HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2016 Council PacketEXPANDED AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, August 22, 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
COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M.
Community Room (not televised)
1. Advisory Board Appointments
(special meeting on 9/6/2016 @ 5:45 pm to interview P&Z
candidate)
2. Fire Fleet – Light Rescue Quick Attack
(concurred with staff recommendation)
3. 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 presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Donation of Fitness Equipment from Faamat Winey, Snap Fitness
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) August 22, 2016 (Check No. 104243 - 104375), $629,047.07
B) Consider approval of August 1, 2016 Work Session Minutes
C) Consider approval of August 8, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider approval of Resolution 16-91, 1-4 Day Temp. Liquor License for the
Lino Lakes Lions Club’s Annual Prime Rib Dinner
E) Consider Resolution 16-92, Authorizing Issuance of a Special Event Permit
for Waldoch Farm, Inc. Pumpkin Patch and Corn Maze
F) Consider approval of August 8, 2016 Work Session Minutes
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve the
Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1E, as presented, was adopted
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
Council Agenda -2- August 22, 2016
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A) Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 16-80, Approving Municipal
Consent, I-35W North Corridor Improvements, Diane Hankee
Action Taken: Motion by Reinert, seconded by Kusterman, to postpone
Resolution No. 16-80 pending a discussion with the city attorney and
further council review, was adopted
B) St. Clair Estates, Katie Larsen
i) Consider Resolution No. 16-78 Approving Variance and Preliminary Plat
Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve
Resolution No. 16-78 as presented, was adopted (Nays – Rafferty, Maher);
Direction also on the city’s involvement with Anoka County on future
planning for Birch St. corridor
C) Public Hearing. Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 08-16, Vacating
Drainage and Utility Easement, Village No. 3, Katie Larsen
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve the 1st
Reading of Ordinance No. 08-16 as presented, was adopted
D) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 09-16, Amending City Code Section
1007 by Adding Section 1007.056 Opting-Out of Requirements of the
Temporary Housing Provisions of MN Statutes, Sect. 462.3593, Katie Larsen
Action Taken: Motion by Manthey, seconded by Kusterman, to approve
the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 09-16 as presented, was adopted
E) Consider Resolution No. 16-93, Authorizing Intersection Control Evaluation
(ICE) for Centerville Road and CR J, Michael Grochala
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Kusterman, to approve
Resolution No. 16-93 as presented, was adopted (Abstain – Rafferty)
F) Consider Resolution No. 16-94, Costs to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of
Proposed Assessments, Otter Lake Road Extension, Michael Grochala
Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Maher, to approve
Resolution No. 16-94 as presented, was adopted
G) Consider Resolution No. 16-96, Approving Release Agreement for 1599 Birch
Street, Birch/Centerville Turn Lane and Utility Improvements, Diane Hankee
Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman seconded by Manthey, to approve
Resolution No. 16-96 as presented, was adopted
H) Saddle Club Fox Road Extension, Michael Grochala
Council Agenda -3- August 22, 2016
i. Consider Resolution No. 16-95, Approving Purchase Agreement with
Comcast for Fox Road Extension
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Manthey, to approve
Resolution No. 16-95 as presented, was adopted
ii. Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 10-16, Approving Sale of Land
to Dupont Holdings, LLC, Fox Road Extension
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve the
first reading of Ordinance No. 10-16 as presented, was adopted
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. was adopted
Following the regular meeting, the Council will reconvene for a
special session to discuss the 2017 budget
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
August 22, 2016 through September 12, 2016
Wednesday, August 31 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board
Thursday, September 1 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC
Tuesday, September 6 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
Tuesday, September 6 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board
Monday, September 12 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting
Updated 8/19/2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, August 22, 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
COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M.
Community Room (not televised)
1. Advisory Board Appointments
2. Fire Fleet – Light Rescue Quick Attack
3. 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
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Donation of Fitness Equipment from Faamat Winey, Snap Fitness
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) August 22, 2016 (Check No. 104243 through 104375) in the
amount of $629,047.07
B) Consider approval of August 1, 2016 Work Session Minutes
C) Consider approval of August 8, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider approval of Resolution 16-91, 1-4 Day Temp. Liquor License for the
Lino Lakes Lions Club’s Annual Prime Rib Dinner
E) Consider Resolution 16-92, Authorizing Issuance of a Special Event Permit
for Waldoch Farm, Inc. Pumpkin Patch and Corn Maze
F) Consider approval of August 8, 2016 Work Session Minutes
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
Council Agenda -2- August 22, 2016
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A) Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 16-80, Approving Municipal
Consent, I-35W North Corridor Improvements, Diane Hankee
B) St. Clair Estates, Katie Larsen
i) Consider Resolution No. 16-78 Approving Variance and Preliminary Plat
C) Public Hearing. Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 08-16, Vacating
Drainage and Utility Easement, Village No. 3, Katie Larsen
D) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 09-16, Amending City Code Section
1007 by Adding Section 1007.056 Opting-Out of Requirements of the
Temporary Housing Provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, Katie
Larsen
E) Consider Resolution No. 16-93, Authorizing Intersection Control Evaluation
(ICE) for Centerville Road and CR J, Michael Grochala
F) Consider Resolution No. 15-94, Costs to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of
Proposed Assessments, Otter Lake Road Extension, Michael Grochala
G) Consider Resolution No. 16-96, Approving Release Agreement for 1599 Birch
Street, Birch/Centerville Turn Lane and Utility Improvements, Diane Hankee
H) Saddle Club Fox Road Extension, Michael Grochala
i. Consider Resolution No. 16-95, Approving Purchase Agreement with
Comcast for Fox Road Extension
ii. Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 10-16, Approving Sale of Land
to Dupont Holdings, LLC, Fox Road Extension
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Following the regular meeting, the Council will reconvene for a
special session to discuss the 2017 budget
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
August 22, 2016 through September 12, 2016
Wednesday, August 31 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board
Thursday, September 1 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC
Tuesday, September 6 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
Tuesday, September 6 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board
Monday, September 12 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting
WS – Item 1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 1
Date: August 22, 2016
To: City Council
From: Jeff Karlson
Re: Advisory Board Appointments
Background
1) The Planning & Zoning Board has a vacancy. The City received one application
from Michael Ruhland.
2) During a recent work session, Mayor Reinert introduced the idea of creating a
Public Safety Advisory Board, which would meet quarterly with the Public Safety
Director and other management staff to stay informed of ongoing operational and
administrative concerns. Public Safety Director John Swenson proposed that the
meetings be televised. I suggest the quarterly meetings be held after a regular
Council meeting so we do not have to schedule additional evening meetings.
Requested Council Direction
1) Schedule a date to interview Michael Ruhland for the Planning & Zoning Board
seat.
2) Appoint two Councilmembers to the Public Safety Advisory Board.
Attachments
None
WS – Item 2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item
Date: August 22, 2016
To: City Council
From: John Swenson, Public Safety Director
Re: Fire Fleet – Light Rescue Quick Attack Vehicles
Background
In preparing the 2016 fire fleet requests for Council consideration, staff researched and
recommended the purchase of two light rescue / quick attack vehicles. Staff contacted fire
agencies that were utilizing this type of fire vehicle, evaluated community needs related to
the use of this type of vehicle and worked with Custom Fire to determine the specifications
required to meet these needs.
As part of that process staff requested Custom Fire to review the specifications of a Ford
F550 chassis to ensure that the needed fire equipment would work on this chassis. Custom
Fire advised that the F550 would meet all specifications for the buildout of the light rescue /
quick attack vehicle as designed for Lino Lakes.
Staff presented the proposed purchase of light rescue / quick attack fire vehicles at the
Council Work Sessions on January 4, 2016, February 1, 2016, and the regular Council
Meeting on February 8, 2016. During the February 8th Council meeting, Council approved
the purchase of two Ford F550 chassis’ and that Custom Fire build of one of the chassis.
Staff ordered the F550 chassis’ from Midway Ford and took delivery of the chassis’ in May
of this year. The invoice for this purchase of the F550 chassis’ are attached to this staff
report.
One of the F550 chassis is being stored at Fire Station #2 and the other F550 chassis is at
Custom Fire.
The owner of Custom Fire, Jim Kirvida, contacted Deputy Director L’Allier and informed
him that Custom Fire staff has learned of an issue with the Ford F550 chassis for light rescue
/ quick attack fire vehicles related to the payload capacity. Mr. Kirvida reported that staff
from Custom Fire would evaluate the issue further to determine how best to proceed with the
Lino Lakes vehicle buildout.
On August 15, 2016, Mr. Kirvida met with City Administrator Jeff Karlson, Deputy Director
L’Allier and I to review the Custom Fire proposal and recommendation. Attached to this
staff report is the Custom Fire recommendation and financial implications of the
recommendation.
The recommendation from Custom Fire is to upgrade to the Ford F650 chassis for use with
buildout of the light rescue / quick attack fire vehicles. Custom Fire has offered to reimburse
the City for the total price paid for the two F550 chassis’. The total reimbursement would be
$102,687.20 ($51,343.60 each) for the F550 chassis’ (invoice for the F550 chassis’ are
attached to this staff report). Custom Fire also offered to split (50/50) any increased cost
incurred as result of upgrading to the F650 chassis with the City.
Staff contacted Midway Ford to determine the cost of purchasing Ford F650 chassis’ and
received the attached quote. The total cost of the Ford F650 chassis is $63,118.08 each. The
price difference for the upgrade from the F550 to the F650 chassis is $11,774.48 each.
Custom Fire is proposing that they would pay $5,888.00 of this price increase with City
paying the remaining $5,886.48 for each chassis.
Mr. Kirvida will be at the Work Session to address their recommendation and proposal with
Council.
Attachments
Letter from Custom Fire dated August 16, 2015
Ford F650 Chassis Price Quote
Invoices for the purchase of Ford F550 Chassis
Built For Life
~CusIomFIRE
Custom Fire Apparatus,Inc.•509 68th Ave.,Osceola,WI 54020-4044 •715.294,2555 Fax 715.294.2168
www.customfire.com
August 16,2016
Deputy Director Dan L’AlIier
Lino Lakes Public Safety Department
Station I
7741 Lake Drive
Lino Lakes,MN 55014
Dear Dan and Truck Committee Members
As per our discussions over the past month,we are encouraging you to install the initial
attack apparatus bodies on the Ford F650 chassis in place of the F550 model since the
F650 has an increased “payload”,and will be more than adequate to handle your desired
apparatus design.
The F650 chassis has the same V8 diesel engine as the F550,larger running gear
components,larger 22.5”wheel and tire size (as are on your existing apparatus),larger
brakes,and other medium duty truck chassis features.The most significant item that is
not provided on the F650,is the 4-wheel-drive;as is provided on your F550 chassis.
If the F650 chassis upgrade is accepted,CustomFIRE will reimburse the City of Lino
Lakes for the total price paid for the two (2)F550’s and take possession of same.The
F650 chassis’have an increased cost over that of the F550’s,and therefore I would
propose that CustomFiRE absorb 50%of the cost between the price of the F550 and the
F650,$5,888.00 per truck.
I profusely apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your openness to this
recommendation.
My
President of the Corporation
Midway Ford Company
2777 N Snelling, Roseville, Minnesota, 551131796
Office: 651-636-8200
Customer Proposal
Prepared for:
Dan L'Allier
Lino Lakes
Prepared by:
Travis Swanson
Office: 651-343-5212
Email: tswanson@rosevillemidwayford.com
Date: 08/17/2016
Vehicle: 2017 F-650 Diesel Base
Crew Cab
1
Prices and content availability as shown are subject to change and should be treated as estimates only. Actual base vehicle, package and option pricing
may vary from this estimate because of special local pricing, availability or pricing adjustments not reflected in the dealer’s computer system. See
salesperson for the most current information.
Prepared for: Dan L'Allier, Lino Lakes
By: Travis Swanson Date: 08/17/2016 | Price Level: 725 Quote ID: LinoLakes
Midway Ford Company
2777 N Snelling, Roseville, Minnesota, 551131796
Office: 651-636-8200
2017 F-650 Diesel, Crew Cab
Crew Cab Base(W6D)
Code Description Invoice
Base Vehicle
W6D Base Vehicle Price (W6D)$61,831.00
Engines
99E 6.7L Power Stroke V8 Turbo Diesel -
300 HP @ 2500 RPM, 700 lb-ft
Torque @ 1800 RPM
$1,781.00
Includes Engine Exhaust Brake and manual regen capability. Torque: 700
ft.lbs. @ 1800 rpm.
Governed RPM: 3300. Includes CARB clean idle label - may be removed if un-necessary.
425 50-State Emissions N/C
Transmissions
44G Ford TorqShift HD 6-Speed
Automatic - Double Overdrive, less
PTO Provision
STD
41A Transmission Power Take-Off
Provision w/LiveDrive Capability
$799.00
Front Wheels & Tires
644 Wheels, Front 22.5x8.25 Polished
Aluminum, 10-Hole
$664.00
(285.75MM BC) hub piloted, flanged nut, metric mount, 8.25 DC rims; with steel hubs. Only outer
surface of outer wheel is polished.
TCT Tires, Front Two 11R22.5G
Goodyear G661 HSA (496 rev/mile)
STD
Rear Wheels & Tires
664 Wheels, Rear 22.5x8.25 Polished
Aluminum, 10-Hole
$687.00
(285.75MM BC) hub piloted, flanged nut, metric mount, 8.25 DC rims; with steel hubs. Outer
surface of outer wheel only; inner wheel is white powder-coated steel.
RCT Tires, Rear Four 11R22.5G
Goodyear G661 HSA (496 rev/mile)
STD
Brakes
67J Hydraulic Brake System - Bosch
HydroMax
Included
Full power with automatic adjustment, 4-channel ABS antilock brake system. Includes 12" x 3"
(Bosch) DSSA type rear axle mounted parking brake, Orscheln lever control, right of driver.
Front Axle and Suspension
43A 8,500 lb. Cap. Non-Driving - Dana D-
850F
STD
Selected Options
2
Prices and content availability as shown are subject to change and should be treated as estimates only. Actual base vehicle, package and option pricing
may vary from this estimate because of special local pricing, availability or pricing adjustments not reflected in the dealer’s computer system. See
salesperson for the most current information.
Prepared for: Dan L'Allier, Lino Lakes
By: Travis Swanson Date: 08/17/2016 | Price Level: 725 Quote ID: LinoLakes
Midway Ford Company
2777 N Snelling, Roseville, Minnesota, 551131796
Office: 651-636-8200
2017 F-650 Diesel, Crew Cab
Crew Cab Base(W6D)
Code Description Invoice
61B Taper-Leaf Springs, Parabolic - 8,500
lb. Cap
STD
2-leaf, 62" x 3.15".
15S Front Stabilizer Bar $438.00
60A Lube, Front Axle, EmGard 50W,
Synthetic Oil
$46.00
Rear Axle and Suspension
472 17,500 lb. Single-Speed - Dana S17-
140
STD
Single reduction with Gentech Quiet Gears, synthetic lube and 190 wheel ends. NOTE: When
specifying an axle ratio, check performance guidelines for startability and gradeability.
68M Multi-Leaf Springs - 19,000 lb. Cap STD
11-leaf. Includes 2,000 lb auxiliary springs for load stabilization.
X6A 6.14 Axle Ratio N/C
PRNDM/RNDM determined by Rear Axle Ratio and Tire Size.
Wheelbase
194WB 194" Wheelbase/84" CA/49" AF/282"
OAL
$76.00
Frame
534 Single Channel - Straight 'C' 12.64
SM, 50,000 PSI
STD
632,000 RBM. High strength low alloy steel; 10.125" x 3.062" x 0.312" (257.2mm x 77.8mm x
8.0mm).
765 Bumper, Front - Full Width, Chrome
Plated Steel
Included
86C Chrome Grille Surround Included
Exhaust
91G Under Cab, Right Side Outlet,
Switchback-Style
STD
Single, horizontal muffler, right side, under cab, outside of frame rail with rear discharge.
Fuel Tanks
65E Fuel Tank - LH 65 Gallon
Rectangular - Aluminum
STD
12 12 Gal. Single Tank Fuel Fill.
Mandatory Charge Applied, Based
On Tank Selection
$28.08
Electrical / Alternator / Battery
Selected Options (cont'd)
3
Prices and content availability as shown are subject to change and should be treated as estimates only. Actual base vehicle, package and option pricing
may vary from this estimate because of special local pricing, availability or pricing adjustments not reflected in the dealer’s computer system. See
salesperson for the most current information.
Prepared for: Dan L'Allier, Lino Lakes
By: Travis Swanson Date: 08/17/2016 | Price Level: 725 Quote ID: LinoLakes
Midway Ford Company
2777 N Snelling, Roseville, Minnesota, 551131796
Office: 651-636-8200
2017 F-650 Diesel, Crew Cab
Crew Cab Base(W6D)
Code Description Invoice
17D Dual Heavy Duty Alternators - 357
Amp Capacity - 200 & 157 amp
Denso SC5/SC2
$764.00
63B Battery - Two 900 CCA, 1800 Total,
Includes Steel Battery Box
$54.00
12Volt, Motorcraft.
Seats
88B 30/0/30 Fixed Driver & Fixed
Passenger w/Consolette - Cloth
$112.00
87C 60/40 Rear Bench Seat w/Flip-Up
Cushion and Fold-Down Back
STD
Trim will match selected driver seat material.
Cab Interior
600A Preferred Equipment Package 600A N/C
90P Power Equipment Group $420.00
Includes power front side windows, power rear side windows, power door locks and door trim panel.
588 Radio AM/FM Stereo w/Aux Audio
Input Jack & Clock
STD
With two speakers.
Cab Exterior
90E Exterior Appearance Group $651.00
54A Mirrors, Dual - Heated & Motorized
Rectangular, XL2020 - 96" Width
w/Chrome Cap
$272.00
Integral spot mirror, sail type.
Miscellaneous
PAINT Paint Type - Environmentally
Friendly, "3 - Wet System"
STD
Interior Colors
E_01 Gray N/C
Primary Colors
G1_02 Shadow Black N/C
SUBTOTAL $68,623.08
Destination Charge $1,495.00
Selected Options (cont'd)
4
Prices and content availability as shown are subject to change and should be treated as estimates only. Actual base vehicle, package and option pricing
may vary from this estimate because of special local pricing, availability or pricing adjustments not reflected in the dealer’s computer system. See
salesperson for the most current information.
Prepared for: Dan L'Allier, Lino Lakes
By: Travis Swanson Date: 08/17/2016 | Price Level: 725 Quote ID: LinoLakes
Midway Ford Company
2777 N Snelling, Roseville, Minnesota, 551131796
Office: 651-636-8200
2017 F-650 Diesel, Crew Cab
Crew Cab Base(W6D)
Code Description Invoice
TOTAL $70,118.08
Selected Options (cont'd)
5
Prices and content availability as shown are subject to change and should be treated as estimates only. Actual base vehicle, package and option pricing
may vary from this estimate because of special local pricing, availability or pricing adjustments not reflected in the dealer’s computer system. See
salesperson for the most current information.
Prepared for: Dan L'Allier, Lino Lakes
By: Travis Swanson Date: 08/17/2016 | Price Level: 725 Quote ID: LinoLakes
Midway Ford Company
2777 N Snelling, Roseville, Minnesota, 551131796
Office: 651-636-8200
2017 F-650 Diesel, Crew Cab
Crew Cab Base(W6D)
Pricing - Single Vehicle
INVOICE
Vehicle Pricing
Vehicle Price $61,831.00
Options & Colors $6,792.08
Upfitting $0.00
Destination Charge $1,495.00
Subtotal $70,118.08
Pre-Tax Adjustments
Description
Government Price Consession -$7,000.00
Total $63,118.08
Customer Signature Acceptance Date
6
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
DATE : August 1, 2016 4
TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5
TIME ENDED : 10:00 p.m. 6
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, 7
Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 8
MEMBERS ABSENT : None 9
10
11
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development 12
Director Michael Grochala; City Planner Katie Larsen; Public Safety Director John 13
Swenson; Deputy Public Safety Director (Police) Kelly McCarthy; Public Services 14
Director Rick DeGardner; City Clerk Julie Bartell 15
16
1. St. Clair Estates Residential Subdivision, City Planner Larsen noted that this project 17
includes 35-lots. The council has had some review of the proposal to date and she will 18
update that information. A PowerPoint was reviewed that included the following: 19
- Background on the size and location of the proposed project; 20
- Neighborhood map indicating location (really the final development in this area); 21
- Revised preliminary plat (indicating access to Enid Trail, sidewalks/pedestrian 22
trail); 23
- The city’s Comprehensive Plan (development is consistent); 24
- Gross density is 1.15 units; net is 2.42 units per acre, within existing city 25
guidelines; 26
- Density comparison shows this is not more dense than surrounding developments; 27
- Transportation planning; concern has been heard about increased traffic so 28
therefore a revised traffic study was done; results of revised study were reviewed and are 29
within norms; 30
- Level of street service would not be degraded and streets can absorb the additional 31
traffic; 32
- Police radar and speed data were reviewed and results presented indicating speeds 33
are currently below the current speed limit of the roadway; 34
- CSAH 34 Corridor Study was done in 2011 that analyzed Birch Street for future 35
decisions in the area and it did include consideration of development of this subdivision 36
and not having full access to Birch Street (Council Member Rafferty noted that the plan 37
was presented as very long term; Council Member Kusterman remarked that a four-lane 38
Birch Street would never be desirable to him; Council Member Manthey asked if there 39
are other streets with 950 trips per day and staff said no); 40
- Anoka County Highway Department comments; the county will be evaluating 41
Birch from Ware Road to West Shadow Lake Drive and they will be looking at 42
connecting the new street to Birch Street and, as a result, staff is moving the cul-de-sac 43
bulb of the street to the east to allow for that if a connection becomes feasible; 44
- Zoning has been reviewed and the development conforms; 45
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016
DRAFT
2
- Park dedication would be cash in lieu of an actual park; 46
- Floodplain doesn’t impact structures or lots; 47
- Shoreland Management Overlay District analysis is complete; 48
- A variance is requested in regard to the length of a cul-de-sac (for emergency 49
service purposes but mitigated with an emergency access trail); Mayor Reinert noted that 50
a guideline was established for cul-de-sacs because the city was becoming a city with 51
many very long cul-de-sacs; Planner Larsen noted some existing lengthy cul-de-sacs that 52
have existed for many years with no incident; 53
- Findings of Fact are included in the resolution granting the variance; 54
- The Planning and Zoning Board consideration process was reviewed; 55
- Council actions being requested were reviewed. 56
57
Council Member Maher recalled when the Foxborough subdivision came to her 58
neighborhood. There was annoying construction traffic during the process but now that 59
the development is done, things have settled down and the traffic of the additional 56 60
homes is not really noticeable. She has a safety concern about Hokah Drive; it’s 61
dangerous to turn onto the street. Ms. Larsen noted that there will be a temporary 62
construction access off of Birch Street. Council Member Maher said she’s heard some 63
concern about the size of some yards and she hopes that the developer will be cognizant 64
of that. She asked about the lot size for this development compared to existing lots. Ms. 65
Larsen said there’s no official comparison but she believes they are comparable although 66
some of the existing lots include wetland which is not usable but add to the size. Ms. 67
Larsen added that the construction would be a single phase probably running a little more 68
than two years. 69
70
Council Member Kusterman asked if a speed limit should be considered. Ms. Larsen 71
suggested that speed limits are set by statute and Mr. Grochala remarked that there may 72
be some flexibility on local streets to bring it down to a 25 mph limit but having varying 73
speed limits can be confusing. 74
75
Council Member Manthey asked about the distance of the trail to Hokah Drive. Ms. 76
Larsen suggested about 300 feet. 77
78
The mayor asked if there was discussion with the county as to access off Totem Trail and 79
end the access at Hokah Drive and Ms. Larsen said it was reviewed. Community 80
Development Director Grochala reviewed the future possibilities with an access at the 81
new street, Enid Trail. 82
83
Michael Root, Planning and Zoning Board member noted the work that has gone into 84
bringing this forward. He feels the development checks the right boxes. The emergency 85
access issue is resolved with the trail. One concern is the unknown with the county 86
analysis – with the addition of right in/right out at Hokah there are substantial jumps in 87
traffic counts. Maybe without that information, this is a little premature. Mayor Reinert 88
concurred that there should be adequate knowledge about the traffic flow before moving 89
ahead on a development. 90
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016
DRAFT
3
91
Mayor Reinert asked about the product – the type of homes and materials, etc. Ms. 92
Larsen said this is preliminary plat only – since it is not a PUD, that information isn’t 93
available. She pointed out that the development does meet the city requirements even 94
without that future traffic knowledge – it meets the findings of fact. The mayor asked if 95
there has been enough time spent looking at Totem Trail as an access. Ms. Larsen noted 96
that staff has analyzed the traffic situation thoroughly and at face value the roadway does 97
have the capacity. 98
99
Council Member Rafferty suggested the development looks nice but that he has concern 100
about the cul-de-sac length. Ms. Larsen reminded the council that there is an emergency 101
access trail included. 102
103
Mayor Reinert asked for more information about an alignment with Totem Trail and Ms. 104
Larsen said it’s really an area that falls within the county’s view of the whole area. 105
Mayor Reinert suggested it would be helpful to have more information on the option at 106
that spot. Community Development Director Grochala added that the county isn’t in a 107
position to provide that type of detail; it’s an analysis that’s just beginning for them. 108
109
Ron Holch came forward with a communication from Anoka County indicating their 110
preliminary discussion. A big problem on Hokah is the lack of sidewalks because it isn’t 111
a straight roadway and one solution would be a marked area on the street used as a 112
sidewalk even for some times of the day. Additionally he believes Hokah Drive was 113
never intended as a cul-de-sac and was supposed to have three points of access – Birch, 114
Sioux Lane and another access that didn’t occur. It wasn’t intended to be as long a cul-115
de-sac as it is. He fears more problems with more traffic. 116
117
Mayor Reinert said he’d like to see more discussion on the Totem Trail option, in spite of 118
this development going in. It’s a way to solve a different problem but would also 119
improve access for this. The criteria is met with the development except for that cul-de-120
sac variance. This is the time to look at access or there probably won’t be an opportunity 121
in the future. It’s prudent to at least explore the options now. 122
123
A council member commented that staff did a good job looking at compliance with the 124
city regulations but if there is possibility of getting a better connection now, that should 125
be allowed to happen. 126
127
Resident comments: Jeremy Stimpson, 6621 Sioux Lane, invited council to attend their 128
Night to Unite event this week. Questions he’s heard are germane to discussion coming 129
forward. He noted the 1200 vs. 1600 foot cul-de-sac comment and what is the actual 130
length. Ms. Larsen explained that it depends on where you begin the measurement. Mr. 131
Stimson argued that the 1,600 measurement makes it three times longer than is allowed. 132
He also has some questions about the allowance of decks on future homes with the 133
setback requirements. He noted that Lots 3 and 4 on the proposed preliminary plat would 134
have an incredible vista of Rice Lake but plans don’t seem to take full advantage of the 135
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016
DRAFT
4
space – he wonders, is it the best we can do with this land. Ms. Larsen explained that the 136
developer is maximizing just as was done by the Spirit Hills developer; the lots meet all 137
the city’s requirements. Mr. Stimson asked the council not to gloss over the 500 foot 138
maximum called for in a cul-de-sac; just because the city can, should we? He offered 139
thanks to the council for hearing comments and recalled when he moved into the 140
neighborhood there were sixteen trips per day in front of his home. He asked the city 141
when his street would no longer be a dead end and it ended up being shortly after he 142
moved in. He doesn’t want a similar situation with the discussion about access at Totem 143
Trail – that it just doesn’t happen. Mayor Reinert added that this is an opportunity. Mr. 144
Stimson added that he fears a real speed problem at the straight area coming in. Mayor 145
Reinert said his communication with County Commissioner Sivarajah has indicated that 146
more discussion on a Totem Trail access is possible and he’d like to see that happen when 147
it is viable. 148
149
Council Member Kusterman asked about the possibility of adding sidewalks for safety 150
and Mr. Grochala remarked that it would probably be a hearty neighborhood discussion. 151
152
A resident of the area recalled her experience moving to a quiet street and the huge 153
difference in traffic when access to Birch changed. She feels this would be another huge 154
change. She suggests also that it would be a similar rude awakening for people who buy 155
on this cul-de-sac to find an access change in the future. 156
157
The council concurred that they support going down the path of gaining more information 158
on plans for traffic in the area. It would also be nice to know a little more about the 159
homes that would be going in also. The item was pulled from Monday night’s agenda. 160
161
Council Member Maher asked about the process of how developments come forward. 162
She heard there was information including on past Friday updates but she didn’t seem to 163
get that and she had difficulty answering questions posed by residents previous to tonight. 164
Mayor Reinert suggested that sometimes in the past the council gets an update when a 165
development is going to the Planning and Zoning Board; that has been helpful and he’d 166
prefer that. Director Grochala explained that staff has generally done that with a PUD 167
development and have typically felt it best to bring forward a development such as this 168
when the review and more information is in place. The council has generally been 169
informed earlier in the form of the weekly update document. 170
171
2. Public Safety Department Fleet – Public Safety Director Swenson and numerous 172
Public Safety staff members were present. Director Swenson reviewed a PowerPoint 173
presentation that included information on the following (presentation on file): 174
175
- Police Division – overview of method for size (industry accepted is use and 176
average per miles per year); average miles for past few years were noted; 177
- Administration and Investigation Vehicles, seven are included in current fleet; 178
- Reserve and Community Service – two vehicles that are not fully equipped; there 179
is also a snowmobile; 180
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016
DRAFT
5
- Patrol Division – bulk of vehicles included; rotation of vehicles explained; 12 cars 181
assigned to that division; a sample rotation of vehicles was reviewed as it would occur on 182
an average day; maintenance schedule and possibilities were reviewed; Mayor Reinert 183
asked if there are eight squads cars on the streets at one time and Deputy Director 184
McCarthey said yes; 185
- Director Swenson reviewed the proposed 2017 Replacement Schedule; 186
- The build-out costs were discussed (not in presentation); the camera system is 187
included. 188
189
Mayor Reinert asked about the threshold that’s met to go up to eight vehicles. Deputy 190
Director McCarthy explained the availability rate in general and in Lino Lakes and how 191
that impacts the staff level. Mayor Reinert noted that the City of Hugo contracts with 192
the county for their services – they have three eight hour shifts with officers assigned. 193
The area of that city is about the same but with lower population. Are they drastically 194
underserving their public with that coverage? Commander McCarthy suggested that the 195
expectations are different and the coverage is different; they can move officers from a 196
large base of personnel around the whole county. The mayor asked what activity are they 197
not involved with that we are and Commander McCarthy explained that they have a 198
reactive model so they are awaiting calls; the City is much more active and officers move 199
through the entire process and that results in a successful clearance rate. There is a 200
maximum use scenario that we must have cars available for. 201
202
Council Member Rafferty noted that there are three vehicles that have gone from the PD 203
to FD with a fair number of miles on them. Director Swenson explained what those three 204
vehicles will be used for – one at each station and a spare. Mayor Reinert questioned 205
that need – those are older vehicles with more maintenance costs and losing value not 206
being sold. Director Swenson said that maintenance will be watched and those vehicles 207
are run a lot less than cars used on patrol. Mayor Reinert noted his upcoming newsletter 208
article on baseline management – it’s about planning around average needs and it also 209
gives policymakers a better idea and a base from which to base future decisions. It’s 210
based on having a baseline and if there are occasional additional needs, those can be met 211
with outsourcing. 212
213
Council Member Rafferty noted the three administrative vehicles and that they go home. 214
Are there other go home vehicles? Police staff explained that there is a policy within the 215
department outlining other cars that can go home (seven total). Director Swenson added 216
that there have been 84 situations this year to date for administrative staff to respond. 217
Council Member Rafferty noted information on the fleet that he is receiving from the 218
Public Services Director that is indicative. Deputy Director McCarthy explained that the 219
replacement isn’t based on years but use. 220
221
The council discussed fleet reports that have been generated that may reflect different 222
data. Director DeGardner distributed one report as a sample. The public safety staff 223
indicated that they haven’t requested the Cartegraph system. Director DeGardner 224
explained that the data is there but there has been some corruption in the area of the 225
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016
DRAFT
6
Petrovend system (that could be replaced); the past six to eight weeks, the odometer 226
readings have been inaccurate. At the Mayor’s request, Mr. DeGardner reviewed the 227
capabilities and uses of the Cartegraph system; it’s providing important fleet information. 228
229
Council Member Kusterman asked about the relationship with Eaglebrook – is there 230
compensation? Director Swenson explained that the church is charged for services and 231
the charges include personnel, fuel and equipment so the city recoups all of its costs plus 232
an administrative fee. Council Member Kusterman also noted the Hugo model and use 233
of a county contract and a comparison of our services. Staff has indicated that the county 234
model provides certain services only while the City’s PD goes full spectrum. He wonders 235
who fills in the gap for a city using the county services? Deputy Director McCarthy 236
explained that they have county wide resources to draw from. 237
238
The presentation on the Fire Department fleet began and the PowerPoint slides were 239
reviewed by Deputy Director D’Allier: 240
- Fleet size and replacement information; 241
- Current active fire division fleet table; 242
- Operational/safety concerns with A11 vehicle, including examples where the 243
equipment was used at homes in Lino Lakes; 244
245
The council questioned why the A11 was purchased by the city. Director Swenson 246
explained that a consultant was brought in when the assets were to be divided from CFD 247
and the Public Safety Department relied on that information. Council Member Maher 248
suggested that fire services are a new endeavor for the City and she realizes that there will 249
be bumps along the way. The bottom line is the city must have safe equipment. Deputy 250
Director D’Allier concurred that this is about safety. Council Member Kusterman asked 251
about the ability to extend the ladder and staff explained why it’s not possible. 252
253
Mayor Reinert explained that he doesn’t want to micro manage the equipment budget; the 254
city pays for management to do that. He has added a resolution to the council agenda 255
that establishes an annual contribution for equipment and for staff to manage. The 256
amount is reasonable and that’s how he would like to move forward. He can’t be 257
convinced that there is more money needed than what it cost to fund the previous fire 258
service. 259
260
Deputy Director D’Allier continued the presentation. 261
262
Council Member Maher asked about other area departments that have appropriate aerial 263
equipment and staff mentioned Forest Lake. 264
265
Mayor Reinert noted that more discussion will occur in upcoming budget sessions. 266
267
3. Public Services Department 2017 CIP Requests- Public Safety Director DeGardner 268
and Public Services staff Brett Olander, Tim Payne and Tim Hillesheim were present. 269
Director DeGardner reviewed the written staff report and had distributed an inventory 270
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016
DRAFT
7
sheet of all equipment as of August 1, 2016. He explained the review and replacement 271
process utilized for the equipment. The report also includes a look ahead and plans for 272
the next five years. 273
274
The council reviewed with Director DeGardner the requests for the coming year’s capital 275
requests. Mayor Reinert suggested that staff needn’t go through the entire list; much of 276
the focus currently is on public safety. It’s a helpful review though because there is a lot 277
of equipment and the total value is a large one. Director DeGardner did remove 278
replacement of the 211 from the requests. 279
280
Mayor Reinert questioned staff as to the possibility of using a baseline for this process. 281
Tim Payne suggested that the baseline would really be that all the vehicles are being used 282
for half the year (summertime). In fact, summertime needs are so heavy that there are 283
not vehicles for all staff so they sometimes use a drop-off schedule. Council Member 284
Manthey suggested that it appears to be an amount of around $300,000 each year and he 285
wonders about using a static number each year. Director DeGardner explained that 286
flexibility is important in this budget because there can be a huge truck purchase needed 287
one year and another year they may be able to defer some purchases because equipment is 288
lasting longer. Tim Hillesheim remarked that every one of the vehicles are exposed to 289
salt all year because of the situation at the yard and that can limit the life of the vehicle 290
and some more than others. The council noted that Mr. Hillescheim’s point highlights 291
the need to discuss the future of public works storage. 292
293
Staff distributed a request for a new Asphalt Emulsion Applicator and Mr. Payne 294
explained the need for a unit which would be an upgrade from the applicator purchased in 295
2014. Director DeGardner explained that this process was outsourced before 2014 and 296
the idea of doing it in-house has been investigated. While they are seeing it works, this 297
equipment would make it more efficient and less expensive. The Mayor suggested that it 298
makes sense. 299
300
The council will consider the requests as part of upcoming budget discussions. 301
302
4. Pole Barn Roof Replacement Plan – Utility Supervisor Hillesheim explained that the 303
old pole barn that is the public works facility has some issues with structure of the roof. 304
Included in the fix would be the addition of a new steel roof. 305
306
Council Member Maher remarked how this decision fits into the discussion of a future 307
public works facility and Mr. Hillesheim suggested that this facility will no doubt remain 308
useful even with the addition of new facilities. Director DeGardner noted that there is 309
sufficient funding available in the current budget in a facilities fund. Mayor Reinert 310
asked that staff look at repairs to the skylight area at the entrance to the senior center as 311
well. 312
313
The council requested a facilities tour in the near future. 314
315
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016
DRAFT
8
5. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions – 316
317
Anoka County Fire Protection Council - Mayor Reinert is on the finance committee. 318
They want to have a meeting at the new fire station. 319
320
Joint Law Enforcement Committee – Council Member Manthey attended the last meeting 321
at which they discussed budget. They do a good job with an agenda and focus. They 322
also deal with communication issues. 323
324
6. Monthly Progress Report – Administrator Karlson noted that there is no new 325
information of note on the report. He did suggest it would be a good time to set a budget 326
work session. 327
328
The council concurred on holding a session after the August 8 regular council meeting. 329
Mayor Reinert recalled that last year the council went through the exercise of looking for 330
savings in the 2016 budget and he suggests staff do that to save time. 331
332
7. Review Regular Agenda – The agenda was reviewed and there were no changes. 333
334
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 335
336
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 337
August 22, 2016. 338
339
340
341
342
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 343
344
COUNCIL MINUTES August 8, 2016
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
4
DATE : August 8, 2016 5
TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 6
TIME ENDED : 7:15 p.m. 7
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, 8
Maher, Manthey, and Mayor Reinert 9
MEMBERS ABSENT : 10
11
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael 12
Grochala; City Engineer Diane Hankee; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; and City Clerk Julie 13
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 presented. 22
23
CONSENT AGENDA 24
25
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as presented. Council Member 26
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried; Council Member Kusterman abstained from voting 27
on Item 1J. 28
29
ITEM ACTION 30
31
Consideration of Expenditures: 32
33
August 8, 2016 (Check No. 104214 – 14242, 34
$163,583.74) Approved 35
36
July 25, 2016 Council Work Session Minutes Approved 37
38
July 25, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes Approved 39
40
Resolution 16-77, Approving a Special Event and 41
Parade Permit for Ethan’s Reason 5K Run and 42
1 Mile Walk Approved 43
44
Approval of July 25, 2016 Closed Session Minutes Approved 45
COUNCIL MINUTES August 8, 2016
DRAFT
2
46
Resolution 16–82, Approving a 1-4 Day Temporary Approved 47
On-Sale Liquor License for the American Legion’s 48
Blue Heron Days Events 49
50
Resolution 16-83, Approving the City’s Special Event Approved 51
and Parade/Run Permit for the 2015 Blue Heron Days 52
Festival 53
54
Resolution 16–84, Approving a Special Event Permit for Approved 55
the American Legion’s Blue Heron Days Events 56
57
July 25, 2016 Closed Council Session Minutes Approved 58
59
Resolution 16-89, Approving Off-Sale Liquor License Approved 60
for Target Corporation 61
62
FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 63
64
2A) Consider Resolution No. 16-85, Establishing Annual Capital Expenditure Budget for 65
Purpose of Fire Apparatus and Equipment – Administrator Karlson explained that staff reviewed 66
capital expenditure budgets at a recent work session. The Fire apparatus and equipment budget was 67
included. The council had a discussion about capping that budget at $100,000 annually. The 68
resolution would accomplish that if approved by the council. 69
70
Mayor Reinert noted that he requested the resolution. When fire service was taken over by the city, 71
there were recommendations on needed equipment and the council has basically followed those 72
recommendations. Following the initial recommendations, there was additional equipment requested 73
and the council authorized that also. At this time, with a request for more equipment, he believes it 74
is appropriate to cap the budget. He noted that the cap can be revisited in future years at the wish of 75
the council. 76
77
Council Member Maher noted that staff is recommending additional equipment to do their job and 78
she has some concern about not following that recommendation. She feels that the council was 79
aware that the equipment coming from the Centennial Fire District was used and could need 80
replacement. She’d like to go on record as concerned and she’s torn because she also understands the 81
need to not break the bank. 82
83
Mayor Reinert noted that the city is moving to less (personnel, stations, service area) by having its 84
own department. He doesn’t feel that the equipment is necessary right now. The resolution can be 85
revisited by the council at any time. The department has been well funded and well equipped in his 86
opinion and there is a reserve fund in place for purchases. 87
88
Council Member Kusterman noted that the amount provided by the resolution would essentially 89
follow the practice of what was done prior to starting the city service – this is the number that was 90
COUNCIL MINUTES August 8, 2016
DRAFT
3
used for equipment replacement each year. Also this doesn’t restrict the purchase of equipment but 91
sets a number in place. The whole idea is to put something aside for a pay-as-you -go system. 92
93
Mayor Reinert noted that the number of calls has gone down with the new service. It has gone from 94
275 calls in a quarter to 29 for the most recent. It’s hard to argue with that reduction that more 95
equipment funding is needed. He understands the comment about not leaving the department short 96
but he feels comfortable with the resolution since the council can act at any time to spend additional 97
funds if needed. 98
99
Council Member Manthey noted the budget presented by the department goes to 2032. Looking at 100
that budget (without the purchase of a large truck), it does represent about $100,000 per year. He 101
hopes that the council will revisit the decision about the quint truck when it needs to happen. 102
103
Council Member Rafferty said he shares some concern about not heeding the staff recommendation. 104
He recalls past discussions about equipment needs and the recommendation to purchase the two 105
vehicles from Woodbury. He recalls staff indicating that the recommendation was appropriate. 106
There was a point when fire pumper trucks were recommended then and that recommendation was 107
followed and staff stated that was appropriate. The additional funding/equipment purchase would 108
represent more spending past of those recommendations. 109
110
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-85, as presented. Council 111
Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried; Council Member Maher voted nay; Council 112
Member Manthey abstained from voting. 113
114
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 115
116
There was no report from the Administration Department. 117
118
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 119
120
4A) Consider acceptance of donation of physical fitness equipment from Snap Fitness 121
Franchise – Public Safety Director Swenson reviewed the written report. The donation of this 122
equipment will be used by paid on-call firefighters (and police staff on their break). 123
124
Mayor Reinert asked that the equipment be used either off-duty or on break time only. 125
126
Council Member Manthey moved to accept the equipment as recommended by staff. Council 127
Member Maher seconded the motion. 128
129
Mayor Reinert requested a friendly amendment to add that the equipment will be used only during off 130
duty or break time hours. Council Members Manthey and Maher concurred. 131
132
Public Safety Director Swenson suggested that the amendment would only slightly change the current 133
policy that has worked well. 134
135
COUNCIL MINUTES August 8, 2016
DRAFT
4
Mayor Reinert said, based on an explanation of the current policy, he will drop the request for an 136
amendment. 137
138
Council Member Manthey dropped the friendly amendment language; Council Member Maher 139
concurred. 140
141
Motion adopted on a voice vote. 142
143
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 144
145
There was no report from the Public Services Department. 146
147
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 148
149
6A) Clearwater Creek Business Park: 150
i. Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 07-16, Approving Rezoning from LI, Light 151
Industrial to PUD, Planned Unit Development – Community Development Director Grochala 152
recalled that the council has reviewed this rezoning at a previous council meeting and first reading of 153
the ordinance was approved along with the preliminary plat and development stage plan for the 154
Clearwater Creek Business Park. At this time staff recommends that the council approve the 2nd 155
reading and adoption of the ordinance. 156
157
Council Member Kusterman moved to waive the full reading of Ordinance No. 07-16. Council 158
Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 159
160
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the 2nd Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 07-16 161
as presented. Council Member Maher seconded the motion: Yeas, 5; Nays none. 162
163
ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-86, Approving Development Agreement for Grading – 164
Community Development Director Grochala noted that the city regulations allow for commencement 165
of grading activities prior to approval of a final plat. Since the developer is prepared to begin 166
grading, staff recommends approval of an agreement regulating that grading activity. 167
168
Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 16-86 as presented. Council Member 169
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 170
171
Item 6B had been removed from the agenda based on a work session discussion. 172
173
6C) Consider Resolution No. 16-79, Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing 174
the Ad for Bid, 2016 Aqua Lane to Black Duck Drive Trunk Water Main Construction- City 175
Engineer Hankee reviewed the written staff report and recommendation to move forward on addition 176
of a water main. She reviewed the project budget and schedule, including working with the golf 177
course to minimize impact on their schedule. Council Member Manthey asked if this will be drilled 178
and Ms. Hankee said drilling is the operation of choice based on archeological considerations; a bit of 179
sanitary line will also be added as part of the drilling. 180
COUNCIL MINUTES August 8, 2016
DRAFT
5
181
Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 16-79 as presented. Council Member 182
Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carrried on a voice vote. 183
184
6D) Consider Resolution No. 16-87, Authorizing Application for Metropolitan Council 185
Planning Assistance Grant – Community Development Director Grochala explained that staff is 186
requesting authorization to apply for grant funding to support the city’s upcoming project to update 187
the comprehensive plan. The city is eligible for a grant of $32,000, a small portion of what the full 188
project will cost. Council Member Kusterman asked if $32,000 is a certain amount; Mr. Grochala 189
said yes, it is an amount predetermined for the city based on when a grant is submitted. Council 190
Member Manthey thanked staff for their work in qualifying the city. 191
192
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 16-87 as presented. Council Member 193
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 194
195
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 196
197
There was no Unfinished Business. 198
199
NEW BUSINESS 200
201
There was no New Business. 202
203
COMMUNITY EVENTS 204
205
YOUTH SAFETY CAMP will be held at Blue Heron Elementary school on Thursday, August 11th 206
from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 207
208
ST. JOESEPH FESTIVAL will be held at St. Joseph’s Church (171 Elm Street) on Saturday, August 209
13th and Sunday August 14th 210
211
BLUE HERON DAYS will be held August 19th, 20th and 21st. Please view the Blue Heron Days 212
website at blueherondays.org for the schedule of events. 213
214
NFL, PUNT, PASS & KICK Free Competition at Lino Lakes Elementary School Sunday, August 21st 215
at 4:00 p.m. For more information contact the YMCA at 651-259-2116 216
217
COMMUNITY CALENDAR 218
219
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 220
August 8, 2016 through August 22, 2016 221
Wednesday, August 10 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Planning & Zoning 222
August 19-21 Blue Heron Days 223
Monday, August 22 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 224
Monday, August 22 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting 225
226
COUNCIL MINUTES August 8, 2016
DRAFT
6
ADJOURN 227
228
There being no further business, Council Member Kusterman moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m. Council 229
Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 230
231
These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, August 22, 2016. 232
233
234
235
236
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 237
238
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy Clerk
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC: Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 16-91
Approve a 1-4 Day Temporary Liquor License for
the Lino Lakes Lions Club Annual Prime Rib
Dinner.
VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority (3/5 Vote)
INTRODUCTION
The Lino Lakes Lions Club has scheduled its annual prime rib dinner for Saturday,
September 10, 2016 to be held at St. Joseph’s Church, 171 Elm Street. The Lino Lakes
Lions Club is requesting approval of a 1 to 4 Day Temporary On-Sale Liquor License.
The license is necessary to allow the Lions Club to mix and dispense liquor that will be
served as part of the dinner.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is required to submit an application to the city for approval prior to the
event and city policy requires a background check on the license applicants. Staff has
reviewed the application and background and found no reason to deny the license.
A copy of the application and the background check is on file in the city clerk’s office.
The Certificate of Liability Insurance required by the Department of Public Safety,
Alcohol & Gambling Division, will be submitted upon city council approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution No. 16-91 approving the Lion Lakes Lions Club application for a
temporary on-sale liquor license.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. 16-91
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-91
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION No. 16-91
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY ON-SALE
LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE LINO LAKES LIONS CLUB
WHEREAS, Lino Lakes Lions Club has submitted an application for a 1 to 4 day
temporary on-sale liquor license; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 340, allows the city council to consider a
temporary on-sale liquor license for a non-profit organization in connection with a social
event sponsored by the licensee and held within the city limits; and
WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes Lions Club has submitted an application to hold a
fundraising event at St. Joseph Catholic Church, 171 Elm Street, on September 10, 2016;
and
WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes Lions Club has paid the required fee; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes has conducted a background investigation of the
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division requires the application be
approved by the City of Lino Lakes City Council before submitting for approval to the
Liquor Control Board;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino
Lakes hereby approves the request of the Lino Lakes Lions Club for a temporary on-sale
liquor license.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of August, 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: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC Consider Resolution No. 16-92, Authorizing Issuance
of a Special Event Permit for Waldoch Farm, Inc. Pumpkin
Patch and Corn Maze
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
City Code Chapter 615 are the City’s regulations regarding special events. The purpose of these
regulations is to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens by regulating time, place and
manner of conduct by establishing permit requirements. The City charges a fee of $50 for
special event permits.
BACKGROUND
The City has received an application from Waldoch Farm, Inc., to hold a special event on their
property September 17 through October 31 daily. This is their third annual event. Since food is
involved, a condition is being attached to their permit requiring Waldoch Farm, Inc. to contact
Anoka County Environmental Services for approval.
The Public Safety Department has reviewed the applications and have signed off on the permit.
Staff has reviewed the application and also signed off on the permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Waldoch Farm, Inc.’s application for a special event permit meets the requirements of the city
code and has not been found to present any safety concerns. Therefore, staff recommends that
the council approve Resolution No. 16-92, Authorizing issuance of a Special Event Permit.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 16-92
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-92
APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FOR WALDOCH FARM, INC. PUMPKIN
PATCH AND CORN MAZE
WHEREAS, Doug Joyer, Assistant Grower/Field Manager/Beekeeper of Waldoch Farm, Inc.
has submitted an application for a special event permit; and
WHEREAS, Waldoch Farm, Inc. wishes to hold the third annual Pumpkin Patch/Corn Maze
with attractions to bring citizens to their farm. All activities will be located on their property and
WHEREAS, the Pumpkin Patch/Corn Maze would be held daily September 19 through October
31 from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, Waldoch Farm, Inc. is required to contact the Anoka County Environmental
Services at 763-442-7069 to sell food.
WHEREAS, the Waldoch Farms has submitted detailed plans to set up and operate the
activities, including adequate parking plans; and
WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the special event plans and have determined that they meet
the requirements of the City’s ordinances;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes,
Minnesota:
That the City Council hereby authorizes the issuance of a Special Event Permit to Waldoch
Farms, Inc. to be held daily September 17 through October 31.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of August, 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 SPECIAL WORK SESSION August 8, 2016
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
DATE : August 8, 2016 4
TIME STARTED : 7:30 p.m. 5
TIME ENDED : 9:30 p.m. 6
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, 7
Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 8
MEMBERS ABSENT : None 9
10
11
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Safety Director Swenson; 12
Community Development Director Grochala; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; Public 13
Services Director DeGardner; City Clerk Julie Bartell. 14
15
2017 Budget Discussion – The council requested that, in the future, the budget 16
documents that they receive should be marked as to when they are updated, for version 17
control. 18
19
When Administrator Karlson asked about a starting point for discussion, Mayor Reinert 20
asked what it would take to get to a 2017 tax rate of 45.985 (what dollar amount)? Ms. 21
Cotton referred to the second page of the packet and indications of the tax capacity rate. 22
Mayor Reinert asked if that figure is a target for the council as a group. The figure of 23
$570,000 was mentioned as needing to be cut, raised or taken from reserves. Council 24
Member Maher suggested her discomfort in continuing to take from the city’s reserves. 25
Council Member Rafferty remarked that the reserves are actually the taxpayer’s money 26
that the city is holding. The mayor reviewed the use of reserves for the 2016 budget. 27
Ms. Cotton indicated that the 2017 budget as presented does include use of $317,000 28
from the Common Bond Fund to pay for the second year of debt service on the EDA 29
revenue bonds. Mayor Reinert noted that the tax rate was around 39 at one time and that 30
has risen through a combination of spending and loss of value; now the city is growing 31
again and value is being added so that should allow the city to not raise the rate or 32
perhaps even lower the rate. Mayor Reinert suggested that budget discussion is easier 33
with a goal in mind. The current balance in the Closed Bond Fund was reviewed 34
($800,000+) as well as commitments from that fund. Currently there is no fund balance 35
draw down included in the proposed budget; about $900,000 was included in the 2016 36
budget. The council discussed the schedule for retirement of outstanding bonds. 37
38
Mayor Reinert challenged staff to go through the 2016 budget and identify funds that 39
won’t be used or can be saved, as the council did last year. The council will be setting a 40
preliminary budget in September so that allows time for review and discussion as 41
necessary. 42
43
Council Member Manthey called for a review of the council’s line item budget; if there is 44
any savings there, it should be identified. Administrator Karlson assured the council that 45
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION August 8, 2016
DRAFT
2
staff reviews those line items carefully and has made cuts; staff has been very 46
conservative over the past years in reducing and managing budget items. Mayor Reinert 47
noted that there will be homes added and the city needs to be prepared to provide 48
services. Community Development Director Grochala noted that the previous year’s 49
budget included the use of reserves and that hasn’t been plugged in for 2017 at this time. 50
Mayor Reinert suggested that he would like to keep the tax rate static. 51
52
Personnel – Administrator Karlson noted the increases requested for 2017. The addition 53
of .5 FTE Office Specialist for Finance and .5 FTE Office Specialist for Public Services 54
and a CSO position in the Police Department. 55
56
Mayor Reinert noted that the CSO position is related to the grant officer position and the 57
extra work create through growth of the ACE program. Given the number of complaints 58
that he is receiving from the community (due to impact on businesses), he wonders if the 59
council should consider not renewing the grant after its four year period. Of course, that 60
decision shouldn’t be made in a vacuum without having concerned people directly 61
address the council and the police chief offering his opinion. Council Member Maher 62
suggested that if there is one DWI identified with one hundred pullovers, she’s okay with 63
that. Council Member Manthey said he’s received multiple comments also; from his 64
personal perspective, where he lives he sees a positive change in traffic operating more 65
safely. 66
67
Mayor Reinert said he’d like to take a closer look at equipment budgets for the Fire 68
Division budget as well as the Public Services Division in the hopes of setting a more 69
static yearly amount. Finance Director Cotton explained the current situation of issuing 70
capital equipment notes and the past practice of contributing to a fund and purchasing 71
equipment with available funds. If the council wished to return to the cash practice, the 72
city should begin weening itself from the practice of issuing notes. Mayor Reinert noted 73
that the practice of borrowing began because the interest rate was so low it was 74
essentially free; Ms. Cotton explained that the debt was actually issued internally at an 75
interest rate just over one percent. 76
77
Council Member Kusterman asked why not charge an interest rate equal to what the city 78
would make from the funds it borrows from itself. Ms. Cotton said the city could go 79
lower to that rate. Community Development Director Grochala suggested that the 80
certificates involved are five year notes and there is an allowance for some variation in 81
interest rates. Council Member Kusterman asked if there are regulations over the city’s 82
lending funds to itself and Ms. Cotton suggested it is based on fund availability. Council 83
Member Kusterman suggested that internal borrowing would seem to make a lot of sense; 84
he’d like to see if there is a way to better the city’s return on the fund balance. Ms. 85
Cotton explained that the city’s surplus funds are somewhat limited and their availability 86
limits the amount of internal lending. 87
88
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION August 8, 2016
DRAFT
3
Mayor Reinert asked why the PERA budget (Page D38 noted), went up by $90,000? Ms. 89
Cotton remarked that the council recently heard about positions that were added to that 90
budget and that translates to an increase. 91
92
Mayor Reinert asked what is happening with health insurance in 2017 and Mr. Karlson 93
explained that the city hasn’t yet received a report. Ms. Cotton noted that the budget 94
includes a seven percent increase as an estimate. 95
96
Mayor Reinert asked about the Forestry budget. Director Grochala explained that the 97
budget proposes an increase basically related to Emerald Ash Borer work – injections, 98
tree replacement, etc. Staff has been preparing over the past few years to address the 99
EAB situation and 2017 is the year that these efforts will begin in terms of funding. 100
101
Mayor Reinert noted the personnel levels in the Police Division. He sees an increase in 102
the salary budget coming forward and would like to understand more. Public Safety 103
Director Swenson reviewed the staff level moving forward to 2017; it was noted that 104
there are standard wage increases included. The staffing level for officers for 2017 is 27. 105
Director Swenson also reviewed increases on various miscellaneous line items in the 106
budget (i.e. software, joint law enforcement system, animal control contract). 107
108
Finance Director Cotton discussed her proposal to reinstate one-half of an Office Support 109
Specialist position to be funded from the water and sewer enterprise funds with no impact 110
on the general fund. The impact to those funds is just over $31,000. The goal is to 111
transfer all the daily receipting functions for utility billing and deposits and cross training 112
for utility billing backup, as well as providing front line response to basic utility billing 113
inquiries and working with plans to move to paperless finance records. The new position 114
will also provide relief on other general administrative tasks within the finance 115
department. 116
117
Council Member Rafferty identified that the position requested is actually already in 118
place temporarily with a person out on maternity leave. He also recalled that half of the 119
position was cut last year because it wasn’t needed. Administrator Karlson recalled that 120
the position was four hours budgeted to the Public Services Department that was not 121
needed. The finance director, since then, has identified restructuring that can occur in her 122
department and a need for this half position within that realm. 123
124
The council discussed the duties involved in utility billing. The finance director 125
explained the stresses facing finance department employees with a high work load and the 126
lack of time in the schedule to work on new initiatives and the added work that comes 127
from new properties in the city. 128
129
Public Services Director DeGardner reviewed his request for a .5 FTE Office Specialist 130
position. He reviewed the history of support staff positions in his office and at the Public 131
Works facility. Currently additional support staff is required to serve those needs, 132
especially to free up the administrative assistant’s time from front line duties for her core 133
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION August 8, 2016
DRAFT
4
responsibilities such as Cartegraph and administrative support. He reviewed the work 134
proposed for the new position. The cost of the position would be divided between the 135
general fund and water/sewer enterprise funds. Council Member Maher suggested that 136
it may be smarter to set the position at .6 FTE rather than .5 FTE since it is difficult for a 137
worker to accomplish as much in a half day; the change would mean three full days a 138
week. 139
140
Director Cotton briefly explained the 2016 budget surplus she has identified so far 141
($90,000) that could be applied to the gap. 142
143
The final direction to staff was to review the current budget for surplus funds. 144
145
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 146
147
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 148
August 22, 2016. 149
150
151
152
153
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 154
155
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC: Public Hearing. Consider Resolution No. 16-80, Approving
Municipal Consent, I-35W North Corridor Improvements
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Council is to consider approving municipal consent for the Interstate 35W North Corridor
improvement project.
BACKGROUND
Project Purpose
MnDOT has identified a number of factors justifying the need for the I-35W North Corridor
Project. These factors include pavement conditions, mobility, travel time reliability, and transit
and carpool advantages.
The purpose of this project is to provide a long-term, sustainable option for all highway users
(transit and non-transit) that improves pavement conditions, increases mobility, improves travel
time reliability, and maintains or improves transit advantages.
Project Description
MnDOT is designing a road project that includes adding a lane, in each direction, to I-35W
between Hwy 36 in Roseville and Lexington Ave. (Co Rd 17) in Blaine. All of the freeway
pavement will be repaved with concrete from Hwy 36 in Roseville to 0.1 mile north of Sunset
Ave (CR 53) in Lino Lakes, and MnDOT is also analyzing the need and locations for building
noise walls along the interstate within these limits.
Planned Project Schedule
The proposed project schedule is:
• August 2018: Project Letting.
• September 2018: Minor construction begins with limited lane closures and minor traffic
impacts.
• April 2019: Major construction begins with major lane and ramp restrictions and major
traffic impacts.
• November 2023: Construction is completed.
City’s Estimated Project Costs
At this time, the City does not have any cost participation in this project.
City’s Maintenance Responsibilities
At this time there are no new City maintenance responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Consider Resolution No. 16-80, Approving Municipal Consent, Interstate 35W North Corridor
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 16-80
2. Figure
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-80
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FINAL LAYOUT FOR STATE PROJECT 6284-172 I35W NORTH
CORRIDOR WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF LINO LAKES
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing on the final layout for State Project 6284-172 for improvements to
the Interstate 35W North Corridor was held by the City Council of Lino Lakes on August 22,
2016; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for State Project
Layout 1A, 6284-172 on Interstate 35W North, from Sunset Avenue to approximately 1,600 feet
northeast within the City of Lino Lakes for corridor improvements; and seeks the approval
thereof, as described in Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167; and
WHEREAS, said final layout is on file in the Metro District Minnesota Department of
Transportation office, Roseville, Minnesota, being marked as S.P. 6284-172, Layout 1A, from
R.P. 680+00 to 696+00.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes that
said Minnesota Department of Transportation Recommended Final Layout for the improvement
6284-172 on Interstate 35W North Corridor within the corporate limits be and is hereby
approved.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of August, 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
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC: St. Clair Estates
i. Consider Resolution No. 16-78 Approving Variance and
Preliminary Plat
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Complete Application Date: May 10, 2016
60-Day Review Deadline: July 9, 2016
60-Day Extension Deadline: September 7, 2016
Environmental Board Meeting: June 29, 2016
Park Board Meeting: June 6, 2016
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: June 8, 2016 & July 13, 2016
Tentative City Council Work Session: August 1, 2016
Tentative City Council Meeting: August 22, 2016
Jamie Jensen, St. Clair Land Company, submitted a land use application for a variance and
preliminary plat on May 10, 2016. The proposed development is a 35 lot single family
residential subdivision located north of CSAH 34 (Birch Street) and east of Hokah Drive. The
development contains one 30.47 gross acre parcel and is called St. Clair Estates.
The Land Use Applications are:
• Variance
o Proposed cul-de-sac length exceeds design standards
• Preliminary Plat
BACKGROUND
The attached Planning & Zoning staff reports dated June 8, 2016 and July 13, 2016 detail the
project. The City Council discussed the project at the August 1, 2016 Work Session and
postponed the item to the August 22, 2016 Council meeting requesting more information from
Anoka County.
2
Comprehensive Plan
St. Clair Estates is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in regards
to resource management, land use, housing, transportation and utilities.
The property is guided per the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development
and allows for 1.6 to 3.9 units per net acre. The net density for St. Clair Estates is 2.42 units
per net acre. This is consistent with density requirements.
Zoning
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The development is compliant with
zoning, subdivision and other applicable city ordinances. It is also compatible with the existing
adjacent residential, commercial and civic/institutional land uses. The proposed trails and
sidewalk link the development to existing trails, the Regional Park, Rice Lake Elementary
School and Sprit Hills Center commercial development.
Traffic
Several residents spoke at the public hearings in regards to increased traffic on Sioux Lane and
Hokah Drive and the development’s lack of access to Birch Street.
1. A Traffic Study was prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. on June 23, 2016.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Road Current ADT
Estimated ADT
(2019 Build
Conditions)
Increase ADT
Hokah Drive 270 455 +185
Sioux Lane 520 670 +150
St. Clair Estates is expected to generate 334 daily trips. Per the City’s Transportation Plan,
typical average daily traffic on local streets is less than 1,000.
The development of St. Clair Estates does not cause traffic on Hokah Drive or Sioux Lane to
exceed 1,000 ADT. Access to Birch Street is not warranted.
Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS)
Existing Peak Hour LOS Proposed Peak Hour LOS
Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Birch Street and Hodgson Drive B D C D
Birch Street and Ware Road A B A B
Birch Street and Hokah Drive A/C A/C A/C A/C
3
Ware Road and Sioux Lane A/A A/A A/A A/A
Ware Road and Hodgson Road A/B A/B A/B A/C
Hokah Drive and Sioux Lane A/A A/A A/A A/A
Notes:
a. A.M. Peak Hour is 7am to 8am and PM Peak Hour is 5pm to 6pm
b. Overall LOS/Worst Side Street LOS
Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service which indicates the quality of traffic flow
through an intersection. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle.
The development of St. Clair Estates does not degrade the Level of Service by more than one
(1) LOS.
2. Site constraints such as wetlands and the fact the subject parcel only abuts CSAH 34 with
80 feet of right of way that is over an open stormwater ditch also makes access to Birch
Street environmentally and financially prohibitive.
3. Hokah Drive and Sioux Lane have structural capacity to handle an additional 334 trips per
day. Spirit Hills, Shenandoah 3rd Addition and St. Clair Estates function as a 134 lot
residential subdivision with 2 access intersections at Sioux Lane/Ware Road and Hokah
Drive/Birch Street. The entire area also benefits from a signalized intersection at Ware
Road and Birch Street.
4. The 2011 CSAH 34 Corridor Study recommends right in/right out at Hokah Drive as part of
a larger Anoka County Highway Department initiated Birch Street improvement project.
The traffic study analyzed this potential scenario and projected 175 ADT on Hokah Drive
and 950 ADT on Sioux Lane.
Projected traffic counts do not cause traffic on Hokah Drive or Sioux Lane to exceed 1,000
ADT.
Per the 2011 CSAH 34 Corridor Study and Anoka County Access Spacing Guidelines, access
to Birch Street is not required for the development of St. Clair Estates.
5. Doug Fischer, Anoka County Engineer, provided comments in the attached letter dated
August 15, 2016. St. Clair Estates (with no access to Birch Street) is consistent with the
CSAH 34 Corridor Study. ACHD is currently evaluating a safety improvement project from
Ware Road to West Shadow Lake Drive as part of their 5 year Capital Improvements Plan.
This evaluation will include a possible connection of Enid Trail (St. Clair Estates) to Birch
Street. In order to preserve the opportunity to make this connection, the cul de sac bulb at
the south end of Enid Trail shall be re-located to the east.
Access to Birch Street is not required for the development of St. Clair Estates. Any potential
access would be part of a much larger Anoka County Highway Department safety
improvement project.
4
6. Chuck Rickart, WSB Traffic Engineer, provided comments in the attached letter dated
August 15, 2016. WSB analyzed projected traffic volumes if Hokah Drive became right
in/right out and Enid Trail were extended to a ¾ access at Birch Street as part of a larger
Anoka County road improvement project.
Road
Projected ADT
(RI/RO-Hokah
Drive Only)
Projected ADT
(RI/RO-Hokah Drive
& ¾ at Enid Trail
Hokah Drive 175 110
Sioux Lane 950 830
Enid Trail 0 185
The extension of Enid Trail to Birch Street will not significantly change the traffic levels on
any of the area streets. Anoka County would need to evaluate whether the benefit to Birch
Street would warrant the changes.
7. Section 1001.013 of the Subdivision Ordinance details 5 specific criteria needed to deem a
subdivision premature. The attached Resolution No. 16-78 details the finding of fact.
Based on ordinance criteria, St. Clair Estates is not a premature subdivision.
Cul de Sac Length
Section 302.03(1)(h) states the minimum length of a cul-de-sac shall be 500 feet. The proposed
cul-de-sac in St. Clair Estates is approximately 1,200 feet if measured from the intersection of
Sioux Lane and Enid Trail or 1,600 feet if measured from the intersection of Sioux Lane and
Hokah Drive. A variance shall be required.
1. Cul-de-sacs lengths are limited in length for emergency access concerns for those residents
living on that street. This issue is being mitigated by requiring the construction of a 10 foot
wide, 7 ton emergency access from the cul-de-sac south to CSAH 34 (Birch Street).
Emergency access can be obtained from the south via Birch Street in the event the north
intersection at Sioux Lane is blocked. Hydrants will also be located every 300 feet for fire
protection.
The length of the cul de sac in St. Clair Estates has no impact on the neighboring residents
in regards to providing them emergency services.
2. St. Clair Estates is a 35 lot low density residential development. Sioux Lane functioned as a
1,500 foot cul de sac from 2001 to 2012 (11 years) and Hokah Drive functioned as a as
2,000 foot cul de sac from 1979 to 2012 (33 years) without an emergency access trail and
without issue. Sioux Lookout is an existing 740 foot cul de sac. West Shadow Lake Road
is an existing 7,800+ foot cul de sac with trail access on the north through Chomonix Golf
Course. Black Duck Drive is an existing 5,500+ foot cul de sac.
5
The Lino Lakes Public Safety Department, City Engineer and staff have reviewed and
approved the emergency access trail and have no concerns regarding the length of cul de sac
in St. Clair Estates.
3. Section 1007.018(1)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance details 7 specific criteria needed to grant a
variance. The attached Resolution No. 16-78 details the finding of fact.
St. Clair Estates is in compliance with the variance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Zoning Board opened the public hearing on June 8, 2016 and continued it to
July 13, 2016. The Board voted 4-2 in favor of the variance and preliminary plat with the
condition the cul de sac bulb at the south end of Enid Trail is re-located to the east.
RCWD issued a Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes (CAPROC) for Permit #16-
024.
The Board and staff recommend approval of the variance and preliminary plat for St. Clair
Estates with the conditions listed in Resolution No. 16-78.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning & Zoning Board staff report dated June 8, 2016
2. Planning & Zoning Board staff report dated July 13, 2016
3. Anoka County Engineer letter dated August 15, 2016
4. WSB Traffic Engineer letter dated August 15, 2016
5. Resolution No. 16-78
1
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM 5A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
P & Z MEETING DATE: June 8, 2016
REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING
St. Clair Estates
1. Preliminary Plat
2. Variance
CASE NUMBER: PP2016-002
VR2016-001
APPLICANT: St. Clair Land Company
Attn: Jamie Jensen
1517 Dawn Circle
Arden Hills, MN 55112
REVIEW DEADLINE:
Complete Application Date: May 10, 2016
60-Day Review Deadline: July 9, 2016
120-Day Review Deadline: September 7, 2016
Environmental Board Meeting: June 29, 2016
Park Board Meeting: June 6, 2016
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: June 8, 2016
Tentative City Council Work Session: July 5, 2016
Tentative City Council Meeting: July 11, 2016
BACKGROUND
The applicant has submitted a land use application for Preliminary Plat and Variance. The
proposed development is a 35 lot single family residential subdivision located north of
CSAH 34 (Birch Street) and east of Hokah Drive. The development contains one 30.47
gross acre parcel and is called St. Clair Estates.
The Land Use Applications are:
• Preliminary Plat
• Variance
o Proposed cul-de-sac length exceeds design standards
2
The following staff report is based on the following information:
• Civil plans prepared by Plowe Engineering dated March May 10, 2016 and
received by the City on May 10, 2016
• Preliminary plat plans prepared by EG Rud & Sons dated May 9, 2016 and
received by the City on May 10, 2016
• Stormwater Drainage Report prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc. dated May 9,
2016
• Report of Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ITCO Allied Engineering
Company dated March 7, 2016
• Traffic Study prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. dated May 12, 2016
• Wetland Delineation prepared by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC dated April 18,
2016
ANALYSIS
Existing Site Conditions
The 30 acre site is bordered by the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve on
the north, Rice Lake Elementary School and wetlands on the east, single family homes
and CSAH 34 (Birch Street) on the south and Spirit Hills and Shenandoah 3rd Addition
residential subdivisions to the west. The site consists of grasslands, woodlands and
wetlands and is in the Anoka sandplain. Elevations range from 880 feet (wetland area) to
900 feet. A stormwater management pond for CSAH 34, owned by Anoka County and
maintained by the City, is located on PID #29-31-22-32-0004 (473 Birch Street) and
drains east into an open ditch. Soil borings indicated sandy and silty materials. Soils are
classified as A hydrologic group and not hydric which signifies the soils are suitable for
infiltration.
Shenandoah 3rd Addition along Hokah Drive was platted in 1979 with 48 single family
lots. Hokah Drive existed as a long cul-de-sac until 2012 when Sioux Lane was extended
to the west. Hokah Drive was reconstructed in 2015.
Spirit Hills along Sioux Lane was platted in 2001 with 51 single family lots and the retail
center.
The City and County undertook an extensive reconstruction project of the intersection at
Ware Road and Birch Street and installed traffic signals to address traffic issues. The
intersection of Hodgson Road and Birch Street is also signalized.
Comprehensive Plan
St. Clair Estates is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in
regards to resource management, land use, housing, transportation and utilities.
Resource Management System Plan
3
The Resource Management System Plan provides the conservation design framework for
the Comprehensive Plan and promotes sustainable decisions regarding growth and
development. It provides a unified system approach to natural resource management and
natural resource based amenities.
Goals of the Resource Management System Plan include:
• Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation
o Goal #3: Develop, maintain, and connect the current and proposed trails in
the City of Lino Lakes and Rice Creek Regional Park in a manner that
preserves and sustains the natural environment.
• Natural Resources and Amenities
o Goal #1: Identify, protect and preserve the desirable natural areas and
ecological and aquatic resources of the community.
• Land Use Policies
o Goal #1: Ensure that well-planned, quality residential, commercial,
industrial and institutional development to accommodate the city’s
projected growth needs occurs in a manner that also conserves and
enhances the city’s natural resources and amenities.
The Resource Management System Plan identifies the following in the area:
• Proposed designated bike route
• Existing Trails
• Greenway system connectivity
A separate, at-grade, bituminous trail exists along the north and south side of CSAH 34
(Birch Street) and is a designated bike route and regional trail. The existing trail provides
pedestrian connectivity to the Rice Lake Elementary School, Rice Creek Chain of Lakes
Regional Park and Sprit Hill Center, a multi-tenant retail center. An emergency access
trail will be constructed off the end of the cul-de-sac south to Birch Street to provide
addition connectively. The potential for a trail north through Outlot A to provide access
to the Regional Park is also being analyzed.
The greenway corridor extends north-south throughout the development incorporating the
wetland and floodplain areas. This corridor will be preserved with a conservation
easement.
Land Use Plan
Goal 2: Ensure that zoning and subdivision ordinances and official maps are consistent
with the intent and specific direction provided within the Comprehensive Plan.
Policies:
4
1. Ensure developers meet the standards specified within the land-use plan and
official controls, including zoning and subdivision ordinances and official
maps.
2. Ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.
Goal 3: Ensure housing development is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses
and provides accessibility to key community features and natural amenities.
Policy 1: Link trails to parks, lakes and schools.
Density and Land Area Calculations
The following chart implements Met Council’s formula for calculating net density.
Gross Area (acres) 30.47
Wetlands & Water Bodies 13.60
Public Parks & Open Space 0.00
Arterial ROW 0.00
Other (Wetland Buffer Conservation
Easement) 2.40
Net Area (acres) 14.47
# of Units 35
Gross Density (units/acre) 1.15
Net Density (units/acre) 2.42
St. Clair Estates meets the land use goals by developing a single family residential
subdivision that is consistent with low density residential development as guided by the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Low density residential development allows for 1.6 to
3.9 units per net acre. The net density for the development is 2.42 units per net acre.
This is consistent with density requirements.
The development is compliant with zoning, subdivision and other applicable city
ordinances. It is also compatible with the existing adjacent residential, commercial and
civic/institutional land uses. The proposed trails and sidewalk link the development to
existing trails, the Regional Park, Rice Lake Elementary School and Sprit Hills Center
commercial development.
Housing Plan
5
Goal 1: Ensure housing development is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses
and provides accessibility to key community features and natural resources.
Policies:
1. Link trails to parks, lakes, and schools.
2. Ensure commercial development and mixed-use areas are appropriately dispersed
throughout the city.
St. Clair Estates meets the goals of the housing plan. The development is compatible with
the existing adjacent residential, commercial and civic/institutional land uses. The
proposed trails and sidewalk link the development to existing trails, the Regional Park,
Rice Lake Elementary School and Sprit Hills Center commercial development.
Economic Development
Goal 1: Expand and diversify the city’s tax base by encouraging mixed-use and nodal
development to lessen the tax burden on residential properties.
Policy 4: Develop walkable neighborhoods with commercial nodes and amenities for
residents.
St. Clair Estates encourages a walkable neighborhood by providing trails and sidewalks
to Birch Street. This pedestrian corridor links the residents with the Sprit Hills Center
commercial node.
Transportation Plan
Goal 1: Plan for and achieve required street improvements and connectivity throughout
the City of Lino Lakes.
Policies:
1. Develop a transportation plan that will identify and plan for needed public
transportation options and street construction, upgrading, and related funding
requirements.
2. Ensure by 2030 that main east/west and north/south transportation corridors
are of good quality and allow for potential, required expansion and upgrades,
i.e., widening, expanded capacity, turn lanes, and accommodating pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
Goal 2: Ensure that streets and roads are as safe as possible.
Policies:
1. Identify potential traffic safety problem areas and adopt plans to lessen risks
as traffic volume increases along these problem stretches and intersections.
6
Goal 6: Promote alternative transportation such as bicycling, walking, transit and rail.
Policies:
1. Work to physically connect neighborhoods with roads and pedestrian/bicycle
links.
2. Encourage sidewalks and separated pathways along all arterial collector, and
local streets in developing residential and commercial areas.
Goal 7: Maintain and coordinate the transportation system with adjacent communities,
Anoka County, Washington County, Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT.
Policies:
1. Use the functional classification system to define and plan existing and new
roadways.
2. Develop and utilize access management guidelines in conjunction with Anoka
County.
3. Continue to work with surrounding jurisdictions, state and federal agencies to
ensure an integrated transportation system.
Existing Transportation System
Functional
Classification
Right of Way
Width Paved Road Width
CSAH 34 (Birch St) “B” minor arterial Varies (120 feet) Varies
CSAH 49 (Hodgson
Rd) “A” minor arterial Varies (120 feet) Varies
Ware Road (north of
CSAH 34) Local street 66 feet Varies
Ware Road (south of
CSAH 34) Collector 66 feet Varies
Hokah Drive Local Street 60 feet 32 feet
Existing Sioux Lane Local Street 60 feet 32 feet
Proposed Sioux Lane Local Street 60 feet 32 feet
In April 2011, the City and Anoka County retained SRF Consulting Group to analyze the
CSAH 34 (Birch Street) corridor from CSAH 46 (Hodgson Road) to CSAH 54 (20th
Avenue) to address safety, access and mobility needs. The CSAH 34 Corridor Study
guides transportation improvement decisions and establishes an improvement plan to
address corridor needs. Anoka Highway Department Access Spacing Guidelines are also
applicable to this development. Managing access along this corridor is a critical safety
issue.
Figure 15: Recommended Corridor Plan identifies the following improvements from
CSAH 49 (Hodgson Road) to Tomahawk Trail:
7
1. Four lane roadway
2. Signal locations at CSAH 49(Hodgson Road) and Ware Road
3. Future ¾ access intersection at Totem Trail
4. Full access at Tomahawk Trail
5. Future cul-de-sac or loop without access to Birch Street on subject property
Figure 18: Potential Access Management Strategies identifies the following
improvements:
1. Removal of one driveway at 325 Birch Street (Apitz Garage)
2. Right In/Right Out movements
a. 325 Birch Street
b. Lakota Trail
c. Hokah Drive (north and south of Birch Street)
3. Future ¾ access intersection at Total Trail
4. Removal of private driveways onto Birch Street when feasible
5. Future cul-de-sac or loop without access to Birch Street on subject property
6. Full Access at Tomahawk Trail
Anoka County Highway Department Access Spacing Guidelines also dictate intersection
and signal spacing along county road. Full movement intersection spacing is typically
allowed every ¼ to ½ mile. Signal spacing is typically allowed every ½ mile.
In 2012-2013, road and signal improvements were installed at CSAH 34 (Birch Street)
and Ware Road consistent with the CSAH 34 Corridor Study and Anoka County
Highway Department Access Spacing. These improvements were installed to
accommodate traffic from Sprit Hills Center (commercial development), Spirit Hills
(current residential development), Shenandoah 3rd Addition (current residential
development) and Subject Site (future residential development)
Hokah Drive was reconstructed in 2015.
A Traffic Study was prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. dated May 12, 2016 for the
St. Clair Estates development proposal. The development is expected to generate daily
27 a.m. peak hour, 36 p.m. peak hour and 334 trips.
Traffic Distribution
Road
Existing ADT
(Average Daily
Traffic)
Estimated ADT
(2019 Build
Conditions)
Difference
Hokah Drive 250 450 +200
Sioux Lane 600 750 +150
Birch Street 13,600 14,3501 +750
Hodgson Road
(north of Birch) 16,600 17,5501 +950
8
Hodgson Road
(south of Birch) 11,100 11,8001 +700
1 Increased ADT Counts on Birch Street and Hodgson Road are due to increased
development throughout the entire City, not just St. Clair Estates
Per the City’s Transportation Plan, typical average daily traffic on local streets is less
than 1,000. The increased projected trips on Hokah Drive and Sioux Lane are less than
1,000.
Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS)
Existing Peak Hour LOS Proposed Peak Hour LOS
Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Birch Street and Hodgson Drive B D C D
Birch Street and Ware Road A B A B
Birch Street and Hokah Drive A/C A/C A/C A/C
Ware Road and Sioux Lane A/A A/A A/A A/A
Ware Road and Hodgson Road A/B A/B A/B A/C
Hokah Drive and Sioux Lane A/A A/A A/A A/A
Notes:
1. A.M. Peak Hour is 7am to 8am and PM Peak Hour is 4:30pm to 5:30 pm
2. Overall LOS/Worst Side Street LOS
Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service which indicates the quality of traffic
flow through an intersection. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle.
The existing roads and intersections providing access to the development have structural
capacity to accommodate the projected traffic from the proposed subdivision. The
proposed Levels of Service do not degrade by more than one (1) LOS; therefore the
subdivision is not considered premature.
The Anoka County Highway Department letter dated March 14, 2016 provides the
following comments:
1. No additional right of way is required along CSAH 34.
2. The development proposes no new access points onto CSAH 34 which is
consistent with the 2011 Corridor Plan.
Staff has received calls from existing residents along Hokah Drive and Sioux Lane
expressing concerns regarding current speeding issues, the development’s lack of access
to Birch Street and a the general increase in traffic. The Police Department has not
received any formal complaints from residents regarding speeding on Sioux Lane or
9
Hodgson Road. As discussed, per the CSAH 34 Corridor Study and Anoka County
Access Spacing Guidelines, access to Birch Street is not warranted. Site constraints such
as wetlands and the fact the site only abuts CSAH 34 with 80 feet of right of way that is
over an open stormwater ditch makes access to Birch Street cost prohibitive. The
existing roads have structural capacity to handle an additional 334 trips per day. Spirit
Hills, Shenandoah 3rd Addition and St. Clair Estates also benefit from a signalized
intersection at Ware Road and Birch Street.
Goal #6 of the Transportation Plan is to promote alternative transportation such as
bicycling, walking, transit and rail. The existing trail along the north side of Birch Street
provides pedestrian connectivity to the Rice Lake Elementary School, Rice Creek Chain
of Lakes Regional Park and Sprit Hill Center, a multi-tenant retail center. An emergency
access trail will be constructed off the end of the cul-de-sac south to Birch Street to
provide addition connectively. The potential for a trail north through Outlot A to provide
access to the Regional Park is also being analyzed.
Sanitary Sewer Plan
Goals of the sanitary sewer plan are to ensure well-planned, quality residential
development that conserves and enhances the city’s natural resources and to provide an
affordable and safe sanitary sewer system.
The site is located in Sanitary Sewer District 1 (Sub-district 1B) and is served by MCES
Lift Station L69 that is adequately sized for the development. An 8” PVC sanitary sewer
main will extend through the development and connect with a 12” PVC sanitary sewer
main in Birch Street.
The site is also located in Utility Staging Area 1A=2008-2015.
Water Supply Plan
A goal of the water supply plan is to provide residents affordable potable water that is
safe and of high quality for daily consumption and fire demand. The site is served by a
6” and 8” watermain through the development and will connect with an existing
16”watermain in Birch Street and 8” watermain on Sioux Lane.
Planning Districts
The site is located in Planning District 1 and is guided for low density residential
development. There are no specific planning recommendations for this site. The site is
located within the Rice Lake resource management units (RMU).
Zoning
10
Current Zoning R-1, Single Family Residential
Current Land Use Open Space, Grassland
Future Land Use per CP Low Density Residential
(1.6 to 3.9 units per acre)
Utility Staging Area 1A=2008-2015 (south 2/3 )
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
Direction Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use
North PSP, Public &
Semi-Public Regional Park Parks/Open Space
South R-1, Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
East PSP, Public &
Semi-Public
Education (Rice Lake
Elementary School) Public
West R-1, Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Zoning Requirements
Required per R-1 Proposed
Min. Lot Size1 (upland) 10,800 s.f. Ave. 13,963 s.f. gross
Min. Lot Width (feet) 80 Min. 80 feet
Min. Lot Depth (feet) 135 Min. 135 feet
Building Setback (feet)
-From Local Streets 30 30
-Rear
--Principal 30 30
-Side
--Principal 10 10
--Accessory 5 5
Buffer Adjacent to
Collector 15 foot NA
Impervious Surface 40%
11
--Outside Shoreland
District 40% Reviewed at building
permit
--Within Shoreland District 30% Reviewed at building
permit
1Net area required is 10,800 s.f. of contiguous buildable land measured upland from a 10 feet
buffer extending outward from the delineated wetland boundary
Building Requirements
At the time of building permit, each individual single family dwelling unit will be
reviewed for compliance regarding floor area, garage and design and construction
standards.
Subdivision Ordinance
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
The preliminary plat is consistent with the comprehensive plan for low density residential
development and zoning code requirements for R-1, Single Family as discussed above.
Blocks and Lots
The preliminary plat has 35 single family lots and 6 outlots. Outlots A and C are for
stormwater ponds. Outlot B is wetland area. Outlot E is for an emergency access trail to
Birch Street. One block is approximately 1,100 linear feet long. A pedestrian way is
suggested on blocks over 900 but due to the wetlands on the east and existing
neighborhood on the west, no connection is warranted.
Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 are uniquely shaped lots but meet lot width and size requirements.
Driveways to these lots are 12 feet wide at the right of way.
Comments:
1. Outlots D and F do not meet the requirements for platting outlots and shall be
combined with adjacent outlots.
2. No lots shall extend into the delineated wetland boundary.
a. Lots 19, 20 and 23, Block 1 shall be revised.
3. Lot 23, Block 1 does not meet the 80 foot lot width requirement and shall be
revised.
4. It shall be noted that Lot 9, Block 1 will have limited ability to construct
accessory structures or deck due to 150 feet setback requirement from OHWL.
5. The driveways on Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 10 feet apart at
the right of way.
Streets and Alleys
12
The proposed Sioux Lane is a local road platted with 60 feet of right of way and 32 foot
wide paved road surface. It will be extended east from the Sioux Lane right of way that
was platted in Shenandoah 3rd Addition. To maximize lots abutting the wetland and open
space, the developer is proposing a “boulevard loop” at the north end.
The cul-de-sac exceeds 500 feet and a variance shall be required. To mitigate emergency
access concerns related to the long cul-de-sac, a 10 foot wide, 7 ton emergency access
trail will be constructed to Birch Street.
A temporary access for construction traffic off of Birch Street was discussed with Anoka
County Highway Department but will not be allowed.
The driveway at 441 Birch Street encroaches onto 453 Birch Street and a driveway and
access easement is proposed. This potentially impacts the location of the trail and should
be evaluated.
Comments:
1. Sidewalk shall be installed on one side of Sioux Lane.
2. The north-south section of Sioux Lane shall be renamed to eliminate possible
confusion with the existing Sioux Lane for emergency services.
3. The configuration of the cul-de-sac, Lot 23, Block 1 Outlot C and emergency
access trail shall be re-evaluated.
a. Public Safety has concerns regarding the curve on the trail onto the cul-de-
sac.
b. The developer should discuss any interest or possibility of relocating the
existing driveways at 441 and 453 Birch Street onto the cul-de-sac.
4. The property owner at 6640 Hokah Drive shall relocate the existing driveway
onto Sioux Lane.
5. The proposed Trail and Access Easement from Outlot E to Birch Street shall be a
minimum of 40 feet wide.
6. A minimum 10 feet of separation shall be required between the proposed trail and
the existing driveway at 441 Birch Street.
7. Truck turning template shall be provided for the “boulevard loop” at the north of
Sioux Lane.
8. Due to the unique “boulevard loop”, it is important to note the property owners
shall be responsible for mowing and maintaining the right of way boulevard.
9. The existing trail along the north side of Birch Street shall be shown on the
preliminary plat.
Easements
Standard drainage and utility easements at least 10 feet wide are provided along all lot
lines. Drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated 10 feet above the high water
level over stormwater drainage ponds. Drainage and utility easements are also shown as
13
being dedicated over stormwater management outlots. Conservation easements shall be
dedicated over the wetland management corridor.
Comments:
1. The proposed Trail and Access Easement from Outlot E to Birch Street shall be a
minimum of 40 feet wide.
Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control
Per the Site Design Narrative and Storm Water Calculation report, the existing site is
mostly undeveloped open field with minimal tree coverage. Soil borings generally
indicate sandy materials (fine-grained sand – SP; fine-grained sand with silt – SP-SM)
with some silty materials (silty fine sand – SM). The majority of the site drains east and
north to Rice Lake. Three NURP ponds and one infiltration basin are proposed to
manage stormwater.
Comments:
1. The proposed infiltration basin located in the “boulevard loop” shall be eliminated
or shall be HOA maintained.
Utilities
Public water, sanitary and storm sewer utilities will be installed within the development.
Sanitary Sewer
An 8” PVC sanitary sewer main will service the development and connect with a 12”
PVC sanitary sewer main in Birch Street.
Watermain
A 6” and 8” watermain will serve the development and will connect with an existing
16”watermain in Birch Street and 8” watermain on Sioux Lane.
Public Land Dedication
Staff has received calls from neighborhood residents requesting a park and trail in the
new development. The Park, Natural Open Space, Greenways and Trail System Plan
does not indicate a future neighborhood park within the area. The Park Board will review
the development at their June 6, 2016 meeting and make recommendation regarding
public land dedication or cash in lieu. The City is in discussion with Anoka County
Parks regarding the potential of a trail corridor north through Outlot A to access the
Regional Park. If it is determined a trail is feasible, trail construction costs will be
credited to the developer. An emergency access trail south to Birch Street is will be
accessible for recreational use. These costs will not be credited to the developer.
14
If cash in lieu of land dedication is required:
St. Clair Estates
35 lots x $2,500 = $87,500
Comments:
1. If it is determined a trail is feasible, a separate, recordable Trail and Access
Agreement shall be required on Outlot A.
Tree Preservation
The goal of tree preservation is to minimize unnecessary loss of habitat, biodiversity and
forest resource and to replace removed trees in areas where tree cover is most critical.
The Tree Inventory identifies the basic use area (BUA), Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESA) and trees proposed for removal. According to the plan, there are 104 total trees
being removed within the BUA, 0 trees being removed outside the BUA and 15 new trees
required for replacement. These 15 replacements trees will be satisfied through open
space area landscaping requirements. The Environmental Coordinator will review and
make additional comments on the Tree Preservation Plan.
Comments:
1. The table on Sheet S7 shall include a column that clearly indicates the 75 trees are
being removed from the non-ESA and the 29 trees being removed from Natural
Resource Protected Area.
Landscaping
Boulevard trees are required at the rate of one (1) tree per lot frontage for single family
and two family lots. Thirty-eight (38) boulevard trees are proposed which is compliant
with the ordinance.
Open areas are being landscaped with 33 trees and 99 shrubs as required by Section
1007.043(16). Landscape screening and buffers are not required.
The Environmental Coordinator will review and make additional comments on the
Landscape Plan.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
15
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is not mandated. The 35 unattached
residential units are under the 250 unattached unit thresholds.
Wetlands
A wetland boundary delineation report was prepared by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC
on April 18, 2016. An application for wetland boundary was submitted to RCWD and is
pending approval.
According to the report, 2 wetland types were found on the subject site. Two sample
points were also taken west of the wetlands and were found to lack wetland hydrology.
Per the preliminary plat, the wetland area is 13.6 acres. The development maintains a
greenway corridor and does not propose any wetland impacts.
The site is located within in the RCWD Lino Lakes Comprehensive Wetland Protection
and Management Plan boundary and Wetland Management Corridor (WMC). A
conservation easement covering approximately 2.6 acres of wetland buffer is proposed.
Comments:
1. RCWD WCA Notice of Decision shall be provided to the City.
Floodplain
FEMA updated the Anoka County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance
Rating Map (FIRM) on December 16, 2015. The DFIRM indicates a Zone AE floodplain
on the subject site with a base flood elevation of 887.0. Lots 8-10, Block 1 potentially
extend into the floodplain but the site grading and building pads will not impact the
floodplain.
Comments:
1. The BFE 887.0 elevation shall be shown on the preliminary plat.
2. Any lot extending into the floodplain shall be required a FEMA LOMA prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Shoreland Management Overlay
The site is located in a Shoreland Management Overlay district. Rice Lake is a Natural
Environment Lake with an 883.1 OWHL elevation. A setback of 150 feet from the
OHWL is required for all primary and accessory structures. Impervious surface coverage
of 30% applies to all lots within the overlay district.
Comments:
16
1. Lots 7-10, Block 1 are subject to the 150 foot setback requirement.
a. These lots meet lot width and size requirements but builders should be
cognizant of the setback and design accordingly for decks or future
additions.
b. Lots 8-9, Block 1 have limited area above the OWHL for accessory
structures.
Growth Management Policy
Per the Comprehensive Plan (page 3-27), an annual average of 230 units per year over
each 5 year phasing period not to exceed 345 units in any 1 year is allowed. At the end
of the 5 year phasing period unallocated units will be averaged out over the next 5 years.
St. Clair Estates will be developed in one phase. Grading of the site is anticipated this
summer with potential home construction in the fall.
Final Plat
A land use application for final plat shall be required.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 302.03(1)(h) states the minimum length of a cul-de-sac shall be 500 feet. The
proposed cul-de-sac in St. Clair Estates is approximately 1,200 feet. A variance shall be
required.
No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7.
below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria.
1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance.
The general purpose and intent of the Street Construction Standards ordinance is to
establish standards to encourage well planned and efficient streets by establishing
standards for design and construction.
Cul-de-sacs lengths are often limited in length for emergency access concerns. This issue
is being mitigated by requiring a 10 foot wide, 7 ton emergency access from the cul-de-
sac south to CSAH 34 (Birch Street). Emergency access can be obtained from the south
via Birch Street in the event the north intersection at Sioux Lane is blocked. Hydrants
will also be located every 300 feet for fire protection.
2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
17
The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The subject site is
guided for low density residential development and the proposed residential development
is consistent in regards to land use and density.
3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical
difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
There are practical difficulties in accessing CSAH 34 (Birch Street) due to existing
wetlands, stormwater ponds and open ditch and access spacing guidelines per Anoka
County Highway Department and CSAH 34 Corridor Study. The subject property also
has limited right-of-way abutting CSAH 34.
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The subject
site is guided for low density residential development and the proposed residential
development is consistent in regards to land use and density.
4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and was not
created by the landowner. The developer is proposing to purchase an existing lot of
record platted in 2004.
5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The adjacent
properties are residential subdivisions and the Rice Lake Elementary School.
6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for
property in the zoning district where the subject site is located.
Single family detached homes are allowed as Permitted Uses in the R-1, Single Family
Residential District.
7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth
sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with
the zoning ordinance.
Not applicable.
18
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval preliminary plat and variance subject to the following
conditions:
1. Comments from WSB Plan Review Letter dated June 2, 2016 shall be addressed.
2. Any comments from the Park Board shall be addressed.
3. Any comments from the Environmental Board shall be addressed.
4. Outlots D and F do not meet the requirements for platting outlots and shall be
combined with adjacent outlots.
5. No lots shall extend into the delineated wetland boundary.
a. Lots 19, 20 and 23, Block 1 shall be revised.
6. Lot 23, Block 1 does not meet the 80 foot lot width requirement and shall be
revised.
7. It shall be noted that Lot 9, Block 1 will have limited ability to construct
accessory structures or deck due to 150 feet setback requirement from OHWL.
8. The driveways on Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 10 feet apart at
the right of way.
9. Sidewalk shall be installed on one side of Sioux Lane.
10. The north-south section of Sioux Lane shall be renamed to eliminate possible
confusion with the existing Sioux Lane for emergency services.
11. The configuration of the cul-de-sac, Lot 23, Block 1, Outlot C and emergency
access trail shall be re-evaluated.
a. Public Safety has concerns regarding the curve on the trail onto the cul-de-
sac.
b. The developer should discuss any interest or possibility of relocating the
existing driveways at 441 and 453 Birch Street onto the cul-de-sac.
12. The property owner at 6640 Hokah Drive shall relocate the existing driveway
onto Sioux Lane at their expense.
13. The proposed Trail and Access Easement from Outlot E to Birch Street shall be a
minimum of 40 feet wide.
14. A minimum 10 feet of separation shall be required between the proposed trail and
the existing driveway at 441 Birch Street.
15. Truck turning template shall be provided for the “boulevard loop” at the north of
Sioux Lane.
16. Due to the unique “boulevard loop”, it is important to note the property owners
shall be responsible for mowing and maintaining the right of way boulevard.
17. The existing trail along the north side of Birch Street shall be shown on the
preliminary plat.
18. The proposed Trail and Access Easement from Outlot E to Birch Street shall be a
minimum of 40 feet wide.
19. The proposed infiltration basin located in the “boulevard loop” shall be eliminated
or shall be HOA maintained.
20. If it is determined a trail is feasible, a separate, recordable Trail and Access
Agreement shall be required on Outlot A.
19
21. The table on Sheet S7 shall include a column that clearly indicates the 75 trees are
being removed from the non-ESA and the 29 trees being removed from Natural
Resource Protected Area.
22. RCWD WCA Notice of Decision shall be provided to the City.
23. The BFE 887.0 elevation shall be shown on the preliminary plat.
24. Any lot extending into the floodplain shall be required a FEMA LOMA prior to
issuance of a building permit.
25. Lots 7-10, Block 1 are subject to the 150 foot setback requirement.
a. These lots meet lot width and size requirements but builders should be
cognizant of the setback and design accordingly for decks or future
additions.
b. Lots 8-9, Block 1 have limited area above the OWHL for accessory
structures.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Neighborhood Map
4. City Engineer Letter dated June 2, 2016
5. Anoka County Transportation Division Letter dated March 14, 2016
6. Civil plans prepared by Plowe Engineering dated March May 10, 2016 and
received by the City on May 10, 2016
7. Preliminary plat plans prepared by EG Rud & Sons dated May 9, 2016 and
received by the City on May 10, 2016
8. Figure 15 & 18, CSAH 34 Corridor Study
9. Park, Greenway and Trail System Plan
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
GOLDENLAKE
BALDWIN LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.1FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
WARDSLAKE
RESHANAU LAKEOHWL 883.5100-yr 886.0FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
RICE LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
CENTERVILLE LAKE OHWL 885.0 100-yr 886.3 FIRM BFE 888 FIS BFE 887.9
CEDAR LAKEOHWL 892.9
Lino LakesCircle Pines
Site Location Map µ
St Clair Estates
0 500 1,000250
FeetAerial Map µ
Anoka CountyRegional Park
CSAH 34/Birch StreetCSAH
4
9
/Ho
d
g
s
o
n
Ro
a
d
BALDWIN LAKE OHWL 883.1 100-yr 886.1 FIRM BFE 887 FIS BFE 887
RICE LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
RICE LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
TTOOMMAAHHAAWWKKTTRRLLSIOUX CTSIOUX CT
WWAARREE
RRDD
SIOUX LNSIOUX LN
OOJJIIBBWWAAYYPP
AA
TTHHLLAAKKOOTTAATTRRLLCCHHIIPPPPEEWWAA TT RR LLRRIICCEECCTTTOTEM TRLTOTEM TRLPRAIRIE FLOWER RDPRAIRIE FLOWER RDHHOOKKAAHHDDRRSSIIOOUUXXLLOO OO KKOO UUTTARROWHEAD DRARROWHEAD DR
VAUGHAN CTVAUGHAN CT
WARE CIRWARE CIR
TOMAHAWK CTTOMAHAWK CT
0 500 1,000250
Feet !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½Spirit HillsPlatted 200151 SF Lots
Shenandoah 3rdAdditionPlatted 197948 SF Lots
St. Clair Estates35 SF Lots
Rice Lake Elementary School
Spirit Hills Center
BALDWIN LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.1FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
RICE LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
RICE LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
SIOUX CTSIOUX CT
TOMAHAWK TRLTOMAHAWK TRLTOTEM TRLTOTEM TRLHHOOKKAAHHDDRRLAKOTA TRLLAKOTA TRLWWAARREERRDD
SIOUX LNSIOUX LNSSIIOOUUXXLLOOOOKKOOUUTT
VAUGHAN CTVAUGHAN CT
WARE CIRWARE CIR
Neighborhood Map µ
Anoka CountyRegional Park
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 S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160608 PZ (PP-Variance)\4 20160602 Engineering Review Lino Lakes-St Clair Estates final.docx
Memorandum
To: Katie Larsen, City Planner
From: Diane Hankee PE, City Engineer
Date: June 2, 2016
Re: St. Clair Estates
Plan Review
WSB Project No. 2988-220
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat documents dates and submitted on May 10, 2016 for St.
Clair Estates in Lino Lakes, MN prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc. The following are our
review comments that should be responded to in writing by the applicant:
GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
1. The grading, erosion and sediment control preliminary plat documents need to be
submitted with the proposed changes for review. We do not anticipate any significant
changes to the proposed layouts with relation to grading, erosion and sediment control
preliminary.
2. A note needs to be added detailing precautions to be taken around infiltration basin
during construction to prevent machinery from damaging the basin.
3. The applicant is to label the FEMA floodplain limits on grading plans.
4. The applicant is to include soil boring 17 in the water table measurements on the grading
plan.
5. The minimum slope for yard drainage is 2%, the applicant shall modify Lots 1-5 Block 1
and all Block 2 lots.
6. The applicant is to label proposed high points between lots, and proposed elevations at
property corners.
7. The applicant shall address the EOF elevations of the ponding areas verses the top of
berm elevations.
Ms. Katie Larsen
June, 2, 2016
Page 2
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160608 PZ (PP-Variance)\4 20160602 Engineering Review Lino Lakes-St
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
We reviewed the Stormwater Drainage Report for St. Clair Estates, dated May 9, 2016, and
provided by Plowe Engineering, Inc. and have the following comments:
1. Rate control is being met.
2. All water quality requirements are being met.
3. The stormwater management design and calculations need to be updated and re-
submitted with the proposed changes for review. We do not anticipate any significant
changes to the proposed layouts with relation to the storm sewer system.
4. The side yard storm sewer on narrow lots needs to be coordinated with the building plans.
No overhanging windows or window wells can be installed. A clear 20 feet needs to be
provided. The applicant shall provide a summary of side yard storm sewer with pipe
depths and a summary of how future access for maintenance will be accommodated.
FLOODPLAIN
1. Project affects the FEMA floodplain at Outlot B. The applicant shall obtain a Letter of
Map Revision and provide the application to City.
WETLANDS
The City of Lino Lakes is not the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation
Act (WCA), therefore, regulatory WCA comments are not provided here as the Rice Creek
Watershed District will be the LGU to review and approve the wetland delineation.
1. Provided the LGU approves the wetland delineation, there are no proposed wetland
impacts. Therefore, no wetland mitigation approval is needed.
2. Wetland buffers are shown on the plan set. The RCWD will have regulatory authority
over review and approval of the wetland buffer.
3. A conservation easement is recommended for parcels adjacent to the lake to protect the
buffer area.
ENVIRONMENTAL
1. No comments at this time.
WATER SYSTEM
1. Reference the City’s 2016 General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street
and Utility Construction with the Final Plat and plan submittal. Include all applicable
City Standard Detail Plates.
Ms. Katie Larsen
June, 2, 2016
Page 3
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160608 PZ (PP-Variance)\4 20160602 Engineering Review Lino Lakes-St
2. Extend the proposed watermain to the south and connect to the existing watermain at
Birch Street to loop the system.
3. The watermain around the looped road shall be 8 inches in diameter.
4. Show gate valve locations on the plans. Gate valves are required on all hydrant leads.
5. Water services shall be shown on the plans.
6. The City’s Deputy Director of Fire should review the hydrant locations. It is
recommended to add or adjust hydrant locations to provide fire protection to Lots 8 and 9
Block 1.
7. Modify Watermain Note 2 on the cover page to read that a two foot minimum vertical
separation is required where the watermain or water services cross the sewer. Refer to
Standard Detail Plate WAT-3.
8. Include note that watermain including valves, fittings, hydrants, and appurtenances is to
be wrapped in polyethylene film.
9. Include note that fittings shall be ductile iron Class 350 compact fusion-bonded epoxy
coated.
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
1. The sanitary sewer is less than 7 feet deep at SAN MH 8 and the City’s standard is 7.5
feet deep. The proposed 7 feet depth will be verified with the City’s Utility Supervisor.
The sanitary sewer is 7 to 8 feet deep within the entire northern loop. This condition will
cause several conflicts with the water main and with sanitary and water services in the
area. Once additional information is provided we will review for conformance.
2. Sanitary sewer services need to be shown on the plans. The plans need to specify the
installation of tracer wire for sanitary services. Sanitary sewer services for Lots 3-7
Block 1 are of concern due to excessive length. These may require cleanouts or
extending the main further into the loop providing more standard lengths.
3. Sanitary sewer pipe deeper than 15 feet shall be SDR 26 and labeled on the plans.
STORM SEWER SYSTEM
1. Provide storm sewer calculations and drainage area maps with your construction plan
submittal to verify the size of pipes and spacing of catch basins.
2. Several storm sewer pipe lengths do not currently meet the minimum 3 fps requirement.
(CBMH 301-FES 300; FES 108-CBMH 107; FES 104-CBMH 103; CB 113-CBMH 112;
Ms. Katie Larsen
June, 2, 2016
Page 4
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160608 PZ (PP-Variance)\4 20160602 Engineering Review Lino Lakes-St
CBMH 112-(ST/CB)MH 111; CB 204-(CB)MH 205; (CB)MH 205-CBMH 202;
(ST/CB)MH 201-FES 200.
3. The storm sewer pipe between CBMH 301 and FES 300 shall be adjusted such that future
maintenance would not encroach upon the adjacent private property.
4. Several structures are shown at or below minimum cover (CBMH 101; CBMH 114;
CBMH 115; CB 204; CBMH 301; CBMH 302). Verify with the final construction plan
submittal that all storm sewer pipe has a minimum 2 feet cover which includes the pipe
thickness.
5. The type of storm sewer pipe is not labeled on the plans and shall be reinforced concrete
pipe per City standards.
TRANSPORTATION
1. A Traffic Study was prepared by SRF Consulting Group, dated May 9, 2016. The
following comment/questions should be addressed.
• The analysis documents an issue with the backup of traffic southbound on
Hodgson Road turning left onto Birch Street. It is indicated that this backup is
more than 400 feet which will impact the southbound through traffic creating a
potential safety concern with stopped traffic in the through lane. Existing crash
data should be reviewed to determine if an issue exists? It was further indicated
that signal timing improvements would help elevate the issue now and in the
future with the proposed site traffic. This analysis should be completed
documenting the improvement and impacts to other approaches, if any.
• In the “Neighborhood Impacts” section the traffic volume increases show ranges
on each roadway. We recommend using the actual estimates. The traffic volume
figures show actual estimates. Showing the increase in the AM and PM peak hour
volumes should also be included.
• More clarification should be provided in the “Neighborhood Impacts” section.
This should include documentation of what a typical residential street
should/would look like including examples of other streets with similar traffic
volumes and characteristics.
2. The site plan shows a loop street configuration north of the intersection where
northbound Sioux Lane turns west to Hokah Drive. A WB – 53 truck turning template
should be provided to insure that they can maneuver around the street configuration. It is
recommended that this area is required to be maintained by a Home Owners Association.
3. An emergency vehicle access / trail is shown from the end of the cul-de-sac through
Outlot E that connects to the existing trail on the north side of Birch Street south of the
development.
• The trail connection in the cul-de-sac is next to the proposed driveway to lot 23.
The location and design of the connection should be completed to insure that it is
Ms. Katie Larsen
June, 2, 2016
Page 5
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160608 PZ (PP-Variance)\4 20160602 Engineering Review Lino Lakes-St
not mistaken as a driveway. The City should consider requiring that the cul-de-
sac be straightened out or angled slightly to the east, to provide a straight trail
alignment for fire truck access and for potential future extension.
• Consideration for screening or separation from the existing driveway at 441 Birch
St and the proposed trail shall be addressed by the applicant.
• The emergency vehicle access / trail shall be 10 feet wide and meet a 7 ton
design standard.
• The connection to the existing trail on the north side of Birch Street is shown
through exiting residential property.
4. Anoka County will not allow a construction access off of CSAH 34. Staff inquired with
the County to address a resident request in an effort to avoid using residential streets.
5. Sidewalks are recommended on the new street and extend to the existing Hokah Drive.
6. Pedestrian Ramps need to meet current ADA requirements.
7. The existing driveway connection at Sioux Lane needs to be detailed on the plans based
on coordination between the applicant and the property owner.
FINAL PLAT
1. Additional drainage and utility easements needed in the rear yards of Lots 2-5, Block 1,
for conveyance of surface water drainage.
2. Expansion of drainage and utility easements needed in the rear yards of Lots 4-12, Block
2, for coverage of the 904 contour (EOF).
3. The easement over the emergency access/trail, sanitary sewer, and watermain needs to be
a minimum of 50 feet wide to accommodate the utilities.
4. At Outlot B maintenance access is recommended to be included.
5. It is recommended to include access to the lake at Lot 3 Block 1.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
6. Required with final plat.
PERMITS
1. NPDES Construction General Permit
2. Rice Creek Watershed Permit
a. Wetland delineation per the WCA
b. Wetland buffers
c. Stormwater and erosion control.
Ms. Katie Larsen
June, 2, 2016
Page 6
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160608 PZ (PP-Variance)\4 20160602 Engineering Review Lino Lakes-St
3. US Corps of Engineers wetland delineation
4. MDH for Water System
5. MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension
6. DNR Water Appropriation if temporary dewatering is needed.
7. Anoka County Right of Way
If you or the applicant has any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diane
Hankee at (651) 982-2430 or diane.hankee@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us.
Douglas W. Fischer, PE
County Engineer
Anoka County
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
Highway
City of Line Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Line Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Re: Preliminary Plat-St. Clair Estates
Dear Katie,
March 14, 2016
We have reviewed the preliminary plat of St. Clair Estates, to be located north of
CSAH 34 (Birch Street) and east of Hokah Drive NE within the City of Line Lakes
and I offer the following comments:
The existing right of way along this portion of CSAH 34 is 60 feet which should
be adequate for future reconstruction purposes. Consequently, no additional
right of way will be required at this time.
No new access points onto CSAH 34 are proposed for this development, which
is consistent with the previously completed corridor plan for this route, and all
access is to be made via the internal connection to Hokah Drive NE. Also, it
should be noted that Hokah Drive NE at CSAH 34 is to become a right turn
in/right turn out access at some point in the future, as per the CSAH 34 corridor
study. It should be anticipated that this development will increase turning
maneuvers at the CSAH 34/Hokah Drive NE intersection, so the City may wish
to weigh out those impacts and consider a timetable for the CSAH 34/Hokah
Drive NE access changes in conjunction with this development.
ACHD would like to work with local governments promoting compatibility
between land use and the county highway system. It should be recognized that
residential land uses located adjacent to county highways often results in
complaints about traffic noise. Existing and/or future traffic noise from CSAH
34 could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule
7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable
measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area
Classification (NIAC) where establishment of the land use would result in
violations of established noise standards. It is advised that the City and the
Developer should assess the noise situation for this development as it is
proposed to be located directly adjacent to CSAH 34, and take the level of
action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise by
incorporating the appropriate noise mitigation elements into the design and
phasing of this plat as applicable.
Our passion is your safe way home!
1440 Bunker Lake Blvd. NW • Andover , MN 55304-4005
Office: 763-862-4200 .1t. Fax: 763-862-4201 • www.anokacounty .us/highway
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
The ACHD Engineering Plan Review process will apply to this development.
Calculations must be submitted along with a grading and erosion control plan that
delineates the drainage areas for this development. The post-developed rate/volume
of runoff must not exceed the pre-developed rate/volume of runoff for the 1 0-year,
critical design storm . Contact Zachary Borgerding, Engineer I, via telephone at
763.862.4263, or via email at Zacharv .Borgerding@co.anoka.mn.us for further
information and to coordinate the ACHD Engineering Plan Review process. Please
submit the drainage calculations, grading and erosion control plans, the ACHD Design
Requirements Checklist for County Highway Modifications (copy available via our
website), and the ACHD Engineering Plan Review fee (currently estimated at $150.00)
to Mr. Borgerding for his review and approval.
If any work is to be performed in the county right of way, a permit is required and must
be obtained prior to the commencement of any construction (permit fee= $150.00).
License Permit Bonding, methods of construction, design details, work zone traffic
control, restoration requirements and follow-up inspections are typical elements of the
permitting process. Contact Jorge Bernal, Traffic Engineering Technician I via
telephone at 763.862.4224 or via email at Jorge.BernaiDelgado@co.anoka.mn.u~ for
further information regarding the permit process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions
regarding this review.
Sincerely,
JaneK. Rose
Traffic Engineering Manager
xc: File -CSAH 34/Piats + Developments/2016
Larry Hoium, County Surveyor
Randy Bettinger, Traffic Engineering Coordinator
Josie Scott, Traffic Engineering Technician
Jorge Bernal, Traffic Engineering Technician I
Zachary Borgerding, Engineer I
Landscape Layout Plan
Job#6626
2010/10/08
4-Lane Segment: Representative Landscape Layout Plan And Typical Section
CSAH 34 Corrido r Study
Lino Lakes, Anoka County, MN
Typical Section A
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 20
Jaime Jensen Tree Survey Tree Species CodesFebruary 2-3, 2016CT=CottonwoodTag # species dbh 0-9 Cond # trunks SE=Siberian Elm100 CT 41 6 4 BE=Box Elder99 SE 31 3 1 WS=White Spruce98 BE 19 3 10 QA=Quaking Aspen95 SE 11 3 1 RP=Red Pine92 SE 6 3 1 RO=Red Oak94 SE 10 3 1 BC=Black Cherry93 SE 12 3 1 HB-=Hackberry90 WS 11 6 1 CB=Common Buckthorn89 SE 10 3 1 BO=Bur Oak88 SE 9 3 1 GA=Green Ash87 SE 7 4 186 SE 10 4 185 WS 12 6 184 BE 24 2 583 SE 16 3 182 WS 10 6 181 WS 13 6 180 SE 13 3 179 SE 17 4 178 SE 16 3 177 SE 8 4 176 SE 7 4 275 SE 18 3 172 SE 7 4 174 CT 37 6 196 QA 8 6 291 QA 8 6 297 QA 7 5 171 QA 6 6 170 QA 8 5 169 QA 7 5 166 QA 7 5 163 QA 8 5 168 QA 8 5 162 QA 8 5 165 BC 8 5 167 QA 9 4 164 QA 9 3 173 SE 19 5 161 QA 9 5 160 QA 6 5 159 SE 19 5 158 QA 10 5 157 QA 8 5 156 QA 6 5 155 QA 9 6 154 QA 8 5 153 QA 8 6 152 QA 10 5 151 QA 7 5 150 QA 12 6 149 QA 7 6 148 QA 7 5 147 QA 8 5 146 QA 8 5 145 QA 11 5 144 QA 9 6 143 QA 6 5 142 QA 7 5 141 QA 8 6 140 BE 8 5 339 QA 8 5 138 QA 7 3 137 BE 9 5 136 QA 9 6 135 QA 6 5 134 QA 6 6 133 BC 6 5 132 BE 8 5 131 BC 8 5 130 QA 7 5 129 QA 6 5 128 QA 7 5 127 QA 8 5 326 QA 7 5 125 QA 7 5 124 QA 7 5 123 QA 6 5 122 QA 7 5 121 BE 13 6 320 QA 14 5 219 QA 14 5 118 QA 12 3 117 QA 9 3 116 QA 9 4 115 RO 19 4 114 QA 8 5 113 QA 7 5 112 QA 6 5 111 QA 6 5 110 QA 7 5 19 QA 9 5 18 QA 10 3 17 CB 7 6 96 QA 7 5 15 QA 6 5 14 QA 6 5 13 QA 7 5 12 QA 6 5 11 QA 7 5 1200 QA 13 5 1199 QA 7 5 1198 QA 7 5 1197 QA 6 5 1196 RO 19 6 1195 RO 17 6 2194 QA 6 5 1193 QA 7 5 1192 HB 7 6 1191 QA 7 5 1190 QA 12 5 3189 QA 10 5 1186 QA 10 5 1185 RO 6 6 1184 BC 10 3 1183 QA 7 5 1182 BE 8 5 2181 QA 8 5 1180 QA 8 5 1179 QA 7 5 1178 QA 7 3 1177 SE 13 5 1176 SE 9 5 1175 QA 8 5 1174 QA 9 5 2173 QA 7 5 1172 QA 7 5 1171 QA 9 5 1170 BE 16 4 5169 SE 8 5 1168 BE 20 3 1167 SE 14 3 1166 SE 6 4 1165 SE 7 3 1164 SE 9 3 2163 BO 7 4 2162 SE 7 3 1161 SE 10 3 1160 SE 7 3 2159 SE 9 3 1158 SE 13 3 2157 SE 7 3 1156 SE 10 3 1155 SE 10 3 1154 SE 11 3 1153 SE 6 3 1152 SE 9 3 2151 SE 8 3 1150 SE 6 3 1149 SE 7 3 1148 RP 11 5 1147 SE 10 3 1146 SE 10 3 1145 SE 10 3 1144 SE 12 3 1143 RP 10 5 1142 RP 11 5 1141 RP 8 5 1140 RP 8 5 1139 RP 9 5 1138 RP 13 5 1137 RP 10 5 1136 RP 8 5 1135 RP 10 5 1134 RP 13 5 2133 BE 10 3 4132 RP 9 5 1131 SE 7 3 2130 SE 17 3 1129 SE 8 3 1128 SE 27 3 1127 SE 7 4 1126 BE 6 4 1125 GA 10 4 1124 BE 18 3 2123 RO 7 5 1122 RO 16 3 3121 RO 14 3 1120 BE 12 3 2119 SE 11 3 1118 BE 7 3 1117 BE 9 3 2116 BE 12 3 1115 BE 10 4 1114 BE 7 4 1113 BE 16 3 9112 BE 10 4 1111 BE 10 4 1110 BC 14 4 1109 BC 15 4 1108 BE 6 5 1107 SE 10 5 1106 SE 8 3 1105 CT 20 3 1104 BE 6 3 1103 BE 12 4 1
@A
@A
@A @A
@A @A
Centerville
North Oaks White Bear TwpBLACK DUCK DRG»WX
G¦WX
GwWX
G¦WX
GÀWX
GuWX
SÓ
%&c(
BIRCH ST
CEDAR ST E
MAIN S T
EGRET L NLAKE DRA S PE N L N2ND AVECOUNTY ROAD J
CO UNT R Y L A K E S D R
CEDAR S T W
TIMBER
WOLF TR
L
SHER
MAN LAKE RDLAMOTTE D R
LAURENE AVEAQUA LN
WARE RDLONESO ME P INE T RL12TH AVE ST
E
LE LNUL ME R DR
62ND AVE N
BLACK
D
U
C
K DRKARTH RD LACASSE DRSIOUX LNTEAL C T
HOLLOW LN64TH ST
BIRC H ST
COUNTY ROAD J
APPLE LNPLUM LN
62ND AVE TALLE LNASH ST
PHELPS RD
OTTER LAKE DRRICE LAKE DRSTONEYBROOK DROTTER LAKE RDJOYER LNH A WTHO RN RD SHADOW LAKE DR EHOLLY DR E
F ST
SHADOW LAKE DR WARROWHEAD DR CLEARWATER CREEK DRWHI T E OAK RDLA
NGER
LN
PHEASA N T HILL S DR
L INDA LNRAVENS CTHODGSON RDFOX RDHOKAH DRCENTERVILLE RDHOLLY DR N20TH AVE SW
O
O
D
R
I
D
G
E
L
NLINDE N LNRED MAPLE LNIVY RIDGE LNRE
D FO X RDSERVICE RDH
OLLY CT E
PARK WAY R D E
Figure 15J:\Maps\6626\mxd\Figures\Figure15_RecommendedCorridorPlan.mxdRecom mended Corridor Plan
CSAH 34 Corridor StudyLino Lakes, Anoka C ounty, MN
0 0.25 0.5
Miles ´
Aer ial: FSA 20 09
General Corridor-Wide Recommendations-Rais ed m edians at signalized inter sections-Turn lanes at m ajor inters ections-Trails/sidewalk s along both s ides of the corr idor-Trail/sidewalk crossings at s ignalized intersections-Lim ited landscaping/streetscaping-Acc ess modification/elimination, as opportunities arise-County acces s/intersection spacing guidelines used for new developm ent areas
Four-Lane Roadway
Two-Lane Roadway
@A Existing/Proposed Signal Locations
Future Full-A cces s Intersection
Future 3/4-Access Intersec tion
Future Safety Improvement S ites
Locations Where AdditionalRight-of-Way is Needed
Potential Future Roadways
ÍRR ªR RR RR RR ª
RRR
4/3 RR ÍR ª
ªGF
ªR R ªªRR RR R
4/3 Rͪ
GF
G»WX
G¦WX
COUNTRY L A K E S D R
BIRCH STWARE CIRPRAIRIE FLOWER RD
FOX RDMUSKRAT RUN
LONESOME PINE TRL
RICE CT C HIPPEWA TRL
RIVER B IR C H P LTOMAHAWK TRLBEAVER TRLSIOUX LNHOKAH DROJIBWAY PATHH A W THORN RD SHADOW LAKE DR WFAWN LNLAKOTA TRLDEERWOOD LNPAINTED TURTLE R DHODGSON RDARROWHEAD DR
WARE RD
Figure 18J:\Maps\6626\mxd\Figures\Figure18_AccessMngmt.mxdPotential Access M anagement Strategies
CSAH 34 Corridor StudyLino Lakes, Anoka C ounty, MN
0 400 800
Feet ´
Aer ial: FSA 20 09
Proposed Modification
GF Full Access
ªRelocated
ÍClosed
R Right In/Right Out
4/3 3/4 Access
Potential Future Roadways
Main St.
Rondeau
Lake
80th St. E
Peltier
Lake
Lilac St.
Oak Ln.
Elm St.
Peltier
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Marshan
Lake
Centerville
Lake
City of Centerville
Main St.
Cedar St. W
Reshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Birch St.
Rice Creek
Chain of Lakes
Regional Park Reserve
Birch St.
Ash St.
64th St. E
Otter
Lake
Baldwin
Lake
Cedar
Lake
M
C
B
A
D
EF
I
G
H
J
L
K
Park, Greenway & Trail System Plan
City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan
4,000 0 4,000Feet
September 9, 2008
Prepared by Bonestroo
K:/activework/Gisserver/000586-06001-0 linolakescomplan/park n trail plan2.mxd
35E35W
14
23
153
21
54
14
49
53
54
34
Greenway System Park System Trail System
Natural Resource Protected Area
Natural Resource Conservation Area
Open Water
Natural Resource Corridor Enhancement Area
Existing County Park
Existing City Park
Future Recreation Facility
Existing Schools
Existing Regional Trail
Proposed Regional Trail
Proposed Designated Bike Route
Existing City Trail
Proposed City Trail
Future Neighborhood Park
(Center of Service Area)
1
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM 5A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
P & Z MEETING DATE: July 13, 2016
REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED
St. Clair Estates
1. Preliminary Plat
2. Variance
CASE NUMBER: PP2016-002
VR2016-001
APPLICANT: St. Clair Land Company
Attn: Jamie Jensen
1517 Dawn Circle
Arden Hills, MN 55112
REVIEW DEADLINE:
Complete Application Date: May 10, 2016
60-Day Review Deadline: July 9, 2016
60-Day Extension Deadline: September 7, 2016
Environmental Board Meeting: June 29, 2016
Park Board Meeting: June 6, 2016
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: June 8, 2016 & July 13, 2016
Tentative City Council Work Session: August 1, 2016
Tentative City Council Meeting: August 8, 2016
BACKGROUND
The applicant submitted a land use application for Preliminary Plat and Variance. The
proposed development is a 35 lot single family residential subdivision located north of
CSAH 34 (Birch Street) and east of Hokah Drive. The development contains one 30.47
gross acre parcel and is called St. Clair Estates.
The Land Use Applications are:
• Preliminary Plat
• Variance
2
o Proposed cul-de-sac length exceeds design standards
The following staff report is based on the following information:
• Revised civil plans prepared by Plowe Engineering dated June 27, 2016 and
received b y the City on June 24, 2016
• Revised preliminary plat plans prepared by EG Rud & Sons dated June 24, 2016
and received by the City on June 24, 2016
• Revised Stormwater Drainage Report prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc. dated
June 24, 2016
• Report of Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ITCO Allied Engineering
Company dated March 7, 2016
• Revised Traffic Study prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. dated June 23,
2016
• Wetland Delineation prepared by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC dated April 18,
2016
ANALYSIS
The Planning & Zoning Staff Report dated June 8, 2016 details the project. The Board
opened the public hearing on June 8, 2016 and continued it to July 13, 2016.
Comprehensive Plan
St. Clair Estates is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in
regards to resource management, land use, housing, transportation and utilities.
Density and Land Area Calculations
The following chart implements Met Council’s formula for calculating net density.
Gross Area (acres) 30.47
Wetlands & Water Bodies 13.60
Public Parks & Open Space 0.00
Arterial ROW 0.00
Other (Wetland Buffer Conservation
Easement) 2.40
Net Area (acres) 14.47
# of Units 35
Gross Density (units/acre) 1.15
Net Density (units/acre) 2.42
3
The density has not changed from the June 8th staff report. St. Clair Estates meets the
land use goals by developing a single family residential subdivision that is consistent
with low density residential development as guided by the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. Low density residential development allows for 1.6 to 3.9 units per net acre. The
net density for the development is 2.42 units per net acre. This is consistent with density
requirements.
The development is compliant with zoning, subdivision and other applicable city
ordinances. It is also compatible with the existing adjacent residential, commercial and
civic/institutional land uses. The proposed trails and sidewalk link the development to
existing trails, the Regional Park, Rice Lake Elementary School and Sprit Hills Center
commercial development.
Transportation Plan
Increased traffic on Sioux Lane and Hokah Drive was a concern expressed by several
residents during the June 8th public hearing. Staff requested the developer to revise their
traffic study to include actual data counts and an analysis if Hokah Drive were to become
right in/right out at Birch Street in the future.
The revised Traffic Study prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is dated June 23,
2016. The development is expected to generate daily 27 a.m. peak hour, 36 p.m. peak
hour and 334 trips. These counts did not change from the original traffic study.
Revised Traffic Study
Original
May 12, 2016
Revised
June 23, 2016
Road Estimated ADT Actual ADT Difference
Hokah Drive 250 270 +20
Sioux Lane 600 520 -80
Birch Street 13,600 13,600 0
Hodgson Road
(north of Birch) 16,600 16,600 0
Hodgson Road
(south of Birch) 11,100 11,100 0
ADT=Average Daily Traffic
SRF deployed video cameras to collect continuous traffic data at study intersections the
week of May 2, 2016. For the initial May 12, 2016 study, intersection turning movement
counts were collected from the video for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. With the June 23,
2016 revised study, SRF viewed 24-hours of video from May 3, 2016 and counted the
4
NB/SB movements on Hokah and Sioux at the Birch and Ware intersections,
respectively.
Traffic counts increased by 20 trips on Hokah Drive and decreased by 80 trips on Sioux
Lane from the original May 2016 traffic study to the revised June 23, 2016 study.
Current vs. 2019 Build vs. RI/RO ADT Scenarios
The following is a comparison of current ADT, estimated 2019 build ADT and estimated
right in/right out ADT at Hokah Drive and Birch Street.
Road
Actual ADT
(Average Daily
Traffic)
Estimated ADT
(2019 Build
Conditions)
Estimated ADT
(RI/RO at
Hokah Drive)
Hokah Drive 270 455 175
Sioux Lane 520 670 950
Per the City’s Transportation Plan, typical average daily traffic on local streets is less
than 1,000. The increased projected trips on Hokah Drive and Sioux Lane are less than
1,000 in all 3 scenarios.
Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS)
Existing Peak Hour LOS Proposed Peak Hour LOS
Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Birch Street and Hodgson Drive B D C D
Birch Street and Ware Road A B A B
Birch Street and Hokah Drive A/C A/C A/C A/C
Ware Road and Sioux Lane A/A A/A A/A A/A
Ware Road and Hodgson Road A/B A/B A/B A/C
Hokah Drive and Sioux Lane A/A A/A A/A A/A
Notes:
1. A.M. Peak Hour is 7am to 8am and PM Peak Hour is 5pm to 6pm
2. Overall LOS/Worst Side Street LOS
Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service which indicates the quality of traffic
flow through an intersection. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle.
The LOS did not change from the original traffic study. The existing roads and
intersections providing access to the development have structural capacity to
accommodate the projected traffic from the proposed subdivision. The proposed Levels
5
of Service do not degrade by more than one (1) LOS; therefore the subdivision is not
considered premature.
The Lino Lakes Police Division ran radar and speed counts on June 28, 2016 from 12:43
pm to 1:30 pm on Sioux Lane and observed 24 vehicles averaging 18 mph. On June 29,
2016 from 7:52 am to 8:10 am and 8:36am to 9:20am, they observed 25 vehicles
averaging 19 mph on Sioux Lane. The Police Division also ran radar during 3 shifts on
June 11, 2016 and the highest speed observed was 27 mph. The speed limit on Sioux
Lane is 30 mph.
Per the 2011 CSAH 34 Corridor Study and Anoka County Access Spacing Guidelines,
access to Birch Street is not warranted. Site constraints such as wetlands and the fact the
site only abuts CSAH 34 with 80 feet of right of way that is over an open stormwater
ditch also makes access to Birch Street cost prohibitive. The existing roads have
structural capacity to handle an additional 334 trips per day. Spirit Hills, Shenandoah 3rd
Addition and St. Clair Estates function as a 134 lot residential subdivision with 2 access
intersections at Sioux Lane/Ware Road and Hokah Drive/Birch Street. The entire area
also benefits from a signalized intersection at Ware Road and Birch Street.
Goal #6 of the Transportation Plan is to promote alternative transportation such as
bicycling, walking, transit and rail. The existing trail along the north side of Birch Street
provides pedestrian connectivity to the Rice Lake Elementary School, Rice Creek Chain
of Lakes Regional Park and Sprit Hill Center, a multi-tenant retail center. An emergency
access trail will be constructed off the end of the cul-de-sac south to Birch Street to
provide addition connectively. Sidewalk will be installed on the west side of Enid Trail.
Zoning
Current Zoning R-1, Single Family Residential
Current Land Use Open Space, Grassland
Future Land Use per CP Low Density Residential
(1.6 to 3.9 units per acre)
Utility Staging Area 1A=2008-2015 (south 2/3 )
Zoning Requirements
Required per R-1 Proposed
Min. Lot Size1 (upland) 10,800 s.f. Ave. 13,677 s.f. gross
Min. Lot Width (feet) 80 Min. 80 feet
Min. Lot Depth (feet) 135 Ave. 135 feet
Building Setback (feet)
6
-From Local Streets 30 30
-Rear
--Principal 30 30
-Side
--Principal 10 10
--Accessory 5 5
Buffer Adjacent to
Collector 15 foot NA
Impervious Surface 40%
--Outside Shoreland
District 40% Reviewed at building
permit
--Within Shoreland District 30% Reviewed at building
permit
1Net area required is 10,800 s.f. of contiguous buildable land measured upland from a 10 feet
buffer extending outward from the delineated wetland boundary
Subdivision Ordinance
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
The preliminary plat is consistent with the comprehensive plan for low density residential
development and zoning code requirements for R-1, Single Family as discussed above.
Blocks and Lots
The preliminary plat has 35 single family lots and 3 outlots. Outlots A and C are for
stormwater ponds. Outlot B is wetland area. These outlots shall be deeded to the City.
One block is approximately 1,100 linear feet long. A pedestrian way is suggested on
blocks over 900 but due to the wetlands on the east and existing neighborhood on the
west, no connection is warranted.
Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 are uniquely shaped lots but meet lot width and size requirements.
Driveways to these lots are 12 feet wide at the right of way.
Previous Comments:
1. Outlots D and F do not meet the requirements for platting outlots and shall be
combined with adjacent outlots.
Outlots D and F have been combined with the adjacent Outlot B.
7
2. No lots shall extend into the delineated wetland boundary.
a. Lots 19, 20 and 23, Block 1 shall be revised.
These lots may extend into the wetland boundary.
3. Lot 23, Block 1 does not meet the 80 foot lot width requirement and shall be
revised.
The right of way has been revised and Lot 23 now meets the 80 foot wide lot requirement.
4. It shall be noted that Lot 9, Block 1 will have limited ability to construct
accessory structures or decks due to 150 feet setback requirement from OHWL.
The preliminary plat shall include the word “accessory”.
5. The driveways on Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 10 feet apart at
the right of way.
The driveways were revised to 10 feet of separation.
Streets and Alleys
The proposed Enid Trail (formerly named Sioux Lane) is a local road platted with 60 feet
of right of way and 32 foot wide paved road surface. It will be extended east from the
Sioux Lane right of way that was platted in Shenandoah 3rd Addition. To maximize lots
abutting the wetland and open space, the developer is proposing a “boulevard loop” at the
north end.
The cul-de-sac exceeds 500 feet and a variance shall be required. To mitigate emergency
access concerns related to the long cul-de-sac, a 10 foot wide, 7 ton emergency access
trail will be constructed to Birch Street.
A temporary access for construction traffic off of Birch Street was discussed with Anoka
County Highway Department again and will now be allowed.
The driveway at 441 Birch Street encroaches onto 453 Birch Street and a driveway and
access easement is proposed. This potentially impacts the location of the trail and should
be evaluated.
Previous Comments:
1. Sidewalk shall be installed on one side of Sioux Lane.
Sidewalk is shown on the west side of Enid Trail (formerly named Sioux Lane).
2. The north-south section of Sioux Lane shall be renamed to eliminate possible
confusion with the existing Sioux Lane for emergency services.
8
The street has been renamed Enid Trail.
3. The configuration of the cul-de-sac, Lot 23, Block 1 Outlot C and emergency
access trail shall be re-evaluated.
a. Public Safety has concerns regarding the curve on the trail onto the cul-de-
sac.
The emergency access trail has been re-designed to eliminate the curve. The Fire
Division Deputy Director has reviewed and approved the trail.
b. The developer should discuss any interest or possibility of relocating the
existing driveways at 441 and 453 Birch Street onto the cul-de-sac.
The developer is continuing these discussions with the property owners.
4. The property owner at 6640 Hokah Drive shall relocate the existing driveway
onto Sioux Lane.
Detailed plans of the driveway location shall be shown on the plans.
5. The proposed Trail and Access Easement to Birch Street shall be a minimum of
40 feet wide.
The easement appears to be 30 feet in some locations. This shall be revised to a
minimum 40 feet.
6. A minimum 10 feet of separation shall be required between the proposed trail and
the existing driveway at 441 Birch Street.
The trail appears to be less than 10 feet from the existing driveway in some locations.
This shall be revised.
7. Truck turning template shall be provided for the “boulevard loop” at the north of
Sioux Lane.
The truck turning template has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
8. Due to the unique “boulevard loop”, it is important to note the property owners
shall be responsible for mowing and maintaining the right of way boulevard.
This shall be noted on the preliminary plat.
9. The existing trail along the north side of Birch Street shall be shown on the
preliminary plat.
9
Preliminary plat shall be revised to show existing trail.
10. Details regarding the temporary access for construction traffic shall be provided
on the plans and a timeframe for use.
This is a new comment.
Easements
Standard drainage and utility easements at least 10 feet wide are provided along all lot
lines. Drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated 10 feet above the high water
level over stormwater drainage ponds. Drainage and utility easements are also shown as
being dedicated over stormwater management outlots. Conservation easements shall be
dedicated over the wetland management corridor.
Previous Comments:
1. The proposed Trail and Access Easement from Outlot E to Birch Street shall be a
minimum of 40 feet wide.
The easement appears to be 30 feet in some locations. This shall be revised.
Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control
Per the Site Design Narrative and Storm Water Calculation report, the existing site is
mostly undeveloped open field with minimal tree coverage. Soil borings generally
indicate sandy materials (fine-grained sand – SP; fine-grained sand with silt – SP-SM)
with some silty materials (silty fine sand – SM). The majority of the site drains east and
north to Rice Lake. Three NURP ponds and one infiltration basin are proposed to
manage stormwater.
Previous Comments:
1. The proposed infiltration basin located in the “boulevard loop” shall be eliminated
or shall be HOA maintained.
The applicant has agreed to establish an HOA to maintain the infiltration basin.
Public Land Dedication
Staff received calls from neighborhood residents requesting a park and trail in the new
development. The Park, Natural Open Space, Greenways and Trail System Plan does not
indicate a future neighborhood park within the area. The Park Board reviewed the
development proposal at their June 6, 2016 meeting and made recommendation of cash in
lieu of land dedication.
10
The Park Board, staff and Anoka County Parks discussed the potential of a trail corridor
north through Outlot A to access the Regional Park but determined it was not necessary.
An emergency access trail south to Birch Street will be accessible for recreational use.
These costs will not be credited to the developer.
Cash in lieu of land dedication shall be required:
St. Clair Estates
35 lots x $2,500 = $87,500
Tree Preservation
The goal of tree preservation is to minimize unnecessary loss of habitat, biodiversity and
forest resource and to replace removed trees in areas where tree cover is most critical.
The Tree Inventory identifies the basic use area (BUA), Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESA) and trees proposed for removal. According to the plan, there are 112 total trees
being removed on site and 33 of those trees are in a Natural Resource Protected Area
within the BUA. This will require 17 new trees for replacement. These replacements trees
will be satisfied through open space area landscaping requirements. The Environmental
Coordinator reviewed the Tree Preservation Plan and notes protective orange fencing
shall be installed.
Previous Comments:
1. The table on Sheet S7 shall include a column that clearly indicates the 79 trees are
being removed from the non-ESA and the 33 trees being removed from Natural
Resource Protected Area.
This information has been provided.
Landscaping
Boulevard trees are required at the rate of one (1) tree per lot frontage for single family
and two family lots. Thirty-eight (38) boulevard trees are proposed which is compliant
with the ordinance.
Open areas are being landscaped with 33 trees and 98 shrubs as required by Section
1007.043(16). Landscape screening and buffers are not required.
The Environmental Coordinator reviewed the Landscape Plan and made general
comments regarding species and seed mixes. See attached June 29, 2016 letter for full
comments.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
11
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is not mandated. The 35 unattached
residential units are under the 250 unattached unit thresholds.
Wetlands
A wetland boundary delineation report was prepared by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC
on April 18, 2016. An application for wetland boundary was submitted to RCWD and
was approved June 8, 2016.
According to the report, 2 wetland types were found on the subject site. Two sample
points were also taken west of the wetlands and were found to lack wetland hydrology.
Per the preliminary plat, the wetland area is 13.6 acres. The development maintains a
greenway corridor and does not propose any wetland impacts.
The site is located within in the RCWD Lino Lakes Comprehensive Wetland Protection
and Management Plan boundary and Wetland Management Corridor (WMC). A
conservation easement covering approximately 2.6 acres of wetland buffer is proposed.
Previous Comments:
1. RCWD WCA Notice of Decision shall be provided to the City.
WCA Notice of Decision #16-045R was approved by RCWD on June 8, 2016.
Floodplain
FEMA updated the Anoka County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance
Rating Map (FIRM) on December 16, 2015. The DFIRM indicates a Zone AE floodplain
on the subject site with a base flood elevation of 887.0. Lots 8-10 and Lots 19-21, Block
1 potentially extend into the floodplain but the site grading and building pads will not
impact the floodplain.
Previous Comments:
1. The BFE 887.0 elevation shall be shown on the preliminary plat.
The BFE has been shown on the preliminary plat.
2. Any lot extending into the floodplain shall be required to obtain a FEMA LOMA
prior to issuance of a building permit.
No change in comment.
Shoreland Management Overlay
12
The site is located in a Shoreland Management Overlay district. Rice Lake is a Natural
Environment Lake with an 883.1 OWHL elevation. A setback of 150 feet from the
OHWL is required for all primary and accessory structures. Impervious surface coverage
of 30% applies to all lots within the overlay district.
Previous Comments:
1. Lots 7-10, Block 1 are subject to the 150 foot setback requirement.
a. These lots meet lot width and size requirements but builders should be
cognizant of the setback and design accordingly for decks or future
additions.
b. Lots 8-9, Block 1 have limited area above the OWHL for accessory
structures.
These corrections are noted under Recommendations.
Growth Management Policy
Per the Comprehensive Plan (page 3-27), an annual average of 230 units per year over
each 5 year phasing period not to exceed 345 units in any 1 year is allowed. At the end
of the 5 year phasing period unallocated units will be averaged out over the next 5 years.
St. Clair Estates will be developed in one phase. Grading of the site is anticipated this
summer with potential home construction in the fall.
Final Plat
A land use application for final plat shall be required.
Environmental Board Meeting
The Environmental Board reviewed St. Clair Estates on June 29, 2016 and recommended
approval with conditions as summarized in the attached letter from the Environmental
Coordinator.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 302.03(1)(h) states the minimum length of a cul-de-sac shall be 500 feet. The
proposed cul-de-sac in St. Clair Estates is approximately 1,200 feet. A variance shall be
required.
Cul de sacs are limited in length due to concerns regarding access for emergency
services. This concern is being addressed because the City is requiring an emergency
access trail as recommended by the City’s Public Safety Department. St. Clair Estates is a
35 lot low density residential development. Sioux Lane existed as a 1,500 foot cul de sac
from 2001 to 2012 (11 years) and Hokah Drive existed as a as 2,000 foot cul de sac from
1979 to 2012 (33 years) without an emergency access trail and without issue. Sioux
13
Lookout is an existing 740 foot cul de sac. West Shadow Lake Road is an existing 7,800+
foot cul de sac with trail access on the north through Chomonix Golf Course. Black Duck
Drive is an existing 5,500+ foot cul de sac.
No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7.
below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria.
1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance.
The general purpose and intent of the Street Construction Standards ordinance is to
establish standards to encourage well planned and efficient streets by establishing
standards for design and construction.
Cul-de-sacs lengths are limited in length for emergency access concerns. This issue is
being mitigated by requiring a 10 foot wide, 7 ton emergency access from the cul-de-sac
south to CSAH 34 (Birch Street). Emergency access can be obtained from the south via
Birch Street in the event the north intersection at Sioux Lane is blocked. Hydrants will
also be located every 300 feet for fire protection.
2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The subject site is
guided for low density residential development and the proposed residential development
is consistent in regards to land use and density.
3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical
difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
There are practical difficulties in connecting Enid Trail to CSAH 34 (Birch Street) due to
access spacing guidelines per Anoka County Highway Department and the 2011 CSAH
34 Corridor Study as well as existing wetlands, stormwater ponds and open ditch. The
subject property also has limited right-of-way abutting CSAH 34.
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The subject
site is guided for low density residential development and the proposed residential
development is consistent in regards to land use and density.
4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
14
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and was not
created by the landowner. The developer is proposing to purchase an existing lot of
record platted in 2004.
5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The adjacent
properties are residential subdivisions and the Rice Lake Elementary School.
6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for
property in the zoning district where the subject site is located.
Single family detached homes are allowed as Permitted Uses in the R-1, Single Family
Residential District.
7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth
sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with
the zoning ordinance.
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval preliminary plat and variance for St. Clair Estates subject to
the following conditions:
1. Comments from WSB Plan Review Letter dated July 7, 2016 shall be addressed.
2. Comments from Environmental Coordinator letter dated June 29, 2016 shall be
addressed.
3. L1, Landscape Plan:
a. The notes indicate 15 replacement trees and 66 proposed. This contradicts
the Tree Preservation Plan and shall be revised accordingly.
4. Sheet S3: Overall Preliminary Plat
a. It shall be noted “Lots 7-10, Block 1 have limited ability to construct
accessory structures, decks or additions due to 150 feet setback
requirement from OHWL.”
b. Under Development Data, Proposed Outlots shall be changed from 6 to 3.
5. Sheet S4: Preliminary Plat
a. The note for Lot 23 shall include “accessory” structures as well as decks
and patios.
6. The developer shall explore the possibility of relocating the existing driveways at
441 and 453 Birch Street onto the cul-de-sac.
7. Detailed plans of the driveway re-location at 6640 Hokah Drive shall be shown on
the plans.
8. The proposed Trail and Access Easement to Birch Street shall be a minimum of
40 feet wide.
15
a. The easement appears to be 30 feet in some locations and this shall be
revised.
b. The easement shall also allow for drainage and utilities.
9. A minimum 10 feet of separation shall be required between the proposed trail and
the existing driveway at 441 Birch Street.
a. The trail appears to be less than 10 feet from the existing driveway in
some locations. This shall be revised.
10. Due to the unique “boulevard loop”, it is important to note the property owners
shall be responsible for mowing and maintaining the right of way boulevard.
11. The existing trail along the north side of Birch Street shall be shown on the
preliminary plat.
12. Details regarding the temporary access to Birch Street for construction traffic
shall be provided on the plans and a timeframe for use shall be included.
13. Any lot extending into the floodplain shall be required to obtain a FEMA LOMA
prior to issuance of a building permit.
14. Upon final plat, the applicant shall submit HOA documents detailing the
maintenance plan for the infiltration basin in the boulevard loop.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Location Map
2. City Engineer letter dated July 7, 2016
3. Environmental Coordinator letter dated June 29, 2016
4. Revised civil plans prepared by Plowe Engineering dated June 27, 2016 and
received by the City on June 24, 2016
5. Revised preliminary plat plans prepared by EG Rud & Sons dated June 24, 2016
and received by the City on June 24, 2016
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
GOLDENLAKE
BALDWIN LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.1FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
WARDSLAKE
RESHANAU LAKEOHWL 883.5100-yr 886.0FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
RICE LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0FIRM BFE 887FIS BFE 887
CENTERVILLE LAKE OHWL 885.0 100-yr 886.3 FIRM BFE 888 FIS BFE 887.9
CEDAR LAKEOHWL 892.9
Lino LakesCircle Pines
Site Location Map µ
St Clair Estates
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 S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160713 PZ (continued PH)\2 20160707 Engineering Review No 2 St Clair Estates.docx
Memorandum
To: Katie Larsen, City Planner
From: Diane Hankee PE, City Engineer
Date: July 7, 2016
Re: St. Clair Estates
Plan Review
WSB Project No. 2988-220
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat documents dates and submitted on June 24, 2016 for St.
Clair Estates in Lino Lakes, MN prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc. The following are our
review comments that should be responded to in writing by the applicant.
The project shall specify the City’s 2016 General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for
Street and Utility Construction with the Final Plat and plan submittal. Include applicable City
Standard Detail Plates.
GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
1. Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan:
• Sheet C1.1 and C1.2 – For ponding areas include a note that “Grading must not be
excavated to final grade until the contributing drainage area has been constructed
and fully stabilized unless rigorous erosion prevention and sediment controls are
provided”.
• Sheet C1.1 and C1.2 - Label required buffer distances from surface
waters/wetlands. If buffer distance cannot be maintained, call out that with a note
on the plan sheet and provide redundant perimeter control BMPs.
• Sheet C1.2 - Inlet protection needed along Hokah Drive near the entrance to the
site. Show perimeter control where the area slopes away from the site. Label the temporary and permanent stabilization measures, and their location.
2. The restoration of green space in ponding areas and boulevards needs to be labeled on the
grading plans.
Ms. Katie Larsen
July 7, 2016
Page 2
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160713 PZ (continued PH)\2 20160707 Engineering Review No 2 St Clair
3. A note needs to be added detailing precautions to be taken around infiltration basin
during construction to prevent machinery from damaging the basin.
4. The applicant is to label the FEMA floodplain 2015 DFIRM limits on grading plans.
5. The applicant shall review FES 104 and determine if it can be raised to save the existing
tree line. The adjacent rear yard high points could be moved into the mid lots. The FES
could be a CB.
6. The applicant is to label proposed high points between lots, and proposed elevations at
property corners.
7. The applicant shall address the EOF elevations of the ponding areas verses the top of
berm elevations.
8. Show EOF extents on plans.
9. There are areas within the site that will require 4 – 6.5 feet of soil replacement to support
the proposed infrastructure and buildings. This will be reviewed during construction of
the infrastructure and per specifications replaced. The City’s Building Inspector shall
ensure the buildings are addressed through the building permit.
10. Drainage narrative states there will be no wetland impacts from the proposed project;
however the plans show a delineated wetland “Area A” on Enid Trail and Block 1 Lot 11.
Please resolve.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
We reviewed the Site Drainage Narrative and Stormwater Calculations for St. Clair Estates,
dated May 9, 2016, and revised June 24, 2016, provided by Plowe Engineering, Inc. and have the
following comments:
1. No drainage area map provided. Time of concentration for Subcatchment 1 seems high
for developed conditions, please verify.
2. Missing result Tables 1 through 4 (rate control results and wetland bounce results).
3. Site Drainage Narrative indicates an increase in 2-year runoff rates to Rice Lake, but
HydroCAD indicates runoff rate control is being met in aggregate from the site.
4. Emergency overflow not modeled for Ponds 1, 2, or 3, even though the high water
elevations are at, or exceeding, the EOF elevation. Please update HydroCAD to include
EOFs and provide scour protection on downstream side of EOF to prevent washouts.
5. Please provide the 10-day snowmelt HydroCAD results.
6. All water quality requirements are being met.
Ms. Katie Larsen
July 7, 2016
Page 3
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160713 PZ (continued PH)\2 20160707 Engineering Review No 2 St Clair
7. The side yard storm sewer on narrow lots needs to be coordinated with the building plans.
No overhanging windows or window wells can be installed. A clear 20 feet needs to be
provided. The applicant shall provide a summary of side yard storm sewer with pipe
depths and a summary of how future access for maintenance will be accommodated.
FLOODPLAIN
1. Project affects the FEMA floodplain at Pond 1 due to embankment fill. The applicant
shall obtain a Letter of Map Revision and provide the application to City.
WETLANDS
Rice Creek Watershed District is the LGU to review and approve the wetland delineation for the
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).
1. Provided the LGU approves the wetland delineation, there are no proposed wetland
impacts. Therefore, no wetland mitigation approval is needed.
2. Wetland buffers are shown on the plan set. The RCWD will have regulatory authority
over review and approval of the wetland buffer.
3. A conservation easement is recommended for parcels adjacent to the lake to protect the
buffer area.
4. Conservation easement extends into private property on Block 1 Lots 8 – 11.
ENVIRONMENTAL
1. No comments at this time.
WATER SYSTEM
1. The watermain around the looped road shall be 8 inches in diameter.
2. The existing water services along Sioux Lane should be shown on the plans (based on the
record plan data). To avoid future sidewalk removal, these services should be extended
beyond the proposed sidewalk; with approval from the property owner.
3. Show gate valve locations on the plans. Gate valves are required on all hydrant leads.
4. Fire hydrant spacing is to be 300 feet apart. The applicant is to revise the plans. A
hydrant at Birch Street shall be added.
5. Water services shall be shown on the plans. Water services greater than 150 feet long
shall be HDPE fused joints.
Ms. Katie Larsen
July 7, 2016
Page 4
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160713 PZ (continued PH)\2 20160707 Engineering Review No 2 St Clair
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
1. The sanitary sewer is less than 7 feet deep at SAN MH 8 and the City’s standard is 7.5
feet deep. The applicant shall provide justification for not meeting standard. Associated
watermain lowering shall be shown on the plans. Once additional information is
provided we will review for conformance.
2. Sanitary sewer services need to be shown on the plans. Sanitary sewer services for Lots
3-7 Block 1 are of concern due to excessive length. These may require cleanouts or
extending the main further into the loop providing more standard lengths.
STORM SEWER SYSTEM
1. Please provide storm sewer calculations and drainage area maps with your construction
plan submittal to verify the size of pipes and spacing of catch basins.
2. Several storm sewer pipe lengths do not currently meet the minimum 3 fps requirement.
(CBMH 301-FES 300; FES 108-CBMH 107; FES 104-CBMH 103; CB 113-CBMH 112;
CBMH 112-(ST/CB)MH 111; CB 204-(CB)MH 205; (CB)MH 205-CBMH 202;
(ST/CB)MH 201-FES 200.
3. The storm sewer pipe between CBMH 301 and FES 300 shall be adjusted such that future
maintenance would not encroach upon the adjacent private property.
4. Several structures are shown at or below minimum cover (CBMH 101; CBMH 114;
CBMH 115; CB 204; CBMH 301; CBMH 302). Verify with the final construction plan
submittal that all storm sewer pipe has a minimum 2 feet cover which includes the pipe
thickness.
TRANSPORTATION
1. A Traffic Study was prepared by SRF Consulting Group, dated May 9, 2016 and revised
on June 23, 2016 addressing following comments:
• The analysis documented an issue with the backup of traffic southbound on
Hodgson Road turning left onto Birch Street. It is indicated that this backup is
more than 400 feet which will impact the southbound through traffic creating a
potential safety concern with stopped traffic in the through lane. The Revised
Study addressed the existing crash data. The Revised Study also discussed what
effect signal timing improvements would have on intersection operations now and
in the future with the proposed site traffic. The City should consider working
with the applicant and Anoka County to review the options for the sign timing of
this signal.
• In the “Neighborhood Impacts” section the traffic volume increases were updated
using the actual estimates. The traffic volume figures were updated to show actual
estimates; however, the anticipated change in the AM and PM peak hour volumes
was not provided. This shall be included.
Ms. Katie Larsen
July 7, 2016
Page 5
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160713 PZ (continued PH)\2 20160707 Engineering Review No 2 St Clair
• Clarification was provided in the “Neighborhood Impacts” section, documenting
what a typical residential street should/would look like. However, examples of
other streets with similar traffic volumes and characteristics were not provided.
These examples shall be provided.
• The Revised Study documented a worst case scenario with the Hokah Drive as a
right-in/right-out. This analysis shows that there will be an increase in traffic on
Sioux Lane, however the volumes are within typical local City street volumes.
2. Stop signs on Hokah Drive approaching Sioux Lane shall be added to plans.
3. An emergency vehicle access / trail is shown from the end of the cul-de-sac through
Outlot E that connects to the existing trail on the north side of Birch Street south of the
development.
• The trail connection in the cul-de-sac is next to the proposed driveway to lot 23.
The location and design of the connection should be completed to insure that it is
not mistaken as a driveway.
• Consideration for screening or separation from the existing driveway at 441 Birch
St and the proposed trail shall be addressed by the applicant.
• The emergency vehicle access / trail shall be 10 feet wide and meet a 7 ton design
standard. Include a trail typical section in the details / plans.
• The proposed trail shall be aligned straight within the easement.
4. Anoka County will allow a construction access off of CSAH 34 for the construction
activities associated with the installation of utilities and roadways. This access is to be
detailed within the plans.
5. The utility connection at CSAH 34 will require removal and replacement of the County
roadway. This construction is to be included within the plans and requires an Anoka
County permit.
6. City standard detail plate GEN -25 for Street typical section shall be included in the
plans.
7. The existing driveway connection at Sioux Lane needs to be detailed on the plans based
on coordination between the applicant and the property owner.
FINAL PLAT
1. Additional drainage and utility easements needed in the rear yards of Lots 2-5, Block 1,
for conveyance of surface water drainage.
2. Expansion of drainage and utility easements needed in the rear yards of Lots 4-12, Block
2, for coverage of the 904 contour (EOF).
Ms. Katie Larsen
July 7, 2016
Page 6
S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\St. Clair Estates\Staff Reports\20160713 PZ (continued PH)\2 20160707 Engineering Review No 2 St Clair
3. The easement over the emergency access/trail, sanitary sewer, and watermain needs to be
a minimum of 40 feet wide to accommodate the utilities. The plans currently show a
section at 30 feet wide.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
4. Required with final plat.
PERMITS
The applicant shall provide the following permits prior to final plat approval.
1. NPDES Construction General Permit
2. Rice Creek Watershed Permit
a. Wetland delineation per the WCA
b. Wetland buffers
c. Stormwater and erosion control.
3. US Corps of Engineers wetland delineation
4. MDH for Water System
5. MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension
6. DNR Water Appropriation if temporary dewatering is needed.
7. Anoka County Right of Way
If you or the applicant has any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diane
Hankee at (651) 982-2430 or diane.hankee@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us.
Page 1
Memo
To: Katie Larsen
From: Marty Asleson
Date: June 29, 2016
Re: Environmental Board Recommendations for the St Clair Estates
Development Proposal
The following recommendations were made by the Environmental Board on
September 24, 2014 for St Clair Estates:
Significant Resources Protection
The St Clair Estates Wetland Edge within the Conservation Easement area of the
proposed project may contain rare plants. These plants if they exist would be in the
easement area and close to the wetland edge. The developer shall use the following
procedures to care for disturbance in this for drainage features:
1. A fence will be placed at the edge of soil disturbance areas protecting
vegetation from disturbance.
2. Top-soils from the conservation easement area disturbed for stormwater
features be stockpiled in a predetermined location, and then reapplied to the
site in as close to the original location as possible.
3. The conservation area shall be fenced off after construction to keep all
construction activities out.
4. An information hand out to residents purchasing houses in the easement
area be drafted as an awareness/educational instrument for the natural
resource conservation area
5. Signs acceptable to the RCWD and the City of Lino Lakes shall be posted in
each back yard stating no encroachment.
Environmental
Page 2
6. The Conservation Easement have both the City of Lino Lakes and the RCWD
named as easement holders.
Tree Preservation
All trees on the site that are to be protected shall be fenced off with orange fencing.
This includes fencing all close-proximity bordering trees on other private property.
Landscaping
1. Boulevard trees are required at the rate of one (1) tree per lot frontage for
single family and two family lots. Thirty-eight (38) boulevard trees are
proposed which is compliant with the ordinance. The developer will
escrow enough money to plant these trees. The city will plant them The
city will choose the species
.
2. Pond area seed mix in their landscape plan is indicated as MNDOT mix 33-
641. There is no such seed mix that I could find. The developer must submit
a native seed mix that is acceptable to the City.
3. All trees planted in pond areas with a native seed mix must be tolerant of fire.
Fire is a tool used to maintain healthy native plant communities. This basically
limits the species to Oak.
4. The developer should submit a substitution for Fall Fiesta Sugar Maple. Fall
Fiesta is a good urban tree but does not do well in sandplain soils. A red
maple would be a better choice.
5. All native seed areas must be installed by a city approved contractor
knowledgeable in the establishment of native seed areas.
6. A 5-year maintenance plan acceptable to the city must be submitted. The
developer must implement this maintenance plan.
Surface Water and DWSMA
St Clair Estates has two DWSMA classifications associated with the land. For
the most part as seen in the DWSMA attachment, the area has a Moderate
Vulnerability.
Vulnerability determines what types of potential contamination sources must be
managed within the DWSMA or as determined by the Department of Health. In
the Moderate vulnerability areas of the DWSMA wells and tanks must be
managed.
Page 3
The small area on the south end of the development proposal is shown as high
vulnerability and in that case all land uses and potential contaminant sources,
including wells and tanks must be managed. .Because of this:
1. The developer must have containment feature in place for all
construction fueling stations.
2. The developer must contain and remove from the site all concrete
washout from construction activities.
Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control
Before any ground breaking occurs, a complete Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan, (SWPPP) must be accepted by the city. At the time of ground breaking,
all of the concerns of the Minnesota Pollution Control permit issuance must be
met. A certified inspector must be in contact with the City. All weekly and post
rainfall inspection reports, and follow up corrections made must be emailed to the
City in a timely manner. Failure to do so could result in a “Stop Work Order”.
Shoreland Management Overlay District
The 150 foot no-build line for the Shoreland Overlay District comes right up to the
back of a few proposed house pads. The developer must create an awareness
of this no-build line, with written correspondence, copy the city and ensure all
future sales of the property has the awareness document follow the sale.
Jaime Jensen Tree SurveyTree Species CodesFebruary 2-3, 2016Trees to CT=CottonwoodTag # species dbh 0-9 Cond # trunks be rmoved SE=Siberian Elm100 CT 41 6 4 BE=Box Elder99 SE 31 3 1 WS=White Spruce98 BE 19 3 10 X QA=Quaking Aspen95 SE 11 3 1 X RP=Red Pine92 SE 6 3 1 X RO=Red Oak94 SE 10 3 1 X BC=Black Cherry93 SE 12 3 1 X HB-=Hackberry90 WS 11 6 1CB=Common Buckthorn89 SE 10 3 1 BO=Bur Oak88 SE 9 3 1 X GA=Green Ash87 SE 7 4 1 X86 SE 10 4 1 X85 WS 12 6 184 BE 24 2 583 SE 16 3 1 X82 WS 10 6 181 WS 13 6 180 SE 13 3 1 X79 SE 17 4 1 X78 SE 16 3 1 X77 SE 8 4 1 X76 SE 7 4 2 X75 SE 18 3 1 X72 SE 7 4 1 X74 CT 37 6 1 X96 QA 8 6 291 QA 8 6 297 QA 7 5 171 QA 6 6 170 QA 8 5 169 QA 7 5 166 QA 7 5 163 QA 8 5 168 QA 8 5 162 QA 8 5 165 BC 8 5 167 QA 9 4 164 QA 9 3 173 SE 19 5 161 QA 9 5 160 QA 6 5 159 SE 19 5 158 QA 10 5 157 QA 8 5 156 QA 6 5 155 QA 9 6 154 QA 8 5 153 QA 8 6 152 QA 10 5 151 QA 7 5 150 QA 12 6 149 QA 7 6 148 QA 7 5 147 QA 8 5 146 QA 8 5 145 QA 11 5 144 QA 9 6 1 X43 QA 6 5 142 QA 7 5 1 X41 QA 8 6 1 X40 BE 8 5 339 QA 8 5 138 QA 7 3 137 BE 9 5 136 QA 9 6 135 QA 6 5 1 X34 QA 6 6 1 X33 BC 6 5 1 X32 BE 8 5 131 BC 8 5 1 X30 QA 7 5 129 QA 6 5 128 QA 7 5 127 QA 8 5 326 QA 7 5 125 QA 7 5 124 QA 7 5 123 QA 6 5 122 QA 7 5 121 BE 13 6 320 QA 14 5 219 QA 14 5 118 QA 12 3 1 X17 QA 9 3 1 X16 QA 9 4 1 X15 RO 19 4 1 X14 QA 8 5 1 X13 QA 7 5 1 X12 QA 6 5 1 X11 QA 6 5 1 X10 QA 7 5 19 QA 9 5 18 QA 10 3 17 CB 7 6 96 QA 7 5 1 X5 QA 6 5 1 X4 QA 6 5 1 X3 QA 7 5 1 X2 QA 6 5 1 X1 QA 7 5 1 X200 QA 13 5 1 X199 QA 7 5 1 X198 QA 7 5 1 X197 QA 6 5 1 X196 RO 19 6 1 X195 RO 17 6 2194 QA 6 5 1 X193 QA 7 5 1 X192 HB 7 6 1191 QA 7 5 1190 QA 12 5 3189 QA 10 5 1186 QA 10 5 1185 RO 6 6 1 X184 BC 10 3 1 X183 QA 7 5 1 X182 BE 8 5 2 X181 QA 8 5 1180 QA 8 5 1179 QA 7 5 1178 QA 7 3 1177 SE 13 5 1 X176 SE 9 5 1 X175 QA 8 5 1174 QA 9 5 2173 QA 7 5 1172 QA 7 5 1171 QA 9 5 1170 BE 16 4 5 X169 SE 8 5 1 X168 BE 20 3 1 X167 SE 14 3 1 X166 SE 6 4 1 X165 SE 7 3 1 X164 SE 9 3 2 X163 BO 7 4 2 X162 SE 7 3 1 X161 SE 10 3 1 X160 SE 7 3 2 X159 SE 9 3 1 X158 SE 13 3 2 X157 SE 7 3 1 X156 SE 10 3 1 X155 SE 10 3 1 X154 SE 11 3 1 X153 SE 6 3 1 X152 SE 9 3 2 X151 SE 8 3 1 X150 SE 6 3 1 X149 SE 7 3 1 X148 RP 11 5 1 X147 SE 10 3 1 X146 SE 10 3 1 X145 SE 10 3 1 X144 SE 12 3 1 X143 RP 10 5 1 X142 RP 11 5 1 X141 RP 8 5 1 X140 RP 8 5 1 X139 RP 9 5 1 X138 RP 13 5 1 X137 RP 10 5 1 X136 RP 8 5 1 X135 RP 10 5 1 X134 RP 13 5 2 X133 BE 10 3 4 X132 RP 9 5 1 X131 SE 7 3 2 X130 SE 17 3 1 X129 SE 8 3 1 X128 SE 27 3 1 X127 SE 7 4 1 X126 BE 6 4 1 X125 GA 10 4 1124 BE 18 3 2123 RO 7 5 1122 RO 16 3 3121 RO 14 3 1120 BE 12 3 2 X119 SE 11 3 1 X118 BE 7 3 1 X117 BE 9 3 2 X116 BE 12 3 1 X115 BE 10 4 1 X114 BE 7 4 1113 BE 16 3 9 X112 BE 10 4 1 X111 BE 10 4 1 X110 BC 14 4 1 X109 BC 15 4 1 X108 BE 6 5 1 X107 SE 10 5 1 X106 SE 8 3 1 X105 CT 20 3 1 X104 BE 6 3 1 X103 BE 12 4 1
Our passion is your safe way home!
1440 Bunker Lake Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304-4005
Office: 763-862-4200 Fax: 763-862-4201 www.anokacounty.us/highway
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
Douglas W. Fischer, PE
County Engineer
August 15, 2016
Mr. Michael Grochala
Community Development Director
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Re: St. Clair Estates
Dear Mr. Grochala:
In addition to the comments we made on March 14, 2016 regarding the above
referenced development, Anoka county would like to add these additional
comments:
This development as proposed (no new access to Birch Street) is consistent
with the CSAH 34 (Birch Street) Corridor Study which was completed in April
2011. As this development proposes, access to Birch Street would be via
Hokah Drive and/or Sioux Lane/Ware Road. Per the corridor plan, the
ultimate access of Hokah Drive and Birch Street would be converted to a
right-in, right-out condition primarily due to its very close proximity to the
Ware Road signalized intersection. While we are not requiring this
conversion immediately with this development, ultimately this access will
need this modification as traffic volumes on Birch continue to increase or if
we see a significant safety issue with the current full-access configuration.
We are aware that there is some concern regarding additional traffic that this
development will add to the adjacent residential streets/neighborhoods.
While the addition of just 35 lots should still result in acceptable levels of
traffic on these city streets, we do foresee another future outlet opportunity
for this development. Again, referring back to the CSAH 34 (Birch Street)
Corridor Study, the study has identified Totem Trail as a future ¾-Access
location. While the study originally identified this to serve only the south side
of Birch, this access could also be provided for the north side as well. If the
cul-de-sac of Enid Trail was “flipped” such that it bends easterly, then a futu re
connection could be made to provide access to Birch Street. (See attached
“Future Street” extension sketch.) It should be noted that we are not
requiring this future extension to be completed at this time as it would be
difficult for the developer to implement on his own because it involves
property other than his own and there would be significant environmental
impacts that the developer could not cause as a non -public road authority.
That being said, Anoka County is currently scoping an improvement project on
Birch Street from Ware Road through the West Shadow Lake intersection. While
this preliminary evaluation was to primarily address some of the access issues
associated with Rice Lake Elementary School, this evaluation could now also
explore the Enid Street extension to Totem Trail as well. Again, this evaluation
will look at the access and lane configurations identified in the CSAH 34 (Birch
Street) Corridor Study which would include access modifications at Hokah Drive,
Totem Trail, Tomahawk Trail, Vaughan Court, both school entrances, and West
Shadow Lake Drive. Of course the city of Lino Lakes involvement along with an
in-depth public involvement process would have to be conducted prior to
implementing any changes to this highway. Since we are just beginning the
evaluation process, this ultimate improvement project would have to be first
included in the back end of our yet-to-be-determined 5-Year Capital Improvement
Program for 2017-2021. Finally, as stated previously these improvements would
be beyond the scope of the proposed development.
Hopefully this letter helps address some of the issues you are dealing with on
this development and the county’s position on them. Please let me know if you
have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Fischer, P.E.
Transportation Division Manager / County Engineer
St. Cloud Minneapolis St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
Technical Memorandum
To: Michael Grochala, Copy: Diane Hankee PE, City Engineer
Community Development Director Katie Larsen, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes City of Lino Lakes
From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE File: WSB No. 2029-22
Traffic Engineer
Date: August 15, 2016
Subject: St. Clair Estates Traffic/Access Review
The St Clair Land Company is proposing the St Clair Estates residential development north of
Birch Street and east of Hokah Drive in the City of Lino Lakes. Through the preliminary review
process questions have arisen with respect to the level of traffic on the adjacent City streets,
specifically: Sioux Lane between Hokah Drive and Ware Road, and; Hokah Drive between the
new site access (Enid Trail) and Birch Street. The purpose of this memorandum is to:
Document the access alternatives discussed;
Document the level of traffic on the associated streets, and;
Discuss conclusions of the potential impact.
The original Traffic Study prepared for the development documented the existing and projected
traffic volumes assuming a new cul-de-sac street (Enid Trail) with access to Hokah Drive and no
other improvements to the area streets. The study documented that the proposed
development would generate an additional 334 new daily trips on the area streets. A revised
Traffic Study was prepared for the proposed development based on preliminary comments
from City staff. The study was then revised to document the traffic volumes assuming that
Hokah Drive at Birch Street was a future right-in/right-out access as proposed in the Anoka
County Highway Department CSAH 34 Corridor Study. This moved all traffic (new and existing)
that would be making left turns to or from Hokah Drive at Birch Street to Ware Road at Birch
Street and ultimately Sioux Lane.
After discussions with Anoka County, a third access alternative was reviewed that would extend
the new development street (Enid Trail) to a ¾ access at Birch Street as part of an Anoka County
Highway Department larger corridor safety improvement project . Hokah Drive at Birch Street
would be maintained as right-in/right-out access.
Table 1 below shows the anticipated full build daily traffic volume with each access scenario.
St Clair Estates Traffic/Access Review 2 | Page
Table 1 – Access Scenarios Daily Traffic Volumes
Sioux Ln -
Hokah Dr to
Ware Rd
Hokah Dr –
Enid Tr to
Birch St
Enid Tr –
to Birch St
Existing 520 270 NA
Projected – St Clair
Estates Project 670 455 0
Projected - RI/RO at
Hokah Dr 950 175 0
Projected – RI/RO at
Hokah Dr and
¾ at Enid Tr
830 110 185
Based on the existing and projected traffic volumes the following can be concluded:
Traffic generated from the proposed St Clair Estates does not warrant direct access to
Birch Street.
The level of daily traffic volumes on each of the associated streets with any of the access
scenarios is typical for a local city street. Typically local city streets can accommodate
traffic volumes of 1000 vehicles per day or less.
The proposed St Clair Estates initial access scenario with 670 vehicles on Sioux Lane and
455 vehicles on Hokah Dr and no restrictions to intersections on Birch Street provides
the best local distribution of traffic to the existing street system.
In the future the access scenarios restricting access to and from Birch Street with an
Anoka County Highway Department safety improvement project will reduce traffic on
Hokah Drive but increase traffic on Sioux Lane.
The extension of Enid Trail will not significantly change the traffic levels on any of the
area streets. Anoka County would need to evaluate whether the benefit to Birch Street
would warrant the Changes.
Environmental impacts of extending Enid Trail to Birch Street through the wetland/lake.
The City should work with Anoka County on when and how any access restrictions
would be implemented on Birch Street.
Please contact me at 612-360-1283 or by email crickart@wsbeng.com if you have any questions
or comments.
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-78
APPROVING A VARIANCE AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ST. CLAIR ESTATES
WHEREAS, the City received a land use application for a variance and preliminary plat for St.
Clair Estates hereafter referred to as “Development”; and
WHEREAS, City staff completed a review of the “Development” based on the following:
• Revised civil plans prepared by Plowe Engineering dated June 27, 2016 and received by
the City on June 24, 2016
• Revised preliminary plat plans prepared by EG Rud & Sons dated June 24, 2016 and
received by the City on June 24, 2016
• Revised Stormwater Drainage Report prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc. dated June 24,
2016
• Report of Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ITCO Allied Engineering Company
dated March 7, 2016
• Revised Traffic Study prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. dated June 23, 2016
• Wetland Delineation prepared by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC dated April 18, 2016;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on June 8, 2016
and continued to July 13, 2016 and the Board recommended approval of the “Development”.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Variance
Section 302.03(1)(h) states the minimum length of a cul-de-sac shall be 500 feet. The proposed
cul-de-sac in St. Clair Estates exceeds 500 feet and a variance shall be required.
Per Section 1007.018(1)(a) Criteria and Findings of Fact. No variance shall be granted unless it
meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding
compliance with these criteria.
1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance.
The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Per Section
302.01, it is the purpose of the standards (Street Construction Standards) to encourage well
planned and efficient streets by establishing standards for design and construction.
2
Cul-de-sacs lengths are limited in length for emergency access concerns. This issue is being
mitigated by requiring the construction of a 10 foot wide, 7 ton emergency access from the cul-
de-sac south to CSAH 34 (Birch Street). Emergency access can be obtained from the south via
Birch Street in the event the north intersection at Sioux Lane is blocked. Hydrants will also be
located every 300 feet for fire protection.
The cul de sac length and mitigating emergency access trail have been reviewed and approved
by the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department, City Engineer, City staff and City Council.
2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The variance is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in regards to
resource management, land use, housing, transportation and utilities as detailed in the June 8,
2016 and July 13, 2016 Planning & Zoning staff reports and August 22, 2016 Council staff
report. The subject site is guided for low density residential development and the proposed
residential development is consistent in regards to land use and density.
3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,”
as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to
use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are
not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
There are practical difficulties in connecting Enid Trail to CSAH 34 (Birch Street) due to Anoka
County Highway Department Access Spacing Guidelines and the 2011 CSAH 34 Corridor Study.
Other practical difficulties include existing structures, wetlands, stormwater ponds and open
ditch. The subject property also has limited right-of-way abutting CSAH 34.
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The subject site is
guided for low density residential development and the proposed residential development is
consistent in regards to land use and density.
4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and was not created
by the landowner. The developer is proposing to purchase and develop an existing lot of record
platted in 2004.
5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. The adjacent properties are
residential subdivisions, Anoka County Regional Park and Rice Lake Elementary School.
6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for
property in the zoning district where the subject site is located.
3
The variance is not being granted for a use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance.
Single family detached homes are allowed as Permitted Uses in the R-1, Single Family
Residential District.
7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered
construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning
ordinance.
Not applicable.
Preliminary Plat
Per Section 1001.013, Premature Subdivision:
(1) General. Any concept plan, preliminary plat or final plat deemed premature pursuant to the
following criteria shall be denied by the City Council.
(2) Conditions for establishing a premature subdivision. A subdivision may be deemed
premature should any of the following conditions not be met.
(a) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Including any of the following:
1. Land use plan;
2. Transportation plan;
3. Utility (sewer and water) plans;
4. Local water management plan;
5. Capital improvement plan; and
6. Growth management policies, including MUSA allocation criteria.
St. Clair Estates is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in regards to
resource management, land use, housing, transportation and utilities as detailed in the June 8,
2016 and July 13, 2016 Planning & Zoning staff reports and August 22, 2016 Council staff
report. The development is also consistent with the local water management plan, capital
improvement plans and growth management policies.
(b) Consistency with infill policies. A proposed urban subdivision shall meet the city's infill
policies:
1. The urban subdivision must be located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
(MUSA) or the staged growth area as established by the city's Comprehensive Plan;
2. The cost of utilities and street extensions must be covered by one or more of the
following:
a. An immediate assessment to the proposed subdivision;
b. One hundred percent of the street and utility costs are privately financed by the
developer;
c. The cost of regional and/or oversized trunk utility lines can be financed with available
city trunk funds; and
d. The cost and timing of the expenditure of city funds are consistent with the city's
capital improvement plan.
3. The cost, operation and maintenance of the utility system are consistent with the normal
costs as projected by the water and sewer rate study; and
4
4. The developer payments will offset additional costs of utility installation or future
operation and maintenance.
St. Clair Estates is consistent with infill policies. The development is within the current
Utility Staging Area 1A=2008-2015. One hundred percent of the street and utility costs are
privately financed by the developer. The cost, operation and maintenance of the utility system
is consistent with the normal costs projected by the water and sanitary system plans. No
future utility costs are proposed.
(c) Roads or highways to serve the subdivision. A proposed subdivision shall meet the
following requirements for level of service (LOS), as defined by the Highway Capacity
Manual:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. The LOS requirements in divisions (2)(c)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 Department 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;
and
8. The city does not relinquish any rights of local determination.
St. Clair Estates meets the requirements for level of service (LOS). A traffic study prepared by
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. dated June 23, 2016 provides a level of service (LOS) analysis. The
proposed levels of service are not degraded; therefore the subdivision is not considered
premature. The existing roads and intersections providing access to the development have
structural capacity to accommodate the projected traffic from the proposed subdivision. No
street improvements are proposed that are inconsistent with the City’s capital improvement plan.
The city does not relinquish any rights of local determination.
5
(d) Water supply. A proposed subdivision shall be deemed to have an adequate water
supply when:
1. The city water system has adequate wells, storage or pipe capacity to serve the
subdivision;
2. The water utility extension is consistent with the Lino Lakes water plan and offers the
opportunity for water main looping to serve the urban subdivision;
3. The extension of water mains will provide adequate water pressure for personal use and
fire protection; and
4. The rural subdivision can demonstrate that each of the proposed lots can be provided
with a potable water supply.
St. Clair Estates will have an adequate water supply. The site will be served by a 6” and 8”
watermain through the development. The watermain utility extension will loop and connect with
an existing 16”watermain in Birch Street and 8” watermain on Sioux Lane to provide adequate
water pressure for personal use and fire protection. The City’s water system has capacity to
accommodate the 35 lot single family residential subdivision.
(e) Waste disposal systems. A proposed subdivision shall be served with adequate waste
disposal systems when:
1. The urban sewered subdivision is located inside the city's MUSA or is consistent with
the MUSA allocation criteria;
2. The city has sufficient MUSA and pipe capacity to serve the subdivision if developed
to its maximum density;
3. The subdivision will result in a sewer extension consistent with Lino Lakes sewer plan
and capital improvement plan;
4. A rural subdivision can demonstrate that each lot can be served by an adequate sanitary
sewer disposal system; and
5. A rural subdivision with a proposed communal sanitary sewer or water system has an
effective long range management and maintenance program with proper financing.
St. Clair Estates will be served with an adequate waste disposal system. The development is
within the current Utility Staging Area 1A=2008-2015. The sanitary sewer system has capacity
to accommodate the 35 lot single family residential subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby
establishes that St. Clair Estates shall be developed in accordance with the following:
PUBLIC LAND DEDICATION
The City will require cash in lieu of land dedication.
St. Clair Estates
35 lots x $2,500 = $87,500
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby
approves the variance and preliminary plat for St. Clair Estates subject to the following
conditions:
6
1. Comments from WSB Plan Review Letter dated July 7, 2016 shall be addressed.
2. Comments from Environmental Coordinator letter dated June 29, 2016 shall be
addressed.
3. A FEMA Letter of Map Revision shall be required prior to release of financial securities.
4. On all plan sheets, the south cul de sac on Enid Trail shall be re-located to the east to
provide opportunity for future extension to Birch Street.
5. L1, Landscape Plan:
a. The notes indicate 15 replacement trees and 66 proposed. This contradicts the
Tree Preservation Plan and shall be revised accordingly.
6. Sheet S3: Overall Preliminary Plat
a. It shall be noted “Lots 7-10, Block 1 have limited ability to construct accessory
structures, decks or additions due to 150 feet setback requirement from OHWL.”
b. Under Development Data, Proposed Outlots shall be changed from 6 to 3.
7. Sheet S4: Preliminary Plat
a. The note for Lot 23 shall include “accessory” structures as well as decks and
patios.
8. The developer shall explore the possibility of relocating the existing driveways at 441
and 453 Birch Street onto the cul-de-sac.
9. Detailed plans of the driveway re-location at 6640 Hokah Drive shall be shown on the
plans.
10. The proposed Trail and Access Easement to Birch Street shall be a minimum of 40 feet
wide.
a. The easement appears to be 30 feet in some locations and this shall be revised.
b. The easement shall also allow for drainage and utilities.
11. A minimum 10 feet of separation shall be required between the proposed trail and the
existing driveway at 441 Birch Street.
a. The trail appears to be less than 10 feet from the existing driveway in some
locations. This shall be revised.
12. The existing trail along the north side of Birch Street shall be shown on the preliminary
plat.
13. Details regarding the temporary access to Birch Street for construction traffic shall be
provided on the plans and a timeframe for use shall be included.
14. Upon final plat, the applicant shall submit HOA documents detailing the maintenance
plan for the infiltration basin in the boulevard loop.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of August, 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:
7
_______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
Alex McKenzie, Community Development Intern
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC: Public Hearing: Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 08-16,
Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements, Outlot B and Outlot D
of The Village No. 3.
VOTE REQUIRED: 4/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council’s consideration of Ordinance No. 08-16, vacating the drainage
and utility easements on Outlot B and Outlot D as dedicated on the plat of The Village No. 3,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota.
BACKGROUND
D.R. Horton, Inc. is proposing a development (Woods Edge) on the site of The Village No. 3,
Outlots B and D. The parcels are located north of the YMCA and south of I-35W. The
development will include 112 attached townhome units on 11.2 acres. The applicant has
submitted a land use application requesting the vacation of drainage and utility easements of
Outlot B and Outlot D, The Village No. 3.
The easement on Outlot B is over an existing watermain. This watermain is being relocated
under the private road (Outlot A, Woods Edge) and the easement no longer is needed. The
easement on Outlot D is over stormwater ponds and drainage areas. Drainage & utility
easements will be rededicated on the final plat of Woods Edge.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 08-16.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Location Map
2. Ordinance No. 08-16
0 300 600150
Feet
§¨¦I-35W
75057505
76017601 730730610610
76907690
715715
705705
670670
75257525
700700
640640
74557455
725725
VVIILLLLAAGGEEDDRRTOWN CENTER PKWYTOWN CENTER PKWYLILAC STLILAC ST
VILLAGE DR
VILLAGE DR
VILLAGE DRVILLAGE DRTOWN C EN TER PKW YTO W N C EN TER PKW YWWOOOODDSSEEDDGGEEBBLLVVDDTTOOWWNN CC EENNTTEERR
PPKK WW YYSite Location MapWoods Edge µ
1
1st Reading: 08/22/2016 Publication:
2nd Reading: 09/12/2016 Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 08-16
ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
(Outlot B and Outlot D, The Village No. 3)
“The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains".
Section 1 Findings
1. The City Council of Lino Lakes has determined to vacate in its entirety the
drainage and utility easement as shown in Exhibit A and described as:
Outlot B and Outlot D, The Village No. 3
2. A public hearing was held on August 22, 2016 before the City Council in the City
Hall Council Chambers after due published and posted notice had been given and
reasonable attempts were made to give personal notice to all affected property
owners, and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and
3. The same drainage and utility easements were dedicated on the plat The Village
No. 3 and shall remain dedicated to the public; and
4. It appears to be in the best interest of the City to vacate such drainage and utility
easement; and
5. Four-fifths of all members of the City Council concur in this ordinance.
Section 2 Easement Vacated
The drainage and utility easement described herein is hereby vacated.
Section 3
This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication
according to the Lino Lakes City Charter.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this ____ day of __________________, 2016.
2
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
3
EXHIBIT A
Easement Vacation Sketch
Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive
Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Toll Free (888) 937-5150
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC: Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 09-16, Amending City
Code Section 1007 by adding Section 1007.056 Opting-Out of
the Requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593
VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration to add Section 1007.056 Opting-Out of MN
Statute requirements for “temporary family health care dwellings”.
BACKGROUND
In May, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593 was signed into law allowing a “mentally or
physically impaired person” to say in a “temporary dwelling” on a relative’s or caregiver’s
property with certain requirements as to allowed structures and caregiver status. The reason
behind the law was to create a process for landowners to place mobile residential dwellings on
their property to serve as temporary family health care dwellings. Under Subdivision 9 of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, cities are specifically allowed to ‘opt out’ of its
requirements. Lino Lakes will be required to follow and implement the new law, unless it
passes an ordinance to “opt out”. The requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593
will go into effect on September 1, 2016. If the City chooses not to opt. out, Lino Lakes will
need to have a permit fee in place and be ready to accept/process applications for temporary
family health care dwellings by September 1, 2016.
With respect to this new legislation, the League of Minnesota Cities has opined that “the most
conservative approach would be to opt out of the statute.” The City could then if it desired
study the matter further and consider an ordinance that would be best suited to the city.
The City currently allows for accessory apartments under Section 1007.048.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on August 10, 2016. There were no public
comments. The Board voted 5-0 in favor of adopting an ordinance opting out of the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593.
.
The Board and Staff recommend approval of the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 09-16.
2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 10-15
2. League of MN fact sheet
1st Reading: Publication:
2nd Reading: Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 09-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 1007 BY ADDING SECTION
1007.056 OPTING-OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593
The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains:
Section 1. Purpose. On May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and
regulation of temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, which
permit and regulate temporary family health care dwellings and subdivision 9 of Minn. Stat.
§462.3593 allows cities to “opt out” of those regulations.
Section 2. Amendment. Lino Lakes City Code Chapter 1007 is hereby amended as set forth
below by adding Section 1007.056 as follows:
Section 1007.056 Opt Out of Minn. Stat.462.3593. Pursuant to authority granted by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the City of Lino Lakes opts-out of
the requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary
Family Health Care Dwellings.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and
publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 22nd day of August, 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
Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings of 2016
Allowing Temporary Structures – What it means for Cities
Introduction:
On May 12, 2016, Gov. Dayton signed, into law, a bill creating a new process for landowners to
place mobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as a temporary family health care
dwelling.1 Community desire to provide transitional housing for those with mental or physical
impairments and the increased need for short term care for aging family members served as the
catalysts behind the legislature taking on this initiative. The resulting legislation sets forth a short
term care alternative for a “mentally or physically impaired person”, by allowing them to stay in a
“temporary dwelling” on a relative’s or caregiver’s property.2
Where can I read the new law?
Until the state statutes are revised to include bills passed this session, cities can find this new bill at
2016 Laws, Chapter 111.
Does the law require cities to follow and implement the new temporary family
health care dwelling law?
Yes, unless a city opts out of the new law or currently allows temporary family health care
dwellings as a permitted use.
Considerations for cities regarding the opt-out?
These new temporary dwellings address an emerging community need to provide more convenient
temporary care. When analyzing whether or not to opt out, cities may want to consider that:
• The new law alters a city’s level of zoning authority for these types of structures.
• While the city’s zoning ordinances for accessories or recreational vehicles do not apply,
these structures still must comply with setback requirements.
• A city’s zoning and other ordinances, other than its accessory use or recreational vehicle
ordinances, still apply to these structures. Because conflicts may arise between the statute
and a city’s local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their
current ordinances in light of the new law.
1 2016 Laws, Chapter 111.
2 Some cities asked if other states have adopted this type of law. The only states that have a somewhat similar statute
at the time of publication of this FAQ are North Carolina and Virginia. It is worth noting that some states have adopted
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) statutes to allow granny flats, however, these ADU statutes differ from Minnesota’s
Temporary Health Care Dwelling law.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 2
• Although not necessarily a legal issue for the city, it seems worth mentioning that the
permit process does not have the individual with the physical or mental impairment or that
individual’s power of attorney sign the permit application or a consent to release his or her
data.
• The application’s data requirements may result in the city possessing and maintaining
nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
• The new law sets forth a permitting system for both cities and counties 3. Cities should
consider whether there is an interplay between these two statutes.
Do cities need to do anything to have the new law apply in their city?
No, the law goes into effect Sept. 1, 2016 and automatically applies to all cities that do not opt out
or don’t already allow temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use under their local
ordinances.
Do cities lose the option to opt out after the Sept. 1, 2016 effective date?
No, the law does not set a deadline for opting out, so cities can opt out after Sept. 1, 2016.
However, if the city has not opted out by Sept. 1, 2016, then the city must not only have
determined a permit fee amount 4 before that date (if the city wants to have an amount different
than the law’s default amount), but also must be ready on that date to accept applications and
process the permits in accordance with the short timeline required by the law. Cities should consult
their city attorney to analyze how to handle applications submitted after Sept. 1, 2016, but still
pending at the time of a later opt out.
What if a city already allows a temporary family health care dwelling as a
permitted use?
If the city already has designated temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use, then
the law does not apply and the city follows its own ordinance. The city should consult its city
attorney for any uncertainty about whether structures currently permitted under existing ordinances
qualify as temporary family health care dwellings.
What process should the city follow if it chooses to opt out of this statute?
Cities that wish to opt out of this law must pass an ordinance to do so. The statute does not provide
clear guidance on how to treat this opt-out ordinance. However, since the new law adds section
462.3593 to the land use planning act (Minn. Stat. ch. 462), arguably, it may represent the adoption
or an amendment of a zoning ordinance, triggering the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357,
subd. 2-4, including a public hearing with 10-day published notice. Therefore, cities may want to
err on the side of caution and treat the opt-out ordinance as a zoning provision.5
3 See Minn. Stat. §394.307
4 Cities do have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets, as a default, a fee of $100 for the initial
permit with a $50 renewal fee, but authorizes a city to provide otherwise by ordinance.
5 For smaller communities without zoning at all, those cities still need to adopt an opt-out ordinance. In those
instances, it seems less likely that the opt-out ordinance would equate to zoning. Because of the ambiguity of the
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 3
Does the League have a model ordinance for opting out of this program?
Yes. Link to opt out ordinance here: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Ordinance
Can cities partially opt out of the temporary family health care dwelling law?
Not likely. The opt-out language of the statute allows a city, by ordinance, to opt out of the
requirements of the law but makes no reference to opting out of parts of the law. If a city wanted a
program different from the one specified in statute, the most conservative approach would be to
opt out of the statute, then adopt an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city.
Since the law does not explicitly provide for a partial opt out, cites wanting to just partially opt out
from the statute should consult their city attorney.
Can a city adopt pieces of this program or change the requirements listed in the
statute?
Similar to the answer about partially opting out, the law does not specifically authorize a city to
alter the statutory requirements or adopt only just pieces of the statute. Several cities have asked if
they could add additional criteria, like regulating placement on driveways, specific lot size limits,
or anchoring requirements. As mentioned above, if a city wants a program different from the one
specified in the statute, the most conservative approach would involve opting out of the statute in
its entirety and then adopting an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city. Again, a
city should consult its city attorney when considering adopting an altered version of the state law.
What is required in an application for a temporary family health care dwelling
permit?
The mandatory application requests very specific information including, but not limited to:6
• Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property
(if different than the owner), and the primary care giver;
• Name of the mentally or physically impaired person;
• Proof of care from a provider network, including respite care, primary care or remote
monitoring;
• Written certification signed by a Minnesota licensed physician, physician assistant or
advanced practice registered nurse that the individual with the mental or physical
impairment needs assistance performing two or more “instrumental activities of daily
life;”7
statute, cities should consult their city attorneys on how best to approach adoption of the opt-out ordinance for their
communities.
6 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 3 sets forth all the application criteria.
7 This is a term defined in law at Minn. Stat. § 256B.0659, subd. 1(i) as “activities to include meal planning and
preparation; basic assistance with paying bills; shopping for food, clothing, and other essential items; performing
household tasks integral to the personal care assistance services; communication by telephone and other media; and
traveling, including to medical appointments and to participate in the community.”
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 4
• An executed contract for septic sewer management or other proof of adequate septic sewer
management;
• An affidavit that the applicant provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents;
• A general site map showing the location of the temporary dwelling and the other structures
on the lot; and
• Compliance with setbacks and maximum floor area requirements of primary structure.
The law requires all of the following to sign the application: the primary caregiver, the owner of
the property (on which the temporary dwelling will be located) and the resident of the property (if
not the same as the property owner). However, neither the physically disabled or mentally
impaired individual nor his or her power of attorney signs the application.
Who can host a temporary family health care dwelling?
Placement of a temporary family health care dwelling can only be on the property where a
“caregiver” or “relative” resides. The statute defines caregiver as “an individual, 18 years of age or
older, who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative,
legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the
individual is caring.” The definition of “relative” includes “a spouse, parent, grandparent, child,
grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person.
Relative also includes half, step and in-law relationships.”
Is this program just for the elderly?
No. The legislature did not include an age requirement for the mentally or physically impaired
dweller. 8
Who can live in a temporary family health care dwelling and for how long?
The permit for a temporary health care dwelling must name the person eligible to reside in the unit.
The law requires the person residing in the dwelling to qualify as “mentally or physically
impaired,” defined as “a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two
or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified by a physician, a physician assistant, or
an advanced practice registered nurse, licenses to practice in this state.” The law specifically limits
the time frame for these temporary dwellings permits to 6 months, with a one-time 6 month
renewal option. Further, there can be only one dwelling per lot and only one dweller who resides
within the temporary dwelling
8 The law expressly exempts a temporary family health care dwelling from being considered “housing with services
establishment”, which, in turn, results in the 55 or older age restriction set forth for “housing with services
establishment” not applying.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 5
What structures qualify as temporary family health care dwellings under the new
law?
The specific structural requirements set forth in the law preclude using pop up campers on the
driveway or the “granny flat” with its own foundation as a temporary structure. Qualifying
temporary structures must:
• Primarily be pre-assembled;
• Cannot exceed 300 gross square feet;
• Cannot attach to a permanent foundation;
• Must be universally designed and meet state accessibility standards;
• Must provide access to water and electrical utilities (by connecting to principal dwelling or
by other comparable means 9);
• Must have compatible standard residential construction exterior materials;
• Must have minimum insulation of R-15;
• Must be portable (as defined by statute);
• Must comply with Minnesota Rules chapter 1360 (prefabricated buildings) or 1361
(industrialized/modular buildings), “and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission
seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2”10; and
• Must contain a backflow check valve.11
Does the State Building Code apply to the construction of a temporary family
health care dwelling?
Mostly, no. These structures must meet accessibility standards (which are in the State Building
Code). The primary types of dwellings proposed fall within the classification of recreational
vehicles, to which the State Building Code does not apply. Two other options exist, however, for
these types of dwellings. If these structures represent a pre-fabricated home, the federal building
code requirements for manufactured homes apply (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1360). If
these structures are modular homes, on the other hand, they must be constructed consistent with
the State Building Code (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1361).
What health, safety and welfare requirements does this new law include?
Aside from the construction requirements of the unit, the temporary family health care dwelling
must be located in an area on the property where “septic services and emergency vehicles can gain
access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner.”
What local ordinances and zoning apply to a temporary health care dwelling?
The new law states that ordinances related to accessory uses and recreational vehicle storage and
parking do not apply to these temporary family health care dwellings.
9 The Legislature did not provide guidance on what represents “other comparable means”.
10 ANSI Code 119.2 has been superseded by NFPA 1192. For more information, the American National Standards
Institute website is located at https://www.ansi.org/.
11 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 2 sets forth all the structure criteria.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 6
However, unless otherwise provided, setbacks and other local ordinances, charter provisions, and
applicable state laws still apply. Because conflicts may arise between the statute and one or more
of the city’s other local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their
current ordinances in light of the new law.
What permit process should cities follow for these permits?
The law creates a new type of expedited permit process. The permit approval process found in
Minn. Stat. § 15.99 generally applies; however, the new law shortens the time frame within which
the local governmental unit can make a decision on the permit. Due to the time sensitive nature of
issuing a temporary dwelling permit, the city does not have to hold a public hearing on the
application and has only 15 days (rather than 60 days) to either issue or deny a permit. For those
councils that regularly meet only once a month, the law provides for a 30-day decision. The law
specifically prohibits cities from extending the time for making a decision on the permit
application. The new law allows the clock to restart if a city deems an application incomplete, but
the city must provide the applicant written notice within five business days of receipt of the
application identifying the missing information.
Can cities collect fees for these permits?
Cities have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets the fee at $100 for the initial
permit with a $50 renewal fee, unless a city provides otherwise by ordinance
Can cities inspect, enforce and ultimately revoke these permits?
Yes, but only if the permit holder violates the requirements of the law. The statute allows for the
city to require the permit holder to provide evidence of compliance and also authorizes the city to
inspect the temporary dwelling at times convenient to the caregiver to determine compliance. The
permit holder then has sixty (60) days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family
health care dwelling. The law does not address appeals of a revocation.
How should cities handle data it acquires from these permits?
The application data may result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. To minimize collection of protected heath data or
other nonpublic data, the city could, for example, request that the required certification of need
simply state “that the person who will reside in the temporary family health care dwelling needs
assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living”, without including in that
certification data or information about the specific reasons for the assistance, the types of
assistance, the medical conditions or the treatment plans of the person with the mental illness or
physical disability. Because of the complexities surrounding nonpublic data, cities should consult
their city attorneys when drafting a permit application.
Should the city consult its city attorney?
Yes. As with any new law, to determine the potential impact on cities, the League recommends
consulting with your city attorney.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 7
Where can cities get additional information or ask other questions.
For more information, contact Staff Attorney Pamela Whitmore at pwhitmore@lmc.org or LMC
General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tgrundho@lmc.org. If you prefer calling, you can reach
Pamela at 651.281.1224 or Tom at 651.281.1266.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6E
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-93, Authorizing Preparation of
Intersection Control Evaluation, Centerville Road and County
Road J.
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council approval to authorize WSB and Associates to an Intersection
Control Evaluation (ICE) report for the Centerville Road and County Road J intersection.
BACKGROUND
The Centerville Road and County Road J intersection currently experiences poor operations and
congestion in both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. In January of 2016, Spack Consulting
prepared a Traffic Impact Study for the North Oaks Development Co. related to a proposed
development in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. The study determined that the
intersection was operating at a level at a Level of Service (LOS) F in both the a.m. (7:00 to 8:00
a.m.) and p.m. (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.) peak periods. A LOS of F represents heavy traffic flows
(over capacity conditions) and increased delay times. The development review noted the need
for improvement to that intersection.
The four roadway approaches to the intersection are governed by three local government units
and one private party. Anoka County is the road authority for the north leg, Ramsey County is
responsible for the south leg, Lino Lakes and Ramsey County share the east leg, and the west leg
is maintained by the Waverly Gardens development in North Oaks.
As a result of the analysis staff has worked with both and Anoka and Ramsey County and North
Oaks Development Company to discuss options for improvement of this intersection. Based on
these discussions the parties concluded that the next step would be to complete an Intersection
Control Evaluation (ICE). The report would determine the appropriate intersection configuration
and control to address both existing and future traffic volumes.
WSB, City Engineer, has prepared a proposal to complete the study in the amount of $15,108.
Funding is proposed to be split between the four parties equally, approximately $3,780 each.
Funding for the City’s share would be from the Engineering and Planning & Zoning budget.
Staff has also requested consideration from White Bear Township and City of North Oaks. Their
involvement would further reduce our participation.
RECOMMENDATION
The Centerville Road and County J intersection is frequently identified by both residents and
staff as a growing transportation issue. The proposed study presents an opportunity to develop a
long term solution.
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 16-93 authorizing preparation of
the Intersection Control Evaluation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 16-93
2. Proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. dated June 28, 2016.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-93
AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION
CENTERVILLE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD J.
WHEREAS, a Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Spack Consulting, dated January 22, 2016,
identified the need for possible improvements to the Centerville Road and County Road J
intersection; and
WHEREAS, the local road authorities including the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County and
Ramsey County, in partnership with the North Oaks Development Company have proposed the
preparation of an Intersection Control Evaluation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of
Lino Lakes, Minnesota, hereby authorizes WSB & Associates, Inc. to prepare the Intersection
Control Report for the amount of $15,108 in accordance with the proposal dated June 28, 2016,
subject to funding participation by Anoka County, Ramsey County and North Oaks
Development Company.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of August, 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
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
June 28, 2016
Mr. Michael Grochala
Community Development Director
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Re: Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Proposal
Centerville Road (CR 21/CR 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Grochala:
WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare an Intersection Control
Evaluation (ICE) report for the intersection of Centerville Road (CR 21/CR 59) at Ash Street (CR
J)/Wilkinson Lake Boulevard. The intersection is located on the boarder of Lino Lakes, North Oaks
and White Bear Lake Township in both Anoka and Ramsey Counties.
The intersection is being studied in conjunction with a new residential development being proposed
in the northwest corner of the intersection. This development is proposed to include 29 single
family homes, 30 twin homes and a 147 unit senior apartment building. A Traffic Study was
conducted for the proposed development dated January 22, 2016 with an update dated, February 9,
2016.
A meeting was held on June 1, 2016 with the developer and impacted agencies to discuss the area
transportation impacts and possible mitigation of existing and future conditions. Concerns were
raised with respect to operations of the Centerville Road (CR 21/CR 59) and Ash Street (CR
J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd intersection and the interaction with the Ash Street (CR J) and 20th Avenue
(CR 54)/I35E southbound ramp intersection.
Based on the discussions at the meeting it was concluded that an Intersection Control Evaluation
(ICE) should be completed to determine the appropriate intersection configuration and control. The
result of the ICE report will be a recommendation for the needed traffic control and lane
configuration at the Centerville Road (CR 21/CR 59) and Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd
intersection.
Based on our understanding the City of Lino Lakes will lead the project with input from the City of
North Oaks, White Bear Township, Anoka County and Ramsey County. With this understanding
we have developed the attached Scope of Work, Estimated Cost and Schedule to complete this ICE
report.
Mr. Michael Grochala
June 28, 2016
Page 2
If the proposed Scope of Work and the associated fee and schedule appear to be appropriate, please
sign a copy of the proposal and return to me at your earliest connivance. We will proceed
immediately upon receipt of the signed contract.
Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to assist you in the completion of this project. If you
have any questions regarding our proposal, please contact me at (612) 360-1283.
Sincerely,
CITY OF LINO LAKES
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Authorized Signature
Charles T. Rickart, P.E, PTOE
Project Manager/Principal Its
cc: Diane Hankee, WSB & Associates Date
Mr. Michael Grochala
June 28, 2016
Page 3
Centerville Road (CR 21/CR 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd
Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Proposal
City of Lino Lakes, MN
Scope of Work
Task 1 – Project Management
This task includes planning and coordination of all work tasks, establishment and monitoring of
budgets, and correspondence with the City of Lino Lakes as lead agency. The project manager will
provide technical direction on all aspects of the project review, all work products, and keep the City
informed on the project progress. The project manager will serve a primary role in the analysis and
preparation of the Study.
Task 2 – Data Collection / Base Map
Available data will be collected from the City of Lino Lakes, City of North Oaks, White Bear
Township, Anoka County, Ramsey County, MnDOT, the adjacent developer and other impacted
agencies as necessary. This data will include but is not limited to:
Existing and historic traffic volume data.
Updated crash history.
Existing topographic data in electronic format.
Aerial photography in electronic format.
Proposed and anticipated development plans in electronic format.
As built roadway plans in electronic format (if available).
It is assumed that the existing base traffic volume data collected as part of the North Oaks
Development project Traffic Study will be used and that no additional traffic data collection will be
required.
WSB will use existing topographic information and aerial mapping of the intersection to document
existing features including right-of- way and easements. This information will be used to prepare
base mapping for preparation of the preliminary designs.
Task 3 – Intersection Analysis
An intersection analysis will be completed evaluating the existing and projected traffic operations and
interaction between the intersections of Centerville Road (CR 21/CR 59) at Ash Street (CR
J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd and, Ash Street (CR J) and 20th Avenue (CR 54)/I35E southbound ramp.
The analysis will specifically include reviewing the warrants and needs for signalization, roundabout,
all-way stop control, two-way stop control, etc. for the intersection of Centerville Road (CR 21/CR
59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd. The analysis will be based on the requirements
outlined by MnDOT State Aid and those found in the “Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices”.
Mr. Michael Grochala
June 28, 2016
Page 4
The traffic operations will be evaluated using Synchro/Simtraffic software for the signal and stop sign
analysis and RODEL software for the roundabout analysis.
In addition the analysis will include: conducting a crash analysis; evaluating the physical
characteristics of the intersection including right-of-way impacts; preparing signal justification
and/or roundabout justification analyses; and assessing project costs for the intersection.
Task 4 – Preliminary Design/Concept Plan
WSB will prepare concept layouts based on the recommendations from the Intersection Analysis
(Task 3) that include the following features:
Recommended roadway geometric improvements
Intersection signing and pavement markings
Preliminary traffic signal design or Preliminary roundabout design
Right-of-way needs
Access accommodations and control within 500 feet in each direction from the
intersection.
The proposed concept plans will be prepared based on the City, County and State Aid design
standards using the base mapping prepared in Task 2. This task will also include preparation of a
preliminary construction cost estimate for the recommended improvements.
Task 5 – Recommendation/Report Preparation
A draft and final report documenting the data collection, study methodology, warrant and
justification for the appropriate intersection control, conclusions and recommendations will be
prepared and follow the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) format and requirements established
by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Anoka and Ramsey Counties and the City of Lino
Lakes.
The report will be prepared and signed by a WSB registered engineer and submitted to the City for
review and comment. It is assumed that the City will provide one set of review comments.
Following receipt of comments, a final report and recommendation will be prepared and submitted
to the City for final approval and signature. The document will then be submitted to Anoka County,
Ramsey County and MnDOT State Aid for review and approval.
Task 6 – Agency Coordination/Meetings
WSB will coordinate the preparation of the ICE Study with the City of Lino Lakes and all other
impacted agencies though use of phone and email correspondence. In addition this task will include
up to three team meetings with staff from the City of Lino Lakes, North Oaks, White Bear
Township, Anoka County and Ramsey County. If additional meetings are required, WSB would bill
those costs at our standard hourly rates.
Mr. Michael Grochala
June 28, 2016
Page 5
Estimated Cost
The estimated cost to prepare the Intersection Control Evaluation Study is based on the above Scope
of Work and is as follows:
Task Amount
Task 1 – Project Management
(8hrs at $158)
$1,264
Task 2 – Data Collection / Base Map
(16hrs at $98, 6hrs at $104)
$2,192
Task 3 – Intersection Analysis
(28hrs at $104, 8hrs at $158)
$4,176
Task 4 – Preliminary Design/Concept Plan
(24hrs at $98, 16hrs at $104, 4hrs at $158)
$4,648
Task 5 – Report Preparation
(8hrs at $104, 4hrs at $158)
$1,464
Task 6 – Agency Coordination
(4hrs at $104, 6hrs at $158)
$1,364
Total Cost $15,108
WSB & Associates, Inc. would bill the City of Lino Lakes for the actual hours worked at each
employee classification times the current WSB hourly rates for that employee classification up to
the maximum of $15,108. No work in excess of the $15,108 will be completed without prior
written approval from the City of Lino Lakes.
Schedule
Based on the above Scope of Work WSB will complete the Draft Intersection Control Evaluation
(ICE) and submit it for approval within 6 weeks following notice to proceed and receipt of all data
from the City and developer. Completion of the Final ICE Report will be based on agency review
time.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6F
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC: Consideration of Resolution No. 16-94, Declaring Cost to
be Assessed – Otter Lake Road Extension
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration to approve the costs proposed to be assessed for
the Otter Lake Road Extension Project
BACKGROUND
The City Council authorized preparation of a Feasibility Study for the Otter Lake Road
Extension Improvements on May 23, 2011. The study was received by the Council on January
9, 2012. Following the required mailed and published notice the City Council held a public
hearing on February 13, 2012. On March 12, 2012 the Council approved Resolution No. 12-27
authorizing preparation of plans and specifications. In June of 2012 the City Council ordered the
improvement. The project was awarded to Arnt Construction Company on March 11, 2013.
The total cost of the improvement is $714,561. The cost to be paid by the City is $185,468 and
the amount proposed to be assessed is $529,093. The City’s share of the project is funded as
follows:
$36,376 Trunk Area and Unit Fund
$149,092 State Aid Street Fund
The balance of the project cost is proposed to be assessed against the abutting benefitted
properties. In January of 2013 the City entered into a Petition and Waiver Agreement with CM
Properties, developer of the McDonalds, covering assessments to properties on the east side of
the road.
An assessment role allocating the cost to benefitting properties will be completed based on the
amount of $529,093. The assessments are proposed to be payable over 10 years at an interest
rate of 5 percent.
The process will be as follows:
1. Council calls for Hearing on Proposed Assessment. (September 12, 2016)
2. Council holds Hearing on Proposed Assessments and Adopts Assessment Role (October
10, 2016)
2
3. Assessments certified to Anoka County for taxes payable 2017. (November 30, 2016).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 16-94.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 16-94
3
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-94
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
OTTER LAKE ROAD EXTENSION
WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvements to Otter Lake Road between Main
Street and a point approximately 440 feet northerly of Main Street by street construction,
installation of sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, traffic control signals and
pedestrian/bicycle facilities and the total cost of the improvement, with related expenses, will be
$714,561; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 429.061 provides that the City Council shall determine by
resolution the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay other than amount, if any,
which it will pay as a property owner and the amount to be specially assessed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes:
1. The City’s share of the total cost of the above-described improvement is hereby declared to be
$185,468 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to
be $529,093.
2. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years,
the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2017 and shall
bear interest at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment
resolution.
3. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City’s engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper
amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel
of land within the assessment area affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law,
and she shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection.
4. The Clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the Council thereof.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of August, 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 6G
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-96, Approving Release
Agreement for 1599 Birch Street, Birch/Centerville Turn
Lane and Utility Improvements
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote Required
INTRODUCTION
Consider approval of the Settlement and Release Agreement for 1599 Birch Street.
BACKGROUND
The Birch Street and Centerville Road turn lane and utility improvement project included
extending sanitary sewer service to 1599 Birch Street. After the Project was completed, the
Owners expressed dissatisfaction with the gradient of the land adjacent to their driveway, which
they claim caused water damage to the driveway. The Owners further assert that the Project
caused water intrusion into their basement, and that the City’s contractor chipped the Owners’
exterior stairs. The City denies liability for the claimed damages.
The Owners intend to replace their driveway with a new asphalt driveway, and desire to have
the City contribute to the cost of the new driveway. The City and the Owners have agreed to
resolve the outstanding dispute which is detailed in the enclosed Settlement and Release
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 16-96, Approving Release Agreement for 1599
Birch Street, Birch/Centerville Turn Lane and Utility Improvements.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 16-96
2. Agreement
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-96
RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT FOR
1599 BIRCH STREET
WHEREAS, The City completed road and utility improvements adjacent to Owners’ property
(“the Project”).
WHEREAS, After the Project was completed, Owners expressed dissatisfaction with the
gradient of the land adjacent to their driveway, which they claim caused water damage to the
driveway. The City denies liability for the claimed damages;
WHEREAS, Owners intend to hire a qualified contractor to replace their entire driveway with a
new asphalt driveway, and desire to have the City contribute to the cost of the new driveway.
WHEREAS, The City and the Owners have agreed to resolve the outstanding dispute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes and the
Owners have agreed to said Settlement and Release Agreement.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of August, 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
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE
This Settlement and Release is entered into by and between the City of Lino Lakes
(“the City”) and Melissa and Trever Lee (“Owners”), owners of property located at 1599
Birch Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55038.
RECITALS
1. The City completed road and utility improvements adjacent to Owners’ property
(“the Project”).
2. After the Project was completed, Owners expressed dissatisfaction with the
gradient of the land adjacent to their driveway, which they claim caused water
damage to the driveway. Owners further assert that the Project caused water
intrusion into their basement, and that the City’s contractor chipped the Owners’
exterior stairs. The City denies liability for the claimed damages.
3. Owners intend to hire a qualified contractor to replace their entire driveway with a
new asphalt driveway, and desire to have the City contribute to the cost of the new
driveway.
4. The City and the Owners have agreed to resolve the outstanding dispute.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, the City and the Owners agree as
follows:
1. The City waives the permit fee for the driveway replacement. This fee waiver
does not eliminate Owners’ obligation to obtain any and all requisite permits for
work performed at 1599 Birch Street.
2. The Owners shall retain a contractor and complete the driveway replacement. All
work on the driveway, including the adjacent retaining walls, shall be performed
in accordance with City Code. Owner is solely responsible for the final grade of
the driveway and all drainage caused by that final grade.
3. Upon satisfactory completion and inspection of the driveway replacement,
including the adjacent retaining walls, Owners shall provide the City with a copy
of the contractor’s invoice. The City shall forward payment to the contractor in
the amount of $2,500. All remaining amounts owed under the invoice shall be
paid by the Owners.
2
4. In consideration of the payment of $2,500 and the waiver of the requisite permit
fee, Owners hereby release and forever discharge the City and its agents,
employees, administrators and insurers from any and all claims, actions, causes of
action, liability and demands whatsoever, alleged or not alleged, that now exist or
may hereafter exist, as a consequence of or arising out of the Project.
5. The parties acknowledge that there are no covenants, promises, representations or
agreements outside of this Settlement and Release and that this agreement
supersedes all previous agreements and discussions.
6. This Settlement and Release shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
7. By signing this Settlement and Release, all parties acknowledge that they have
read this document, that each party has been represented by legal counsel or has
had the opportunity to obtain such legal advice as necessary with respect to
settlement of this dispute, and that the undersigned is fully authorized to bind the
respective party.
City of Lino Lakes
By: _________________________ Dated: ____________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________ Dated: ____________________
Julianne Bartell, Clerk
Owners
____________________________ Dated: ____________________
Melissa Lee
____________________________ Dated: ____________________
Trever Lee
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6H
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: May 9, 2016
TOPIC: i. Consider Resolution No. 16-95, Approving Land
Acquisition from Comcast, Saddle Club Fox Road
Extension
ii. Consider First Reading of Ordinance 10-16, Approving
Sale of Land to Dupont Holdings, LLP.
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council approval of the land purchase from Comcast and the sale of
same land to Dupont Holdings, LLC for the Fox Road extension.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2016 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-13 approving the development
agreement for Saddle Club 2nd Addition which required the future extension of Fox Road
through property currently owned by Comcast. The agreement was contingent on the
Developer and City entering into a purchase agreement for land necessary to construct the
connection. In May of 2016 the City entered into a Land Acquisition Escrow Agreement
providing for the City’s acquisition of the Comcast parcel and sell of said land to developer.
Staff has finalized the agreement with Comcast to purchase the property in the amount of
$100,000. The purchase agreement for the sale of said land in the same amount has also been
finalized. In accordance with the escrow agreement the funds equal to the purchase price have
been placed into escrow with the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 16-95 and the 1st Reading of Ordinance No.
10-16.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 16-95.
2. Purchase Agreement with Comcast
3. Ordinance No. 10-95
4. Purchase Agreement with Dupont Holdings, LLP
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 16-95
APPROVING LAND ACQUISITION FROM COMCAST CCH SUBSIDIARY
HOLDINGS, INC.,
WHEREAS, the City and Dupont Holdings, LLP (“Developer) entered into a Development
Agreement and Planned Unit Development Agreement dated May 6, 2016, for the Saddle Club
Second Addition; and
WHEREAS, a condition of the Development Agreement is that the Developer, is required to
construct Fox Road and extend utilities through the abutting property (a/k/a the Comcast
Property) legally described as:
The South 550.00 feet of the East 330.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 28, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota.
; and
WHEREAS, the City and Developer entered into a Land Acquisition Escrow Agreement
providing for the City’s acquisition of the Comcast parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City has reached an agreement with Comcast CCH Subsidiary Holdings, Inc.,
to acquire the land for the making of said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes:
The city council of the City approves the sale of the property to Comcast CCH Subsidiary
Holdings, Inc. The mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute a purchase
agreement and other documents as may be necessary in order to purchase the Property.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of August, 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
AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE
THIS AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE (this “Agreement”) made as of the
____ day of July, 2016, by and between CITY OF LINO LAKES, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (“Buyer”), and COMCAST CCH SUBSIDIARY HOLDINGS, INC., successor-by-
merger to Comcast MO of the North Central Suburbs, Inc., f/k/a MediaOne of the North Central
Suburbs, Inc., f/k/a Group W Cable of the North Central Suburbs, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Seller”).
In consideration of the covenants and provisions contained in this Agreement, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Agreement to Sell and Purchase.
(a) Property. Seller owns a parcel of land located at 876 Old Birch Street,
Lino Lakes, Minnesota, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the
“Parcel”). Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, subject to the
terms and conditions of this Agreement, an unimproved portion of the Parcel, identified as
“Parcel B” on the minor subdivision survey prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. dated April 1,
2016 (the “Subdivision Plan”) attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 (the “Property”). The remaining
portion of the Parcel to be retained by Seller, identified as “Parcel A” on the Subdivision Plan,
shall be referred to herein as the “Retained Property.”
2. Purchase Price.
(a) Amount; Payment. The purchase price (the “Purchase Price”) for the
Property shall be One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). The Purchase Price shall be
paid as follows:
(i) Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) (the “Deposit”) is to be paid by
Buyer to the Minneapolis, Minnesota office of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Title
Company”), within five (5) business days after the execution and delivery of this Agreement by
both parties.
(ii) The balance of the Purchase Price shall be paid at Closing (as such
term is defined below) by wire transfer of immediately available funds.
3. Disposition of Deposit.
(a) Held in Escrow. The Deposit shall be held in escrow in a federally
insured money market account and disbursed by Title Company strictly in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement and applicable law. All interest earned on the Deposit shall also
comprise part of the Deposit.
- 2 -
(b) Upon Default.
(i) If Buyer, without the right to do so and in default of its obligations
under this Agreement, fails to complete Closing, Seller shall have the right to be paid the Deposit
as liquidated damages. The parties acknowledge that the actual damages which Seller may incur
by reason of Buyer’s default are difficult to quantify as of the date of this Agreement and that the
Deposit constitutes adequate and reasonable compensation to Seller as a result of Buyer’s default
hereunder.
(ii) If Seller, without the right to do so and in default of its obligations
under this Agreement, fails to complete Closing, Buyer shall, as Buyer’s sole and exclusive
remedy, either (i) terminate this Agreement by notice to Seller, and upon the giving of such
notice of termination this Agreement shall terminate, and thereafter neither party shall have any
further rights, obligations or liabilities under this Agreement except to the extent any right,
obligation or liability set forth in this Agreement expressly survives termination of this
Agreement, and receive a return of the Deposit; or (ii) sue for and obtain specific performance
from Seller. As a condition precedent to Buyer exercising any right it may have to bring an
action for specific performance as a result of Seller’s default hereunder, Buyer must commence
such an action within sixty (60) days following the date upon which Closing was to have
occurred. Buyer agrees that its failure to timely commence such an action for specific
performance within this sixty (60)-day period shall be deemed a waiver by it of its right to
commence such an action.
(iii) If Closing is completed, Title Company shall pay the Deposit to
Seller on account of the Purchase Price.
(c) Escrow Provisions. Title Company shall hold the Deposit in accordance
with the terms of the Escrow Investment Instructions and General Settlement Instructions
executed and delivered by Buyer, Seller and Title Company.
4. Closing. The closing and settlement of this transaction (“Closing”) shall take
place through an escrow established with the Title Company. Closing shall occur no later than
ten (10) business days following the later of: (a) the expiration of the Inspection Period, or (b)
Buyer’s receipt of the Approvals (the “Closing Date”).
5. Condition of Title. Seller shall cause the Title Company to issue a title insurance
commitment for the Parcel and deliver a copy thereof to Buyer. Seller shall convey to Buyer at
closing fee simple title to the Property, subject to (a) the lien of real estate taxes, if any, not yet
due and payable and any installments of special assessments certified for payment therewith; (b)
building, subdivision and zoning ordinances; (c) all matters of record; and (d) any other matters
identified in the title insurance commitment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at or before
Closing, Seller shall be obligated to cure, remove or provide for the satisfaction of any mortgage
liens and security interests encumbering the Property and the satisfaction (or insurance over) of
any mechanics liens or judgment liens other than any liens arising out of Buyer’s activities with
respect to the Property. Otherwise Seller is not required to cure, remove or provide for the
satisfaction of any claimed title defect.
- 3 -
6. Possession; Seller’s Closing Documents.
(a) Actual, sole and exclusive physical possession of the Property shall be
given to Buyer at Closing unoccupied and free of any leases, claims to, or rights of possession,
including any rights of tenants, by delivery of Seller’s limited warranty deed, duly executed and
acknowledged by Seller (the “Deed”). Seller shall also deliver a “FIRPTA” certificate and a
secretary’s certificate in Seller’s standard form regarding Seller’s authority to convey the
Property. Seller shall have no obligation to deliver any other documents at Closing.
7. Apportionments.
(a) Taxes, Rents, etc. Real estate taxes on the Property, water and sewer
rents, other municipal charges, and any lienable owners’ association assessments and charges
shall be apportioned pro rata between Seller and Buyer on a per diem basis as of the Closing
Date. In the event ad valorem and special improvement taxes for the year in which Closing
occurs are unavailable on the Closing Date, prorations for taxes will be based upon the ad
valorem and special improvement taxes for the prior year subject to adjustment by the parties
within thirty (30) days after the same for the current tax year become available.
(b) Other Closing Costs.
(i) Buyer’s Responsibility. Whether or not Closing actually occurs
hereunder, Buyer shall be solely responsible for all fees, costs and expenses incident to this
transaction and the Closing, including, without limitation: (A) realty transfer taxes imposed upon
the delivery and/or recording of the Deed or upon this transaction; (B) the fees of any counsel
representing it in this transaction, (C) the premium for any title insurance policy obtained by
Buyer and all related search charges, including the charge for any extended coverage or other
endorsements, (D) the cost of recording the Deed, (E) the cost of any survey obtained by Buyer,
(F) all of Title Company’s escrow and the closing fees, (G) mortgage recording fees and
documentary stamp taxes and intangible taxes imposed on any mortgage financing which Buyer
may obtain in connection with its acquisition of the Property, (H) any costs associated with any
financing which Buyer may obtain in connection with its acquisition of the Property, (I) any
costs associated with obtaining Subdivision Approval (as hereinafter defined), and (J) all other
costs and expenses incident to this transaction, except as otherwise expressly set forth in Sections
7(a) and 7(b)(ii) hereof.
(ii) Seller’s Responsibility. Seller shall pay (A) the fees of any counsel
representing it in connection with this transaction, and (B) all costs to cure or attempt to cure any
title objection that Seller elects to cure or is obligated to cure pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement.
(iii) The provisions of this Section 7 shall survive the Closing or any
termination of this Agreement.
8. Inspection Contingency.
(a) Buyer’s Inspection Right. Buyer, and its attorneys, accountants,
architects, engineers and other representatives shall, during the period (“Inspection Period”)
- 4 -
commencing on the date of this Agreement and expiring at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the date
that is sixty (60) days after the mutual execution and delivery of this Agreement have the
opportunity to examine the Property, the Property’s compliance with zoning and all other
applicable laws, and the title to and the physical condition of the Property.
(b) Restoration. Following completion of Buyer’s inspections, Buyer shall
promptly and diligently restore any portion of the Property disturbed or damaged by Buyer or its
representatives to its condition prior to Buyer’s entry hereunder, at Buyer’s sole cost and
expense.
(c) Indemnification. Except to the extent arising from or out of the gross
negligence or willful misconduct of Seller or Seller’s officers, directors, employees and agents,
Buyer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Seller and Seller’s officers, directors,
employees and agents from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, liabilities, losses,
damages and expenses of every kind and nature (including, without limitation, reasonable
attorneys’ fees and court costs) arising in whole or in part from (i) any act or omission of Buyer
or any of its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, attorneys, accountants, architects,
engineers and other representatives while in, on or about the Property, and (ii) any loss, damage
or injury, including death, that is suffered or sustained by, Buyer or any of its employees, agents,
contractors, subcontractors, attorneys, accountants, architects, engineers and other
representatives while in, on or about the Property. The provisions of this subsection (iii) will
survive Closing or any termination of this Agreement.
(d) Buyer’s Termination Right. On or before the expiration of the Inspection
Period, Buyer shall provide Seller with written notice of Buyer’s election either (i) to proceed to
Closing, in which event Buyer shall no longer have any right to terminate this Agreement
pursuant to this Section 8 or (ii) to terminate this Agreement. Such election shall be made by
Buyer in its sole and absolute discretion. If Buyer terminates this Agreement pursuant to this
Section, the Deposit shall be promptly paid to Buyer, and thereafter neither party shall have any
further rights, obligations or liabilities under this Agreement except to the extent any right,
obligation or liability set forth in this Agreement expressly survives termination of this
Agreement. If Buyer does not give Seller written notice terminating this Agreement prior to
expiration of the Inspection Period, Buyer shall be deemed to have elected to proceed to Closing.
(e) Release. Buyer acknowledges that it has had or will have an adequate
opportunity to inspect the Property, including the physical and environmental condition of the
property. Seller makes no representations or warranties with respect to the Property. Buyer
releases the Seller and the Seller’s officers, directors, partners, members, shareholders,
employees, and agents from any and all claims, causes of actions, damages, liabilities, costs and
expenses (including attorney’s fees whether suit is instituted or not) whether known or unknown,
liquidated or contingent (collectively the “claims”) arising from or relating to any conditions,
including environmental and other physical conditions, affecting the Property. The release set
forth herein specifically includes, without limitation, any claims under any environmental laws
of the United States, the state in which the Property is located or any political subdivision
thereof, as any of those laws may be amended from time to time. The provisions of this
subsection (e) will survive closing.
- 5 -
(f) Subdivision Approval. Buyer shall not be obligated to purchase the
Property from Seller and Seller shall not be obligated to sell the Property to Buyer unless within
six (6) months following the date of mutual execution and delivery of this Agreement (the
“Approvals Period”), Buyer has, at its sole cost and expense, obtained approval from the City of
Lino Lakes (the “City”) to subdivide the Parcel into the Property and the Retained Property as
shown in the Subdivision Plan (the “Subdivision Approval”). Buyer agrees to proceed with
diligence and in good faith to submit the necessary applications, plans, specifications, plats and
surveys to the City to obtain the Subdivision Approval. Buyer, at its sole cost and expense shall
(i) prepare and submit any and all applications, plans, specifications, plats and surveys to Seller
for Seller’s review and approval prior to making any submissions to the City; (ii) obtain Seller’s
approval of any amendments or modifications to any submissions previously approved by Seller
or of any supplemental submissions being made to the City; and (iii) obtain Seller’s approval
prior to agreeing to any undertaking required by the City that could have an impact on the
Retained Property. At Buyer’s request (and at Buyer’s sole cost and expense including the fees
of Seller’s counsel), Seller will join in any applications prepared by Buyer and approved by
Seller and otherwise cooperate with Buyer in accomplishing the foregoing. Where Seller’s
approval is required under this Section 8(f), Seller may withhold such approval in its sole
discretion. Buyer shall provide Seller with monthly updates on the status of the Subdivision
Approval commencing on the 15th day of the month immediately following the expiration of the
Inspection Period and give Seller at least ten (10) days prior notice of any hearings before the
City in connection with the Subdivision Approval. Seller shall have the right but no obligation
to have a representative and/or counsel present at and provide testimony at any such hearings.
9. Brokerage. Each party hereby represents and warrants to the other it has dealt
with no broker, finder or other intermediary in connection with this sale. Buyer and Seller each
agrees to indemnify, defend and hold each other harmless from and against all claims, demands,
causes of action, loss, damages, liabilities costs and expenses (including without limitation
attorneys’ fees and court costs) arising from any claims for commissions made by any broker,
finder or other intermediary. The provisions of this Section shall survive Closing.
10. Notices. All notices, demands, requests or other communications from either
party to the other required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and,
unless and until otherwise specified in a written notice by the party to whom notice is intended to
be given, shall be sent to the parties at the respective addresses set forth below or such other
address as may be so designated by either party. Notices may be given on behalf of any party by
its legal counsel. Each such notice, demand, request or other communication shall be given (i)
against a written receipt of hand delivery, (ii) by registered or certified mail of the United States
Postal Service, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or (iii) by a nationally recognized
overnight courier service for next business day delivery. Each such notice, demand request, or
other communication shall be deemed to have been given upon actual receipt or refusal by the
addressee.
- 6 -
If intended for Buyer:
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Attn.: Community Development Director
If intended for Seller:
Comcast CCH Subsidiary Holdings, Inc.
10 River Park Plaza
St. Paul, MN 55107
Attn: Real Estate Department
With a copy to:
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2838
Attn: Jennifer Kissiah Hunt, Esquire
If intended for Title Company:
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
222 South 9th Street, Suite 3060
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Attn: Holly Johnsen
11. Intentionally Omitted.
12. Intentionally Omitted.
13. Miscellaneous.
(a) Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall
inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors
and permitted assigns. Buyer shall not have the right to assign this Agreement without Seller’s
prior written consent, which may be withheld by Seller in its sole discretion.
(b) Entire Agreement; Governing Law. This Agreement contains the entire
understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, supersedes all prior or
other negotiations, representations, understandings and agreements of, by or among the parties,
express or implied, oral or written, which are fully merged herein. Any agreement hereafter
made shall be ineffective to change, modify, discharge or effect an abandonment of this
Agreement unless such agreement is in writing and signed by the party against whom
- 7 -
enforcement of such change, modification, discharge or abandonment is sought. This Agreement
shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State in which the Property is located.
(c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party whose
signature appears thereon, and all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument.
This Agreement shall be binding when one or more counterparts hereof, individually or taken
together, shall bear the signatures of all of the parties reflected on this Agreement as the
signatories.
(d) No Waiver. Neither the failure nor any delay on the part of either party to
this Agreement to exercise any right, remedy, power or privilege under this Agreement shall
operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, remedy, power or
privilege preclude any other or further exercise of the same or of any other right, remedy, power
or privilege, nor shall any waiver of any right, remedy, power or privilege with respect to any
occurrence be construed as a waiver of any such right, remedy, power or privilege with respect to
any other occurrence. No waiver shall be effective unless it is in writing and is signed by the
party asserted to have granted such waiver.
(e) Time of the Essence. Time, wherever stated in this Agreement is declared
to be of the essence of this Agreement.
(f) WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. SELLER AND BUYER
INTENTIONALLY, UNCONDITIONALLY AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT
THEY MAY HAVE TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR
COUNTERCLAIM (WHETHER ARISING IN TORT OR CONTRACT) ARISING OUT OF
OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS AGREEMENT.
(g) NO WARRANTY. EXCEPT FOR SELLER’S EXPRESS
REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS AGREEMENT, IF ANY, BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES
AND AGREES THAT THE PROPERTY SHALL BE SOLD, AND BUYER SHALL ACCEPT
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON THE CLOSING DATE “AS IS – WHERE IS, WITH
ALL FAULTS,” WITH NO RIGHT OF SETOFF OR REDUCTION IN THE PURCHASE
PRICE, AND BUYER SHALL ASSUME THE RISK THAT ADVERSE PHYSICAL,
ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC OR LEGAL CONDITIONS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
REVEALED BY BUYER’S INVESTIGATIONS. EXCEPT AS MAY BE EXPRESSLY SET
FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, NEITHER SELLER, ITS EMPLOYEES,
REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, COUNSEL, BROKER, SALES AGENT, NOR ANY
PARTNER, OFFICER, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE, TRUSTEE, SHAREHOLDER,
PRINCIPAL, PARENT, SUBSIDIARY, AFFILIATE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF SELLER,
ITS COUNSEL, BROKER OR SALES AGENT, NOR ANY OTHER PARTY RELATED IN
ANY WAY TO ANY OF THE FOREGOING (COLLECTIVELY, “SELLER’S
REPRESENTATIVES”) HAVE OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE MADE ANY
REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THE
PROPERTY OR ANY MATTERS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION, THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, TITLE TO OR
BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY, PEST CONTROL, SOIL CONDITIONS, THE
- 8 -
PRESENCE OR ABSENCE, LOCATION OR SCOPE OF ANY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IN, AT, OR UNDER THE PROPERTY, COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING, HEALTH,
SAFETY, LAND USE OR ZONING LAWS, OTHER ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS,
TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND ALL OTHER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE
PROPERTY. BUYER MOREOVER ACKNOWLEDGES (A) THAT BUYER IS A
SOPHISTICATED BUYER, KNOWLEDGEABLE AND EXPERIENCED IN THE
FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS RISKS ATTENDANT TO AN INVESTMENT IN REAL
PROPERTY AND CAPABLE OF EVALUATING THE MERITS AND RISKS OF
ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, (B) THAT
BUYER HAS ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT IN RELIANCE ON ITS OWN (OR ITS
EXPERTS’) INVESTIGATION OF THE PHYSICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC
AND LEGAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, AND (C) THAT BUYER IS NOT
RELYING UPON ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY CONCERNING THE
PROPERTY MADE BY SELLER OR SELLER’S REPRESENTATIVES OTHER THAN AS
MAY BE EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT. SELLER SHALL NOT HAVE
ANY LIABILITY OF ANY KIND OR NATURE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENTLY
DISCOVERED DEFECTS IN THE PROPERTY, WHETHER THOSE DEFECTS WERE
LATENT OR PATENT.
____________________
Buyer’s Initials
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this
Agreement as a sealed instrument as of the day and year first above written.
BUYER
CITY OF LINO LAKES
By:____________________________
Name:
Title:
SELLER
COMCAST CCH SUBSIDIARY
HOLDINGS, INC.
By:____________________________
Name:
Title:
JOINDER OF TITLE COMPANY
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned, the Title Company named in the annexed Agreement, hereby
agrees to be bound by the provisions of the annexed Agreement relating to the holding and
disbursement of all monies paid to the undersigned in escrow, and to disburse such sums strictly
in accordance with the terms of such Agreement.
Intending to be legally bound, the undersigned has caused this Joinder to be executed by
its duly authorized representative as of the ___ day of _________, 2016.
TITLE COMPANY
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY
By: ____________________________
Name:_______________________
Title:________________________
Exhibit A - 1
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL
The East 330.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township
31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota
Pin No. 28-31-22-33-0003
Exhibit A-1 – 1
EXHIBIT A-1
SUBDIVISION PLAN
1st Reading: Publication:
2nd Reading: Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 10-16
ORDINANCE APPROVING SALE OF LAND TO DUPONT HOLDINGS, LLC
The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains:
Section 1. Property. The City is the fee owner of the real property legally described as:
The South 550.00 feet of the East 330.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota
Section 2. Findings.
1. City (Seller) and Dupont Holdings, LLC (Buyer) entered into a
Development Agreement and Planned Unit Development Agreement dated
May 6, 2016, for the Saddle Club Second Addition; and
2. a condition of the Development Agreement is that Buyer acquire fee simple
title to the referenced Property from the Seller in order to install road and
utility improvements.
3. City and Seller entered into a Land Acquisition Escrow Agreement dated May 11,
2016, whereby buyer deposited with the Seller certified funds (the “Escrowed
Funds”) for purchase of the Property.
Section 3. Easements
Easements in gross across the entire Property for right-of-way, utilities (water and
sanitary sewer) and drainage and utilities (storm water) shall be provided on the property.
As part of any subsequent platting process for the Property, such easements shall be
dedicated to the City in the locations where the right-of-way and the water, sanitary
sewer storm sewer systems are constructed, in the size and shape as is customary for Lino
Lakes, and the easements in gross shall be vacated by the City.
Section 4. Authorization
The city council of the City approves the sale of the property to Dupont
Holdings, LLC. The mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute
a purchase agreement and other documents as may be necessary in order to sell the
Property. Proceeds from the sale of the Property shall be used in accordance with the
requirements of the city charter.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days following
its passage and publication, in accordance with section 3.09 of the city charter.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 22nd day of August, 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
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Lino Lakes, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (“Seller”), and Dupont Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (“Buyer”).
In consideration of the Purchase Price, the mutual covenants set forth below, and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
Seller and Buyer agree as follows:
1. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Agreement is ________________ (the
“Effective Date”).
2. SALE OF PROPERTY. Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to buy from
Seller, the Property, legally described as follows:
The South 550.00 feet of the East 330.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 28, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota
and further identified by Anoka County by the following property identification number:
[PID not yet assigned]
3. PURCHASE PRICE. The purchase price for the Property is $100,000.00 (the “Purchase
Price”).
4. EARNEST MONEY. Upon execution of this Purchase Agreement, Buyer must deposit the
full Purchase Price of $100,000.00 with the Seller to be held in escrow until closing. The
deposit shall be by wire transfer or delivery of a certified check.
a. If Buyer does not deposit the full Purchase Price as required above, then Seller
may terminate this Agreement by written notice to Buyer; provided, however, if
Buyer deposits the Purchase Price with Escrow Agent before Seller exercises
Seller’s right to terminate, Seller’s right to terminate is extinguished.
b. At Closing, the funds deposited in escrow with Seller shall be released from
escrow and disbursed to Seller.
5. SURVEY. Seller shall provide the April 1, 2016, minor subdivision survey obtained
from E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. to Buyer upon execution of this Purchase Agreement.
6. TITLE COMMITMENT.
a. Seller makes no representations or warranties with respect to the status of title to
the Property. Buyer obtained a title commitment from Landtitle dated March 31,
2016 (LT File No. 535453), and has no objections to title.
2
7. RIGHT OF ENTRY. After Seller obtains title to the Property and Buyer has deposited
the Purchase Price with Seller, Buyer (and its employees, agents, and contractors) may
enter the Property for the purpose of conducting soil tests, environmental tests and
additional survey work, subject to the following conditions:
a. Upon the earlier of the date one week after Buyer’s completion of its activities on
the Property or the date one week after the termination of this Agreement, if either
Seller or Buyer terminate this Agreement in accordance with the provisions
hereof prior to Closing, Buyer must repair and or restore any damage Buyer or its
employees, agents or contractors cause to the Property and remove any personal
property, refuse or debris Buyer or its employees, agents or contractors brought
onto or authorized third parties to bring onto the Property.
b. Buyer must defend and indemnify Seller from and against and hold Seller
harmless Seller from all “Claims,” as defined in Section 10, arising out of,
resulting from or relating to any loss of or damage to any property or business or
out of any injury to or death of any person, if the loss, damage, injury, or death
arises or is alleged to arise either directly or indirectly and either wholly or in part
from: (a) any action or omission of Buyer or its employees, agents, or contractors,
while on the Property pursuant to this Section; or (b) actions or omissions of
Buyer or Buyer’s employees, agents, or contractors that cause or result in the
release of any Hazardous Substance onto the Property or onto other property.
c. Buyer must comply with and shall cause it employees, agents, and contractors to
comply with all applicable laws, while on the Property.
d. Buyer may not commence any environmental testing on the Property until Buyer
submits a work plan for such testing to Seller and Seller approves the work plan,
in writing. Seller may not unreasonably withhold, condition or delay Seller’s
approval of a work plan.
e. Buyer must, promptly and without demand from Seller, provide Seller with true
and complete copies of all draft and final reports relating to Buyer’s geotechnical
and environmental investigations and testing of the Property including, without
limitation, any reports relating to any Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of
the Property.
f. The cost of any test or additional survey work will be borne solely by Buyer.
8. PROPERTY SOLD AS IS. Subject to Buyer’s right to terminate this Agreement
pursuant to Section 9, Buyer agrees to accept the Property in its current condition,
including, without limitation, its current environmental and geological condition, and in
an “AS-IS” and with “ALL FAULTS” condition. Buyer’s payment of the Purchase Price
at Closing constitutes Buyer’s acknowledgment and agreement that:
3
a. Seller has not made any written or oral representations or warranties of any kind
with respect to the Property (including without limitation express or implied
warranties of title, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose);
b. Buyer has not relied on any written or oral representation or warranty made by
Seller, its agents or employees with respect to the condition or value of the
Property;
c. Buyer has had an adequate opportunity to inspect the condition of the Property,
including without limitation any environmental testing, and to inspect documents
applicable thereto, and Buyer is relying solely on such inspection and testing; and
d. The condition of the Property is fit for Buyer’s intended use.
e. Buyer accepts all risk of Claims (including without limitation all Claims under
any Environmental Law and all Claims arising at common law, in equity or under
a federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation) whether past, present or future,
existing or contingent, known or unknown, arising out of, resulting from or
relating to the condition of the Property, known or unknown, contemplated or
uncontemplated, suspected or unsuspected, including without limitation the
presence of any Hazardous Substance on the Property, whether such Hazardous
Substance is located on or under the Property, or has migrated from or to the
Property.
9. INSPECTION.
a. Buyer has inspected the Property and determined that the condition of the Property is
suitable to Buyer’s intended use.
10. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Agreement:
“Claim” or “Claims” means any and all liabilities, suits, claims, counterclaims, causes of
action, demands, penalties, debts, obligations, promises, acts, fines, judgments, damages,
consequential damages, losses, costs, and expenses of every kind (including without
limitation any attorney’s fees, consultant’s fees, costs, remedial action costs, cleanup
costs and expenses which may be related to any claims).
“Environmental Law” means the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (the Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., and the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., all
as amended from time to time, and any other federal, state, local or other governmental
statute, regulation, rule, law or ordinance dealing with the protection of human health,
safety, natural resources or the environment now existing or hereafter enacted.
4
“Hazardous Substance” or “Hazardous Substances” means any pollutant, contaminant,
hazardous substance or waste, solid waste, petroleum product, distillate, or fraction,
radioactive material, chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity,
polychlorinated biphenyl or any other chemical, substance or material listed or identified
in or regulated by any Environmental Law.
11. RELEASE. Buyer, for itself, its directors, officers, stockholders, divisions, agents,
affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and assigns and anyone acting on its
behalf or their behalf hereby fully releases and forever discharges Seller from any and all
Claims (including without limitation all Claims arising under any Environmental Law
and all Claims arising at common law, in equity or under a federal, state or local statute,
rule or regulation), past, present and future, known and unknown, existing and
contingent, arising out of, resulting from, or relating to the condition of the Property, and
Buyer hereby waives any and all causes of action (including without limitation any right
of contribution) Buyer had, has or may have against Seller and anyone acting on its
behalf with respect to the condition of the Property, whether arising at common law, in
equity or under a federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation. The foregoing shall
apply to any condition of the Property, known or unknown, contemplated or
uncontemplated, suspected or unsuspected, including without limitation the presence of
any Hazardous Substance on the Property, whether such Hazardous Substance is located
on or under the Property, or has migrated from or to the Property.
12. INDEMNITY. Buyer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Seller or anyone
acting on its behalf for, from and against any and all Claims (including without limitation
all Claims arising under any Environmental Law and all Claims arising at common law,
in equity or under a federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation) past, present and
future, existing and contingent, known and unknown arising out of, resulting from, or
relating to the condition of the Property. The foregoing shall apply to any condition of
the Property, known or unknown, contemplated or uncontemplated, suspected or
unsuspected, including without limitation the presence of any Hazardous Substance on
the Property, whether such Hazardous Substance is located on or under the Property, or
has migrated from or to the Property, regardless of whether the foregoing condition of the
Property was caused in whole or in part by the Seller’s actions or inactions.
13. NOTICES. Notices permitted or required by this Agreement must be in writing and
shall be deemed given when delivered in legible form to the party to whom addressed.
Notices may be sent by certified mail, fax or e-mail. Notices are effective two business
days after they are mailed via certified mail, return receipt requested or, if delivered in
any other manner, when the party to whom the notice is directed actually receives the
notice. If delivered at the Closing, a notice shall be deemed given when hand-delivered
to the party's representative at the Closing. The business addresses of the parties are as
follows:
Seller: Director of Community Development
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
5
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Buyer: Marcel Eibensteiner
Dupont Holdings, LLC
1000 County Road West, Suite 150
Shoreview, MN 55126
Notices not given in the manner or within the time limits set forth in this Agreement are
of no effect and may be disregarded by the party to whom they are directed.
14. CLOSING. This transaction shall close on ___________, 2016, or on such earlier date
as Seller and Buyer may establish by mutual, written agreement. The Closing shall take
place at a location the parties mutually agree upon prior to such date.
a. Seller’s Obligations at Closing. At Closing, Seller must deliver to Escrow
Agent, for delivery to Buyer:
i. A warranty deed, duly executed and acknowledged on behalf of the City
conveying title to the Property, subject to (A) the lien of real estate taxes,
if any, not yet due and payable and any installments of special assessments
certified for payment therewith; (B) Building, Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances; (C) Matters that would be disclosed by an accurate survey of
the Property; and (D) any defects or encumbrances on title to which Buyer
has not objected;
ii. A certified copy of a duly adopted City Ordinance and Resolution
authorizing Seller’s sale of the Property to Buyer; and
iii. Seller’s affidavits, well disclosure certificate (if required), settlement
statement approved by Seller and Buyer, and any other documents
required for the closing.
b. Buyer’s Obligations at Closing. At Closing, Buyer must:
i. Wire Transfer (or deliver a certified check in) an amount Buyer must pay
or will receive pursuant to Section 14(c), for disbursement to Seller and
others pursuant to this Agreement and the Settlement Statement; and
ii. File or cause Escrow Agent to file an Electronic Certificate of Real Estate
Value.
c. Closing Costs.
i. At Closing, the following Seller closing costs and expenses must be paid
from the Purchaser Price or, if the Purchase Price is not sufficient, paid by
Seller:
6
1. Seller’s portion of the prorated property taxes.
2. Seller’s own attorney’s fees.
3. One-half the cost of any closing fees.
4. State deed tax.
5. The cost of providing Title Commitment as prescribed in Section
6.
6. The cost of providing the April 1, 2016, survey.
ii. At Closing Buyer must pay the Purchase Price to Seller and the following
costs and expenses:
1. Buyer’s portion of prorated property taxes.
2. Buyer’s own attorney’s fees.
3. Documentary and recording fees for the deed(s).
4. One-half the cost of any closing fees.
5. The cost of the owner’s title insurance policy if Buyer elects to
purchase an Owner’s title insurance policy.
d. Possession. Seller must deliver possession of the Property to Buyer at Closing.
15. REAL ESTATE BROKERS. Seller and Buyer represent and warrant to each other that
they have dealt with no brokers, real estate agents, finders or the like in connection with
this transaction. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify each other and to hold each other
harmless against all claims, damages, costs or expenses of or for any broker’s fees or
commissions resulting for their actions or agreements regarding the execution or
performance of this Agreement, other than the fees payable to Seller’s Broker, and will
pay all costs of defending any action or lawsuit brought to recover any such fees or
commissions incurred by the other party, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
16. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement may not be assigned without the written consent of
the non-assigning Party.
17. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY. There are no third party beneficiaries of this
Agreement, intended or otherwise.
18. JOINT VENTURE. Seller and Buyer, by entering into this Agreement and completing
the transactions described herein, shall not be considered joint venturers or partners.
19. CAPTIONS. The paragraph headings or captions appearing in this Agreement are for
convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement, and are not to be considered in
interpreting this Agreement.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT / MODIFICATION. This written Agreement, and the related
Development Agreement, if any, constitutes the complete agreement between the parties
and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding the
7
Property. There are no verbal agreements that change this Agreement and no waiver or
modification of an y of its terms will be effective unless in writing executed by the parties.
In the event the terms of this Agreement conflict with the terms of the Development
Agreement, the latter shall control.
21. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement binds and benefits the Parties and their
successors and assigns.
22. CONTROLLING LAW. This Agreement is made under the laws of the State of
Minnesota and such laws will control its interpretation.
23. REMEDIES.
a. If Buyer fails to perform any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement within
the specified time limits, Seller may declare this Agreement terminated pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes section 559.21. Seller’s sole remedy in the event of
Buyer’s default is retention of the Purchase Price, unless Buyer defaults under
Section 7 or 12 of this Agreement, in which case Seller may retain the Purchase
Price or suspend the performance of its obligations under this Agreement and
commence an action in Anoka County District Court to recover its actual damages
arising from the default.
b. If Seller fails to perform any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement within
the specified time limits, Buyer may, as its sole remedy, declare this Agreement
terminated in which case Seller shall refund the Purchase Price to Buyer, or, in the
alternative, Buyer may have this Agreement specifically enforced. Buyer waives
all claims for consequential damages against Seller based on Seller’s breach or
alleged default hereunder.
24. WAIVER. Failure of Seller or Buyer to insist upon the performance of any of the
covenants, agreements and/or conditions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or
privilege herein shall not be deemed a waiver of any such covenant, condition or right.
25. SURVIVAL OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS. The terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall survive and be in full force and effect after the delivery of the deed, and
shall not be deemed to have merged therein.
26. SEVERABILITY. Each provision of this Agreement shall apply to the extent permitted
by applicable law and is intended to be severable. If any provision is illegal or invalid for
any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the legality or validity
of the remainder of the Agreement.
27. CONSTRUCTION. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement was initially
prepared by Seller solely as a convenience and that all Parties and their counsel hereto
have read and full negotiated all the language used in this Agreement. The Parties
acknowledge that because all Parties and their counsel participated in negotiating and
8
drafting this Agreement, no rule of construction shall apply to this Agreement to construe
ambiguous or unclear language in favor of or against any Party.
28. COUNTERPARTS; DIGITAL COPIES. This Agreement may be executed in any
number of counterparts and the signature pages of the separate counterparts combined
into a single copy of this Agreement which will then constitute a fully executed version
of this Agreement. A facsimile, .pdf file or digital copy of a signed counterpart or of an
assemblage of counterparts of this Agreement shall be deemed to be an original thereof.
29. EASEMENTS. In consideration of the sale of this Property, Buyer agrees to provide the
Seller with easements in gross across the entire Property for right-of-way, utilities (water
and sanitary sewer) and drainage and utilities (storm water). Said easements shall either
be reserved to Seller within the warranty deed or contemporaneously provided by Buyer
to Seller in a separate easement document. As part of any subsequent platting process for
the Property, such easements shall be dedicated to the City in the locations where the
right-of-way and the water, sanitary sewer storm sewer systems are constructed, in the
size and shape as is customary for Lino Lakes, and the easements in gross shall be
vacated by the City.
SELLER: The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
By: ____________________________ Dated: ___________________, 2016
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: ____________________________
Julie Bartell, City Clerk
BUYER: Dupont Holdings, LLC
By: ____________________________ Dated: ___________________, 2016
Marcel Eibensteiner
Its: _______________________
DRAFT5/16/2016 7/11/2016 8/8/2016 8/22/2016
Adopted Estimate Requested Requested Requested
2016 2017 2017 2017 2017
Tax Levies
General Fund Levy 7,018,572 7,857,659 7,919,873 8,017,778 7,601,778
Debt Levies 2,039,856 2,155,275 2,155,275 2,155,275 2,155,275
Total Tax Levy 9,058,428 10,012,934 10,075,148 10,173,053 9,757,053
Year-over-Year Change Levy $954,506 1,016,720 1,114,625 698,625
Drill-Down on Year-Over-Year Levy Changes
Adopted Estimate Requested Requested Requested
2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 Change
Revenues
Property Taxes (Delinquent, Penalties/Interest)105,000 64,500 64,500 64,500 (40,500)
Intergovt Revenue 655,000 681,409 681,409 681,409 26,409
Business Licenses/Permits 103,300 118,229 118,229 126,229 22,929
Non-Business Licenses/Permits 388,683 486,524 486,524 486,524 97,841
Charges for Services 33,350 34,600 34,600 34,600 1,250
Public Safety Service Charges 211,200 206,200 206,200 206,200 (5,000)
Municipal Fines 150,500 175,600 175,600 175,600 25,100
Miscellaneous 214,805 222,348 222,348 222,348 7,543
Transfers from Closed Bond Fund/Office Equip Revolv 478,084 317,717 317,717 317,717 317,717 (160,367)
Use of Reserves 423,000 - - - 408,000 (15,000)
Total Revenues/Funding Sources 2,762,922 317,717 2,307,127 2,307,127 2,723,127 (39,795)
Expenditures
Personal Services 6,709,435 6,965,155 6,980,369 6,978,274 6,978,274 268,839
Supplies 518,650 518,650 488,700 488,700 488,700 (29,950)
Other Services and Charnges 1,197,583 1,197,583 1,306,590 1,306,590 1,306,590 109,007
Contracted Services 711,026 711,026 758,526 758,526 758,526 47,500
Capital Outlay 74,800 74,800 122,014 122,014 122,014 47,214
Others 665,000 665,000 665,800 765,800 765,800 100,800
Total Expenditures 9,876,494 10,132,214 10,321,999 10,419,905 10,419,905 543,411
Debt Service
Bonds 1,504,894 1,518,143 1,518,143 1,518,143 1,518,143 13,249
Certificates of Indebtedness 534,962 637,132 637,132 637,132 637,132 102,170
Total Debt Service 2,039,856 2,155,275 2,155,275 2,155,275 2,155,275 115,419
0
Year-over-Year Change Levy $954,506 1,016,720 1,114,625 698,625
Levy Supported by Valuation Increase ($9,685,562)520,359 544,652 544,652 627,134
Gap to Maintain Flat Tax Capacity Rate 434,147 472,068 569,973 71,491
GENERAL FUND FORECAST GAP ANALYSIS
2016-2017
8.22.2016 DRAFT
DRAFTAdopted Adopted Requested Difference
2015 2016 2017 2016-2017
General Fund Levy 7,490,578 7,018,572 7,601,778 583,206
Special Levy - PERA Contribution - - - -
Total Operating Levy 7,490,578 7,018,572 7,601,778 583,206
Debt Levy
Certificate of Indebtedness 2012 54,086 - - -
Certificate of Indebtedness 2013 69,615 68,933 - (68,933)
Certificate of Indebtedness 2014 177,952 178,868 178,164 (704)
Certificate of Indebtedness 2015A - 72,240 71,749 (491)
Certificate of Indebtedness 2015B - 214,921 215,030 109
Certificate of Indebtedness 2016 - - 172,189 172,189
G.O. Tax Abatement Bond 2006C (2)264,458 278,140 285,411 7,271
G.O. CIP Refunding Bond 2006E (3)449,820 460,110 464,100 3,990
G.O. Bond 2012A (Signal Project) (1)179,563 178,749 177,692 (1,057)
G.O. Bond 2015A (Street Reconstruction) (1)- 214,922 217,127 2,205
G.O. Bond 2015A - Abatement Portion - 57,041 56,096 (945)
EDA Lease/Revenue Bond 2015 (Fire Station #2)- 315,932 317,717 1,785
Total Debt Levy 1,195,494 2,039,856 2,155,275 115,419
Total Levy 8,686,072 9,058,428 9,757,053 698,625
(1) Levy result of Voter-Approved Referendum
(2) Levy result of participation in YMCA project
(3) Levy result of Civic Complex Construction.
City of Lino Lakes
2017 Requested Tax Levy
B-7 8.22.2016 DRAFT
DRAFTActual Adopted Estimate
2015 2016 2017
Taxable Market Value 1,694,366,064 1,700,256,462 1,812,791,827
Annual % Change 12.22%0.35%6.62%
Total Net Tax Capacity Value 18,339,615 18,453,593 19,726,431
Less FD Contribution in Value 1,072,910 1,115,825 1,168,170
Less Captured Value for Tax Increment 236,559 261,572 290,000
Total Net Tax Capacity Value 17,030,146 17,076,196 18,268,261
Annual % Change 12.46%0.27%6.98%
2015 2016 2017
Total Levy 8,686,072 9,058,428 9,757,053
Less FD Distribution 1,232,171 1,206,188 1,284,902
Total Net Levy for Tax Rate 7,453,901 7,852,240 8,472,151
Annual % Change 5.44%5.34%7.89%
Projected City Tax Capacity Rate 43.770%45.985%46.376%
CITY OF LINO LAKES
2017 General Fund Budget/Gap Analysis
Net Tax Capacity Calculation
Net Tax Capacity Rate Calculation
B-8 8.22.2016 DRAFT
Woods Edge
D&U Easement Vacate
City Council
August 22, 2016
1
Woods Edge
•112 attached townhome development
•Vacate Drainage & Utility Easements
•Outlot B & Outlot D
•The Village No. 3
2
3
4
Outlot D
•Easement over existing watermain
•Watermain is being relocated under
private road (Outlot A)
•Easement no longer needed
Outlot B
•Easement over stormwater ponds and
drainage areas
•Easements will be rededicated on final
plat of Woods Edge
Council Action
PUBLIC HEARING
•Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 08-16, Vacating
Drainage & Utility Easements, Outlot B and Outlot D, The
Village No. 3
5
Updated: August 18, 2016
2
Hwy 36 to Lexington Ave.
Add a lane in each direction
Recommend a MNPASS Lane
Several spot improvements to roadway included
Concrete pavement
Noise walls will be evaluated
Replace northbound and southbound bridges at CR C (4 bridges), and replace CR I bridge.
Add continuous lighting from I694 to north junction US 10.
3
Approximate $208 million construction cost
Current funding:
$50M Mobility SPP Funds in FY 19
$50M Mobility SPP Funds in FY 20
$13M Pavement SPP funds in FY 19
$10M Pavement SPP funds in FY 20
$6.4M Bridge SPP funds in FY 20
Total funds: $129.4M. Note that SPP (State Preservation Program) funds are currently shown as 90% will be Federal funds and 10% will be State funds.
Start construction Spring 2019 with opportunity to start Spring 2018
I
:c
- I
l 1-35W NORTH PROJECT SCOPE i
Old Highway 8-- --
Stti Avenue
Railroad
Bridge
County Road 88 2 County Road 10 x
t:::::1 County Road 46
(Cleveland Avenue)
County Road B2 County Road C County Road D
(Terminal Road) (City Centre Drive)
County Road E2 County Road F
(5th Street) (Lake Valentine Road I
County Road 96 County Road H
c
Cl "C
I "C !! .!! !! c.
01
c.
j
i E ll .i::. 0
..,,I c ll E ll 0 c m .i::. c
Ill
0en0
Lt)
., m
I NOTES:
- ADD ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION IN THE MIDDLE,
WHICH WILL BE A MNPASS LANE, FROM CR C TO LEXINGTON AVE.
- ORANGE INDICATES BRIDGES THAT WILL BE REPLACED (FOUR AT CR C AND ONE AT CR I) ALL OTHER BRIDGES WILL BE LEFT AS-I S.
- ALL LANES PAVED WITH CONCRETE FROM CR C TO SUNSET AVE.
- APPROXIMATE COST $208 MILLION - ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTI ON START IN SPRING 2019.
- ADD LANES ON OUTSIDE AS SHOWN IN BLUE.
From Park & Ride
County Ditch 53-62
County Road 17
5 County Road H
::!:
:r':
......
County Road I County Road J
(85th Avenue)
County Road 23 County Road 52
(Lake Drive) (95th Avenue)
(Lexington Avenue)
"[ Con1ulting Group, Jnc.
D.. ":"'.
:r: -- --
I- 35W southbound #1 Lane drop at County Road C
◦ Extend four lanes across bridges; tie into existing left add-lane to Cleveland #2 Entrance from eastbound I-694
◦ Auxiliary lane from EB I-694 entrance to CR E2 exit #3 Exit to westbound I-694
◦ Auxiliary lane from Hwy 96 to westbound I-694 exit #4 Exit to eastbound Hwy 10 (separate project)
◦ Expand to two lane exit with option lane and two lane connection to EB Hwy10
◦ Expand to two lane exit with option lane and two lane connection to eastbound Hwy 10 and southbound I-35W auxiliary lane from CR I ramp to Hwy 10
I- 35W Northbound
#7 Exit to westbound Hwy 10
◦ Auxiliary lane on westbound Hwy 10 from I-35W
southbound entrance to add lane near 93rd Lane
#9 Loop-to-loop weave from eastbound I-
694 to westbound I-694
◦ #9A Buffer lane through loop-to-loop weave and
decelerations lane extending back to entrance from
County Road E2
Hwy 10 westbound (east)
#11Connection to I-35W northbound
◦ Provide two-lane entrance to I-35W northbound
and carry lane to Hwy 10 north interchange
I-694 westbound
#12 Exit to I-35W northbound
◦ Auxiliary lane along I-35W northbound from I-694
westbound entrance to Hwy 96 exit.
Note: numbers that are missing are alternatives that
were not accepted.
7
Noise Wall Design Precedents
Concrete Columns (Tan)
Wood Planking
(Brown, “Tree” Motif)
Current noise walls at County Rd 96 Interchange
I-35W North Corridor Preliminary Design Project
Noise Wall Design Precedents
Concrete Columns (Brown)
Wood Planking
(Brown, “Tree” Motif)
Proposed noise walls north of County Rd J
I-35W North Corridor Preliminary Design Project
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 1 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
AREA
S B CLEVELAND AVE N
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
ARE A N B
¬«36
§¨¦35W
COUNTY ROAD C W
ARE A S A
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 2 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
W S 8 Y A W H G I H D L O
AREA SC CLEVELAND AVE SW CLEVELAND AVE N
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
¬«36
ARE A N C
§¨¦35W
ARE A S B
ARE A N B
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 3 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
OLD HIGHWAY 8
W N E V A H T 8
5TH AVE NW CLEVELAND AVE SW NEW BRIGHTON RD
£¤10
§¨¦35W
ARE A S E
§¨¦694
£¤10
5TH ST NW
COUNTY ROAD E2
¬«36 ARE A N D
ARE A S D
§¨¦35W
AREA SC A REA N C
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 4 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
W N 8 Y A W H
5TH AVE NW
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10 ARE A S F ARE A N F
¬«36
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
10TH ST NW
A REA SE
ARE A S E
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 5 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
AREA SG
AREA SF OLD HIGHWAY 8 NW
£¤10
§¨¦35W
ARE A S G
§¨¦694
£¤10
¬«36
ARE A N G
§¨¦35W
£¤10
A REA N F
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 6 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
ARE A S H
ARE A N H
¬«36 §¨¦35W
ARE A S G
£¤10
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 7 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
£¤10
HIGHWAY10
AREA N I
AREA S H AREA N H
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
¬«36 §¨¦35W
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 8 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
ARE A S K
ARE A N K
¬«36
§¨¦35W
COUNTY
ROAD J W
85TH AVE NE
ARE A N I
£¤10
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 9 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
C O
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
¬«36
95TH AVE NE
§¨¦35W
AREA S K
ARE A N K
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 10 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
ARE A
¬«36
AREA S L
§¨¦35W
AREA N L
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 11 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
NORTH RD LEXINGTON AVE NE
£¤10
§¨¦35 W
§¨¦694
£¤10
AREA SM
¬«36
§¨¦35W
AREA N M
AREA SL
ARE A N L
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 12 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
¬«36
ARE A S N
§¨¦35W
ARE A N N
ARE A N M
Noise Walls
Status
Existing Wall - Reconstructed
Existing Wall - Remain Unchanged
Not Proposed Wall
Proposed Wall
I-35W North Managed Lanes Project
Noise Receptor and Wall Locations: Page 13 of 13 January 2016
0 600 1,200
Feet [
£¤10
LONG LAKE RD
£¤10
§¨¦35W
§¨¦694
£¤10
COUNTY ROAD J W
¬«36
ARE A N J
ARE A S J
mndot.gov/metro/projects/i35wroseville/
www.mnpass.org
Jerome Adams Bobbie Dahlke
MnDOT Project Manager MnPASS
Jerome.Adams@state.mn.us Bobbie.Dahlke@state.mn.us
(651) 234-7611 (651) 234-7088
8