The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/11/2017 P&Z Packet CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, October 11, 2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers AGENDA Please be courteous and silence all electronic devices during the meeting. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORK SESSION 6:00 PM 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION A. Water Resources a. Sanitary Sewer Plan b. Water Supply Plan c. Local Water Management Plan PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING 7:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 13, 2017 4. OPEN MIKE 5. ACTION ITEMS A. None 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Woods Edge Development Interest B. Project Updates 7. ADJOURN City of Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board MEETING GUIDELINES Open Mike – The purpose of a Board Meeting is to accomplish the business of the city. When presenting at a meeting please remember to be respectful, and follow these guidelines: • Please address the meeting chair. • State your name and address for the record. • Please observe a 4-minute limit. • The topic must relate to city business. • Open Mike is for items not on the agenda. • A spokesperson must represent a group of five or more – groups will have 8 minutes. • The Presiding Officer may limit duplicative presentations. • Remember, the meeting is to discuss city business only. Public Hearing - Held as a separate item of business on the agenda. The public hearing segment is your opportunity to tell the Board how you feel about issues scheduled to be heard. Typically, a hearing follows these steps: • The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) will announce the proposal to be reviewed and ask for the staff report. The presiding Officer shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. • Staff will present their report on the proposal. • Board members will then ask City Staff questions about the proposal. • The Presiding Officer will then open up the public hearing for anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Comments should be limited to four (4) minutes unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer. All comments should be directed to the Board as a body and not to any individual Board Member or City Staff Member unless permission is granted by the Presiding Officer. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Board without the permission of the Presiding Officer. • After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his/her comments, the Presiding Officer shall close the public hearing. • The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. • The Board will then make a recommendation(s) and/or a decision. When you are called upon for your comments, please step to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the record. Occasionally, the Board may continue a hearing to another meeting before taking action. Meeting Etiquette The Planning & Zoning Board must preserve order and decorum while the meeting is in session. A resident shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the business of the Board, nor disturb any resident or Board Member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board. Meeting guidelines on reverse side. DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORK SESSION I. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION A. Transportation Chuck Rickart, Transportation Engineer with WSB, presented the staff report. • Transportation Plan Components o Goals, Policies, and Trends o Roadway System Plan o Transit System plan o Bicycle and Trail Plan o Aviation Plan o Plan implementation • Mr. Stoesz questioned if driverless vehicles have been taken into consideration. Mr. Rickart stated that it is too early to be thinking about it at this level at this time. Metropolitan area is not at a point to accommodate driverless vehicles. o Mr. Stoesz stated that there should be a line item stating that we are acknowledging that driverless vehicles are coming o Mr. Rickart stated that this is a high level plan • Transportation Issues o 2030 Comp Plan Identified Issues  Congestion on regional routes (I35W, I35E) causing diversion of traffic onto county roads and local streets  Increasing traffic and infrastructure needs due to urbanization of the developing areas, particularly in areas west and southeast of the regional park reserve DATE : September 13, 2017 TIME STARTED : 6:00 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Dale Stoesz, Lou Masonick, Perry Laden, Paul Tralle (Chair), Neil Evenson, Michael Root, Jeremy Stimpson MEMBERS ABSENT : None STAFF PRESENT : Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Mara Strand, Diane Hankee Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2017 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES  Changing transportation needs due to an aging population.  Increasing competition for space among modes (i.e. vehicles and bicycle/pedestrian interest)  Limited financial resources needed to maintain and improve the transportation systems as costs are expected to increase  Additional interests:  Mr. Root states that the survey said “improving the roadway system” – quantity, quality, maintenance, capacity  Mr. Rickart stated that specific intersections have been identified.  Mr. Grochala stated that the physical appearances of the roadways drew up the “improving the roadway system” comments  Chair Tralle stated that time well spent would be bringing current roads up to standard – pavement management plan o 2030 Comp Plan Addressed Issues  Main St (CSAH 14)/Lake Dr (CSAH 23) signalized – listed as congested on the map • Chair Tralle asked who is responsible for flashing yellow turn signals • Mr. Rickart stated that Anoka County is responsible  I-35W and Lake Drive (Additional issue brought to attention by Chair Tralle) • Sign on end of center island has been hit several times • Dashed lines on road way to identify road way are not working • Poorly constructed intersection – turn lane should have been back 5-10 feet  How much of our comprehensive plan is communicated with the County? (Additional question brought to attention by Mr. Laden) • The City comments on the County’s plan and the County comments on the City’s plan • Anoka County will highlight intersections by priority  Mr. Masonick asked if the County pays for the upkeep of Birch Street • Mr. Rickart stated that the City has a maintenance agreement with the County  Birch St/Ware Rd signalized (part of the CR 34 Corridor Study recommendations)  1-35E Interchange at Main St (CSAH 14) reconstructed • Accomplished  I-35E MnPass Lane constructed south of CR J • Accomplished  Park and Ride Lot constructed at I-35E • Accomplished  Roundabout at 109th Ave and Sunset Ave (safety issue) • Accomplished  ICE report Centerville Rd/CR J/Ash St/I-35 E • Finishing up ICE report Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2017 Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES  Additional issues • I35W and Lake Drive– Northbound left turn lane traffic clipping median and street sign • Mr. Stoesz asked that there will not be a road narrowing • Mr. Rickart stated that the width of the roadway is determined by how the road is categorized • Ms. Hankee stated that surface water management plays a role • Mr. Stimpson stated that there are cities in the south that were successful with narrowing roads to slow traffic • Mr. Grochala stated that we have to look at the policy statement. As the city grows there is more traffic. We have to look at certain roads and their hierarchy. • Mr. Rickart stated that the city has a traffic committee that meets regularly. o Additional Issues  Sue Peacock, Pheasant Hills • Roundabouts really work • Lights would be frustrating on Birch • Traffic control is needed on Birch during rush hour • If the City is going to do 4 lanes, do 4 lanes sooner than later. If 4 lanes is not going to happen, Ms. Peacock recommends turn lanes. • Ash Street turning onto Centerville road – roundabout • Tonnage restriction on Birch • S curve along Old Birch Road  Mr. Laden stated that bypass lanes should be used • Mr. Grochala stated that the County proposed in 1999/2000 to overlay Birch Street with turn lanes. This came with opposition from the land owners. • Mr. Grochala stated that the City is aware of the issues and have identified issues as they present themselves • Ms. Hankee stated that you can’t have bypass where there is a four way intersection, you can only have a bypass at a ‘T’  Chair Tralle stated road construction isn’t done until the developments are done • Mr. Grochala stated that there are limitations around what state law allows us to do • Mr. Grochala stated that when the City looks at reconstruction, the design is based on a 20 year forecast • Mr. Grochala stated that you are always dealing with attitude, perception, and money  Mr. Stimpson stated that the homes along Birch Street have direct access and it would be hard to put another lane in • Mr. Grochala stated that the City has 120 feet of right of way on Birch Street Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2017 Page 4 DRAFT MINUTES  Jurisdiction of the roadway on County Road J/County Road 54 • County identified County Road 54 as potentially being a City street  Mr. Rickart acknowledged the S curve on Ash Street  County Road 49/County Road J  Birch Street  County Road 13 – North bypass  Neighborhood speeding issues  Mr. Evenson expressed concern about County Road 23 by Target with pedestrians • Mr. Grochala stated that there is a trail easement • Mr. Grochala stated that the City is looking at 2018 from Park Court up to Marshan  Ms. Hankee stated that the City is working with the County on Lake and Elm intersection. The County is working on an analysis this week.  Mr. Laden that the City has done a good job with the trail system and our parks. Mr. Laden stated he would like to see the trails as destination trails as a mean for getting somewhere.  Mr. Evenson asked about the definition of access spacing • Mr. Rickart stated that access spacing is the distance between accesses – street access, driveway access  Mr. Grochala commented on linking 35E and 35W • Preferred alignment is using Main Street and Rondeau Lake Drive with an interchange at 35W then come across north end of regional park with an interchange at 80th Street  Chair Tralle asked if it is still in our plans to have 20th/County Road 54 to be industrial • Mr. Grochala stated the City is looking for a designated business park in that area o Anoka County Transportation Plan Update  Meetings with local agencies  Updating transportation planning models to be completed end of September  Identifying potential improvements  Draft Plan to be completed end of 2017/early 2018 • Land Use Update o Lake Amelia Vistas  Full build is guided low density sewered residential  Future Land Use Map is guided urban reserve  The City has the understanding that they are going to resubmit their land use application shortly  Chair Tralle commented on the court ruling on White Bear PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2017 Page 5 DRAFT MINUTES Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. on September 13, 2017. II. APROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. Mr. Stoesz stated that he would like adjust the language around “Please be courteous and turn off all electronic devices during the meeting” to “silence electronic devices”. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Correct – Remove “remove video” on page 6 Mr. Laden made a MOTION to approve the August 9, 2017 Meeting Minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Stimpson. Motion carried 6 - 0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 7:34 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 7:34 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 - 0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Public Hearing: PUD Development Stage Plan Amendment to Watermark City Planner Katie Larsen presented the staff report. Mattamy Minneapolis, LLC received PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat approval for Watermark in June 2016. Mattamy Homes has since been working on a potential sale of the development to Lennar, a leading home builder in the Twin Cities and nationally. Lennar proposes to develop Watermark using the same street, parks, trails and utility layout; however, some changes to the PUD Development Stage Plan are required to create a master plan that supports their life cycle housing products. Board Questions/Comments • Mr. Evenson commented on page 3 regarding the public park o Ms. Larsen stated that a public park is part of the plan • Mr. Laden concurred with Mr. Evenson regarding developing the park early in the development • Mr. Laden asked if there will still be a private park building o Ms. Larsen stated that there will still be an HOA amenity/clubhouse • Chair Tralle commented on the bridge in the development Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2017 Page 6 DRAFT MINUTES o Ms. Larsen stated that the bridge will still be an entrance into the development • Mr. Laden stated that the density changes and asked if it is affecting the City’s affordable housing • Mr. Stoesz questioned around noise and culvert going under 35E • Doran Cote, Lennar – 16305 36th Ave N, Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55447 o Lennar set up the development knowing the utilities will be coming from the south o Developing park difficulties – bringing utilities to the site, Peltier Lake o Internally discussing the bridge feature o Mr. Laden asked if a project like this is new to Lennar. Mr. Cote stated that it is not new to Lennar. Chair Tralle opened the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m. There were no public comments. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing. Motion was supported by Mr. Stoesz. Motion carried 6 - 0. Mr. Laden questioned what is being approved. Ms. Larsen stated that we are amending the land use plan that is part of the PUD development stage plan. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval PUD Development Stage Plan Amendment to Watermark. Motion was supported by Mr. Stimpson. Motion carried 6 - 0. B. Public Hearing: PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat Amendment and PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Century Farm North 7th Addition City Planner Katie Larsen presented the staff report. Century Farm North is a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) in northwest Lino Lakes and was approved in 2003. The developer, Gary Uhde, is requesting a fourth amendment to the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for Outlot C, Century Farm North 6th. This outlot was approved for 12 townhomes (2 buildings with 6 units each) in 2003. Due to a weakened townhome market, Mr. Uhde, is proposing to re-plat the outlot from 12 townhome units to 4 single family lots. Chair Tralle opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. There were no public comments. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing. Motion was supported by Mr. Masonick. Motion carried 6 - 0. Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2017 Page 7 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to recommend approval of PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat Amendment and PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Century Farm North 7th Addition. Motion was supported by Mr. Stimpson. Motion carried 6 - 0. C. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Permit Level C for 426 Pine Street City Planner Katie Larsen presented the staff report. The applicant, Stephen Witzel, submitted a Land Use Application for a conditional use permit for a Home Occupation Permit Level C to be located at 426 Pine Street. Board Questions/Comments • Mr. Evenson asked if a home occupancy is regulated to one building o Ms. Larsen stated the ordinance does not say one building, it says a accessory structure. The City has the ability to limit the number accessory structures it is in. Limiting factor is building code. • Mr. Stoesz asked if it is typical that a house has 3 driveway access points o Ms. Larsen stated that there are multiple rural properties with multiple driveway accesses • Mr. Laden asked why all three lots have to be combined o Ms. Larsen stated that the City is unaware if the back parcel is a buildable lot. The three parcels function as a whole. • Mr. Witzel, 925 Evergreen Trail (business address) o Mr. Root asked about the business restrictions and around the use of the words typically and rarely o Mr. Root questioned the number of trips o Mr. Evenson questioned the amount of space in the accessory structure. o Chair Tralle asked if the dumpster from Evergreen would be at Pine Street.  Ms. Larsen stated that the use of this property is for residential  Chair Tralle stated that if he screens in the dumpster, he could have a dumpster  Mr. Grochala stated that the intent of a home occupation is that others do not know that business is being operated out of the home  Mr. Evenson asked if there is a limit on garbage cans • Ms. Larsen stated that there is not a limit but the City does regulate the location of the garbage cans  Mr. Witzel stated that having a dumpster on the property would make the operation more efficient  Chair Tralle stated having a screened in 20 yard dumpster on the property is imperative  Mr. Laden asked if the City allows farmers to have a 20 yard dumpsters  Mr. Laden asked for clarification on the BMX operation • Chair Tralle stated that this home occupancy is less intense than the BMX operation Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2017 Page 8 DRAFT MINUTES Chair Tralle opened the Public Hearing at 8:37 p.m. There were no public comments. Mr. Masonick made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 6 - 0. Discussion • Mr. Root stated that he does not agree having a dumpster for a home occupancy • Chair Tralle stated that dumpster is more fitting in a rural area rather than a residential area • Mr. Laden asked if staff would be screening the dumpster o Ms. Larsen stated that the City has regulations Mr. Masonick made a MOTION to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Permit Level C for 426 Pine Street and allow for a screened dumpster no larger than a 20 square yard dumpster. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 4 - 2. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Mara Strand Community Development Administrative Assistant 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM 1A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director P & Z MEETING DATE: October 11, 2017 REQUEST: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion-Water Resources CASE NUMBER: NA APPLICANTS: City REVIEW SCHEDULE: NA BACKGROUND Representatives from WSB and Associates will be present at the meeting to discuss the Water Resources component of the Comprehensive plan. Topics of discussion will include: • Sanitary Sewer Plan • Water Supply Plan • Local Water Management Plan RECOMMENDATION Discussion item only. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Sanitary Sewer Plan Summary 2. Draft Water Supply Plan Summary 3. Draft Local Water Management Plan Summary Introductory Summary for the 2040 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN Goals & Policies The City of Lino Lakes continues to actively pursue its water system goal to, “Maintain the City’s residents and businesses with an affordable and safe sanitary sewer system.” The following five policies support this goal: 1. Provide a low-maintenance, cost-effective sewer system that meets the long-term needs of the City's residents and businesses. 2. Provide sanitary sewer service to undeveloped areas in a planned manner. 3. Provide for the capacity and extension of sanitary sewer to developed areas of the City currently served by on-site systems. 4. Establish an on-site septic system inspection program to identify potential failing systems. 5. Where possible, direct public sanitary sewer improvements to areas identified as having failed on-site systems. Existing Sanitary Sewer System The City of Lino Lakes owns and operates a local wastewater collection system; the regional collection and treatment of wastewater is performed by the Metropolitan Council (MCES). The City’s sanitary sewer system has been divided into three existing and two future sanitary sewer districts based on the regional facilities to which each district ultimately discharges. The City’s existing sewer system and sewer districts are shown in the attached figures. The City sanitary sewer system consists of gravity sewer lines ranging from 8-inch to 24-inch diameter, thirteen (13) sanitary sewer lift stations, and the associated forcemain. The MCES regional collection system conveys the wastewater to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant located southeast of St. Paul. Wastewater Flow Projections Currently, the City of Lino Lakes generates a total of 1.02 million gallons of wastewater on an average day across its three existing sanitary sewer districts. MCES projects that the total average day wastewater flow generated in the City will increase to 1.52 million gallons by the year 2040. This increase in wastewater flow, and the areas of likely increase, must be considered when maintaining the existing system, and especially when planning and designing future gravity mains and lift stations. The existing wastewater flow and preliminary projected 2040 wastewater flow are listed below in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The projected 2040 average flow listed below is significantly greater than the average flow projected by MCES because this study considers each parcel of developable land to thoroughly plan future improvements. Sanitary Sewer District Existing Average Flow (MGD) Existing Peak Flow (MGD) Preliminary 2040 Average Flow (MGD) Preliminary 2040 Peak Flow (MGD) 1 0.42 2.09 0.71 2.35 2 0.47 1.87 1.20 4.42 3 0.13 0.63 0.70 2.62 4 - - 0.13 0.52 5 - - 0.28 1.03 Total 1.02 4.59 3.02 10.94 Major Improvements Expected District 1 – Located in southwest Lino Lakes, this district includes primarily residential development and is expected to see new residential, commercial, and mixed use development. The wastewater generated in this district is collected at MCES Lift Station L69, which has adequate capacity for projected 2040 and ultimate flows. District 2 – Located in northwest Lino Lakes, this district includes a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional developments including the Minnesota Correctional Facility. Future development includes a similar mix of land use types. The wastewater generated in this district is collected at two City lift stations, the bulk at Lift Station 4, which discharge to MCES Interceptor 83-61. Lift Stations 4 and 10 will require upgrades to accommodate projected 2040 and ultimate flows. A new lift station, forcemain, and trunk sewer (West Side Relief Trunk Sewer) will be required to serve the far northwest corner of the City, Sub-District 2J. In addition, the City projects the need for a new MCES Interceptor facility to accommodate ultimate flows from this district. MCES has prepared preliminary plans for this Interceptor. District 3 – Located in east Lino Lakes, this district includes residential, commercial, and industrial development and is expected to see new residential, commercial, and industrial development. The wastewater generated in this district discharges to MCES Interceptor 97-08, which also receives flow from the City of Centerville. Accounting for the projected future flows from the City of Centerville as listed in their 2030 Comprehensive Plan, this interceptor has capacity for District 3 through ultimate build-out. District 4 – Located in south Lino Lakes, this district is currently unsewered and is expected to see new residential and mixed use development. The future wastewater flows from this district will likely discharge to an existing 18-inch gravity sewer located in White Bear Township which currently ends at the City boundary, although a Joint Powers Agreement does not yet exist for this interconnection. The City should begin negotiating this Joint Powers Agreement, which should include determination of the capacity of this interconnection. District 5 – Located in northeast Lino Lakes, this district is currently unsewered and is expected to see new residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed use development. The future wastewater flows from this district will discharge to an existing MCES Interceptor, the Lino Lakes Relief Interceptor, located at the Lino Lakes boundary along Washington County Highway 8. This interceptor is projected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate all of District 5 at full build-out. " Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä !( !( !( !( Sunset AvenueInterconnectionwith Blaine County Road JInterconnectionwith Shoreview Lamotte DriveInterconnectionwith Centerville Mound TrailInterconnectionwith Centerville BaldwinLake BaldEagleLakeWilkinsonLake Otter Lake AmeliaLake Reshanau LakeRice Lake CentervilleLake Marshan Lake GeorgeWatchLake Peltier Lake Cedar Lake LilacSt 20th Ave S456721 456749 456721 456749 456714 456723 456714 456721 456721 456714456714 20thAve20th Ave§¨¦35E §¨¦35W ")153 ")140 ")84 ")84Lake Dr NMainStMain StMain St CedarSt HodgsonRdLake DrElm St Birch St Birch StLakeDrSunset AveRondeauLakeDr EAsh St Oak Ln Apollo Dr62nd St N Ash St RondeauLakeRd WCenterville RdHolly Dr4th AveHolly Dr E Birch St 80th St E 64th StCity ofBlaineCity ofCirclePinesCity of Columbus City ofForestLake City ofHamLake City of HugoCity of North OaksCity of Shoreview White BearTownship 2J 2I 2A 2C 2B 2E 2G 2H 2F 1H 1A 1C 1B 1G 1D 1E 4D 4C 4A 4B 3E 3D 3C 3B 3A 5C 5A 5B 3G 3F 4E 2D 1F 2K 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000 Feet ´ Sanitary SewerDistricts Legend City of Centerville Sanitary District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Sanitary Sub-District Xä Lift Station Forcemain "Gravity Main !(MCES Meter Xä MCES Lift Station MCES Forcemain "MCES Gravity Main Municipal Boundary " Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä Xä !( !( !( !( Sunset AvenueInterconnectionwith Blaine MCES Interceptor 83-61 MCES Interceptor 91-06 County Road JInterconnectionwith Shoreview Lamotte DriveInterconnectionwith Centerville MCES Interceptor 76-51 MCES Interceptor 91-06 MCES Lino LakesRelief InterceptorMound TrailInterconnectionwith Centerville BaldwinLake BaldEagleLakeWilkinsonLake Otter Lake AmeliaLake Reshanau LakeRice Lake CentervilleLake Marshan Lake GeorgeWatchLake Peltier Lake Cedar Lake LilacSt 20th Ave S456721 456749 456721 456749 456714 456754 456723 456714 456721 456721 456714456714 20thAve20th Ave§¨¦35E §¨¦35W ")153 ")140 ")84 ")84Lake Dr NMainStMain StMain St CedarSt HodgsonRdLake DrElm St Birch St Birch StLakeDrSunset AveRondeauLakeDr EAsh St Oak Ln Apollo Dr62nd St N Ash St RondeauLake Rd WCenterville RdHolly Dr4th AveHolly Dr E Birch St 80th St E 64th StCity ofBlaineCity ofCirclePinesCity of Columbus City ofForestLake City ofHamLake City of HugoCity of North OaksCity of Shoreview White BearTownship M 210 M 211 M 219 M 220 LS12 LS8 LS69 LS6 LS4 LS7 LS5 LS2 LS9 LS53 LS1 LS11 LS10 LS3 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000 Feet ´ Existing SanitarySewer System Legend City of Centerville Xä Lift Station Forcemain Gravity Main Diameter "8" "10" "12" "15" "18" "21" "24" "Unknown !(MCES Meter Xä MCES Lift Station MCES Forcemain "MCES Gravity Main Municipal Boundary Introductory Summary for the 2040 Comprehensive Water Supply Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN Goals & Policies The City of Lino Lakes continues to actively pursue its water system goal to, “Provide the City’s residents and businesses with affordable potable water that is safe and of high quality for daily consumption and fire demand.” The following six policies support this goal: 1. Provide a low-maintenance, cost-effective water system that meets the long-term needs of the City's residents and businesses. 2. Provide adequate water pressure for all residents and businesses. 3. Continue working with adjacent communities to provide a cooperative water system for emergency services. 4. Provide water service for developing areas in a planned manner by constructing new mains, water towers, wells, and water treatment plants. 5. Protect the City's sustainable water supply through conservation by reducing the demand for water, improving the efficiency of water use, and reducing loss and waste of water. 6. Protect the groundwater source from contamination by implementing the Wellhead Protection Plan. Existing Water System The City of Lino Lakes existing water system consists of six wells, two water towers, one booster station, and over 80 miles of water main serving the City’s residents, institutions, and businesses. The City does not currently have a water treatment plant, but it does treat its well water at the well heads with chlorine for disinfection, fluoride to prevent tooth decay, and polyphosphate to sequester iron and manganese. The City has seven emergency interconnections with adjacent communities. A map of the existing water system is attached. Water Demand Projections Currently, the City of Lino Lakes delivers approximately 1.4 million gallons of water per day. This water demand is expected to increase as the City continues to develop and as its population grows. By 2018, it is anticipated that the City’s average water demand will exceed 1.5 million gallons per day, and by 2024, exceed 2 million gallons per day. This steady growth in the population served by the water system must be considered when maintaining the existing system, and especially when planning and designing future water main and network structures. The projected water demand for Lino Lakes is summarized in the table below: Year Projected Total Population Projected Population Served Projected Average Day Demand (MGD) Projected Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 2020 22,800 17,229 1.85 5.37 2025 24,800 19,200 2.07 5.88 2030 26,900 21,329 2.29 6.37 2040 31,100 25,529 2.74 7.12 Major Improvements Expected The earliest major improvement expected for the City of Lino Lakes is the installation of a new 1.5 million gallon water tower. This third tower will help the City provide adequate water storage and ensure that sufficient fire flow will be available through 2040. Furthermore, the City of Lino Lakes will likely install at least one new well with a capacity of at least 1,000 gallons per minute before 2025. This new well is necessary, as it is anticipated that the projected maximum daily demand will exceed the firm capacity of the system’s existing wells between 2025 and 2030. The City of Lino Lakes continues to plan for the construction of a water treatment plant. The City’s raw well water has concentrations of iron and manganese that exceed the EPA’s recommended secondary levels. Secondary levels are non-health related standards for drinking water that cities are not required to follow, but water that complies with secondary levels is better received by customers. The City has been adding polyphosphate to the water at the well head in an effort to reduce iron and manganese precipitation, but a water treatment plant would be able to reduce the concentration of these contaminants below recommended secondary levels. Elevated concentrations of iron and manganese in the water supply have the potential to cause aesthetic inconveniences, such as mild discoloration of clothes in the washing machine. But more often, iron and manganese in water is simply associated with “hard water,” which is a harmless aesthetic characteristic that has been reasonably accepted by customers. White Bear Lake Lawsuit The Ramsey County District Court issued a ruling on August 30, 2017 that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) allowed over-pumping of the groundwater aquifer in the region of White Bear Lake. The judge ordered the DNR to review groundwater appropriation permits within five miles of the lake and to enforce a residential lawn watering ban when the lake water level drops below 923.5 feet above sea level. On September 26, 2017, the DNR issued a news release stating that it will appeal the Court’s ruling. The DNR contends that restricting permits within five miles of the lake will halt important development, and that the watering ban will impose an undue burden on 500,000 White Bear Lake area residents. A portion of southeastern Lino Lakes falls within five miles of White Bear Lake, so the City is closely following developments in this case and will coordinate with the DNR to ensure that it is complying with regional and state guidelines. Furthermore, the initial development of District 4 is proposed to be temporarily supplied by White Bear Township via an 8’’ water line along the southern border of Lino lakes, and this may be an issue depending on the outcome of this lawsuit. The City of Lino Lakes will review and adjust its Water Capital Improvement Plan as definitive conclusions become available and will continue water conservation and efficiency programs in an effort to reduce its consumption throughout this process. !® !® !< !< !< !< !< !< #*#*City of HugoCity of BlaineCity of Columbus City of Circle PinesCity of Shoreview White Bear TownshipCity of North Oaks City of Ham Lake City of Forest Lake 64th St 80th St E4th AveBirch St Holly DrHolly Dr E Ash St Oak Ln 62nd St NApollo DrCenterville RdRondeau Lake Rd WLake DrSunset AveRondeau Lake Dr EElm St Birch St Ash St Birch St Cedar St Main St Main StMain StLake Dr N§¨¦35W §¨¦35E20th Ave20th Ave456714 456721 456723 456754 456749 456749 456714 456714 456723 456754456721 456714 456721 456721 20th Ave SLilac St Peltier Lake Rice Lake Centerville Lake George Watch Lake Reshanau Lake Cedar Lake Marshan Lake Otter Lake Amelia Lake Wilkinson Lake Bald Eagle Lake Rondeau Lake Baldwin Lake 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000 Feet ´ Existing Water Supply Legend City of Centerville Existing Water Main Diameter 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" !<Existing Well !®Existing Water Tower #*Existing Booster Station Municipal Boundary Summary of the 2040 Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN Goals & Policies The City of Lino Lakes continues to actively manage and protect its water resources. The Surface Water Management Plan supports the City by outlining twelve policies, goals and issues related to the following: 1. Water rate and quantity 2. Water quality 3. Wetland management 4. Floodplain management 5. Public ditch management 6. Groundwater management 7. Natural resources 8. Erosion and sediment control 9. Regulations, permitting and reporting 10. Monitoring, maintenance and inspection 11. Public participation, information and education 12. Financing Existing Water Resources The City of Lino Lakes existing water resources include fifteen lakes, nine within the Chain of Lakes Regional Park, three creeks, and a network of public and private ditches and municipal storm sewer. Of the lakes and creeks, a majority are impaired for excess nutrients, mercury, dissolved oxygen, or bacteria (Figure 7-7). Future Conditions In addition to water quality concerns, the City of Lino Lakes will need to continue to monitor flooding and mitigate it through development practices in coordination with Rice Creek Watershed District. The Rice Creek Watershed District has modeled the future flood impacts on Lino Lakes, which will include increased overtopping of small ditches and culverts, as well as increasing the demand on existing stormwater and ditch infrastructure (Figure 7-8). Major Improvements Expected • Continue Implement water quality improvements via the existing Subwatershed Plans, including: - Water quality improvements in the LaMotte and West Shadow Lake neighborhoods help improve water quality in Centerville and Reshanau Lakes. - Review and address floodplain areas with inadequate freeboard during flood events - The City will consider joining the Community Rating System to better manage floodplain development and allow residents to receive a discount on flood insurance - Work with MnDOT to evaluate wildlife crossings in future projects near Lake Amelia - Evaluate the potential to implement volume reduction practices in stormwater-sensitive wetlands near Baldwin and Sherman Lakes - Continue to incorporate neighborhood stormwater planning and education into street reconstruction programs. For 2018, both the West Shadow Lake and LaMotte neighborhoods have engaged in several outreach meetings to provide input used in the preliminary stormwater management designs. • Continue to work with RCWD and VLAWMO to establish wetland banks and approaches to maintain or restore existing wetland functions • Continue to work with RCWD and VLAWMO to address flooding and flow constraints in the existing system, including: - The implementation of a multi-functional greenway corridor in Northeast Lino Lakes to address the existing and future flooding concerns with Anoka County Ditches 55 and 72, including modifying existing ordinances to ensure implementation of all water quality, flood control, and natural resources components during development through the Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan • Evaluation of streambank erosion along 10-22-32 and Clearwater Creek • Implement the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan and Water Conservation Management Plans • Incorporate pollinator habitat in future city projects • Educate residents and local businesses on smart irrigation and alternative landscaping options to reduce water use Continuing Activities • Continue to implement Better Site Design (BSD) techniques for new development • Protect high priority wetlands and high-quality habitats • Complete the remaining Subwatershed Management Plans and existing implementation practices as opportunities arise • The City of Lino Lakes will continue to address the Total Maximum Daily Loads to address nutrient, mercury and bacteria impairments in its surface waters. • The City of Lino Lakes will continue to work with regulating agencies to monitor, inspect and maintain the existing stormwater infrastructure, best management practices, and additional requirements as specified in the City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. • The City will also continue its efforts to obtain grant funding for future water quality, flood control, invasive species and groundwater protection projects. §¨¦35E§¨¦35W")53")153")140456721456749456749456721456749456714456723456714456721456721456714456714")84")84OtterLakeUnnamedBaldEagleLakeBaldEagleLakeAmeliaLakeGoldenLakeGoldenLakeBaldwin LakeWardsLakeShermanLakeReshanauLakeRiceLakeCentervilleLakeMarshanLakeGeorgeWatchLakePeltierLakeRondeauLakeUnnamedCedarLakeWilkinsonLakeLilacSt20th Ave S20thAve20th AveLakeDr NMainStMainStMain St80th St ECedarStHodgsonRdLake DrElm StBirch StBirch StLakeDrSunsetAveRondeauLake Dr EAsh StOak LnApollo Dr62nd St NAsh StRondeauLake Rd WCentervilleRdHolly Dr4th AveHolly Dr EBirch St64th StCity ofBlaineCentervilleCity ofCirclePinesCity ofColumbusCity ofForestLakeCity ofHam LakeCity ofHugoCity ofNorth OaksCity ofShoreviewWhite BearTownship0 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100Feet´Figure 7-7.Surface Water ResourcesLegendPublic Drainage SystemPublic DitchTile, Public DitchPrivate DitchPublic WatersDNR Public WatersDNR Public WetlandsPublic WatercourseShoreland ClassificationGeneral DevelopmentNatural EnvironmentRecreational DevelopmentImpaired Waters@AMPCA Surface Water Monitoring LocationsImpaired LakesImpaired StreamsMunicipal BoundaryAdjacent City BoundaryRoad Centerline §¨¦35E§¨¦35W")53")153")140")84")84LilacSt20th Ave S20thAve20th AveLakeDr NMainStMainStMain St80th St ECedarStHodgsonRdLake DrElm StBirch StBirch StLakeDrSunsetAveRondeauLake Dr EAsh StOak LnApollo Dr62nd St NAsh StRondeauLake Rd WCentervilleRdHolly Dr4th AveHolly Dr EBirch St64th StCity ofBlaineCentervilleCity ofCirclePinesCity ofColumbusCity ofForestLakeCity ofHam LakeCity ofHugoCity ofNorth OaksCity ofShoreviewWhite BearTownship11220 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100Feet´Figure 7-8.RCWD Future Flood IncreasesLegendAreas of Future Flooding Concern!(Overtopping at Future 100-year Events!(Overtopping at Existing & Future 100-year EventsMunicipal BoundaryAdjacent City BoundaryRoad CenterlineFuture FloodplainData Source: Courtesy of Rice Creek Watershed District, 2016 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director P & Z MEETING DATE: October 11, 2017 REQUEST: Woods Edge Development Interest CASE NUMBER: NA APPLICANTS: City REVIEW SCHEDULE: NA Background In 2010 the Legacy at Woods Edge Property forfeited to the State of Minnesota for failure to pay property taxes. The City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) obtained title for the remaining 20 acres of undeveloped land in September of 2013. The acquisition was made possible through special legislation approved in the 2013 legislative session. The property transfer was made at no cost to the City. The purpose of the transfer was to streamline the conveyance process and allow the City opportunity to recoup outstanding special assessment debt with land sale proceeds. In 2015 DR Horton purchased approximately 11 acres from the EDA for $1,000,000. The property is currently being developed with 112 townhomes. This leaves approximately 9 acres remaining. When the Legacy project was first envisioned and approved it was based on a set of core principles and objectives:  Develop land uses linked to local and regional transportation systems.  Connect housing and centers of employment, education, retail and recreational uses  Provide a range of housing choices  Protect and enhance natural resources Site Development The Planning & Zoning Board and City Council reviewed the site design/layout and reaffirmed the development principles in March of 2014. The master plan breaks up the with land use alternatives on a block by block approach. This approach was used to simply recognize the different land use areas within the development that can function independently and would likely be sold/developed separately. We have identified these as the Neighborhood Block, Town Square Block and the Urban Block. Neighborhood Block The neighborhood block was originally guided for 190 attached residential units (townhomes). DR Horton is developing 112 townhomes on the site. Town Square Block Two (2) acres remains for development in this area. The town square block was originally guided for civic uses (YMCA) and mixed uses allowing for 1st floor commercial with multi- family (68) residential uses above. The concept master plan provides for either a multi-family building or commercial pads on the west side of the block. Urban Block Approximately 7 acres is available for development. The Urban Block was originally guided for mixed use (1st floor commercial with housing above) along the community green, including approximately 140 residential units . The balance of the property was guided for commercial. Subsequent discussions with P & Z and City Council allowed for consideration of this area as all commercial. Current Development Interest Staff has received an inquiry form a real estate broker regarding acquisition of the entire 6.49 acres located in the Urban Block. The proposed use is a senior community including approximately 200 units. The unit mix would include independent (100), assisted (50) and skilled (50) living options. The proposal also anticipates 1st floor commercial along the community green area and stand alone commercial pads on the west side of the site. No sale price has been discussed at this time. While there are a number of design questions that would need to be addressed the bigger question at this point is whether the City wants to consider this type of use on the specific site. Initial concerns raised by staff include: 1) There is an existing assisted living and memory care facility within the development. Does the City want more of this product in the same area? 2) How will this use impact the existing uses? 3) Is there a market for additional vertical mixed use (1st floor commercial). The existing 1st floor commercial on the Legacy Apartments in not 100% full. If not how would the residential use impact existing commercial around the community green? Requested Council Direction 1. Does the Board want to further consider this request? Attachments 1. Original Master Plan 2. Master Plan Alternate 3. Proposed Concept Layout Site Plan City HallTown Center central communitygreen Town Center Pkwy YMCA existingCity Hall PoliceStation Early ChildhoodCenter MIXED-USEhousing overcommercial townhomes retailcommercial proposed trail connectionto regional trailsystem local trail connection Rice CreekChain of LakesRegional Park local trail connection MIXED-USEhousing overcommercial MIXED-USEhousing overcommercial neighborhoodpark