4.5. Permits and Approvals
Construction of the new crossing, channel and outlet improvements will disturb more than one
acre of land and will require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
General Stormwater Permit [MNR 100001] that must be obtained by Lino Lakes from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 12
The project includes improving an existing outlet to Peltier Lake, as such the City will need to
obtain a DNR Public Waters Work permit (GP2004-0001) from the MnDNR, as well as to obtain
a RCWD permit to demonstrate no adverse impacts will be created as result of this project.
The project also includes a culvert crossing under I-35E; as such the City will need to obtain a
Utility Accommodation on Trunk Highway Right of Way Permit (Form 2525) and a
Miscellaneous Work on a Trunk Highway Right of Way permit (Form 1723) from MnDOT.
The project includes a storm drain crossing under 20th Avenue (CSAH 54) and a Right of Way
Permit from Anoka County may be required.
The alignment has been chosen to avoid or minimize wetland impacts where possible; however
any modifications to existing wetlands would require approval by the Technical Evaluation Panel
(TEP).
Given the complexity of the project it is anticipated that the City and staff will need to meet with
the above agencies individually in order to facilitate permit approvals.
4.6. Right-of-Way / Easements
Right-of-way needs will be evaluated during final design. It is anticipated that some temporary
construction easements will be required. Easement acquisition for the Koch pipeline on the east
side is anticipated, as well as a power line easement on the west side. Easements related to the
regional storage basins will be acquired as part of the platting process for individual
developments.
4.7. Project Phasing
The project will be constructed in several phases (Appendix A, Figure 10), as funding and land
development allows. The project will be constructed from downstream to upstream, starting
with the improved Peltier Lake outfall and channel to 20th Avenue, finishing with upstream
regional storage facilities.
Phase 1 will include replacement of the existing culvert outlet at Peltier Lake Drive and the
reconstruction of the drainage way from Peltier Lake Drive to 20th Avenue. Once the outlet
channel is reconstructed, the neighboring properties on the west side could develop and
discharge treated stormwater to the channel. Development of the regional stormwater facility
between Peltier Lake Drive and 20th Avenue would need to be constructed concurrently with any
development. The new channel will also provide an outlet for the proposed ponding facilities
being constructed between 20th Avenue and I-35E, also part of Phase 1.
Phase 2 will include the installation of a new 60-inch crossing under I-35E and an extension of
the storm sewer beyond the MnDOT right-of-way to allow for future extension of the sewer
along Otter Lake Trail.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 13
Phase 3 would be constructed concurrently with the Otter Lake Trail extension and includes
expanding the storm sewer system east of I-35E to the Otter Lake Trail extension and within the
proposed right-of-way.
Future phases include construction of additional regional storage facilities, water quality
features, recreational enhancements, and additional storm sewer infrastructure as needed for
development. The timing of these features will depend on individual landowners and
development interests.
At all times during project construction and phasing, upstream drainage will be maintained by
realigning the county ditches, at the developers expense, or leaving them in place for future
abandonment when the study area is fully built out.
4.8. Private Utilities
The Koch Pipeline Company has three crude oil pipelines that run through the study area,
roughly from 20th Avenue and 80th Street in the northwest to Main Street at the Hugo border.
The proposed 60-inch crossing under I-35E avoids the Koch pipeline, but final design of the
storm sewer infrastructure east of I-35E will need to ensure there are no conflicts with the
pipelines. It is anticipated that coordination with the Koch Pipeline Company will be required in
order to construct the project as proposed.
There is also an overhead electric line that runs north-south through the western portion of the
study area. It is anticipated that coordination with the utility company will be required to
construct the temporary ditch.
4.9. Wetlands
All practical measures will be taken to prevent any inadvertent temporary drainage of wetlands
from the construction and placement of the new pipeline and outfall to Peltier Lake. These
practices include following setback requirements (Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
2013), using bentonite plugs and/or steel casing for the areas where storm sewer or culvert runs
through wetlands, and prohibiting the use of gravel bedding in these areas.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 14
5. FINANCING
5.1. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A detailed opinion of probable cost is included in Appendix F of this report. The opinion of
probable cost is based on projected construction costs for 2017 and includes a fifteen percent
(15%) construction contingency and twenty-five percent (25%) indirect costs. The indirect costs
include engineering, legal, and administrative costs associated with the project.
Project costs have been separated into assumed construction phases. The first phase will consist
of the Peltier Lake outlet improvements and new channel from Peltier Lake Drive to 20th
Avenue. It is anticipated that after the outlet culvert is replaced, the new crossing under I-35E
will be constructed as the second phase. The third phase would consist of constructing storm
sewer connections from the new I-35E crossing upstream, and along, the future Otter Lake Trail
extension. Future phases will include additional volume control and water quality BMPs, outlet
control structures, and storm sewer connections, as development in the study area progresses.
The total project costs, by construction phase, are summarized below.
Table 3. Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Summary of Cost
Development Phase Cost
Phase 1 – Peltier Lake Outlet Improvements $2,248,023
Phase 2 – I-35E Crossing $750,914
Phase 3 – Otter Lake Trail Storm Sewer Extension $639,925
Phase 4 – Future Improvements $557,491
TOTAL COST $4,196,353
5.2. Funding Sources
Funding for the project will be through surface water management fees collected through
development, and potential grants from Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), Minnesota
Board Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), and the Public Facilities Authority (PFA).
The surface water management fees per the City’s current rates and proposed land use are
estimated to be between $2 and $2.5 million for this area. The City could consider developing a
specific fee related to this area to ensure costs are covered.
If the City is eligible, a RCWD grant could be up to $50,000, and a PFA grant could be twenty-
five percent (25%) principal forgiveness on Phases 1 and 2. The BWSR has various grant
programs, and an estimated grant amount is unknown at this time.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 15
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The proposed schedule for this improvement project is as follows for construction to occur in
2017:
Phase 1 – Feasibility Report
City Council Authorizes Feasibility Study……………………………………September 14, 2015
Public Informational Meeting……………………………………………………… April 22, 2016
City Council Accepts Feasibility Report……………………………….....................June 27, 2016
Public Hearing / Authorize Preparation of Final Plans and Specifications....................... July 2016
Phase 2 – Final Design
Final Design…………………………………………………….………………….. Summer 2016
City Council Approves Plans……….………………………….…………………..…..... Fall 2016
Apply for Grant Funding…………………………………………….………….. Throughout 2016
Obtain RCWD, MnDNR, MnDOT Permits………………………..…………...………..Fall 2016
City Council Authorizes Ad for Bids………………………….………………………March 2017
Receive Contractor Bids………………..……………………………………………….April 2017
Award Contract…..………………………………………………………………………May 2017
Phase 3 - Construction
Begin Construction………...…………………………………………………………….May 2017
Final Completion of Construction…………………………………………………..……Fall 2017
Note: The schedule assumes all permitting work will be complete prior to the start of
construction.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 16
7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage System Improvement Project includes a reconstructed
stormwater outlet at Peltier Lake, drainage improvements, water quality and volume control
BMPs, and appurtenant work. The total cost of the project is estimated at $4,196,353 to be
implemented in phases as development occurs.
Based on our analysis and data presented, the proposed project is feasible, necessary, and cost
effective from an engineering standpoint. We recommend construction of the proposed
improvements as detailed in this report and as determined financially feasible by the City
Council.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 17
8. REFERENCES
City of Hugo. "2030 Comprehensive Plan." City of Hugo. March 15, 2010.
http://www.ci.hugo.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=4A42E80D-D1B1-48A1-940D-
F92071D6D492&Type=B_LIST (accessed October 20, 2015).
City of Lino Lakes. "2030 Comprehensive Plan." City of Lino Lakes. September 12, 2011.
http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=67FBFAB1-0B78-448F-85B7-
AFF5C3B73FEF&Type=B_BASIC (accessed October 20, 2015).
—. "I-35E Corridor Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)." City of Lino Lakes.
September 26, 2005. http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=581A5670-E592-
4178-B9B2-7B0B72922A8E&Type=B_BASIC (accessed October 20, 2015).
—. "Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways, and Trail System Plan." Park System Plan. August
2004. http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=8F6D51B8-D88A-40BA-98DA-
B5805AE7C568&DE=A2373B63-7508-48A1-A507-F42A0255D30B&Type=B_BASIC
(accessed October 20, 2015).
—. "Surface Water Management Plan." City of Lino Lakes. December 2005. http://www.ci.lino-
lakes.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B92EFCBF5-B800-4B28-AD6A-
B8C3B7009FB0%7D/uploads/SWMP-Final_with_Appendix.pdf (accessed October 20,
2015).
Houston Engineering, Inc. Hydraulics and Hydrology Evaluation Anoka County Ditch 55 Memo.
May 6, 2013.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources. "BWSR Guidance Concerning NRCS-Developed
Drainage Setback Tables." October 2013.
http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/delineation/Drainage_setback_guidance.pdf
(accessed June 21, 2016).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. "Minnesota Public Drainage Manual." Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. September 1991.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Minnesota_Public_Drainage_Manual.pdf
(accessed October 20, 2015).
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. "Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake TMDL." Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. July 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-
document.html?gid=20171 (accessed October 20, 2015).
RCWD and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. "Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes Nutrient TMDL."
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. July 2013.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=17164 (accessed
October 20, 2015).
RCWD. "Anoka County Ditch 55 Repair Memorandum." Rice Creek Watershed District. June
16, 2014. http://www.ricecreek.org/vertical/Sites/%7BF68A5205-A996-4208-96B5-
2C7263C03AA9%7D/uploads/ACD_55_Repair_memo_FINAL_6-16-2014.pdf
(accessed October 20, 2015).
—. "Anoka County Ditch 72 Repair Memorandum." Rice Creek Watershed District. October 16,
2014.
http://rcwd.houstoneng.net/ditchportal/Historic%20Documents/Scans/ACD%2072/Memo
s%20and%20Transmittals/RCWD_ACD72_MT_10162014_11.pdf (accessed October
20, 2015).
—. "Rice Creek Watershed District Rules." Rice Creek Watershed District. December 1, 2014.
http://www.ricecreek.org/vertical/Sites/%7BF68A5205-A996-4208-96B5-
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790 Page 18
2C7263C03AA9%7D/uploads/Final_adopted_RCWD_rule_11-12-2014.pdf (accessed
October 20, 2015).
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
APPENDIX A
Figures
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 72 Br 11
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
ACD 72 Main Trk
§¨¦35W
Hardwood Ck [JD2]
Clearwater Ck [JD3]20th AveMain StPeltier Lake DrRehbein St
Peltier
Lake
Centerville
Lake
LEGEND
Study Area City Boundaries Drain Tile Open Ditch Stream
N
FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG0_LOCATION.mxdLINO LAKES 4STUDY AREA
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
§¨¦94
00.5
Miles
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 72 Br 11
ACD 72 Br 1JD 3 Main TrkACD 72 Main Trk
00.25
miles
LEGEND
Study Area
ACD55
JD2 [Hardwood Ck]
JD3 [Clearwater Ck]
Peltier Lake Direct Drainage
Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 2. EXISTING DRAINAGES
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG2_EX-DRAINAGES.mxd
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 72 Br 11
ACD 72 Br 1JD 3 Main TrkACD 72 Main Trk
00.25
miles
LEGEND
Agricultural
Farmstead
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Institutional
Park, Recreational or Preserve
Major Highway
Undeveloped
Study Area
Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 3. EXISTING LAND USE
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG3_EX-LANDUSE.mxd
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 72 Br 11
ACD 72 Br 1JD 3 Main TrkACD 72 Main Trk
00.25
miles
LEGEND
Level 2 Delineation
Level 1 Delineation
National Wetland Inventory
Study Area Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 4. EXISTING WETLANDS
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG4_WETLANDS.mxd
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 72 Br 11
ACD 72 Br 1JD 3 Main TrkACD 72 Main Trk
00.25
miles
LEGEND
Large Lot Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Park, Recreational, or Preserve
Mixed Use
Right of Way
Open Water/Wetland
Study Area
Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 5. FUTURE LAND USE
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG5_PR-LANDUSE.mxd
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkPeltier
Lake
MN54
MN84
MN14
00.25
miles
LEGEND
Proposed Alignment
Benefitted Area
Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 6. CLEARWATER CREEK OPTION
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG6_OPTION2.mxd
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkPeltier
Lake
MN54
MN14MN84
00.25
miles
LEGEND
Proposed Alignment
Benefitted Area
Conceptual Regional Storage
Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 7. NEW OUTLET OPTION 3A
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG7_OPTION3A.mxd
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkPeltier
Lake
MN54
MN14MN84
00.25
miles
LEGEND
Proposed Alignment
Benefitted Area
Conceptual Regional Storage
Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 8. NEW OUTLET OPTION 3B
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG8_OPTION3B.mxd
§¨¦35E
ACD 55 Br 8
A C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 72 Main Trk
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkPeltier
Lake
MN54
MN14MN84
00.25
miles
LEGEND
Proposed Alignment
Benefitted Area
Conceptual Regional Storage
Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 9. OPTION 4: EXISTING OUTLET
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG9_OPTION3C.mxd
§¨¦35E
ACD 72 Main Trk
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkACD 55 Main TrkPeltier
Lake
MN54
MN14MN84
00.25
miles
LEGEND
1st Phase [Peltier Lake Outlet and Regional BMPs]
2nd Phase [I-35E Replacement Culvert]
3rd Phase [Otter Lake Trail Extension Storm Sewer]
Future Phases [Timing depends on development]
Study Area
Drain Tile
Open Ditch
Stream
N
FIGURE 10. CONSTRUCTION PHASING
K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\FEASIBILITY STUDY\FIG10_PR-PHASING.mxd
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
APPENDIX B
Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
October 1, 2015 Draft Performance Specifications
Draft – 10/1/15
Performance Specifications
City of Lino Lake Proposed Stormwater Outlet to Peltier Lake
DOCUMENT PURPOSE:
The purpose of this document is to describe the functional design of the project upon which the
performance characteristics (specifications) and the determination of “no adverse impact” depend. The
performance specifications include the physical characteristics, operation and performance of the
mitigation measures committed to by the City. The District acknowledges the functional design for the
project may change. These changes under no circumstances can result in an increase in the 2-year 24
hour, 10-year 24-hour and 100-year critical duration peak discharge and runoff volume or the timing of
the peak discharge to Peltier Lake from that represented by the City in Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Plan for the Proposed Peltier Lake Outlet Lino Lakes, Minnesota (January 22, 2015) and
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for the Northeast Area of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
(September 11, 2015) as reviewed by the District Engineer and summarized in Technical Memorandum,
Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) District Engineer Review (July 9, 2015).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Lino Lakes (the City) is proposing to construct a new stormwater outlet to Peltier Lake (the
Project), which would serve a 1,430 acre area within the northeast portion of the City. The area is
currently served by Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 72, ACD 55 and natural drainage features. Runoff
generated by precipitation events now reaches Peltier Lake through ACD 72 which drains portions of
northeast Lino Lakes on either side of I-35E and flows directly to Peltier Lake; through ACD 55 which
discharges to Clearwater Creek and flows to Peltier Lake; and for some lands east of Peltier Lake by
overland and natural drainage features directly to Peltier Lake. Plate 1 provided by the City shows the
current drainage patterns and the division of the drainage area into regions. These regions are the
organizational areas for the mitigation proposed by the City, to ensure no adverse impact under the
District’s Rule I, Drainage Systems. A portion of the drainage area is located in the city of Hugo. The
current capacities of ACD 55 and ACD 72, both of which are clay tile systems constructed in the early
1900s for agricultural purposes, are insufficient to convey runoff consistent with the City’s planned level
of development.
STANDARD FOR DETERMINATION OF NO ADVERSE IMPACT:
The definition of adverse impact utilizes criteria that the District applies programmatically under Rule I.
1. No damage to structures, buildings and infrastructure as a result of an increase in flooding
(increased elevation, velocity or number of days of inundation);
2. No property damage or increased maintenance costs resulting from an increase in the amount
of erosion, bank failure or accelerated sedimentation;
3. No decrease in water quality resulting from an increase in phosphorus and sediment loads; and
4. No permanent loss of the use of flood storage volume during the flood peak within the Anoka
Chain of Lakes.
Draft – 10/1/15
Functional Design and Performance Specifications:
The project design is so conceptual in nature, the sizes, types, lengths, slopes and characteristics of the
proposed infrastructure remain undefined. Only the sizes, types, lengths, slopes and characteristics of
select pipes included in the model submittal have been defined. The following summarizes those
physical features either described in the written submittals or the model submitted by WSB on
September 11, 2015 (and reviewed by HEI), which related to project performance. Project performance
is defined as the 2-year 24 hour, 10-year 24-hour and 100-year critical duration peak discharge and
runoff volume or the timing of flood peak (i..e., the specific discharge hydrographs for these events).
Pipe Infrastructure
Outlet Pipe 72-inch RCP estimated length 4,116 feet @ 0.19%
slope
I 35E Culvert(s) 60-inch RCP
Drainage Area Characteristics
Total Land Area Served by the Outlet 1,430 acres total; 1,415 acres excluding I 35W
Current Amount of Impervious Area (acres)
Hugo region – 71
East region – 16
Central region – 11
West region – 10
Total – 108
Maximum Allowable Increase Impervious Area At Full Development (acres)
Hugo region - **
East region – 290
Central region –170
West region –72
Total –532 acres
Maximum Allowable Total Impervious Area At Full Development (acres)
Hugo region - **
East region – 306
Central region –181
West region –82
Total –640
** no more than existing conditions peak discharge for the 2-year, 24-hour; 10-year, 24-hour; and 100-
year, 24-peak discharge from the City of Hugo to the City of Lino Lakes estimated at 35.4 cfs for the 100-
year, 24-peak discharge. This discharges is based on adding the hydrographs for nodes CA55MTL_012,
CA55MTL_013, CA55MTL_011, and CA55MTL_025A from the proposed WSB InfoSWMM model,
submitted 9-11-2015
Draft – 10/1/15
Draft – 10/1/15
Regional Live Storage With Use Controlled by the City for the Reduction in Peak Discharge
Current Live Storage Within the Drainage Area Which Must be Maintained (acre-feet)
Hugo region – 50.4
East region – 219.5
Central region – 60.3
West region – 21.2
Total – 351.4
Minimum Total Live Storage Mitigation Requirement at Full Development (acre-feet)
Hugo region - **
East region – 292.6
Central region –156.4
West region –82.7
Total – 531.7
** to be determined based on the need to ensure existing peak discharge for the 2-year, 24-hour; 10-
year, 24-hour; and 100-year, 24-peak discharge from the City of Hugo to the City of Lino Lakes equal to
or less than the fully developed future condition.
Regional Storage Basin Controlled by the City, Live Storage Performance Characteristics
Characteristic City Controlled Regional Facility
West Region Central Region East Region
Maximum 100-year water surface
elevation
901.31 903.17 912.72
Live Storage Volume for the 100-year,
24-hour precipitation event (acre-feet)
82.7 156.4 292.6
Maximum Peak Discharge Leaving the
Basin for the 100-year, 24-hour
precipitation event (cfs)
21.3 150 54
Dead Storage Volume (acre-feet) 15 35 60
Planned Principal Outlet Elevation 899.0 900.0 906.0
Maximum Water Depth for Live
Storage (feet)
2.31 3.17 6.72
Regional Storage Basin Elevation Discharge Characteristics
City Controlled Regional Facility Pond Elevation Discharge Rate from Pond
West Storage 899 0
901.5 23
903 23
Draft – 10/1/15
Central Storage 900 0
902 150
East Storage 906 0
910 54
912 54
Regional Storage Basin Controlled by the City, Gated Operation
• Operation of the gated facility shall be controlled by the City of Lino Lakes.
• A gate shall be placed to control the release of water from each regional storage facility.
• Each gate must be closed when Peltier Lake reaches an elevation 1-foot below the 100-year
flood elevation of 886.2 (NAVD 1988) on the rising limb of the lake stage hydrograph and remain
closed until the flood elevation on Pelteir Lake recedes below the 100-year flood elevation of
886.2, on the falling limb of the lake stage hydrograph.
• The regional storage shall be designed to ensure no local flood impact as a result of successive
(back – to – back) precipitation events, when the gates are closed.
• No flood impact (downstream or upstream) shall occur to downstream structures,
infrastructure, and land currently at an elevation of 887.2 or less.
Maximum Discharge Characteristics and Flood Peak Timing Between Regions
Maximum Rate of Discharge Between Regions
for the 100-year, 24-hour Precipitation Event
Estimated
Peak
Discharge
(cfs)
Estimated
Event Runoff
Volume (acre
feet)
Timing of the
Peak Elevation
(hours) After
Initiation of
Precipitation
Event
City of Hugo and East Region 35.4 ** 89.2 12.8
I 35E Culvert(s) Peak Discharge (100-yr, 24-hr) 54.0 293.9 77.8
East Region and Central Region 54.0 293.9 77.8
Central Region and West Region 150.6 466.3 78.0
West Region and Peltier Lake 171.1 548.5 78.2
*2-yr, 24-hr and 10-yr, 24-hr are yet to be provided
** This discharges is based on adding the hydrographs for nodes CA55MTL_012, CA55MTL_013,
CA55MTL_011, and CA55MTL_025A from the proposed WSB InfoSWMM model, submitted 9-11-2015
Draft – 10/1/15
Discharge hydrograph to Peltier Lake (ungated)
Regional Best Management Practices for Water Quality Treatment with Use Controlled by the
Minimum Water Quality Treat Requirement
1. Minimum required is 1.1-inch across 532 acres of new impervious surface = 48.7 acre-feet
Minimum Volume Control Requirement By Infiltration Within the Drainage Area
1. Estimated amount of area where infiltration is feasible is 74 acres out of 532 acres = 6.1% * 48.7
acre-feet =2.97 acre-feet
Proposed Volume Control Requirement Through Water Reuse Within the Drainage Area1
1. Amount minimum of 2.92 acre-feet; shortage of 0.07 acre-feet
Minimum Water Quality Treatment for Reducing Sediment and Total Phosphorus Annual Loads to
Peltier Lake Wet Pond Dead Storage (in addition to the live storage required)
1. East region – 60 acre-feet
2. Central region –35 acre-feet
3. West region –15 acre-feet
4. Total –110 acre-feet (ratio treatment vol / dead storage volume 2.25)
1 Subject to the District design standard of a maximum of 1-inch per week for 26 weeks during the growing season, and verification for a three
year monitoring period.
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
APPENDIX C
Wetland Report
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
St. Cloud Minneapolis St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com K:\02029-790\Admin\Docs\Outlet Alternatives Memo_Sequencing.doc
Memorandum
To: Nicholas Tomczik, Rice Creek Watershed District
From: Alison Harwood, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Dustin Simonson, WSB & Associates, Inc.
CC: Pete Willenbring, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: January 22, 2015
Re: Outlet Alternatives
Northeast Area Drainage Study
WSB Project No. 2029-79
The City of Lino Lakes is proposing to create a drainage channel between Interstate 35E (I-35E)
and Peltier Lake. Lino Lakes is considering different alternatives to complete this project.
Two pipe options are being looked at for placement within the Mattamy Homes parcel. These are
listed as Eastern Pipe Option 1 and 2 on the attached Figure 2. Eastern Pipe Option 1 flows
northwest through the Mattamy Homes parcel until it straightens out on the north end and under
20th Avenue. Eastern Pipe Option 2 starts in the same location as Eastern Pipe Option 1. From
there Option 2 will flow southwest and continue under 20th Avenue. West of 20th Avenue,
multiple options for continuing the drainage are available. These options are summarized below:
Proposed Action:
The proposed action is to create a drainage channel from I-35E to Peltier Lake.
Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to address a failing tile and ditch system that currently exists west
of I-35E within the benefitted area. The design generally consists of the installation of a 48 inch
pipe under I-35E to carry water overflowing from the watersheds east of I-35E to the west
toward Peltier Lake. The pipe size is then upsized to a 72 inch to carry water from areas tributary
to the system on the west side of I-35E to Peltier Lake.
Wetland Review
Wetlands within the project area were determined using both Level 1 and Level 2 methods.
Level 2 wetland delineations were received from Rice Creek Watershed District for various
locations within the project area. Remaining areas adjacent to the proposed alternatives were
evaluated using Level 1 methods, which included an aerial photo review (1991 – 2013) and
review of desktop data (NWI, DNR Public Waters, Soil Survey, Contours). Figure 1 shows the
Lino Lakes Outlet Study
January 22, 2015
Page 2
K:\02029-790\Admin\Docs\Outlet Alternatives Memo_Sequencing.doc
data used in the Level 1 analysis along with the proposed wetland boundaries. Historic aerial
photos of the area are attached (Appendix B).
The alternatives analysis also considered the Wetland Preservation Corridor that has been
established by the City of Lino Lakes.
Based on the results of the Level 1 delineation, a Level 2 delineation may need to be performed
during the growing season adjacent to the preferred pipe alignment. This will ensure that the pipe
is placed in a manner that avoids or minimizes wetland impacts.
Sequencing Analysis
WSB & Associates has completed an analysis of a range of alternatives consistent with WCA
Rules 8420.0325 and 8420.0520.
The preferred alternative will ultimately connect to a system under I-35E. The preferred
alternative will collect overflow from this system; therefore impacts to wetlands east of I-35W
are not anticipated.
Major differences between the alternatives west of I-35E are based on pipe or open channel
options. Alternative impact comparisons are detailed in Table 1. Each of the alternatives
described below are shown on Figure 2.
Alternative 1:
Western Pipe/Open Channel Option 1 (Northern-most option): This option will use Eastern Pipe
Option 1. At the 20th Avenue connection a pipe or open channel will connect to the eastern pipe
and continue its flow west to Peltier Lake. The individual benefits and drawback of this option
area summarized below and shown on the attached figure:
Benefits of this option:
• Minimal temporary wetland impacts anticipated with pipe placement. Because a
pipe would be used, no secondary impacts resulting from lateral effect area
expected.
• No impacts to Wetland Preservation Corridor.
Drawbacks of this option:
• Wetland impacts could occur with an open channel option as a result of secondary
drainage (lateral effect). This effect would need to be calculated and impacts
would require replacement at an estimated 2:1 ratio.
• More difficult to get drainage from southern portion of western parcel to the
north.
• Western parcel property owner prefers an option that utilizes more of the low land
to the south of the parcel.
• Private property impacts to the parcels north of the boundary are possible.
Alternative 2/4:
Western Pipe Option 2 & 4 (central pipe): Through the Mattamy Homes parcel, the pipe could
use Eastern Pipe Option 1 or Eastern Pipe Option 2. The Eastern Pipe Option 2 is likely the
more appropriate connection. The pipes would then connect to the western parcel under 20th
Avenue. From 20th Avenue, the piping could go one of two ways using Western Pipe Option 2 or
Lino Lakes Outlet Study
January 22, 2015
Page 3
K:\02029-790\Admin\Docs\Outlet Alternatives Memo_Sequencing.doc
Western Pipe Option 4. Option 2 in the western parcel would skirt north around a large wetland
and continue to Peltier Lake. Option 4 in the western parcel would skirt south around a large
wetland and continue to Peltier Lake. The large wetland in the west central portion of the parcel
could be avoided by both options.
Benefits of this option:
• Minimal temporary wetland impacts anticipated with pipe placement. Because a
pipe would be used, no secondary impacts resulting from lateral effect area
expected.
• No impacts to Wetland Preservation Corridor.
• Can easily drain north and south sections of western parcel.
Drawbacks of this option:
• Western parcel property owner prefers an option that utilizes more of the low land
to the south of the parcel.
o Option 4 utilizes more low area than Option 2
Alternative 3:
Western Pipe Option 3 (Southern pipe): Through the Eastern Parcel, the pipe could use Eastern
Pipe Option 1 or Eastern Pipe Option 2 and connect under 20th Avenue to Western Pipe Option
3. Eastern Pipe Option 2 is likely the more appropriate option in the eastern parcel. The pipe
would travel south along 20th Avenue to near the southern border of the parcel and then move
west/northwest through the narrowest portion of the wetland located in the southeast corner of
the parcel. The pipe would outlet to Peltier Lake.
Benefits of this option:
• Utilizes the low areas of the parcel (landowner preference).
• No permanent impacts to Wetland Preservation Corridor.
Drawbacks of this option:
• Results in at least 9,165 sf of temporary wetland impacts.
• Less direct connection to the outlet at 20th Avenue.
Preferred Alternative:
Based on the alternatives analysis, WSB & Associates would recommend using Alternative
Eastern Pipe Option 2 in combination with Western Pipe Option 2 (Figure 3). As described
above, this alternative allows for both the north and south sections of the western parcel to be
drained and avoids wetland impacts.
Lino Lakes Outlet Study
January 22, 2015
Page 4
K:\02029-790\Admin\Docs\Outlet Alternatives Memo_Sequencing.doc
Table 1. Alternative impacts analysis for those alternatives serving the current land uses (+ = Positive effect, - = Adverse effect, 0 = No effect)
Alternative
Resource Category Alternative 1
(Northernmost
Option/Open Channel)
Alternative 2
(Central
Option/Pipe)
Alternative 3
(Southern
Option/Pipe)
Alternative 4
(Central
Option/Pipe)
Notes
Aesthetic Values + 0 0 0 The open channel drainage option may allow the
establishment of riparian vegetation.
Community Growth + + + + All options facilitate future mixed-use and low,
medium, or high density housing developments.
Existing/Potential Land
Use
+ + + + Future developments will likely diversify land
use from current agricultural use.
Farmland/food supply - - - - All options will result in reduced agricultural
land use.
Tax Revenues + + + + Housing developments will provide a new tax
base.
Wetlands (w/est. wetland
impacts)
0 0 - (9,165 sq ft,
temporary)
0 Options 1, 2, and 4 avoid wetland impacts.
Option 3 requires 9,165 sq ft of temporary
impacts to install pipes.
Resources not included in the summary table, based on an overall no effect for all alternatives include: Business/Home Relocations, Property Values, Flooding,
Recreation, Terrestrial Habitat, Aquatic Habitat, Habitat Diversity and Interspersion, Water Quality, Groundwater, Soils, Secondary and Cumulative Effects,
Endangered Species, Noise Levels, Transportation, Public Health, Public Facilities and Employment, Business Activity, Energy, Mineral Needs, Air Quality, Water
Supply, Navigation, Historical/Archeological, Wild and Scenic Rivers, State Listed Impaired, and Shoreline Processes
Lino Lakes Outlet Study
January 22, 2015
Page 5
K:\02029-790\Admin\Docs\Outlet Alternatives Memo_Sequencing.doc
Conclusion:
On behalf of the City of Lino Lakes, we request your review and approval of the Level 1 wetland
delineation as well as the sequencing analysis. If you require additional information in order to
complete your review, please contact us at 763-231-4847 or 763-270-3475 or email at
aharwood@wsbeng.com or dsimonson@wsbeng.com.
Attachments
Appendix A
Figure 1: Level 1 Delineated Wetlands
Figure 2: Outlet Alternatives
Figure 3: Preferred Outlet Alternative
Appendix B
Historic Aerial Photos
Appendix A
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\Levels1&2.mxd Date Saved: 1/22/2015 2:34:00 PMFigure 1: Level 1 Delineated WetlandsNortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,100550Feet
Proposed Benefitted Area
Level 2 Delineation
MinnesotaGIS.METROBLOCKF.contours
Contour Type
Index (10-Foot)
Intermediate (2-Foot)
Public Waters Inventory 908916890904
886904910902904902
890 908906906
888914916886904912906 902
904
894
904912906
890
9069
1
0910
8
9
6
906
902912900908886 908
912
9
1
2
904
91089290690288
6
89
4 906898910908
8
8
8
9
0
8
888910
91
2
910
9129
0
2
908910904906
886910
908914896
892
9
0
2
912886912906
910
908906908 912910906
908910
906908
902918904 902906886 904908908906 916904
908
902906886910
916
904908
906
90
6 910894906
910916 9069
0
6
906
906
890
898
9
1
2
9
0
2
914 906904914
910
91090
0
902894894892
900
9109049
1
0
902
91
0
914902 906
908
904
906916908904916904904 908910
904
912
904
910908
91
2 908894910906 902900
910 908
904
900894908908906908
904902
910906
90
2
902
884914896908900
906
916
9109089109129
0
6 904914 90889690
8
9
0
4
906
89
2 904884
904
9089149129109
0
6906906
902904
886 906910886
894906914906904
9069069
0
8
912
906
9
0
6
9
0
8908
906906
914 904910
91
2
914
904
890906906 910912906890904
908
90
4
902900 904886914
908
904906908908
906
908908898 906914
906
892906904908
908
90690
6
90
2
902
908
8
8
8
908
888914
9
1
4
90
0
914908904
916
904
906
890902910918910886
908
908902
90090
4
9
0
2
888912
904902 916904904
890
912 908892
9
1
2
912
894
9
1
2
904
904896
906 904906
900
898 910904
906
902902892894 900902900898
9
0
0
890 91090690890
2
89890
6
91
2 908900
910
906
914884
9
0
4 91089691288688889091089690
0
8
9
2894 898
908
902 906904
Legend
Proposed Benefitted Area
Level 1 Delineation
Level 2 Delineation
Contour Type
Index (10-Foot)
Intermediate (2-Foot)
Public Waters Inventory
National Wetland Inventory
Hydric Soil
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\Outlet Alternatives.mxd Date Saved: 12/23/2014 10:35:56 AMFigure 2: Outlet AlternativesNortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,800900Feet
Mattamy Homes wetlands delineated in February 10, 2014 by
Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, INC
Potential wetland areas determined
by historic aerial photos, contours, and soils data.
Wetland Impact Area
Western Pipe Option 4
Eastern Pipe Option 2
Western Pipe/Open Channel Option 1
Western Pipe Option 2
Western Pipe Option 3
Eastern Pipe Option 1
Level1Wetlands
Stormwater Ponds
Proposed Benefitted Area
Estimated 9165 sq ft
temporary wetland impacts
*Pipe alignments shown to not represent final design.
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\PossibleSoils&NWI.mxd Date Saved: 12/16/2014 10:48:17 AMFigure 3. Hydric Soils and NWINortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,600800Feet
Hydric Soil
Wetland Type
Level 1 Aerials
Level 2 Mattamy Homes Delineated
NWI
Appendix B
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\Sequencing Memo Maps & Figures\Fig 2. Aerial Imagery\Fig2.a. 1991 Aerial.pdf.mxd Date Saved: 12/23/2014 10:55:04 AMFigure 2a. 1991 AerialNortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,100550Feet
Level1Wetlands
Proposed Benefitted Area
Wetter than Normal Precipitation based on 1981-2010 normal period
(using July 15 as reference date)
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\Sequencing Memo Maps & Figures\Fig 2. Aerial Imagery\Fig2.a. 1991 Aerial.pdf.mxd Date Saved: 12/23/2014 10:55:04 AMFigure 2b. 2006 AerialNortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,100550Feet
Level1Wetlands
Proposed Benefitted Area
Normal Precipitation based on 1981-2010 normal period
(using July 15 as reference date)
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\Sequencing Memo Maps & Figures\Fig 2. Aerial Imagery\Fig2.a. 1991 Aerial.pdf.mxd Date Saved: 12/23/2014 10:55:04 AMFigure 2c. 2009 AerialNortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,100550Feet
Level1Wetlands
Proposed Benefitted Area
Drier than Normal Precipitation based on 1981-2010 normal period
(using July 15 as reference date)
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\Sequencing Memo Maps & Figures\Fig 2. Aerial Imagery\Fig2.a. 1991 Aerial.pdf.mxd Date Saved: 12/23/2014 10:55:04 AMFigure 2d. 2010 AerialNortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,100550Feet
Level1Wetlands
Proposed Benefitted Area
Normal Precipitation based on 1981-2010 normal period
(using July 15 as reference date)
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\Sequencing Memo Maps & Figures\Fig 2. Aerial Imagery\Fig2.a. 1991 Aerial.pdf.mxd Date Saved: 12/23/2014 10:55:04 AMFigure 2e. 2011 AerialNortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,100550Feet
Level1Wetlands
Proposed Benefitted Area
Normal Precipitation based on 1981-2010 normal period
(using July 15 as reference date)
Document Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\Sequencing Memo Maps & Figures\Fig 2. Aerial Imagery\Fig2.a. 1991 Aerial.pdf.mxd Date Saved: 12/23/2014 10:55:04 AMFigure 2f. 2013 AerialNortheast Area Drainage StudyCity of Lino Lakes MN ±0 1,100550Feet
Level1Wetlands
Proposed Benefitted Area
Wetter than Normal Precipitation based on 1981-2010 normal period
(using July 15 as reference date)
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
APPENDIX D
Summary of Options Considered
Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763‐541‐4800
Fax: 763‐541‐1700
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\02029‐790\Admin\Docs\FEASIBILITY STUDY\OPTIONS CONSIDERED\Memo_MGrochala_051316.docx
Memorandum
To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes
From: Katy Thompson, PE
Date: May 19, 2016
Re: Lino Lakes Northeast Drainage Area – Options Considered
WSB Project No. 02029‐790
Below is a summary of the design options that have been considered to alleviate the drainage issues in
the Northeast Drainage Area of Lino Lakes.
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS CONSIDERED
OPTION 1: USE EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
This option is further broken down into three alternatives, utilizing the existing Anoka County Ditches
within the drainage area, Anoka County Ditch 55 (ACD55) and Anoka County Ditch 72 (ACD72). The
existing ditches have a 33‐foot easement, on center.
Option 1A: Existing System to Remain In Place
The existing system (Figure 1) is in need of maintenance, with RCWD having completed a study in 2014
outlining system improvements. The capacity of the system is not sufficient to develop the area as
established in the City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan. For property owners to make improvements
in this drainage area, per RCWD rules, they may need to dedicate up to 40% of their developable land
for stormwater management, including ponding of back‐to‐back 100‐year flood events and infiltration
requirements. This area has tight soils and infiltration options are costly and limited. Spray irrigation is
temporarily being used to meet the requirements at the McDonald’s site until a regional BMP is
constructed.
The existing system does not provide treatment upstream of Peltier Lake which is classified as an
impaired waterbody. Any proposed project must not impair water quality or flood storage within or
downstream of Peltier Lake. This option was not considered for further analysis.
Option 1B: Outlet to Clearwater Creek
This option considered the lands drained by ACD 55 to the east of I‐35E and proposed to reroute this
drainage area south, via storm pipe, along the proposed Otter Lake Road extension, to Clearwater Creek
(Figure 2). This option benefits 710 acres, of which 495 are in Lino Lakes. This option was not
considered for further analysis in the feasibility study due to adverse impacts to Clearwater Creek,
including increased discharge and potential bank erosion concerns.
Mr. Michael Grochala
May 19, 2016
Page 2
Option 1C: Direct Developed Runoff To ACD72
This option would use the existing ACD 72 alignment south of Eagle Brook Church and north of 77th
Street East (Figure 3) and would replace the existing drain tile with 72‐inch storm sewer to serve the
study area. This option would also include additional regional storage ponds to the west of Eagle Brook
Church and on City‐owned parcels off of Rehbein Street. Since the alternative is utilizing the existing
alignment for ACD 72, there are existing easements in place and no additional acquisitions would be
necessary.
Unfortunately due to the existing topography along this alignment, a large portion of the study area on
the west side would be unable to connect to the new storm sewer. In order to benefit the entire study
area, an additional outfall is still required. This option was not considered for further analysis in the
feasibility study.
Option 1D: New Outfall with ACD72
Due to the limitations of using the existing ACD72 alignment, a modification to Option 1A was
considered. This option continues to use the ACD 72 ditch system for the northern portion of the study
area, but includes a new outfall to Peltier Lake (Figure 4). This option would allow for the different
timing of development within the watershed and facilitate the Watermark development in the short
term, while providing flexibility for future development in the northern portion of the study area to tie
into ACD 72 or the new outfall. Additional analysis would be required to determine the ultimate pipe
sizes to accommodate the entire drainage area through these two outlets.
Option 1E: New Outfall with ACD 72 and ACD 55
This option is the same as 1B, however would also use the available capacity in ACD 55 in the southern
portion of the watershed for future development (Figure 5). This option would need to be evaluated to
ensure no adverse impacts to Clearwater Creek occur due to increased discharge through ACD 55, as
well as to determine required pipe sizes.
OPTION 2: NORTH OUTFALL
This option aligns the new outfall to the north of the study area and would allow landowners to vacate
some of the existing drain tile on their property in the interim condition, as well as require minimal
easements and avoidance of existing wetlands. It does remove approximately 60 acres from the
benefitted area and limits the siting of regional storage facilities (Figure 6).
Option 2A: North Open Channel
The initial alignment considered an open channel; however it was removed from consideration in the
feasibility study due to concerns over cost and land acquisitions.
Option 2B: North Storm Sewer
The second north outfall option considered the same alignment, but using storm sewer, rather than an
open ditch. This reduces the amount of land acquisition necessary from 100‐feet, on center, to roughly
70‐feet.
OPTION 3: SOUTH OUTFALL
This option would align the new outfall through existing wetlands and the reconstruction of Peltier Lake
Drive along the final 700 feet of pipe (Figure 7). This option would serve the entire study area; however,
it may prove difficult for landowners south of Rehbein Street to tie into the new storm sewer along the
southern border. Land acquisition through this alignment would be less costly due to the presence of
wetlands, than through the more developable upland area. Care must be taken during installation not
Mr. Michael Grochala
May 19, 2016
Page 3
to impact the existing wetlands through inadvertent drainage and to ensure the alignment is compatible
with the existing Wetland Management Corridor.
OPTION 4: CENTRAL OUTFALL
This option would align the new outlet along property lines through the center of the study area (Figure
8). Benefits of this option include splitting the maintenance corridor between two landowners and
utilizing existing low ground in the study area. Disadvantages include the cost of acquiring easements in
highly‐developable land, impacts to existing wetlands, and lack of adequate cover for the pipe in some
locations.
OPTION 5: MODIFIED CENTRAL OUTFALL
This option further refines Option 4, using the central outlet location on Peltier Lake Drive, but adjusting
the alignment to follow the edges of wetlands to avoid wetland impacts (Figure 9).
OPTION 6: OPEN CHANNEL
This option is based on Option 5, but rather than a 72‐inch underground pipe, this option replaces the
pipeline with a two‐stage open channel along roughly the same alignment. This option would require a
100‐ft easement, rather than a 70‐ft easement for the pipe option, but has more long‐term flexibility. A
channel can handle larger flows, provides additional stormwater detention, and creates a public amenity
for the community. Option 6 also has the added benefit of allowing for flexibility with future
development plans, as it would be less costly to realign a ditch than a pipe.
Ultimately the preferred option would be either Option 5 or 6, with a central outfall location. This
location would benefit the most parties and be the most flexible for future development.
ENVISION ANALYSIS
There are a number of different rating systems to determine how sustainable, or “green,” an
infrastructure project will be. The Envision™ Rating System was developed by the Institute for
Sustainable Infrastructure and Harvard University’s Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure. It is
a free tool, developed to be a broad‐based rating system for the evaluation of all kinds of civil
infrastructure projects.
The Envision™ Rating System was used to evaluate a simplistic pipe option versus greenway alignment
based on their overall contribution to the economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability,
or the triple bottom line. It provides a way to holistically view the two options and ensure that the
ultimate project provides the maximum value to the residents of Lino Lakes, is sustainable, and is an
effective use of funding.
The pipe option was evaluated against the open channel option using the Envision™ Checklist (Table 1).
The pipe option received a total of 67 points out of 128 for a score of 52% of the total possible points,
while the channel option (Table 2) received a total of 95 out of 129 points for a score of 75% of the total
possible points. From the triple bottom line standpoint, the channel option out performs the pipe
option. It does so in all the categories: Quality of Life, Resource Allocation, Natural World and Climate.
It particularly fairs well in the Natural World category by providing additional environmental benefits,
but it also does better in the Quality of Life by enhancing public space opportunities for the residents of
Lino Lakes. It also is a more resilient option in the face of shifting climate dynamics because the capacity
of the system will not be limited by a single pipeline.
Mr. Michael Grochala
May 19, 2016
Page 4
COST ANLYSIS
In order to quickly evaluate the relative costs of the many alternatives, the options were compared
solely based on the area benefitted, the length of new pipe, land acquisition necessary for easements,
and any unique costs associated with that option. Unique costs include the use of bentonite for options
with alignments through existing wetlands (Options 3 and 4), and the reconstruction of Peltier Lake
Drive (Option 3). The summary of the relative costs is shown below:
Area
Served
[ac]
Relative Cost
[$]
Envision™
Score
Cost per Acre
Served
Cost per Envision™
Point Awarded
Option 1A 1256 $ - - $ - $ -
Option 1B 710 $ 1,049,000 - $ 1,477 $ -
Option 1C 1197 $ 1,260,000 67 $ 1,053 $ 18,800
Option 1D 1382 $ 1,945,000 67 $ 1,407 $ 29,000
Option 1E 1382 $ 1,988,000 67 $ 1,438 $ 29,700
Option 2A 1325 $ 1,552,000 95 $ 1,171 $ 16,300
Option 2B 1325 $ 2,128,000 67 $ 1,606 $ 31,800
Option 3 1382 $ 1,697,000 67 $ 1,228 $ 25,300
Option 4 1382 $ 1,429,000 67 $ 1,034 $ 21,300
Option 5 1382 $ 1,086,000 67 $ 786 $ 16,200
Option 6 1382 $ 502,000 95 $ 363 $ 5,300
The most expensive alternative is Option 2B, due to the length of new pipe and because this location has
naturally high ground. The pipe will be fairly deep below the ground elevation, which will require a
greater easement and associated cost.
Based on this analysis Option 6, the central outfall with open channel, is the most cost‐effective and
sustainable option for the City of Lino Lakes. It serves the most land, scored highest in Envision™, and
the relative cost of pipe versus easement acquisition is the least of all alternatives considered.
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekdCr
Main Street
80th Street East
20th AvenueRehbein Street
ACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 55 Main TrkA C D 5 5 M a in T r k
ACD 55 Br 8
ACD 72 Br 11
ACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 72 Br 1 A
C
D 7
2
M
ain Trk
Peltier
Lake
Figure 1. Option 1
Existing Drainage Systems
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
§¨¦35W
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
J D 3 M a in T r k
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekHardwood Cr
Main Street
80th Street East
20th AvenueACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 55 Main TrkA C D 5 5 M a in T rk
ACD 55 Br 8
ACD 72 Br 11
ACD 72 Main Trk
ACD 72 Br 1
A
C
D 7
2
M
ain Trk
Peltier
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Figure 2. Option 1B
Clearwater Creek Outlet
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area
Proposed Alignment
Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekdCr
Main Street
80th Street East
20th Avenue77th Street East
Rehbein Street
Peltier
Lake
Figure 3. Option 1C
Improve ACD72
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area
Proposed Alignment
Proposed Regional Storage
Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekdCr
Main Street
80th Street East
20th Avenue77th Street East
Rehbein Street
Peltier
Lake
Figure 4. Option 1D
New Outfall and ACD72
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area
Proposed Alignment
Proposed Regional Storage
Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekMain Street
80th Street East
20th Avenue77th Street East
Rehbein Street
Peltier
Lake
Figure 5. Option 1E
New Outfall, ACD72 and ACD55
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area
Proposed Alignment
Proposed Regional Storage
Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekMain Street
80th Street East
20th AvenuePeltier
Lake
Figure 6. Option 2
North Outfall Alignment
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area
Proposed Alignment
Proposed Regional Storage
Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekMain Street
80th Street East
20th AvenuePeltier
Lake
Figure 7. Option 3
South Outfall Alignment
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area
Proposed Alignment
Proposed Regional Storage
Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekMain Street
80th Street East
20th AvenueRehbein Street
Peltier
Lake
Figure 8. Option 4
Central Outfall Alignment
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area
Proposed Alignment
Proposed Regional Storage
Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
CENTERVILLE
HUGO
LINO LAKES
JD 3 Main TrkClearwater CreekMain Street
80th Street East
20th AvenueRehbein Street
Peltier
Lake
Figure 9. Option 5
Modified Central Outfall Alignment
N
LEGEND
Benefitted Area
Proposed Alignment
Proposed Regional Storage
Existing Drain Tile
Existing Open Ditch
Stream
0 2,000
Feet
TABLE 1. PIPE OPTION
Envision Rating System
Pre-Assessment Checklist
YNNA
1 QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
2 QL1.2 Stimulate Sustainable Growth and Development 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
3 QL1.3 Develop Local Skills and Capabilities 0 3 0 0 0 of 3
4 QL2.1 Enhance Public Health and Safety 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
5 QL2.2 Minimize Noise and Vibration 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
6 QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution 0 0 1
0 of 0
7 QL2.4 Improve Community Mobility and Access 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
8 QL2.5 Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation 0 2 0 0 0 of 2
9 QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
10 QL3.1 Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
11 QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character 1 1 0 1 1 of 2
12 QL3.3 Enhance Public Space 0 2 0 0 0 of 2
TOTAL 11 14 1 11 of 2504205400413LD1.1 Provide Effective Leadership and Commitment 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
14 LD1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
15 LD1.3 Foster Collaboration and Teamwork 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
16 LD1.4 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
17 LD2.1 Pursue By-product Synergy Opportunities 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
18 LD2.2 Improve Infrastructure Integration 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
19 LD3.1 Plan for Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
20 LD3.2 Address Conflicting Regulations and Policies 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
21 LD3.3 Extend Useful Life 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
TOTAL 14 5 0 14 of 1907402600022RA1.1 Reduce Net Embodied Energy 0 1 1 0 0 of 1
23 RA1.2 Support Sustainable Procurement Practices 0 3 0 0 0 of 3
24 RA1.3 Use Recycled Materials 0 2 0 0 0 of 2
25 RA1.4 Use Regional Materials 1 1 0 1 1 of 2
26 RA1.5 Divert Waste from Landfills 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
27 RA1.6 Reduce Excavated Materials Taken off Site 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
28 RA1.7 Provide for Deconstruction and Recycling 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
29 RA2.1 Reduce Energy Consumption 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
30 RA2.2 Use Renewable Energy 1 1 0 1 1 of 2
31 RA2.3 Commission and Monitor Energy Systems 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
32 RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability 5 1 1 1 5 of 6
33 RA3.2 Reduce Potable Water Consumption 2 2 0 1 2 of 4
34 RA3.3 Monitor Water Systems 0 0 4
0 of 0
TOTAL 16 19 6 16 of 3503904601535NW1.1 Preserve Prime Habitat 3 2 0 1 3 of 5
36 NW1.2 Protect Wetlands and Surface Water 2 1 0 1 2 of 3
37 NW1.3 Preserve Prime Farmland 0 0 1
0 of 0
38 NW1.4 Avoid Adverse Geology 2 0 1 1 2 of 2
39 NW1.5 Preserve Floodplain Functions 1 2 3 0 1 of 3
40 NW1.6 Avoid Unsuitable Development on Steep Slopes 002
0 of 0
41 NW1.7 Preserve Greenfields 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
42 NW2.1 Manage Stormwater 1 1 0 1 1 of 2
43 NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts 0 4 1 0 0 of 4
44 NW2.3 Prevent Surface and Groundwater Contamination 3 1 0 1 3 of 4
45 NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity 2 2 0 1 2 of 4
46 NW3.2 Control Invasive Species 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
47 NW3.3 Restore Disturbed Soils 1 1 0 1 1 of 2
48 NW3.4 Maintain Wetland and Surface Water Functions 4 1 0 1 4 of 5
TOTAL 22 17 8 22 of 39
0.47 0.36 0.1749CR1.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 1 1 0 0 of 1
50 CR1.2 Reduce Air Pollutant Emissions 0 2 0 0 0 of 2
51 CR2.1 Assess Climate Threat 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
52 CR2.2 Avoid Traps and Vulnerabilities 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
53 CR2.3 Prepare for Long-term Adaptability 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
54 CR2.4 Prepare for Short-term Hazards 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
55 CR2.5 Manage Heat Island Effects 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
TOTAL 4 6 1 4 of 10036055009NATURAL WORLDSITING
LAND & WATER
BIODIVERSITY
CLIMATEEMISSION
RESILIENCELEADERSHIPCOLLABORATION
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING
RESOURCE ALLOCATIONMATERIALS
ENERGY
WATERQUALITY OF LIFEPURPOSE
COMMUNITY
WELLBEING
NE LINO PIPE OPTION
TABLE 2. GREENWAY OPTION
Envision Rating System
Pre-Assessment Checklist
YNNA
1 QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
2 QL1.2 Stimulate Sustainable Growth and Development 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
3 QL1.3 Develop Local Skills and Capabilities 0 3 0 0 0 of 3
4 QL2.1 Enhance Public Health and Safety 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
5 QL2.2 Minimize Noise and Vibration 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
6 QL2.3 Minimize Light Pollution 0 0 1
0 of 0
7 QL2.4 Improve Community Mobility and Access 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
8 QL2.5 Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
9 QL2.6 Improve Site Accessibility, Safety and Wayfinding 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
10 QL3.1 Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
11 QL3.2 Preserve Views and Local Character 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
12 QL3.3 Enhance Public Space 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
TOTAL 18 7 1 18 of 2506902700413LD1.1 Provide Effective Leadership and Commitment 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
14 LD1.2 Establish a Sustainability Management System 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
15 LD1.3 Foster Collaboration and Teamwork 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
16 LD1.4 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
17 LD2.1 Pursue By-product Synergy Opportunities 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
18 LD2.2 Improve Infrastructure Integration 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
19 LD3.1 Plan for Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
20 LD3.2 Address Conflicting Regulations and Policies 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
21 LD3.3 Extend Useful Life 1 0 0 1 1 of 1
TOTAL 15 4 0 15 of 1907902100022RA1.1 Reduce Net Embodied Energy 0 1 1 0 0 of 1
23 RA1.2 Support Sustainable Procurement Practices 0 3 0 0 0 of 3
24 RA1.3 Use Recycled Materials 0 2 0 0 0 of 2
25 RA1.4 Use Regional Materials 1 1 0 1 1 of 2
26 RA1.5 Divert Waste from Landfills 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
27 RA1.6 Reduce Excavated Materials Taken off Site 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
28 RA1.7 Provide for Deconstruction and Recycling 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
29 RA2.1 Reduce Energy Consumption 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
30 RA2.2 Use Renewable Energy 1 1 0 1 1 of 2
31 RA2.3 Commission and Monitor Energy Systems 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
32 RA3.1 Protect Fresh Water Availability 6 0 1 1 6 of 6
33 RA3.2 Reduce Potable Water Consumption 3 1 0 1 3 of 4
34 RA3.3 Monitor Water Systems 0 0 4
0 of 0
TOTAL 18 17 6 18 of 3504404101535NW1.1 Preserve Prime Habitat 5 0 0 1 5 of 5
36 NW1.2 Protect Wetlands and Surface Water 3 0 0 1 3 of 3
37 NW1.3 Preserve Prime Farmland 0 0 1
0 of 0
38 NW1.4 Avoid Adverse Geology 2 0 1 1 2 of 2
39 NW1.5 Preserve Floodplain Functions 3 0 3 1 3 of 3
40 NW1.6 Avoid Unsuitable Development on Steep Slopes 002
0 of 0
41 NW1.7 Preserve Greenfields 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
42 NW2.1 Manage Stormwater 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
43 NW2.2 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts 5 0 0 1 5 of 5
44 NW2.3 Prevent Surface and Groundwater Contamination 4 0 0 1 4 of 4
45 NW3.1 Preserve Species Biodiversity 4 0 0 1 4 of 4
46 NW3.2 Control Invasive Species 1 2 0 0 1 of 3
47 NW3.3 Restore Disturbed Soils 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
48 NW3.4 Maintain Wetland and Surface Water Functions 5 0 0 1 5 of 5
TOTAL 38 2 7 38 of 40
0.81 0.04 0.1549CR1.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 1 1 0 0 of 1
50 CR1.2 Reduce Air Pollutant Emissions 1 1 0 1 1 of 2
51 CR2.1 Assess Climate Threat 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
52 CR2.2 Avoid Traps and Vulnerabilities 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
53 CR2.3 Prepare for Long-term Adaptability 1 0 0 1 1 of 1
54 CR2.4 Prepare for Short-term Hazards 2 0 0 1 2 of 2
55 CR2.5 Manage Heat Island Effects 0 1 0 0 0 of 1
TOTAL 6 4 1 6 of 10055036009NATURAL WORLDSITING
LAND & WATER
BIODIVERSITY
CLIMATEEMISSION
RESILIENCELEADERSHIPCOLLABORATION
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING
RESOURCE ALLOCATIONMATERIALS
ENERGY
WATERQUALITY OF LIFEPURPOSE
COMMUNITY
WELLBEING
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
APPENDIX E
Conceptual Layout and Details
SALO TRUSTEE BERNICE & SALO TRUSTEE JAMESLEIBEL HAL LLAKE DRIVEPELTIER
20TH AVE
K:\02029-790\Cad\Plan\NE Area 6-22-16 Final.dwg
Northeast Lino Lakes
Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Plan
City of Lino Lakes, MN
K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg
Northeast Lino Lakes
Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Plan
City of Lino Lakes, MN
K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg
Northeast Lino Lakes
Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Plan
City of Lino Lakes, MN
K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg
Northeast Lino Lakes
Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Plan
City of Lino Lakes, MN
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2029-790
APPENDIX F
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB
Engineer's Estimate
Project Number: 02029-79
Project Title or Name: LINO - Work Plan to Develop Expanded Water Resource Management Guide Plan
Work Type: Feasibility
Item No. Description Units Base Bid /
Alternate
Quantity Unit Price Total Price
Easements/Acquisition
2011.601 R/W CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS LS Base Bid 1.00 $353,717.00 $353,717.00
2021.601 PERMIT FEES LUMP
SUM Base Bid 1.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
2105.601 WETLAND RESTORATION LUMP
SUM Base Bid 1.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Total Easements/Acquisition $378,717.00
Storm Sewer Improvements
2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5%) LUMP
SUM Base Bid 1.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00
2105.601 DEWATERING LUMP
SUM Base Bid 1.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
2105.607 CLAY ANTI SEEPAGE COLLOR CU YD Base Bid 2.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00
2412.511 8X4 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX
CULVERT LIN FT Base Bid 40.00 $850.00 $34,000.00
2412.512 8X4 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX
CULVERT END SECTION EACH Base Bid 2.00 $7,200.00 $14,400.00
2501.515 60" RC PIPE APRON EACH Base Bid 1.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
2501.515 42" RC PIPE APRON W/TRASH
GUARD EACH Base Bid 1.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
2501.561 60" RC PIPE CULVERT DESIGN
3006 CLASS V-JACKED LIN FT Base Bid 225.00 $2,000.00 $450,000.00
2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 60" PIPE
APRON EACH Base Bid 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
2501.602 SLUICE GATE FOR 48" PIPE EACH Base Bid 4.00 $20,000.00 $80,000.00
2503.541 36" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
CLASS III LIN FT Base Bid 2,295.00 $100.00 $229,500.00
2503.541 42" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
CLASS III LIN FT Base Bid 3,225.00 $125.00 $403,125.00
2503.541 60" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
CLASS III LIN FT Base Bid 700.00 $200.00 $140,000.00
2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY STORM
SEWER EACH Base Bid 18.00 $500.00 $9,000.00
2506.602 OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE
DESIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH Base Bid 4.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00
2506.603 CONST 96" DIA SAN SEWER
MANHOLE LIN FT Base Bid 30.00 $700.00 $21,000.00
2506.603 CONST 60" DIA SAN SEWER
MANHOLE LIN FT Base Bid 19.00 $500.00 $9,500.00
2506.603 CONST 72" DIA SAN SEWER LIN FT Base Bid 19.30 $600.00 $11,580.00
Page 1 of 2
6/22/2016http://wsb10/RtAEC/Reports/rpt_EngineersEstimate.asp?WorkOrderId=9817
MANHOLE
2506.603 CONST 84" DIA SAN SEWER
MANHOLE LIN FT Base Bid 26.00 $700.00 $18,200.00
2545.601 ELECTRICAL, CONTROLS, AND
SCADA
LUMP
SUM Base Bid 1.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Total Storm Sewer Improvements $1,629,305.00
Surface Improvements
2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5%) LUMP
SUM Base Bid 1.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND
GUTTER LIN FT Base Bid 240.00 $7.00 $1,680.00
2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS
PAVEMENT SQ YD Base Bid 1,000.00 $6.00 $6,000.00
2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) (P) CU YD Base Bid 85,000.00 $5.00 $425,000.00
2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
(TRAIL) TON Base Bid 1,000.00 $20.00 $20,000.00
2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CU YD Base Bid 2,000.00 $50.00 $100,000.00
2360.505 BITUMINOUS PATCHING SQ YD Base Bid 1,500.00 $100.00 $150,000.00
2521.511 3" BITUMINOUS TRAIL SQ YD Base Bid 2,500.00 $20.00 $50,000.00
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
DESIGN B618 LIN FT Base Bid 240.00 $50.00 $12,000.00
2573.603 SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE
SLICED LIN FT Base Bid 15,500.00 $3.00 $46,500.00
2575.604 SEEDING, MIX 270 (INCL TOPSOIL,
FERT, MULCH, DISC ANCHOR) ACRE Base Bid 10.00 $5,000.00 $50,000.00
Total Surface Improvements $911,180.00
Total $2,919,202.00
Certified By: _______________________________ License No. ________
Date: ____________
Page 2 of 2
6/22/2016http://wsb10/RtAEC/Reports/rpt_EngineersEstimate.asp?WorkOrderId=9817
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Consider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-16 to Rezone
Property from R, Rural and R-BR, Rural-Business Reserve to
PUD-Planned Unit Development for Watermark
*Council may vote to dispense with full reading of ordinance
* Roll call vote is required for adoption of the ordinance
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration of the 2nd reading of the Ordinance No. 04-16 to
rezone property from R, Rural and R-BR, Rural-Business Reserve to PUD-Planned Unit
Development for Watermark.
BACKGROUND
Mattamy Partnership submitted a land use application for rezoning and PUD Development
Stage/Preliminary Plat review. The proposed development is a master planned residential
community located in the northwest quadrant of I-35E and CSAH 14/Main Street. It contains
12 parcels totaling approximately 372 gross acres and consists of a residential density mix of
706 single family lots and 165 townhome units totaling 871 housing units. The proposed
development is called as Watermark.
The Planning & Zoning Staff Reports dated April 13, 2016 and May 11, 2016 detail the
proposed project.
Rezoning
The parcel is currently zoned R, Rural and R-BR, Rural-Business Reserve and requires
rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Board held a public
hearing on April 13, 2016 and continued the hearing to May 11, 2016. The Board found the
proposal meets the criteria for rezoning as detailed in Ordinance No. 04-16.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Zoning Board and staff recommend approval of Ordinance No. 04-16. The 1st
reading of the ordinance was approved by Council on June 13, 2016.
2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Location Map
2. Ordinance No. 04-16
Site Location Map 0 4,000 8,0002,000 Feet
Ronde au Lake 100-yr 888.1
Rice LakeOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0
Marshan LakeOHWL 883.3100-yr 886.1
Peltier LakeOHWL 884.7100-yr 887.0
Ce nterville LakeOHWL 885.0100-yr 886.3
George Watch Lake 100-yr 886.1
Res hanau LakeOHWL 883.5100-yr 886.0
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦§¨¦
§¨¦
Watermark
35E
35E35W
35W
35W
µ
1
1st Reading: Publication:
2nd Reading: Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 04-16
ORDINANCE TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM R, R, RURAL AND R-BR,
RURAL-BUSINESS RESERVE AND TO PUD-PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR WATERMARK
The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains:
Section 1: Findings of Fact
1. The City received a Land Use Application to rezone certain property from R,
Rural and R-BR, Rural-Business Reserve to PUD-Planned Unit Development.
2. The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on April 13, 2016 and
continued the hearing to May 11, 2016.
3. Per Section 1007.015 (5), the Planning and Zoning Board shall consider possible
adverse effects of the proposed rezoning and its judgement shall be based upon,
but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies
and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Watermark PUD master planned residential development is consistent with
the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in regards to resource management,
land use, housing, transportation and utilities. The development upholds the City’s public
values by creating a multi-functional open space greenway corridor integrated with the
stormwater conveyance system, wetland management and trails. Watermark is consistent
with mixed-use land and density requirements and provides a variety of market driven
housing products that support life-cycle housing. Safe transportation corridors and
public utilities also serve the development.
(b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of
the area.
The proposed Watermark development is compatible with the present and future land
uses of the area. Existing and future land use to the west is residential. Existing and
future land use to the south is commercial. This area will be accessible via pedestrian
corridors to support mixed use development. Existing land use to the north is rural
residential and guided post-2030 for urban reserve.
2
(c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein.
The proposed Watermark development conforms with all PUD performance standards as
outlined in Section 1007.024(2) General Requirements and Standards:
1. Ownership. Mattamy Partnership Inc. is the sole owner of the property.
2. Comprehensive Plan Consistency. The proposed PUD shall be consistent
with the City Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Watermark PUD master planned residential development is consistent with
the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in regards to resource management,
land use, housing, transportation and utilities. The development upholds the City’s public
values by creating a multi-functional open space greenway corridor integrated with the
stormwater conveyance system, wetland management and trails. Watermark is consistent
with mixed-use land and density requirements and provides a variety of market driven
housing products that support life-cycle housing. Safe transportation corridors and
public utilities also serve the development.
3. Public or Common Open Space.
Open space makes up 39% of the Watermark development with 67 acres of wetlands,
lakes and storm ponds and 77 acres of parks and open space. A master plan of the 5 acre
public park includes pickle ball and basketball courts, playground equipment, picnic
area, open space and an overlook. An extensive park trail system is also proposed
throughout the greenway corridor and along CSAH 54.
4. Operating and Maintenance Requirements for PUD Common Open
Space/Facilities.
One (1) Master HOA document and sub-HOA’s with Declaration of Covenants and
Conditions shall be recorded against the property with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat.
Public park land and trail corridors will be deeded to the City. Drainage & utility
easements and conservation easements will be dedicated to the City and RCWD.
5. Utilities.
All single family and townhome utilities will be installed underground. Separate public
utilities are provided to each single family home and townhome unit.
6. Roadways, Private.
Private roadways within the townhome neighborhood shall have an improved surface of
24-28 feet in width and shall be so designed as to permit the City fire trucks to provide
protection to each building.
3
No portion of the required private road system is used in calculating required off-street
parking space or be used for parking.
7. Development Agreement.
One (1) Master PUD Development Agreement for the entire development and individual
Development Agreements with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat phase of development
will be executed.
(d) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will
not overburden the City’s service capacity.
The proposed Watermark development can be accommodated with existing public
services and will not overburden the City’s service capacity. The site is ultimately served
by MCES Interceptor 76-51 that is adequately sized for the development in the district.
The existing water supply and water distribution system can provide adequate water
volume and fire protection.
Section 2: Amendment
The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Lino Lakes is hereby amended to rezone the
following described property from R, Rural and R-BR, Rural-Business Reserve to PUD-
Planned Unit Development.
Section 3: Legal Description
PARCEL DESCRIPTION: (Per Schedule A of Title Commitment File No: 13-080132 Z-
Second Supplemental, with an effective date of August 4, 2013 at 7:30 A.M., and a
supplemental date of September 26, 2013, prepared by DCA Title as agent for Chicago
Title Insurance Company)
Parcel A:
The South Half of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 31
North, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel B:
The North Half of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 31
North, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel C:
The South Half of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 31
North, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel D:
The North Half of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 31
4
North, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the North 660.00 feet of the
West 440.00 feet of the North Half of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter.
Parcel E:
South 3/4 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 31, Range 22,
Anoka County, Minnesota, except the North 330 feet of the South 3/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 and also excepting the South 385 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of
the Southwest 1/4 excepting the North 135 feet of the West 150 feet of the South 385 feet
of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 31, Range
22, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel F:
The South 385 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter excepting the
North 135 feet of the West 150 feet of the South 385 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel G: per Anoka County - included in Parcel E
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 31,
Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way of
Interstate Highway 35E and Southerly of the Easterly extension of the North line of the
South Half of the North Half of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12.
Parcel H: per Anoka County - included in Parcels B, C & D
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 31, Range 22, lying West of
the Westerly Right of Way line of Freeway 35E, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PARCEL DESCRIPTION: (Per Schedule A of Title Commitment File No: 13-070380 Z-
First Supplemental, with an effective date of June 17, 2013 at 7:30 A.M., and a
supplemental date of September 5, 2013, prepared by DCA Title as agent for Chicago
Title Insurance Company)
Parcel 1:
The North half of the North half of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 31,
Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
The South half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13, Township
31, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel 3:
The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 31 North,
Range 22 West, excepting that part thereof which lies Southeasterly of a line run parallel
with and distant 100 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, and said line
extended Southwesterly; beginning at a point on the South line of said Section 13, distant
2566.7 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence run Northeasterly at an angle of
79 degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds with said Section line 566 feet; thence deflect to the
5
left on a 1 degree 00 minute curve (delta angle 9 degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds) for
972.6 feet and there terminating, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel A1:
South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 31
North, Range 22 West, except the West 50 feet thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel B1:
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 31 North, Range 22
West, except the Westerly Fifty feet thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PARCEL DESCRIPTION: (Per Schedule A of Title Commitment File No: 14-090088
ZC - First Supplemental, with an effective date of August 27, 2014 at 7:30 A.M.,
prepared by DCA Title as agent for Chicago Title Insurance Company)
The North 330 feet of the South 3/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section
12, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Section 4: Development Regulations
The development shall conform to the plans, requirements, and conditions of approval as
listed in Council Resolution No. 16-51.
Section 5: Effect
This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication
according to the Lino Lakes City Charter and upon the filing of the final plat.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this ____ day of __________________, 2016.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance 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:
____________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Arnt Construction Company, Inc. Temporary Batch Plant
i. Consider Resolution No. 16-58 Approving Interim Use
Permit for Temporary Batch Plant
ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-59 Approving Site
Improvement Performance Agreement
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration of an Interim Use Permit for Arnt Construction
Company, Inc. for a Temporary Batch Plant.
Complete Application Date: April 14, 2016
60-Day Review Deadline: June 13, 2016
120-Day Review Deadline: August 12, 2016
Environmental Board Meeting: NA
Park Board Meeting: NA
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: May 11, 2016
Tentative City Council Work Session: June 27, 2016
Tentative City Council Meeting: June 27, 2016
BACKGROUND
Arnt Construction Company, Inc. submitted a land use application for an Interim Use Permit
for a temporary batch plant to be located at 2209 Phelps Road (PID #24-31-22-42-0012). The
Land Use Application references 2190 Phelps Road but Anoka County GIS has the subject site
addressed as 2209 Phelps Road.
The staff report is based on the following plan sets:
• Temporary Concrete Plant Site Plan prepared by EG Rud & Sons revision date June 6,
2016
2
• SWPPP prepared by Plowe Engineering dated June 9, 2016
Analysis
The Planning & Zoning Staff Report dated May 11, 2016 provides details of project.
PCI Roads, LLC will be setting up a temporary concrete batch plant at Arnt Construction (2209
Phelps Road) for a MNDOT road construction project on I-35E. The plant will be on site for 3
to 4 weeks. Concrete will be produced for 8 days and the remaining time is for assembly and
disassembly of the equipment.
The approved haul routes are as follows:
1. I-35E north to Anoka County Road 14 east to Anoka County Road 84 south to the
site.
2. County Road 84 (at Phelps Road) north to Anoka County Road 14 west to I-35E
south to project.
The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on May 11, 2016. There were no public
comments and the Board recommended approval with a 5-0 vote.
A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is required as detailed in Resolution No. 16-59.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Board recommend approval of Resolution Nos. 16-58 and No. 16-59.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Location Map
2. Temporary Concrete Plant Site Plan prepared by EG Rud & Sons revision date June 6,
2016
3. Resolution No. 16-58
4. Resolution No. 16-59
5. Site Improvement Performance Agreement
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
IJ84
§¨¦I-35E
MAIN STMAIN ST20TH AVE20TH AVE24TH AVE24TH AVE70TH ST70TH ST
C E D A R S TCEDAR S TOTTER LAKE RDOTTER LAKE RD21ST AVE21ST AVEPHELPS RDPHELPS RD
OTTER LAKE SERVICE RDOTTER LAKE SERVICE RDOTTER LAKE RDOTTER LAKE RDSite Location Map µ
Temporary Batch Plant2209 Phelps Road
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-58
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A
TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT FOR ARNT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
(2209 PHELPS ROAD)
WHEREAS, the City received an application from Arnt Construction Company, Inc. for
an interim use permit for a temporary batch plant to be located at 2209 Phelps Road
hereafter referred to as “Development”; and
WHEREAS, City staff completed a review of the following:
• Temporary Concrete Plant Site Plan prepared by EG Rud & Sons revision date
June 6, 2016
• SWPPP prepared by Plowe Engineering dated June 9, 2016
WHEREAS, the property is zoned LI, Light Industrial and allows temporary batch plants
with an interim use permit; and
WHEREAS, the legal description of the subject property PID #24-31-22-42-0012 is:
THAT PRT OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF SEC 24 TWP 31 RGE 22 DESC AS
FOL, BEG AT A PT ON W LINE OF SD E1/2 815.67 FT NLY OF SW COR
THEREOF (SD W LINE HAS AN ASSD BRG OF N 0 DEG 40 MIN E), TH S 89 DEG
37 MIN 08 SEC E 366.28 FT, TH S 01 DEG 04 MIN 05 SEC W 415.80 FT, TH N 74
DEG 57 MIN 35 SEC E 309.59 FT TO E LINE OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH NLY ALG SD E
LINE TO N LINE OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH WLY ALG SD N LINE TOINTER/W SD W
LINE OF E1/2, TH SLY ALG SD W LINE TO POB, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on May 11,
2016 and the Board recommended approval of the interim use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of the City of Lino
Lakes hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Per Section 1007.017 Administration: Interim Use Permits:
(3) General Standards. An interim use shall comply with the following:
(b) New Uses.
1. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in §1007.016 of
this Ordinance.
2
The temporary batch plant meets the standards of a conditional use permit as detailed
below under Section 1007.016 Administration: Conditional Use Permits.
2. Conforms to the applicable performance standards of this Ordinance.
The temporary batch plant conforms to the applicable performance standards as detailed
below under Section 1007.046, Batch Plants.
3. The use is allowed in an interim use in the respective zoning district.
Temporary batch plants are allowed as an interim use permit per the LI, Light Industrial
Zoning District, Section 1007.120 (11)(a).
4. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with
certainty.
The interim use permit will expire on November 30, 2016.
5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for
the public to take the property in the future.
The temporary batch plant will not impose additional costs on the public. A Site
Improvement Performance Agreement and financial sureties shall be required prior to
operation.
6. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deem appropriate
for permission of the use.
The user shall agree to any conditions listed in the Council resolution and Site
Improvement Performance Agreement.
Per Section 1007.016 Administration: Conditional Use Permits:
(2)(g) Standards. The Planning and Zoning Board shall recommend a conditional
use permit and the Council shall order the issuance of such permit only if it finds the
following criteria have been met:
1. The proposed development application has been found to be consistent with the
policies and recommendations of the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan including:
a. Land Use Plan.
b. Transportation Plan.
c. Utility (Sewer and Water) Plans.
3
d. Local Water Management Plan.
e. Capital Improvement Plan.
f. Policy Plan.
g. Natural Environment Plan.
The temporary batch plant is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is
guided for industrial use. Transportation haul routes have been established and
financial sureties shall be provided in the event of any road damage. The City’s water
supply system can adequately supply the 24,000 gallons of water needed by the batch
plant. An erosion control plan has been approved and shall be implemented.
2. The proposed development application is compatible with present and future land
uses of the area.
The proposed temporary batch plant is compatible with present and future land uses of
the area. The batch plant operation is temporary. Present land use is industrial. Future
land use is industrial. A temporary batch plant is allowed with an interim use permit in
the LI, Light Industrial District with conditions.
3. The proposed development application conforms to performance standards herein
and other applicable City Codes.
The temporary batch plant conforms to the applicable performance standards as detailed
below under Section 1007.046, Batch Plants.
4. Traffic generated by a proposed development application is within the capabilities
of the City when:
a. If the existing level of service (LOS) outside of the proposed subdivision
is A or B, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the
level of service more than one grade.
b. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is C, traffic
generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service
below C.
c. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is D, traffic
generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service
below D.
d. The existing LOS must be D or better for all streets and intersections
providing access to the subdivision. If the existing level of service is E or
F, the subdivision developer must provide, as part of the proposed project,
improvements needed to ensure a level of service D or better.
4
e. Existing roads and intersections providing access to the subdivision must
have the structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the
proposed subdivision or the developer will pay to correct any structural
deficiencies.
f. The traffic generated from a proposed subdivision shall not require City
street improvements that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital
Improvement Plan. However, the City may, at its discretion, consider
developer-financed improvements to correct any street deficiencies.
g. The LOS requirements in paragraphs 1. to 4. above do not apply to the I-
35W/Lake Drive or I-35E/Main St. interchanges. At City discretion,
interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka County
and the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, and a plan must be prepared to
determine improvements needed to resolve deficiencies. This plan must
determine traffic generated by the subdivision project, how this traffic
contributes to the total traffic, and the time frame of the improvements.
The plan also must examine financing options, including project
contribution and cost sharing among other jurisdictions and other
properties, that contribute to traffic at the interchange.
h. The City does not relinquish any rights of local determination.
Traffic generated by the temporary batch plant is within the capabilities of the City and
County transportation system. Transportation haul routes have been established and
financial sureties shall be provided in the event of any road damage.
5. The proposed development shall be served with adequate and safe water supply.
The proposed temporary batch plant will require approximately 24,000 gallons of water
and that can be supported by the existing water system.
6. The proposed development shall be served with an adequate and safe sanitary
sewer system
The proposed temporary batch plant does not require service by sanitary sewer.
7. The proposed development shall not result in the premature expenditures of City
funds on capital improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed
development.
The proposed temporary batch plant shall not expend City funds.
8. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,
5
property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
The proposed temporary batch plant will not be detrimental to any persons or property.
Transportation haul routes and signage shall be utilized to provide traffic control at
Phelps Road and Otter Lake Road.
9. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a
natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.
The proposed temporary batch plant will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
natural, scenic or historic features. The existing wetlands and public ditch system will not
be affected by the activities. No scenic or historic features exist in the area.
Per Section 1007.046, Batch Plants:
(3) Requirements. In addition to the General Standards contained within §1007.017,
Temporary Batch Plants are also required to comply with the following conditions
and performance standards in order to obtain an Interim Use Permit:
(a) The Batch Plant shall be located on the site so as to minimize the disturbance
of surrounding dwelling units or commercial businesses.
Arnt Construction currently operates their road construction/excavation business and
stockpiles construction materials on the subject site. The surrounding properties are
guided for industrial use. The current construction operation and proposed temporary
batch plant are consistent with industrial users.
(b) The Batch Plant shall maintain a 50 foot setback from any wetland.
The temporary batch plant is located over 160 feet from any potential wetlands.
(c) The project intended to be served by the batch plant and a deadline for
removal shall be clearly defined.
The temporary batch plant will be used by PCI Roads, LLC for a MN/DOT I-35E project.
Operations shall not exceed 4 weeks from date of set up and all equipment shall be
removed by November 30, 2016.
(d) The Hours of Operation shall be clearly defined.
Hours of operation shall be consistent with Section 901.03(4)(b):
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday
No construction activity allowed Sunday and federal holidays
6
(e) Access to and from the site shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to any site disturbance.
Access to the site is from CR 84/Otter Lake Road to Phelps Road. Access has been
reviewed by the City Engineer and Anoka County Highway Department. Financial
sureties will be required for road damage incurred.
(f) A grading, erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City prior to any site disturbance.
A grading plan is not required because no grading is proposed. An erosion and sediment
control plan and SWPPP have been submitted and approved by the City.
(g) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan shall be submitted and approved by
the City prior to any site disturbance.
A SWPPP has been submitted and approved by the City.
(h) A restoration plan shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to any
site disturbance.
A restoration plan is not required because the existing site operates as a
construction/excavation company with stockpile material. The site will continue to
operate as such after the temporary batch plant is removed.
(i) All applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements are
satisfactorily met.
The temporary batch plant has a permit from MPCA under the Industrial Storm Water
Multi-Section General Permit MNR050000. SIC codes 3272 & 3531. A copy of this
permit shall be submitted to the City.
(j) All applicable Rice Creek Watershed District requirements are satisfactorily
met.
RCWD has provided a letter waiving any permit requirements.
(k) So as to maintain compatibility with the surrounding area and to protect the
health, safety and general welfare of the public, the City Council may impose
additional limitations, conditions or requirements as it deems necessary.
Additional conditions will be detailed in the Council Resolution the interim use permit is
approved.
7
(l) The operator and property owner shall enter into a Performance Agreement
with the City, and financial sureties shall be posted prior to any site
disturbance.
A Site Improvement Performance Agreement shall be entered into by the applicant prior
to setup and operation of the temporary batch plant.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby
establishes the following:
APPROVED HAUL ROUTES
1. I-35E north to CSAH 14 (Main Street) east to CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) south to
Phelps Road.
2. CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) at Phelps Road north to CSAH 14 (Main Street) west to I-
35E south to MNDOT project.
HOURS OF OPERATION
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday
No construction activity allowed Sunday and federal holidays
CONDITIONS OF OPERATION
1. The temporary batch plant operations shall not exceed 4 weeks from date of set up.
2. The applicant shall notify the City in writing one (1) week prior to set up.
3. All equipment related to the batch plant shall be removed by November 30, 2016.
4. A water meter shall be installed to monitor water use.
5. No additional stockpile materials shall be hauled and deposited on-site during the
temporary batch plant operations.
6. The remaining stockpile shall not be increased in size or height after the temporary
batch plant is removed.
7. No section of CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) south of Phelps Road shall be used as a haul
route.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino
Lakes hereby approves the interim use permit for a temporary batch plant for Arnt
Construction Company, Inc. subject to the following conditions being resolved prior to
set up and operation of the plant:
1. The applicant shall sign a Site Improvement Performance Agreement and deposit
financial sureties with the City.
2. A copy of the MPCA Industrial Storm Water Multi-Section General Permit
MNR050000 shall be submitted to the City.
8
3. The site plan shall include the proposed improvements to the curbing and roadways
as discussed at the site visit with the City Engineer.
4. A Traffic Control Plan per MNDOT's MMUTCD shall be submitted to the City.
5. A copy of the Anoka County Haul Route permit shall be submitted to the City.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of June, 2016.
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:
______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-59
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE
AGREEMENT WITH ARNT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC
(INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT)
WHEREAS, the City has completed the review of the interim use permit application for a
temporary batch plant to be located at 2209 Phelps Road; and
WHEREAS, Section 1007.046(3)(l) of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requires the operator
and property owner enter into a Performance Agreement with the City, and financial sureties be
posted prior to any site disturbance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that
the Site Improvement Performance Agreement between the City of Lino Lakes and Arnt
Construction Company, Inc. is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to
execute such agreements on behalf of the City.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of June, 2016.
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:
_______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
2016 20160627 Arnt CUP Batch Plant Site Performance Agreement page 1 of 8
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this _______ day of _______________, 2016, is by
and between the City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Minnesota, and Arnt Construction Company, Inc. (Developer).
WHEREAS, the Developer has received approval of Site Development Plans,
hereinafter called the "Plans", by the City of Lino Lakes on the 6th day of June, 2016,
and in accordance with the Plans all of which are made a part hereof by reference. In
consideration of such approval, the Developer, its successors and assigns, does covenant
and agree to perform the work as set forth in the Plans, in the aforesaid approval, and as
hereinafter set forth upon the real estate (hereinafter referred to as "Property") located at
2190 Phelps Road, Lino Lakes, MN 55038.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties made
herein,
IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO:
I. DESIGNATION OF IMPROVEMENTS.
A. Improvements on the project site to be installed at the Developer’s
expense by the Developer as hereinafter provided are hereinafter referred
to as “On-site Work”.
B. Improvements off the project site to be installed at the Developer’s
expense, if any, by the Developer as hereinafter provided are hereinafter
referred to as “Off-Site Work”.
C. A Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities Agreement is not required with
this project.
II. ON-SITE WORK.
A. On-Site Work. The On-site Work shall consist of the improvements
described in the approved Plans, to include any approved subsequent
amendments, and shall be in compliance with all applicable statutes, codes
and ordinances of the City. The Work includes a temporary batch plant,
such as, but not limited to: traffic control, erosion control, and site
restoration.
Such improvements shall be completed in accordance with Section IV
herein.
2016 20160627 Arnt CUP Batch Plant Site Performance Agreement page 2 of 8
B. Cost Estimates. The Developer shall provide the City with a written
estimate of all applicable costs of the On-Site Work, itemized by type; the
estimates shall be based upon the actual estimates provided by the
contractors who are to do the Work. Said cost estimates shall be reviewed
by the City, and the City shall establish the actual amount of the financial
guarantee. The description and estimated cost of Developer's On-site
Work are as follows:
Description of Improvements Estimated Costs
1. Traffic Control $8,500
2. Erosion Control $3,000
3. Roadway Repair $14,500
4. Restoration $3,000
Total Estimated Cost of Developer
Improvements
$29,000
Security Requirement (Total * 35%) $10,150
III. RECORD DRAWINGS
Record drawings are not required for this project. Once the project is
complete the applicant shall notify the City Engineer for a final site
approval.
IV. COMPLETION DATE.
The project shall be completed by November 30, 2016 including site
restoration.
V. GUARANTEE.
A. The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms and
conditions of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer.
Concurrently with the execution hereof by the Developer, the Developer
will furnish to, and at all times thereafter maintain with the City, a cash
deposit, certified check, or Irrevocable Letter of Credit, based on thirty-
five (35%) percent of the total estimated cost of Developer's On-site
Work. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be for the exclusive use and
benefit of the City of Lino Lakes and shall state thereon that the same is
issued to guarantee and assure performance by the Developer of all the
terms and conditions of this Development Contract, construction of all
required improvements in accordance with the ordinances and
specifications of the City and guarantees the workmanship and materials
for the site restoration for a period of one year following the City’s
2016 20160627 Arnt CUP Batch Plant Site Performance Agreement page 3 of 8
acceptance of the site restoration. The City reserves the right to draw, in
whole or in part, on any portion of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit for the
purpose of guaranteeing the terms and conditions of this contract, if
Developer has been found to be in default of this agreement and only after
providing Developer with written notice and opportunity to cure any
default. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended
for additional periods of one year from present or future expiration dates
unless sixty (60) days prior to such the City Clerk or Administrator is
notified in writing by certified mail or overnight mail that the Letter of
Credit will not be renewed.
B. Upon written request, The City will grant a reduction of the Letter of
Credit, or cash deposit based on prepayment or the value of the completed
improvements at the time of the requested reduction. The Developer may
make such requests three times throughout the life of this agreement, with
the third and/or final request being at the completion of the project. The
City will respond to such request within 30 days time. Prior to the final
acceptance of the Developer’s Improvements the City shall require a
Letter of Credit or Cash Escrow to cover the warranty provisions of the
agreement. The amount shall be agreed to by the City Engineer and
Developer and Developer may use the Letter of Credit discussed in
Section V.A above.
VI. REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS.
A. The Developer agrees to establish a non-interest bearing escrow account
with the City in an amount established by the City Engineer or his
designee for the payment of all City fees and costs incurred by the City
related to the On-site Work, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Site Plan Review Fee $1,500
2. Administration (Legal, Engineering, Planning, and Contract administration) $7,000
Total Estimated (Budget) Costs for Escrow Account $8,500
B. If it appears that the actual costs incurred will exceed the estimate or that
the actual costs incurred will be less than the estimate, then Developer and
City shall review the costs required to complete the project. In such case,
if the actual costs exceed the estimate, then Developer shall promptly pay
the additional sums to the City to pay for the agreed upon increase.
However, in such case where the actual costs are less than the estimate,
the City shall promptly reimburse to Developer any amounts overpaid by
the Developer. The Developer may request a statement of the account
each month for review.
C. Intentionally Deleted.
2016 20160627 Arnt CUP Batch Plant Site Performance Agreement page 4 of 8
VII. REMEDIES FOR BREACH
A. The City shall give prior written notice to the Developer of any default
hereunder before proceeding to enforce such financial guarantee or before
the City undertakes any work for which the City will be reimbursed
through the financial guarantee. If within twenty (20) days after receipt of
such written notice to it, the Developer has not notified the City by stating
in writing the manner in which the default will be cured and the time
within which such default will be cured, the City will proceed with the
remedy it deems reasonably appropriate.
B. At any time after the completion date and any extensions thereof, if any of
the work is deemed incomplete, the City may proceed in any one or more
of the following ways to enforce the undertakings herein set forth, and to
collect any and all expenses reasonably incurred by the City in connection
therewith, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal, planning and
litigation costs and expense. The enumeration of the remedies hereunder
shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the City.
1. Specific Performance. The City may in writing direct the surety or
the Developer to cause the Work to be undertaken and completed
within a specified reasonable time. If the Developer fails to cause
the Work to be done and completed in a manner and time
reasonably acceptable to the City, the City may proceed to bring an
action for specific performance to require work to be undertaken.
2. Completion by the City. The City, after written notice, may enter
the premises and proceed to have the Work done either by contract,
by day labor or by regular City forces. The Developer may not
question the manner of doing such work or the letting of any such
contracts for the doing of any such work; provided that all such
work is performed in a reasonable manner, the costs are reasonable
and the work is completed in a good and workman-like manner
and in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Upon completion of such work, the Developer shall promptly pay
the City the full cost thereof as aforesaid.
3. Deposit of Financial Guarantee. In the event the financial
guarantee has been submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit, the
City may draw on the Letter of Credit the sum equal to the
reasonably estimated cost of completing the Work, plus the City's
reasonably estimated expenses as defined herein, including any
other reasonable costs, expenses, and damages for which the surety
may be liable hereunder, but not exceeding the amount set forth on
the Letter of Credit. The money shall be deemed to be held by the
2016 20160627 Arnt CUP Batch Plant Site Performance Agreement page 5 of 8
City for the purpose of reimbursing the City for any reasonable
costs incurred in completing the Work as hereinafter specified.
Any funds remaining after completion of the project shall be
promptly returned to the Developer.
VIII. OCCUPATION OF PREMISES
The Developer agrees that it will not cause to be occupied any portion of the
building or improvements to be constructed upon the premises until completion of
the building and site improvements as more fully described in the approved plans
and following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
IX. INSURANCE
Developer or its general contractor shall take out and maintain until one year after
the City accepted the Developer Improvements, public liability and property
damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for
property damage which may arise out of the Developer's or general contractor’s
work, as the case may be, or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or
indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be
not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for one
person and One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence;
limits for property damage shall be not less then Two Hundred Thousand and
no/100 ($200,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; or a combination single limit
policy of One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars or more. The City, its
employees, its agents and assigns shall be named as an additional insured on the
policy, and the Developer or its general contractor shall file with the City a
certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate
shall provide that the City must be given ten days advance written notice of the
cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for
failure to give the required notice.
X. REIMBURSEMENT FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES
The City and Developer agree that the prevailing party in any litigation pertaining
to the enforcement of this Agreement shall be entitled to reimbursement from the
non-prevailing party for all reasonable costs incurred by said prevailing party
including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorneys' fees.
XI. VALIDITY
If a portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase in this
Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of
the Site Improvement Performance Agreement.
2016 20160627 Arnt CUP Batch Plant Site Performance Agreement page 6 of 8
XII. GENERAL
A. Binding Effect. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and
assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of
all or any part of the Property and shall be deemed covenants running with
the land.
D. Notices. Whenever in this Agreement it shall be required or permitted that
notice or demand be given or served by either party to this Agreement to
or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally
or (i) mailed by United States mail by certified mail (return receipt
requested)or (ii) sent by nationally recognized overnight carrier to the
addresses hereinbefore set forth on Page 1 . Such notice or demand shall
be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in
the mail or the overnight carrier in accordance with the above. The
addresses of the parties hereto are as set forth on Page 1 until changed by
notices given as above.
E. Incorporation by Reference. All plans, special provisions, proposals,
specifications and contracts for the improvements furnished and let
pursuant to this Agreement shall be and hereby are made a part of this
Agreement by reference as fully as if set out herein in full.
F. Hours of Construction Activity. All construction activity shall be
limited to the hours set out as follows:
Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday and Holidays No working hours allowed
XIII. VIOLATIONS/BUILDING PERMITS
In the event that Developer violates any of the covenants and agreements
contained in this Site Improvement Performance Agreement and to be performed
by the Developer, the City, at its option, and after providing written notice and
opportunity to cure to Developer in addition to the rights and remedies as set out
hereunder may refuse to issue building permits to any property within the
development and/or stop building construction within the development until such
time as such default has been corrected to the satisfaction of the City.
2016 20160627 Arnt CUP Batch Plant Site Performance Agreement page 7 of 8
DEVELOPER CITY OF LINO LAKES
_________________________ By _________________________
Developer Mayor
ATTEST:
By _________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ________ day of
____________, 2016, by Jeff Reinert as Mayor of the City of Lino Lakes on behalf of
said City.
_______________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ________ day of
____________, 2016 by Julianne Bartell as City Clerk of the City of Lino Lakes on
behalf of said City.
_______________________________
Notary Public
2016 20160627 Arnt CUP Batch Plant Site Performance Agreement page 8 of 8
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
On this _______ day of _______________, 2016, before me, a Notary Public
within and for said County, personally appeared (Developer),
who executed the foregoing instrument.
______________________________
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by:
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6E
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-61, Calling Public Hearing on a Tax
Increment Plan with Respect to the Establishment of a Tax
Increment Financing District in the City
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration to call a public hearing for the purpose of
establishing a new economic development tax increment financing district.
BACKGROUND
United Properties is proposing to develop 56 Acre area parcel as the Clearwater Creek Business
Park. The developer is currently working with a warehouse/distribution company to construct a
402,000 square foot facility on approximately 30 acres of the park. The project will include a
2,100-foot extension of 21st Avenue.
The developer has submitted an application for public assistance to offset infrastructure and
soil correction costs associated with the site development. The application is currently under
review by the City’s financial consultants.
The establishment of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District requires the preparation of a TIF
plan and review by both the school district and county. A public hearing must be held prior to
City Council consideration to establish a district.
Springsted Inc., the City’s financial consultant, will be providing a review of the proposed plan
and TIF request at the July 5, 2016 City Council work session. This resolution sets the public
hearing date for July 25, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 16-61
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 16-61
2. Map of Proposed District
481689v2 JAE LN140-116
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 16-61
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A TAX INCREMENT PLAN
WITH RESPECT TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota (the “City”) and the Lino Lakes Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) have established, and the Authority administers,
Development District No. 1 (the “Development District”) located within the City and have caused
to be created a Development Plan (the “Development Plan”) therefor, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1082, as amended (the “EDA Act”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, as
amended (the “TIF Act”), the City and the Authority have proposed to create the Clearwater Creek
Business Park Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 (the “TIF District”), within the
Development District in order to facilitate economic development of certain property in the
Development District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed TIF District is an economic development district as defined in
Section 469.174, subdivision 12 of the TIF Act; and
WHEREAS, in order to create the TIF District, the City and the Authority have determined
to consider a modification of the Development Plan for the Development District and the adoption
of a tax increment financing plan (the “TIF Plan”) for the proposed TIF District and to hold a
public hearing regarding those actions in accordance with the EDA Act and the TIF Act; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Authority have determined to consider an additional
modification of the Development Plan for the Development District to expand the boundaries of
the Development District to be coterminous with the City’s boundaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes,
Minnesota that:
1. The Authority, and its staff and consultants, are hereby authorized and directed to
cause to be prepared a modification to the Development Plan and a TIF Plan for the TIF District and
to file a copy of such documents in City Hall.
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to prepare a notice for publication in the
City’s official newspaper setting a public hearing before the City Council on Monday, July 25, 2016,
at 6:30 p.m. on the Development Plan and the TIF Plan. The notice shall be in substantially the form
attached hereto as EXHIBIT A, shall be published in the newspaper at least ten (10) but not more than
thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing, and shall include a map of the Development District and
the proposed TIF District.
481689v2 JAE LN140-116
3. The Authority, its staff, and consultants are authorized and directed to transmit a copy
of the modified Development Plan and the TIF Plan to the Board of Commissioners of Anoka County
and the board of education of the school district where the TIF District will be located at least thirty
(30) days before the date of the public hearing.
4. The Authority, its staff, and consultants are directed to take all other actions necessary
to bring the modified Development Plan and the TIF Plan before the City Council at the time of the
public hearing.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of June, 2016.
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:
_______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
481689v2 JAE LN140-116
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota (the
“City”) will meet at City Council chambers of City Hall, located at 600 Town Center Parkway in
the City, at or after 6:30 p.m. on Monday, July 25, 2016, to conduct a public hearing on the
modification of a development program (the “Development Program”) for Development District
No. 1 (the “Development District”) and the establishment of the Clearwater Creek Business Park
Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within the Development District and the
adoption of a tax increment financing plan (the “TIF Plan”) therefor. The TIF District will be
administered by the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority.
The boundaries of the Development District and the boundaries of the proposed TIF District
are shown in the map below. The boundaries of the Development District are being expanded to be
coterminous with the boundaries of the City. The proposed TIF District is an economic development
district. Details on the proposal are contained in the Development Program and the TIF Plan, draft
copies of which will be available for public inspection at City Hall during regular business hours.
[Insert map]
Any person wishing to express an opinion on the matters to be considered at the public hearing
will be heard orally or in writing.
Dated: [Date of publication]
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
/s/ Julie Bartell
City Clerk
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
IJ84
§¨¦I-35E
OTTER LAKE RDOTTER LAKE RDCCEEDDAA RR SS TT21ST AVE21ST AVE2211SSTTAAVVEESSBUTTERNUT STBUTTERNUT ST
70TH ST70TH ST
CCLLEEAARRWWAA TTEERR CCRREEEEKK CCTTOTTER LAKE SERVICE RDOTTER LAKE SERVICE RDNN OO RRTT HH EERR NN LL IIGGHHTTSS BBLLVVDD
AARRTTHH UU RR
CC
TTPALM STPALM ST
CEDAR STCEDAR ST OOTTTTEERRLLAAKKEERRDDPHELPS RDPHELPS RD
CCLLEEAARRWWAATTEERRCCRREE
EE
KK
DDRRÜ06001,200300Feet
6/21/2016
Proposed Tax Increment District
Clearwater Creek Business Park
Proposed TIF District