HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2017 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Monday, October 2, 2017
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Community Room (not televised)
6:00 P.M.
1. City of Columbus Asphalt Plant Update, Michael Grochala
2. Centerville Road/CR J Intersection Change Evaluation (ICE), Diane Hankee
3. Traffic Safety Review Process and Procedures Policy, Diane Hankee
4. Comprehensive Plan, Transportation, Michael Grochala
5. West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Project Update, Diane Hankee
6. Watermark Update, Katie Larsen
7. Woods Edge Development Interest, Michael Grochala
8. 2017 Telecommunications Right-of-Way User Amendments, Jeff Karlson
9. Vehicle Replacement Policy Update, John Swenson & Rick DeGardner
9a. RFP for Engineering Services, Mayor Reinert
10. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council
11. Monthly Progress Report, Jeff Karlson
12. Review Regular Agenda
13. Adjourn
WS – Item # 1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 1
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
Re: City of Columbus – Bituminous Asphalt Plat Update
Background
The City of Columbus received a request for rezoning, preliminary plat approval, and conditional
use permit to allow a hot mix asphalt plant from Bituminous Roadways, Inc. The proposed
project location is on 20th Avenue (CSAH 54) immediately north and adjacent to our municipal
border with the City of Columbus.
The Columbus Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request on June 21, 2017. No
action was taken at that time.
Anoka County Highway Department reviewed the request and provided a letter identifying
required improvements dated June 21, 2017.
A joint Planning Commission and Columbus City Council workshop was held on June 29 to
discuss the project.
In July a citizen petition was received by the Environmental Quality Board requesting the
preparation of a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Consideration of the request
was suspended pending a determination on the EAW.
On August 16, 2017 the City of Columbus issued a press release regarding the project
On September 18, 2017 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, made a determination that no
EAW was required. The MPCA evaluated air quality, traffic, noise and wetlands/stormwater. A
copy of the Findings of Fact are enclosed for your review.
On September 20, 2017 the Columbus Planning Commission discussed a proposed zoning
ordinance amendment to allow Asphalt/Concrete Production Facilities within their light
industrial district.
On September 25, 2017 the Lino Lakes City Council requested the item be placed on the October
2, 2017 work session for discussion.
Staff is reviewing the available information and will provide an update and possible options for
the council to consider at the meeting.
Requested Council Direction
None Required. Discussion Only
Attachments
1. General Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Anoka County Highway Review, June 21, 2017
4. City of Columbus Press Release, August 16, 2017
5. MPCA EAW Determination Review, dated September 18, 2017
§¨¦I-35E
§¨¦I-35W
12
Ü
0 600 1,200 1,800300Feet
9/26/2017
General Location Map
Bituminous Roadways
Proposed Development Site
COLUMBUS, MN (08.16.17) – The City of Columbus is currently processing an application
from Bituminous Roadways, Inc. to build an asphalt plant in the southeast section of Columbus.
Considerations for the location of an asphalt plant within the City began in 2016, and since then
the City has held a Public Hearing, hosted a joint workshop between the City Council and the
Planning Commission, and received numerous letters and emails on the topic. All materials
received have been included in the file for City Council review.
Columbus’ City Council is required by law to follow due process; giving every resident or
landowner equal opportunity to submit applications to sell their land for a certain use. Part of
due process is considering the context of each application separately; gathering facts from
reputable sources, listening to the opinions of constituents, and analyzing whether the application
is consistent with the City’s long term planning goals.
It is the City’s understanding that Columbus’ Running Aces Casino and Racetrack is opposed to
this project. Columbus has enjoyed a great working relationship with Running Aces, and has
respectfully considered their position in the matter. Consideration of the Bituminous Roadways,
Inc. applications is not intended to jeopardize Running Aces or any of its future expansion for
economic growth, it is a due process responsibility that the City has. The City is saddened to
hear that Running Aces has halted its $9 million hotel plan as the City has supported the project
since discussion began in March of 2016.
The Columbus City Council has not taken any final action on the applications from Bituminous
Roadways, Inc. Any decision to approve or deny their applications will be made at a future City
Council meeting.
About Columbus:
The City of Columbus includes a mix of residential, rural and commercial property. Columbus
boasts large tracts of public land, including Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area and
Lamprey Pass. We provide a full level of municipal services in the community, including street
and park maintenance, planning and zoning, elections, licensing, auditing, building inspection,
prosecution, and general administration.
p-ear2-133b
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE
PETITION REQUESTING THE PREPARATON
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE PROPOSED
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC., ASPHALT PLANT
COLUMBUS, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER
FINDINGS OF FACT
Proposed Project
1.Bituminous Roadways, Inc., (Bituminous) proposes to construct and operate a fixed hot mix asphalt
plant, contract a third party to intermittently operate a portable crusher, and construct an
office/laboratory and vehicle maintenance building with a septic system and well on one lot (Lot 1)
in the City of Columbus, Anoka County. Bituminous will also construct access drives and install
stormwater management infrastructure on Lot 1 and on an adjacent lot (Lot 2). These activities on
Lot 1 and Lot 2 are considered “the Project.”
2.Bituminous has stated that in the future, it may construct a concrete batch plant or construction
materials/storage handling facility on Lot 2. The speculative future construction is not considered
part of the Project.
3.Bituminous is proposing to install a fixed hot mix asphalt plant on Lot 1 that will consist of the
following equipment:
•1 asphalt mixing drum
•1 bag house to filter air emissions from the asphalt mixing drum
•1 control house
•1 cold feed system for virgin aggregates
•1 recycled asphalt feed system
•Storage areas for rock, sand, recycled asphalt, and concrete
•Ramps, conveyors, and hoppers to convey: a) raw and recycled materials to the plant for the
hot mix production, b) hot mix asphalt from the plant to storage, and c) hot mix asphalt to
trucks
•4-30,000 gallon, and 1-20,000 gallon, 43-foot (ft) high liquid asphalt cement (LAC) storage tanks
•6-200-ton capacity, 60-ft high hot mix asphalt storage silos
•1-1,000 gallon off-road diesel storage tank
•1-1,000 gallon on-road diesel storage tank
4.As part of the Project, Bituminous proposes to construct a 40-ft by 115-ft (4,600 square feet)
office/laboratory and vehicle maintenance building, and an onsite septic system to dispose of sink
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
2
and toilet waste. Bituminous will install a private well for building use and for periodic spraying for
fugitive emissions at the Project site.
5. Bituminous will pave the area in and around the asphalt equipment with asphalt and will also pave
two access roads with asphalt. The Project site areas not paved with bituminous will be covered
with gravel. Bituminous will create almost 21 acres of impervious surface from the 46-acre Project
site.
6. Bituminous will construct nonpermeable secondary containment areas for the above ground
storage tanks that are part of the hot mix asphalt plant.
7. According to plan information Bituminous provided to the City of Columbus, Bituminous will grade
both Lot 1 and Lot 2 and install stormwater controls. Bituminous plans to install a permanent
stormwater sedimentation pond on the east side of Lot 1, and a permanent stormwater
sedimentation pond on the southeast area of Lot 2, which is adjacent to the northwest area of
Lot 1.
8. Bituminous proposes to operate the hot mix asphalt plant during construction season, which is
typically from April through November of each year. Bituminous expects to operate the Project
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, but may also have periodic overnight operation of
the Project. Bituminous is subject to the City of Columbus’ ordinances and any additional
restrictions the City of Columbus may impose related to Bituminous’ days and hours of operation.
9. Bituminous will also hire a contractor to bring a portable crusher onto the Project site twice per
year during construction season, each time for a period of approximately three to four weeks, to
crush rubble concrete and asphalt for use in the hot mix asphalt production. The contractor will
then remove the portable crusher after each time period, so the portable crusher will not remain on
the Project site.
Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet
10. On July 25, 2017, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received a petition under Minn. R.
4410.1100 (Petition), requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared
on Bituminous’ proposed Project. The Petition designated Anthony G. Edwards, Parker Daniels
Kibort, as the Petitioners’ Representative. The Petition, with Appendices A through E, are
incorporated by reference into these Findings, as Attachment 1. The Petition and appendices can be
found at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA or PCA) website:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/quick-links/environmental-assessment-worksheets-and-
environmental-impact-statements
11. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1100 subp. 5, the EQB determined the Petition complied with the
requirements for a valid petition and that the MPCA was the appropriate Responsible Government
Unit (RGU) to decide whether an EAW should be prepared. See Attachment 2.
12. On July 31, 2017, the MPCA received the Petition from the EQB. See Attachment 2.
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
3
13.On August 3, 2017, the MPCA requested from the EQB a time extension of 15 days to review the
Petition for an EAW on the Project, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 7. See Attachment 3.
14.On August 3, 2017, the MPCA received EQB approval of the request for a 15-day extension until
September 6, 2017. See Attachment 4.
15.Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 8, requires the RGU within five days of its decision to notify, in writing,
the Project proposer, the EQB, and the petitioner’s representative of its decision. The MPCA will
notify the required parties as required after this order becomes effective.
Determination of Environmental Review Requirements
16.The first step in making the decision on the need to prepare an EAW is to compare the Project to
the categories and thresholds for a mandatory EAW (Minn. R. 4410.4300), a mandatory
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Minn. R. 4410.4400), and the exemptions from
environmental review provided in Minn. R. 4410.4600.
17.The MPCA finds that the Project does not meet any mandatory thresholds under Minn. R.
4410.4300, nor any mandatory EIS thresholds in Minn. R. 4410.4400.
18.The MPCA finds that the Project does not meet an exemption category for environmental review
under Minn. R. 4410.4600.
19.The Petitioners’ representative states an EAW is mandatory because it satisfies several EAW
thresholds:
a)Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27, because of the Project’s effect on wetlands
b)Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 14, because the Project involves the construction of a large
industrial facility
c)Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 16, because the Project will generate hazardous waste
Wetlands
20.Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27 states:
A.For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or
more of any public water or public waters wetland except for those to be drained without a
permit pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103G, the local government unit shall be the
RGU.
B. For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of 40 percent or
more or five or more acres of types 3 through 8 wetland of 2.5 acres or more, excluding public
waters wetlands, if any part of the wetland is within a shoreland area, delineated flood plain, a
state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project
Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area, the local government unit shall be the RGU.
21.The MPCA reviewed the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources public waters maps, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services National Wetlands Inventory Mapper, and the Anoka County Floodplain
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
4
Mapper. The Project is on a site that does not have public waters or public water wetlands. There
are non-public water wetlands present on Lot 1 and Lot 2.
22. For the Project, Bituminous proposes to remove approximately 3.55 acres of non-public water
wetlands.
23. The City of Columbus has designated the Board of the Rice Creek Watershed District as the local
government unit (LGU) for all portions of the City of Columbus lying within the Rice Creek
watershed. Rice Creek Watershed District has jurisdiction for administrating the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) within the boundaries of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The Project is
within an area of the City of Columbus within the boundaries of the Rice Creek Watershed District.
24. The MPCA reviewed an engineering report prepared by the Rice Creek Watershed District
(Appendix C of the Petition, Attachment 1 to the Findings). The engineering report is based on a
wetland delineation report and boundary decision that identifies the type and size of wetlands on
the Project site and the extent of the impact on each delineated wetland. The engineering report
summarizes the wetland impacts of the Project and recommends that Bituminous replace the 3.55
acres of wetlands impacted with 6.30 acres of wetlands. Rice Creek Watershed District, as the LGU,
must provide the final approval for the replacement plan, but cannot do so until the MPCA has
either denied the Petition, or Bituminous completes the environmental review process.
25. Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27.A. does not apply to the Project because Bituminous is not locating
the Project on a site with public waters or public water wetlands.
26. Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27.B. does not apply to the Project because the Project location,
construction or operation will not change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of 40
percent or more or five or more acres of types 3 through 8 wetlands of 2.5 acres or more within a
shoreland area, delineated flood plain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district,
the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area.
Industrial Facilities
27. Minn. R. 44100.4300, subp. 14 states:
A. For construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing or light industrial facility
equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, the local
governmental unit shall be the RGU:
(1) Unincorporated area, 150,000
(2) Third or fourth class city, 300,000
(3) Second class city, 450,000
(4) First class city, 600,000
B. For construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional
facility, other than a warehousing or light industrial facility, equal to or in excess of the following
thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, the local government unit shall be the RGU:
(1) Unincorporated area, 100,000 square feet
(2) Third or fourth class city, 200,000 square feet
(3) Second class city, 300,000 square feet
(4) First class city, 400,000 square feet
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
5
C. This subpart applies to any industrial, commercial, or institutional project which includes
multiple components, if there are mandatory categories specified in subparts 2 to 13, 16, 17,
20, 21, 23, 25, or 29, or part 4410.4400, subparts 2 to 10, 12, 13, 15, or 17, for two or more of
the components, regardless of whether the project in question meets or exceeds any threshold
specified in those subparts. In those cases, the entire project must be compared to the
thresholds specified in items A and B to determine the need for an EAW. If the project meets or
exceeds the thresholds specified in any other subpart as well as that of item A or B, the RGU
must be determined as provided in part 4410.0500, subpart 1.
28. For legislative purposes, Minn. Stat. § 410.01 classifies cities into numerical classes based on the
number of inhabitants. Based on the City of Columbus listed population of 3,387, the City of
Columbus is a fourth class city. For population information, see the 2016 League of Minnesota Cities
Directory of Minnesota City Officials.
29. The Project’s gross floor space of the office/laboratory and vehicle maintenance building is less than
5,000 square feet.
30. The hot mix asphalt plant and the temporary crusher do not have “gross floor space” as that term is
used in Minn. R. 4410.4300, sub. 14. However, if this Finding is incorrect, a gross floor space of
150,000 square feet would have to be assigned to the hot mix asphalt plant and temporary crusher
structures to meet the mandatory EAW threshold of 200,000 square feet for an industrial,
commercial or institutional facility proposed to be located in a third or fourth class city. Based on
the plans and specifications sheets supplied in Appendix A of the Petition (Attachment 1 to the
Findings), the hot mix asphalt plant and temporary crusher structures do not approach 200,000
square feet of combined gross floor space.
31. There are no structures in the proposed Project other than the structure described in findings 30
and 31. Therefore, based on the population of the City of Columbus and the Project’s proposed
gross floor space, the Project does not meet the mandatory EAW threshold for an industrial,
commercial or institutional facility under Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 14.
Hazardous Waste Facilities
32. Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 16 states:
A. For construction or expansion of a hazardous waste disposal facility, the PCA shall be the RGU.
B. For construction of a hazardous waste processing facility with a capacity of 1,000 or more
kilograms per month, the PCA shall be the RGU.
C. For expansion of a hazardous waste processing facility that increases its capacity by ten percent
or more, the PCA shall be the RGU.
D. For construction or expansion of a facility that sells hazardous waste storage services to
generators other than the owner and operator of the facility or construction of a facility at
which a generator's own hazardous wastes will be stored for a time period in excess of 90 days,
if the facility is located in a water-related land use management district, or in an area
characterized by soluble bedrock, the PCA shall be the RGU.
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
6
33. “Hazardous waste" has the meaning given in Minn. Stat. § 116.06, subd. 11, which states:
"Hazardous waste" means any refuse, sludge, or other waste material or combinations of refuse,
sludge or other waste materials in solid, semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form which because
of its quantity, concentration, or chemical, physical, or infectious characteristics may (a) cause or
significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible illness; or (b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or
otherwise managed. Categories of hazardous waste materials include, but are not limited to:
explosives, flammables, oxidizers, poisons, irritants, and corrosives. Hazardous waste does not
include source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended.
34. The Project will process and produce hot mix asphalt, crushed aggregate, and crushed asphalt. None
of these products meet the definition of a hazardous waste in Minn. Stat. § 116.06, subd. 11.
35. Bituminous’ Project will not accept hazardous waste for disposal or processing. Bituminous is not
selling hazardous waste storage to hazardous waste generators. Therefore, the mandatory
threshold under part 4410.4300, subp. 16 A, B, or C does not apply to the Project.
36. Materials typically used in production of hot mix asphalt include sand, crushed rock, some specialty
aggregates, crushed recycled concrete and/or recycled asphalt. None of these materials meet the
definition of a hazardous waste in Minn. Stat. § 116.06, subd. 11.
37. Liquid asphalt cement (LAC) is also typically used in production of hot mix asphalt. LAC does not
meet the definition of hazardous waste in Minn. Stat. § 116.06, subd. 11.
Evaluation Criteria
38. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 6, the MPCA must order the preparation of an EAW if the
evidence presented by the Petition, Proposer, and other persons, or information otherwise known
to the MPCA, demonstrates that because of the nature or location of the proposed Project, the
proposed Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The MPCA must
deny the Petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that the proposed Project may
have the potential for significant environmental effects.
39. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA
must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the
criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. The following factors shall be considered:
A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.
B. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the
cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is
significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential
effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically
designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize
the contributions from the project.
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
7
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can
be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project.
D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,
including other EISs.
Permits Required
40. The Project will require the permits listed in the following table.
Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status
City of Columbus Building Permit Pending
City of Columbus Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Pending
City of Columbus Rezoning of Project Property from light industrial
to commercial/industrial
Pending
City of Columbus Onsite Septic System Application not submitted
Rice Creek Watershed
District
Wetland Delineation Delineation Reviewed and
Approved
City of Columbus/Rice
Creek Watershed District
Site construction, stormwater management plan
approval, and wetland mitigation –
wetland activities permit
Pending
Anoka County Access Driveway approval Application not submitted
Anoka County Drainage Easement Pending
Minnesota Department
of Health (MDH)
Notification of Water Well Construction
Application not submitted
MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS)
MNG490000 Permit for Nonmetallic Mining and
Associated Activities General Permit. This includes
permit coverage for industrial and construction
stormwater (Nonmetallic Mining Water General
Permit)
Application not submitted
MPCA Option D Air Registration Permit (Option D Permit) Application not submitted
MPCA Aboveground Storage Tank Registration for LAC
tanks
Registration not
submitted
Petition Concerns and Related Findings
41. The Petitions raise the following areas of concern about the Project’s potential to have significant
environmental effects:
a) Air quality
b) Traffic
c) Noise
d) Wetlands/stormwater
The MPCA’s analysis of the Petitioner’s concerns is discussed in the following Findings.
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
8
Air Quality Concerns
42. The Petitioner stated concerns, referencing an opinion letter prepared by Dr. Lynn Hovda, the Chief
Commission Veterinarian for the Minnesota Racing Commission, about the health and welfare of
horses that live, train, and race at the Running Aces Horsetrack. The Petitioner included this letter in
the petition as Appendix B (Attachment 1 to Findings).
43. The Petitioner states concerns that production of hot mix asphalt at the Project location generates
toxic chemicals, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures like toluene and xylene as well
as heavy metals and benzene, which can be carried by wind and inhaled by humans and animals,
creating health risks.
44. The Petitioner states concerns that the storage of large volumes of materials used for hot mix
asphalt production at the Project location may allow fine dust to be blow toward the Running Aces
Horsetrack.
45. The Petitioner states that the heavy truck traffic in and out of the Project location will generate a
large volume of dust and debris that will migrate toward the Running Aces Horsetrack, including not
only dust kicked up by moving tires, but also fine sand, dust and debris falling off the trucks. The
Petitioner notes this sort of particulate matter can cause very severe respiratory illnesses in horses,
particularly when the horses are racing or working out, because horses breathe particularly large
volumes of air under high pressure, such as while running.
46. The Petitioner also states concerns about impacts of truck exhaust on the horses at the Running
Aces Horsetrack.
47. The Project is proposed on a site that is approximately 1.8 miles south of the Running Aces Casino
and Racetrack.
Air Quality – Air Emissions
48. After Project construction is complete, the Project will be a non-major source for Clean Air Act Title
V (Part 70), which means that emissions of all regulated pollutants are limited to less than 100 tons
per year each, emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are limited to less than 25 tons per year
combined, and less than 10 tons per year of each individual HAP. See below table for Title V Permit
and State Air Permit Thresholds.
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
9
Pollutant Title V Permit Threshold State Air Permit Threshold
(tpy) (tpy)
PM 100 100
PM10 100 25
PM2.5 100 100
SO2 100 50
NOx 100 100
CO 100 100
VOC 100 100
Lead NA 0.5
Single HAP 10 10
Combined HAPs 25 25
tpy – tons per year
NOx – Nitrogen Oxides
PM – Particulate Matter
CO – Carbon Monoxide
PM10 – Particulate Matter less than 10 µm (micrometers) in size
VOC – Volatile Organic Compound
PM2.5 – Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micrometers in size
HAPs – Hazardous air pollutants
SO2 – Sulfur Dioxide
49. Bituminous must comply with federal New Source Performance Standards and Standards of
Performance for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities (40 CFR pt. 60, subp. I), which contain limits for PM and
opacity. Bituminous must conduct performance tests on the hot mix asphalt plant and submit the
results to the MPCA Air Program for review. MPCA must make the determination Bituminous’
equipment meets the performance requirements before Bituminous may use the equipment.
50. The state of Minnesota also regulates air emissions from hot mix asphalt plants. See Minn. R.
subp.7011.0900 through 7011.0922. Most hot mix asphalt plants in Minnesota receive permit
coverage under MPCA’s Option D Registration Permit (Minn. R. 7007.1130), or receive an individual
air permit. The Option D Registration Permit restricts emissions to 50% of the Title V permit
thresholds listed in the table above.
51. Bituminous is applying for an MPCA Option D Permit and must meet the emission restrictions in
Minn. R. 7011.0900-0922. Bituminous must install and operate equipment, including the asphalt
plant production and control equipment and tanks, according to the manufacturer’s specifications.
Bituminous must also monitor, inspect and calibrate equipment and provide MPCA with an annual
calculated actual emissions report from the Project. If Bituminous discovers any deviations, it must
report them to the MPCA.
52. Bituminous’ consultant, Wenck, in a letter dated August 9, 2017, (Attachment 5) provided MPCA
with air modeling information on both the Project as well as traffic emissions. MPCA is not using the
Wenck Letter information as a formal air modelling data submittal. However, the MPCA believes
the information does provide a reasonable example of emissions from a similar type of facility, as
well as expected air emissions from trucks hauling materials.
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
10
Air Quality – Dust
53. Minn. R. pt. 7011.0150 requires Bituminous to prevent fugitive dust emissions from becoming
airborne at the Project site. The Project design includes primary and secondary filtering systems at
the hot mix asphalt production process to capture fine sands and dust emissions. The coarsest
particles are captured in the primary collector and returned to the production mix. The finer
particles are collected in the secondary collector and returned to the production mix.
54. Bituminous will regularly spray any portable crusher and screens used to crush asphalt and cement
rubble to reduce dust.
55. The Bituminous CUP application (Appendix A of the Petition, Attachment 1 to Findings) states it will
pave the two access driveways at the Project site as well as the asphalt plant production area,
which will reduce dust. Bituminous will have a street sweeper onsite at all times to remove any
materials tracked onto County State Aid Highway (CSAH 54). In addition, the areas at the Project
site not paved will be surfaced with gravel and watered on an as-needed basis to prevent fugitive
dust from leaving the Project site.
56. The Bituminous CUP application states Project traffic will consist of trucks bringing raw materials
and hauling finished products, with the amount of trucks per day varying based on local
construction activity and product demand. Bituminous estimates traffic of peak day production to
generate approximately 250 round-trip truck visits, with approximately 120 trips leaving the Project
property with loads of asphalt, and the remainder consisting of trucks bringing aggregate and rubble
to the Project property or leaving the Project property with road base materials.
57. The Bituminous CUP application states that trucks importing and exporting materials from the
Project property will enter from CSAH 54 using the northernmost access drive as the primary
entrance to the Project property, and exit the Project property at the south access drive back out to
CSAH 54. Truck traffic from the site may head either north or south on CSAH 54.
58. MnDOT requires trucks be secured and transported to prevent loss of material onto the roadway
and surrounding areas. According to the MnDOT commercial vehicle manual, the manner of loading
is regulated under Minn. Stat. § 169.81, subd. 5, and, Minnesota has adopted the load securement
requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/cvo/mcr/MnTruckRegl/MNTruckReg.pdf.
59. Bituminous will require truck drivers to clean any spills following loading or unloading, which will
help prevent excess dust.
60. The MPCA finds the proposed Project is designed to meet federal, state, and local requirements for
air emissions for hot mix asphalt production and materials storage at the Project property.
61. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to air quality
that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
11
Traffic Concerns
62. Trucks will enter and exit the Project property from CSAH 54 using the northernmost access drive as
the primary entrance to the Project property, and exit the Project property at the south access drive
back out to CSAH 54.
63. The MPCA reviewed a technical memorandum from Bryant Ficek, Professional Engineer (P.E.) and
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (P.T.O.E) dated July 13, 2017 (Appendix A of the Petition,
Attachment 1 to Findings). Based on the information in the July 2017 memo, Bituminous worked
with the Anoka County Highway Department, providing information regarding the Project design
and expected truck traffic. The Anoka County Highway Department reviewed Bituminous’
information, provided Bituminous with questions and comments, and as a result, Spack Consulting
made revisions to address the Anoka County Highway Department comments. Anoka County
Highway Department cannot provide final approvals on the Project design until either the MPCA
denies the petition or Bituminous has completed the environmental review process.
64. According to the July 2017 memo information, the CSAH 54 traffic levels are expected to remain
below the planning-level capacity threshold for a two-lane road with the added Project traffic, both
under existing and future 2030 traffic projects. Below is a copy of a table from the July 2017 memo
that compares CSAH 54 Daily Volumes:
Scenario Daily Volume Planning-Level Threshold1
Existing Traffic2
Without proposed development
With proposed development4
1,400
1,660
11,500-19,000 vehicles per day
Projected 2030 Traffic3
Without proposed development
With proposed development4
7,300
7,560
11,500-19,000 vehicles per day
1Capacity range for a two-lane road, if exceed indicates congestion
2Based on 2015 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) traffic volume maps
3Projected 2030 volume from the Anoka County Transportation Plan
4Assumes traffic from a peak day for the proposed Project and assumes an even 50-50 split between traffic headed north
and headed south
65. In addition, MPCA staff reviewed a MnDOT 2015 traffic map for Anoka County, which indicates
CSAH 54, immediately north of the Project property, has a 2015 average annual daily traffic (AADT)
number listed as 3,100, higher than the amount Anoka County is reporting. The same map also
indicates an AADT of 81,000 at a location slightly north of the Project property, where 35E/35W
begins to merge. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/maps/indexmaps/2015/2G.pdf The
Proposer’s estimated increase in Project-related truck traffic compared to Anoka County’s reported
existing AADT conditions for CSAH 54, is approximately 18%; the Proposer’s estimated increase in
Project-related truck traffic compared to MnDOT’s existing AADT conditions, is approximately 8%;
the Proposer’s estimated increase in Project-related truck traffic at CSAH 54 compared to existing
35E/35W AADT conditions is .003 %.
66. In 2011, Anoka County, the City of Columbus and MnDOT began a study to address traffic safety
and traffic operation concerns at the I-35/Lake Drive interchange, which includes CSAH 54. In 2013,
this study was completed. As an outcome of this study and several open house meetings with local
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
12
residents, Anoka County determined that CSAH 54 needed to be re-aligned to provide more
distance between its intersection with Lake Drive and the interchange.
67. Anoka County is now planning to realign portions of CSAH 54, including the portion adjacent to the
Running Aces Horsetrack, in order to address traffic operations and safety concerns with the
transportation network surrounding the I-35/Highway 97 interchange. Anoka County’s project is
called the Anoka CSAH 54 (which is also known as West Freeway Drive) Realignment Project
(Realignment Project).
68. The MPCA finds that the Project, as Proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to traffic.
Noise Concerns – Project Site
69. The Petitioner states Bituminous’ crushing activities, projected to occur for 3-4 weeks twice per
year, will generate noise and vibration, which will harm the health of horses boarded and running at
the Running Aces Horsetrack.
70. Bituminous is required to meet Minnesota noise standards in Minn. R. ch. 7030 at the Project site,
during construction as well as operation of the Project. Bituminous’ contractor for crushing asphalt
and concrete rubble will also be required to meet Minnesota noise standards while operating the
portable crushing equipment at the site.
71. Minnesota’s noise standards are based on statistical calculations that quantify noise levels over a 1-
hour monitoring period. The L10 calculation is the noise level that is exceeded for 10%, or 6 minutes,
of the hour, and the L50 calculation is the noise level exceeded for 50%, or 30 minutes, of the hour.
There is not a limit on maximum noise.
72. The statutory limits for noise levels at a residential location are L10 = 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA)
and L50 = 60 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) and L10 = 55 dBA and L50 = 50 dBA
during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.). This means that during the 1-hour period of
monitoring, daytime noise levels cannot exceed 65 dBA for more than 10 % of the time or 60 dBA
more than 50% of the time.
73. The basic noise rules for noise area classifications are in the following table.
Noise Area
Classification
Common land use associated with the Noise
Area Classification Daytime Nighttime
L10 L50 L10 L50
1
Residential housing, religious activities,
camping and picnicking areas, health services,
hotels, educational services
65 60 55 50
2
Retail, business and government services,
recreational activities, transit passenger
terminals
70 65 70 65
3 Manufacturing, fairgrounds and amusement
parks, agricultural and forestry activities 80 75 80 75
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
13
74. Noise area classifications (NAC) are based on the land use at the location of the person who hears
the noise, which does not always correspond with the zoning of an area. Therefore, noise from an
industrial facility near a residential area is held to the NAC 1 standards if it can be heard on a
residential property.
75. Bituminous’ CUP application states the Project vehicles and equipment will operate with standard
noise reduction features such as mufflers. Bituminous’ heavy construction vehicles and delivery
vehicles, which will be the majority of the delivery vehicles going to the Project site, will be
equipped with “white noise” backup alarms to reduce noise impacts. Bituminous is also centralizing
the Project operations to provide perimeter buffer. Bituminous will also be landscaping the Project
property perimeter to further reduce the potential for noise.
76. The MPCA reviewed information available on similar facilities, including traffic studies completed
included on a previous EAW (Bituminous Roadways Roseville) and determined Bituminous’ plans for
noise reduction at the Project site is comparable to other facilities and designed to meet Minnesota
Noise Standards.
Noise Concerns - Truck Traffic
77. The Petitioner states concerns that large volumes of truck traffic will cause great amounts of sound
and vibration, which would stress the horses and cause loss of sleep.
78. Trucks delivering supplies or products will be equipped with standard noise reduction features such
as mufflers.
79. Although Bituminous is required to meet Minnesota noise standards at the Project site, Minnesota
statutes provide exemptions from the noise standards on county and city roads, including CSAH 54
under Minn. Stat. § 116.07 subd. 2a. The exemptions from standards is:
“No standards adopted by any state agency for limiting levels of noise in terms of sound pressure
which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere shall apply to (1) segments of trunk highways
constructed with federal interstate substitution money, provided that all reasonably available
noise mitigation measures are employed to abate noise, (2) an existing or newly constructed
segment of a highway, provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures, as
approved by the commissioners of the Department of Transportation and Pollution Control
Agency, are employed to abate noise, (3) except for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, an
existing or newly constructed segment of a road, street, or highway under the jurisdiction of a
road authority of a town, statutory or home rule charter city, or county, except for roadways for
which full control of access has been acquired, (4) skeet, trap or shooting sports clubs, or (5)
motor vehicle race events conducted at a facility specifically designed for that purpose that was in
operation on or before July 1, 1996. Nothing herein shall prohibit a local unit of government or a
public corporation with the power to make rules for the government of its real property from
regulating the location and operation of skeet, trap or shooting sports clubs, or motor vehicle
race events conducted at a facility specifically designed for that purpose that was in operation on
or before July 1, 1996.”
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
14
80. Minnesota noise standards do not include a standard for ground vibrations.
81. The MPCA finds the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to noise.
Wetlands and Stormwater Concerns
82. The Petition states the proposed Project will have significant impact on wetlands, noting the Project
will increase the impervious area on the Project location from approximately 0.90 acres to
approximately 20.85 acres, and disturb an additional approximately 38 acres. The Petition notes
that in aggregate, Bituminous proposes 3.55 acres of wetland impact, requiring 6.30 acres of
replacement. The Petitioner describes the Bituminous remediation plan that has been submitted to
the Rick Creek Watershed District (Appendix C of the Petition, Attachment 1 to the Findings), and
that the engineers who have reviewed the plan on behalf of the Rice Creek Watershed District have
recommended approval, so long as certain conditions are satisfied. This remediation plan also
includes stormwater measures, including design of sedimentation basins, site grading, and other
stormwater controls to prevent stormwater impacts.
83. Based on the information in Appendix C to the Petition, and as previously noted in Findings 11
through 17, Bituminous has worked with Rice Creek Watershed District to address the requirements
of the WCA, including wetland replacement and stormwater design and management measures.
84. The MPCA reviewed the potential for environmental impacts associated with stormwater runoff
during and after construction of the Project, as well as the potential environmental impacts
associated with Bituminous’ removal of 3.55 acres of wetland that will require 6.30 acres of wetland
replacement.
85. In addition to meeting the Rice Creek Watershed District’s requirements for WCA, Bituminous must
also apply for MPCA permit coverage for construction and industrial stormwater activities at the
Project site. Bituminous has indicated to the MPCA it will apply for MPCA’s Nonmetallic Mining
Water General Permit, which covers construction stormwater activities, as well as stormwater
discharges from hot mix asphalt plant production areas, including storage of materials. The
Nonmetallic Mining Water General Permit also authorizes wastewater discharge for a limited
number of activities that do not result in a discharge to surface waters of the state. See the
following link: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonmetallic-mining-and-associated-activities
86. The Nonmetallic Mining Water General Permit establishes requirements to implement appropriate
erosion prevention and sediment control measures, based on site-specific design factors, both
during construction and operation of the Project, to mitigate surface water runoff impacts.
87. Bituminous will implement applicable erosion prevention and sediment control measures to
mitigate surface water runoff impacts based on site-specific design conditions to ensure compliance
with enforceable regulatory requirements of the Nonmetallic Mining Water General Permit. This
includes but is not limited to Bituminous’ proposed construction of sedimentation ponds, and
grading of both Lot 1 and Lot 2 to direct stormwater into the sedimentation ponds.
On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Project Conclusions of Law
Columbus, Minnesota And Order
15
88. Bituminous is proposing to design and install 4-30,000 gallon and 1-20,000 gallon aboveground
storage tanks for liquid asphalt cement (LAC), a material used in the production of hot mix asphalt.
Although LAC is not a hazardous waste, LAC is a hazardous material when in liquid form. Bituminous
will maintain the LAC at a temperature of greater than 300 °F, so that it will remain in liquid form.
LAC storage tanks must comply with Minn. R. 7151, aboveground storage of liquid substances,
which includes the requirement for secondary containment. The LAC becomes virtually solid at
ambient temperatures. Therefore, if LAC spills, rather than seeping through soil, LAC hardens and
remains at the spill location. The Project is designed with a secondary containment area to ensure
any spilled LAC will not move overland.
89. Bituminous must register its aboveground storage tanks with the MPCA.
90. MPCA rules for aboveground storage tanks (Minn. R. 7151) include standards for the design and
installation to prevent leaks and spills, along with requirements for construction of secondary
containment areas that will prevent a release to the environment.
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/t-a2-08.pdf
91. The MPCA finds the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based
on the type, extent, and reversibility of wetland and stormwater impacts reasonably expected to
occur.
Potential Cumulative Impacts
92. With respect to the potential for cumulative impacts, the MPCA staff identified no areas for which
the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects by itself or in combination with
other past, present or future project in the area.
Potential for Significant Environmental Effects
93. The MPCA finds that the evidence provided by the Petitioners and the other information in the
record reviewed by MPCA staff does not demonstrate that the Project may have the potential for
significant environmental effects.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
94. The EQB designated MPCA as the RGU for this decision.
95. The MPCA followed all necessary procedures for the Petition process.
96. The Commissioner has the authority to make a decision in this matter.
97. The evidence presented by the Petitioners, Proposer, and other persons, or otherwise known to the
MPCA, does not demonstrate that the Project may have the potential for significant environmental
effects.
Item No. 2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 2
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Diane Hankee, City Engineer
Re: Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report for Centerville Road (CSAH
21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd
Background
The Centerville Road and County Road J intersection experiences poor operations and
congestion in both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. In cooperation with the North Oaks
Development Company, Anoka County, Ramsey County and the City North Oaks an
Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) was prepared. The purpose of the study is to
evaluate the traffic control and intersection lane geometry needed to address the current
congestion and accommodate future planned growth.
The study showed that under existing conditions the southbound approach and the
westbound right turn movements were having unsatisfactory levels of service. The study
used the City’s existing traffic (2018), and projected traffic based on future land use
(2038), to determine acceptable levels of service. The analysis concluded that either a
traffic signal system or roundabout would address the current a.m. or p.m. peak periods
of unsatisfactory levels of service, and provide adequate levels of service through 2038.
The estimated cost for a traffic signal with roadway improvements is $1,500,000 and for
a roundabout is $1,000,000. Based on design factors, MnDOT’s future plans for
roundabouts along the County Road J and Interstate 35E intersections, and estimated
project cost, a roundabout is recommended.
The next step is to identify the project funding. This involves refining project costs and
identify cost shares. Cost shares will be based on the jurisdiction and their associated
cost participation policy. The four jurisdictions are: Anoka County for the north leg,
Ramsey County for the south leg, Lino Lakes and Ramsey County for the east leg, and
the west leg is maintained by the Waverly Gardens development in North Oaks.
Requested Council Direction
Direct staff to place on the October 9, 2017 City Council meeting for consideration.
Attachments
1. Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report for Centerville Road (CSAH
21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
EVALUATION
Centerville Rd (CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
at
Ash St (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd
Cities of Lino Lakes and North Oaks
White Bear Township
Anoka and Ramsey County, MN
09/18/2017
Prepared for:
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION
FOR
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
AT
ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD
S.A.P. NO. TBD
CITY PROJECT NO. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES AND NORTH OAKS,
TOWN OF WHITE BEAR
ANOKA AND RAMSEY COUNTIES, MN
Funding Category: .................................................................... Municipal and County State Aid, Local
Estimated Letting Date: .....................................................................................................................TBD
Work Identification: ........................................................................................Intersection Improvements
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
26082 DATE: 09/18/2017
Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE Reg. No.
REVIEWED: DATE:
Lino Lakes City Engineer Reg. No.
REVIEWED: DATE:
North Oaks City Engineer Reg. No.
REVIEWED: DATE:
Anoka County Engineer Reg. No.
REVIEWED: DATE:
Ramsey County Engineer Reg. No.
APPROVED: DATE:
MnDOT Metro-Asst. Division Engineer – State Aid
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD TABLE OF CONTENTS
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION ............................................................................................... 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 2
FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 6
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 10
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 24
LIST of FIGURES / TABLES
FIGURE 1 - INTERSECTION LOCATION ..............................................................................2
FIGURE 2 - EXISTING INTERSECTION CONDITIONS ......................................................4
FIGURE 3 - 2018 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS ............................................................................7
FIGURE 4 - 2018 BUILD CONDITIONS ...................................................................................8
FIGURE 5 - 2038 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS ............................................................................9
FIGURE 6 - 2038 BUILD CONDITIONS .................................................................................10
FIGURE 7 - I35E RAMPS ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT V3 .................................................11
FIGURE 8 - I35E RAMPS ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT V5A1 .............................................12
FIGURE 9 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ....................................................................16
FIGURE 10 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT .............................................22
FIGURE 11 - ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT ..................................................23
TABLE 1 - INTERSECTION CRASH DATA SUMMARY .....................................................5
TABLE 2 - INTERSECTION CRASH RATE SUMMARY .....................................................5
TABLE 3 - ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC GENERATION ..............................6
TABLE 4 - CRASH RATE BY IMPROVEMENT TYPE .......................................................15
TABLE 5 - EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY............................................17
TABLE 6 - 2018 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY ..................................17
TABLE 7 - 2038 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY ..................................18
TABLE 8 - 2018 BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY .........................................18
TABLE 9 - 2038 BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY .........................................19
TABLE 10 - 2018 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS SUMMARY .....................................20
TABLE 11 - 2038 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS SUMMARY .....................................20
TABLE 12 - 2018 ROUNDABOUT OPERATIONS SUMMARY ..........................................21
TABLE 13 - 2038 ROUNDABOUT OPERATIONS SUMMARY ..........................................21
APPENDIX A - CRASH DIAGRAMS
APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX C - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D - LOS ANALYSIS RESULTS
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 1
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the traffic control and intersection lane geometry needed
for the intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson
Lake Blvd. The intersection is located on the border of Lino Lakes, North Oaks and White Bear
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.
Concerns have been raised with respect to operations of the Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH
59) and Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd intersection and the interaction with the Ash
Street (CR J) and 20th Avenue (CSAH 84)/I35E southbound ramp intersection.
This report documents the existing conditions, operations, and safety concerns at the intersection
and analyzes the proposed future traffic volumes with the existing and proposed traffic control
and lane geometry.
DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION
Centerville Road is a north/south two lane A Minor Arterial Expander running parallel to I35E
on the west side. This roadway is Anoka County Road (CSAH) 21 north of Ash Street (CR J) to
Main Street (CSAH 14) in Centerville. South of Ash Street (CR J) the roadway is Ramsey
County Road (CSAH 59) to Koehler Road (CSAH 15) in Vadnais Heights. In the project area
Centerville Road (CSAH 59) south of Ash Street (CR J) provides access to several commercial
and residential properties. North of Ash Street (CR J) there is access to Centerville Road (CSAH
21) only to residential property.
Ash Street (CR J) is an east/west two lane A Minor Arterial Expander running from Centerville
Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) to Otter Lake Road (CSAH 84) on the east side of I35E. Ash Street
(CR J) provides direct access to the commercial properties south of the roadway. On and off
ramp access to I35E to and from the south is provided from Ash Street (CR J). No access is
provided to I35E to or from the north from Ash Street (CR J).
20th Avenue South (CSAH 54) is north/south two lane A Minor Arterial Reliever parallel to
I35E running from Ash Street (CR J) where is it intersects with the I35E south on-ramp to Main
Street (CSAH 14) in Centerville.
Otter Lake Road (CSAH 84/CR 148) is a north/south two lane major collector running parallel
to I35E on the east side. This roadway is Anoka County Road (CSAH) 84 north of Ash Street
(CR J) to Main Street (CSAH 14) in Centerville. South of Ash Street (CR J) the roadway is a B
Minor Arterial designated as Ramsey County Road (CR) 148 to White Bear Parkway (CSAH 93)
in White Bear Lake.
Figure 1 shows the intersection location within the context of the surrounding area.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 2
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 3
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The intersections on Ash Street (CR J) between Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) and
Otter Lake Road (CSAH 84) are currently all un-signalized with stop control. The following is a
summary of the existing conditions at each of the area intersections:
Ash Street (CR J) at Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd:
• All Way Stop Control
• 50 MPH on Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
• 40 MPH on Ash Street (CR J)
• Wilkinson Lake Blvd private street
• Lane Configuration:
o SB Centerville Rd – one left/through/right lane
o NB Centerville Rd – one left/through lane, one right lane
o WB Ash St – one left/through lane, one right lane
o EB Wilkinson Lake Blvd – one left/through/right lane
Ash Street (CR J) at 20th Avenue (CSAH 54)/I35E on-ramp:
• Side Street Stop Control
• 50 MPH on 20th Avenue (CSAH 54)
• 40 MPH on Ash Street (CR J)
• Lane Configuration:
o SB 20th Ave – one left/through/right lane
o WB Ash St – one left/through/right lane
o EB Ash St – one left/through/right lane
Ash Street (CR J) at I35E off-ramp:
• All Way Stop Control
• 40 MPH on Ash Street (CR J)
• Lane Configuration:
o NB I35E off-ramp – one right lane, one left lane
o WB Ash St – one through lane
o EB Ash St – one through lane
Ash Street (CR J) at Otter Lake Blvd (CSAH 84):
• All Way Stop Control
• 50 MPH north on Otter Lake Blvd
• 35 MPH south on Otter Lake Blvd
• 40 MPH on Ash Street (CR J)
• Lane Configuration:
o SB Otter Lake Blvd – one through/right lane
o NB Otter Lake Blvd – one left/through lane
o EB Ash St – one left lane, one right lane
The existing intersection conditions are shown on Figure 2.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 4
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 5
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
Traffic turning movements at the intersections of Ash Street (CR J) at Centerville Road (CSAH
21/CSAH 59) and Ash Street (CR J) at 20th Avenue (CSAH 54)/I35E on-ramp were counted on
January 6, 2016 by Spack Consulting. These traffic counts are provided in Appendix A and
shown on Figure 2. Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes from the MnDOT and
Ramsey County ADT maps are also shown on Figure 2.
Existing crash data included with this study was obtained using the Minnesota Crash Mapping
Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) developed by MnDOT. The database includes crashes reported to
MnDOT by local law enforcement agencies.
The crash data presented is for the years of 2011-2015. The MnCMAT database does not provide
access to the original handwritten crash reports, which contain some details that are not
represented in the MnCMAT database. Crashes that resulted in damages under $1000 may not be
included in the database results as well. A summary of the existing crash data is shown in Table
1.
Table 1: Crash Data Summary
Location
Crashes
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total
Crashes PD PI PD PI PD PI PD PI PD PI
Ash St at Centerville Rd /
Wilkinson Lake Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ash St at 20th Ave / I35E on-ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ash St at I35E off-ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ash St at Otter Lake Rd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
The results indicate that the primary intersections in the area are at or below the MnDOT Metro
and Statewide average crash rates and severity rates.
The crash rates for the intersection are given below in Table 2.
Table 2: Crash Rate Summary
Location Number of
Crashes
Daily
Entering
Vehicles
Crash Rate* Severity Rate
Calculated Average Critical*** Calculated Average**
Ash St at Centerville Rd /
Wilkinson Lake Blvd 1 13,350 0.04 0.35 0.57 0.04 0.50
Ash St at
Otter Lake Rd 1 9,975 0.05 0.35 0.61 0.11 0.50
* – Intersection crash rates are expressed in crashes per million entering vehicles.
** – Average for urban through-stop intersection using MnDOT 2013 green sheets
*** – Critical crash rates are expressed in crashes per million entering vehicles with 0.96 confidence level
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 6
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
FUTURE CONDITIONS
Traffic growth in the area will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due
to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and
included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area,
traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped over the past few years. However, in order to
account for some background growth in traffic the MnDOT State Aid traffic growth projection
factor of 1.4 over a 20 year period (1.7%/year) was used to project traffic from the 2016 counts
to the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. This factor would account for any future land use outline in
the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
In addition to the regional background traffic, future traffic related to proposed Hawkins
Residential development was determined and included with the overall future traffic projections
for the build conditions. The estimated trip generation from the proposed development is shown
in Table 3. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed site traffic is also based on rates for
other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the daily, weekday AM and PM peak hour trip
generation for the proposed development.
Table 3: Estimated Development Site Trip Generation
Planned Use Size Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out
Single Family 29 units 276 21 5 16 29 18 11
Townhomes 30 units 174 13 2 11 15 10 5
Senior Housing 147 units 506 29 10 19 37 20 17
Total New Trips 956 63 17 46 81 48 33
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition
Traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and
the projected non-development traffic growth to the existing 2016 traffic counts to determine the
“No-Build” traffic conditions. The proposed development traffic was then added to the no-build
traffic conditions to determine the 2018 and 2038 Build traffic conditions. Figures 3 - 6 shows
the projected 2018 and 2038 No-Build and Build AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes.
MnDOT has also explored a future improvement of adding roundabouts at the Ash Street (CR J)
I35E Ramp intersections. Two alternative concepts have been discussed. Figure 7 shows a
drawing that accommodates the existing traffic movements only and; Figure 8 shows a drawing
that includes an exit ramp from southbound I35E and an entrance ramp to northbound
I35E. Although either of these improvements have not been approved, preliminary discussions
with MnDOT and the Counties favor the alternative that adds the ramps to and from the north.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 7
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 8
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 9
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 10
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 11
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 12
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 13
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
ALTERNATIVE CONTROL ANALYSIS
The following traffic control options were studied for the intersection of Centerville Road
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J):
• All-way stop (Existing Condition)
• Traffic signal
• Roundabout
The following subsections detail the criteria and analysis used for determining the appropriate
traffic control for this intersection.
All-Way Stop Criteria
The existing intersection is control with an all-way stop. Part 2B of the Minnesota Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) contains information pertaining to the all-way
stop control with criteria relating to vehicular volumes and crash history that define the minimum
conditions under which installing an all-way stop could be justified.
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Part 4 of the MnMUTCD contains information pertaining to highway traffic signals, including a
series of traffic-signal warrants that define the minimum conditions under which installing a
traffic signal could be justified. These traffic signal warrants are considered national guidelines
to promote continuity of traffic control devices and to maximize the benefit of traffic signals by
selecting the appropriate intersections. The following are the nine MnMUTCD traffic signal
warrants:
• Warrant 1 - Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume
• Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicle Volume
• Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Vehicle Volume
• Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Volume
• Warrant 5 - School Crossing
• Warrant 6 - Coordinated Signal System
• Warrant 7 - Crash Experience
• Warrant 8 - Roadway Network
• Warrant 9 - Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
Twenty-four hours of turning movements were counted on January 6, 2016 and used to perform
the warrant analysis.
According to the MnMUTCD, inclusion of right-turn volumes for warrant analysis is dependent
on engineering judgment, site factors and turning movement volumes. By applying engineering
judgment, right-turn movements on all four approaches of the intersection were removed from
the analysis due to the presence of right-turn lanes in each approach.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 14
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
The following is the result of the traffic signal warrant analysis. See Appendix B for additional
information.
• Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume: NOT MET
• Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicle Volume: MET
• Warrant 3 – Peak-hour Vehicle Volume: MET
• Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume: N/A
• Warrant 5 – School Crossing: N/A
• Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System: N/A
• Warrant 7 – Crash Experience: NOT MET
• Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing: N/A
Signal Warrants 2 and 3 are met with existing traffic volumes, lane geometry, and speed limits.
Roundabout Criteria
Although no traffic warrants for roundabouts currently exist, the MnDOT Intersection Control
Evaluation Manual states that if a traffic signal or an all-way stop warrant is met, a roundabout
should also be considered as a warranted traffic control device. As discussed above the
intersection is currently controlled by an all-way stop and does meet traffic signal warrants.
The Intersection Control Evaluation Manual also states that site-specific safety issues may cause
a roundabout to be justified. As seen in Table 4, a roundabout would reduce the current crash
rate. Furthermore, a roundabout will improve future roadway conditions as shown in the
Operational Analysis section of this report.
Crash Evaluation
Crash reductions for each type of intersection control were estimated based on the proposed
layout and the crash reduction factors from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Crash
Reduction Factors and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Roundabout
Crash Reduction Factors. Table 4 shows the projected crash rate and yearly crashes for each
traffic control type using the existing traffic volumes. Fewer crashes mean a reduced cost to the
local economy in terms of lost productivity related to property damage, injuries, and congestion
on local roadways.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 15
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
Table 4: Existing and Projected Crash Rates by Traffic Control Type
Traffic Control
Crash
Reduction
Factor*
Crash Rate**
Projected
Crashes Per
Year
Through-Stop
(existing) NA NA 0.60
Signalized
(Metro district average rate) NA 0.18 0.18
Urban Single Lane Roundabout 0.60 0.38 0.36
Urban Multi-lane Roundabout 0.65 0.41 0.39
* Crash reduction factors taken from MnDOT's HSIP Program guidance
** Crash rate for proposed improvements = crash reduction factor multiplied by the existing
intersection crash rate
A traffic signal would cut the crash rate by over two-thirds greatly improving the safety of the
intersection. A single or multi-lane roundabout would also cut the crash rate by roughly one-
third, which would make it an effective safety measure as well.
Intersection Capacity Evaluation
Intersection operations are evaluated in terms of average seconds of delay per vehicle for the
intersection, and for each approach and turning movement. The average number of seconds of
delay is broken into six ranges assigned letter grades A through F defining each level of service
(LOS) as shown in Figure 9. The ranges for un-signalized intersections are narrower than the
ranges for signalized intersections. This is because many factors including the intangible factors
of driver discomfort and frustration are considered. Studies have indicated that a one-minute
delay at a red light is perceived as being more tolerable than one minute waiting for a gap in
traffic at a stop sign, especially when there are vehicles queued behind. It is generally recognized
that LOS D is the lowest acceptable LOS for urban intersections. Intersection capacity is also
defined in terms of queue lengths of stopped vehicles. A 100-foot queue is approximately equal
to four cars.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 16
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
Figure 9: Level of Service Guidelines
Synchro / SimTraffic and RODEL software were used to simulate existing and future traffic
operations at the intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street.
Synchro is a macroscopic software application used for optimizing traffic signal timing and
performing capacity analysis of roadway networks consisting of stop, yield, and signalized traffic
control conditions. The underlying equations are based on Highway Capacity Manual
procedures. SimTraffic is a microscopic software application that performs simulation and
animation of vehicular traffic based on Synchro inputs. SimTraffic follows individual cars and
uses a wide variety of variables (including some random variables) to simulate real-world driver
behavior.
RODEL is a software program that predicts the traffic performance of roundabouts. The
capacity estimates are based on research completed at the British Transport and Road Research
Laboratory (TRRL) and use empirical equations originally published in 1980. RODEL
calculates the capacity of each roundabout entry as a function of the circulating flow past that
entry and six other geometric parameters. An important feature of RODEL is the capability to
vary the evaluation confidence level, which provides a factor of safety that takes into account the
variability of traffic predictions and flow characteristics. RODEL, however, is not able to model
the interaction of traffic in a system of intersections.
Traffic operations at the intersection of Centerville Road (CR 21/CR 59) at Ash Street (CR J)
were evaluated using traffic volume for: existing (2016) conditions; 2018 no-build and build
conditions, and; 2038 no-build and build conditions, discussed previously.
Analysis was conducted for each traffic control option including: all-way stop control (existing
conditions); traffic signal control, and roundabout control. A discussion of the assumptions and
analysis results is discussed below.
80
55
35
20
10
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
Not CongestedCongested50
35
25
10
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
Not CongestedCongested15
Signalized Intersection Un-signalized IntersectionControl Delay per Vehicle (sec.)Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.)SOURCE: Level of Service thresholds from the Highway Capacity Manual.
K:\Traffic\Level of Service (LOS)\LOS Delay Graphic.ppt
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 17
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
All-Way Stop Analysis
2016 (Existing Conditions): The analysis of the 2016 conditions with existing lane geometrics
and all-way stop control show the intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash
Street (CR J) is operating at an overall LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak
hour. Specifically the southbound approach and the westbound right turn movements are
showing unsatisfactory levels of service. The results of the existing condition traffic operations
analysis are summarized in Table 5. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix D.
Table 5: 2016 Existing Condition Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Control Location Appr
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay(LOS)
Movement Delay (LOS) Intersectio
n
Delay/LOS Left Through Right Left Through Right Stop Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
at Ash St (CR J)
NB 12.2 (B) 9.4 (A)
67.0 (F)
20.6 (C) 12.7 (B)
43.0 (E) WB 16.0 (C) 13.9 (B) 11.7 (B) 36.3 (E)
SB 117.1 (F) 76.8 (F)
EB 11.5 (B) 13.3 (B) Stop Ash St at 20th
Ave/I35E Ramp
WB 8.8 (A)
3.1 (A)
8.7 (A)
1.9 (A) SB 15.6 (C) 20.1 (C)
EB 8.3 (A) 9.2 (A)
2018 No-Build Conditions: Similar to the existing condition analysis the 2018 no-build
conditions with existing lane geometrics and all-way stop control show the intersection would be
operating at an overall LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically the southbound
approach and the westbound right turn movements are showing unsatisfactory levels of service.
The results of the 2018 no-build condition traffic operations analysis are summarized in Table 6.
Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix D.
Table 6: 2018 No Build Condition Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Control Location Appr
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay(LOS)
Movement Delay (LOS) Intersectio
n
Delay/LOS Left Through Right Left Through Right Stop Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
at Ash St (CR J)
NB 12.5 (B) 9.5 (A)
76.5 (F)
22.5 (C) 13.2 (B)
51.1 (F) WB 16.5 (C) 14.4 (B) 11.9 (B) 42.7 (E)
SB 135.2 (F) 93.7 (F)
EB 11.7 (B) 13.7 (B) Stop Ash St at 20th
Ave/I35E Ramp
WB 8.6 (A)
3.3 (A)
8.8 (A)
1.9 (A) SB 15.7 (C) 21.1 (C)
EB 8.4 (A) 9.3 (A)
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 18
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
2038 No-Build Conditions: The analysis of the 2038 no-build conditions with existing lane
geometrics and all-way stop control show the intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH
59) at Ash Street (CR J) would be operating at an overall LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours.
Specifically the southbound approach, northbound left/through movement and the westbound
right turn movements are showing unsatisfactory levels of service. In addition the southbound
approach at the intersection of Ash Street (CR J) at 20th Avenue/I35E Ramp would also be
operating an LOS F during the AM and PM hours. The results of the 2038 no-build condition
traffic operations analysis are summarized in Table 7. Detailed modeling results are provided in
Appendix D.
Table 7: 2038 No Build Condition Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Control Location Appr
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay(LOS)
Movement Delay (LOS) Intersectio
n
Delay/LOS Left Through Right Left Through Right Stop Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
at Ash St (CR J)
NB 16.3 (C) 10.9 (A)
222.6 (F)
57.2 (F) 19.7 (C)
173.0 (F) WB 26.3 (D) 23.4 (C) 13.7 (B) 176.7 (F)
SB 411.8 (F) 312.3 (F)
EB 14.0 (B) 17.9 (B) Stop Ash St at 20th
Ave/I35E Ramp
WB 10.6 (B)
7.6 (A)
9.9 (A)
5.0 (A) SB 53.9 (F) 95.7 (F)
EB 9.0 (A) 11.0 (B)
2018 Build Conditions: The 2018 build conditions assume that the proposed Hawkins
residential project is fully developed. Similar to the 2018 no-build condition analysis the 2018
build conditions with existing lane geometrics and all-way stop control show the intersection
would be operating at an overall LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically the
southbound approach and the westbound right turn movements are showing unsatisfactory levels
of service. The results of the 2018 build condition traffic operations analysis are summarized in
Table 8. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix D.
Table 8: 2018 Build Condition Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Control Location Appr
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay(LOS)
Movement Delay (LOS) Intersectio
n
Delay/LOS Left Through Right Left Through Right Stop Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
at Ash St (CR J)
NB 12.9 (B) 9.7 (A)
87.1(F)
24.2 (C) 13.7 (B)
52.7 (F) WB 17.2 (C) 15.0 (B) 12.3 (B) 47.9 (E)
SB 157.0 (F) 109.6 (F)
EB 12.1 (B) 14.3 (B) Stop Ash St at 20th
Ave/I35E Ramp
WB 8.7 (A)
3.4 (A)
8.9 (A)
3.3 (A) SB 16.1 (C) 21.3 (C)
EB 8.4 (A) 9.5 (A)
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 19
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
2038 Build Conditions: The 2038 build conditions assume that the proposed Hawkins
residential project is fully developed. Similar to the 2038 no-build condition analysis the 2038
build conditions with existing lane geometrics and all-way stop control show the intersection of
Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J) would be operating at an overall
LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically the southbound approach, northbound
left/through movement and the westbound right turn movements are showing unsatisfactor y
levels of service. The results of the 2038 no-build condition traffic operations analysis are
summarized in Table 9. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix D.
Table 9: 2038 Build Condition Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Control Location Appr
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay(LOS)
Movement Delay (LOS) Intersectio
n
Delay/LOS Left Through Right Left Through Right Stop Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
at Ash St (CR J)
NB 17.1(C) 11.1 (B)
236.8 (F)
62.0 (F) 20.3 (C)
185.0 (E) WB 28.0 (D) 24.9 (C) 14.3 (B) 196.1(F)
SB 411.8 (F) 332.8 (F)
EB 14.7 (B) 18.9 (B) Stop Ash St at 20th
Ave/I35E Ramp
WB 10.4 (A)
7.8 (A)
9.9 (A)
4.9 (A) SB 53.9 (F) 86.9 (F)
EB 9.1 (A) 10.8 (A)
In addition the southbound approach at the intersection of Ash Street (CR J) at 20th Avenue/I35E
Ramp would also be operating an LOS F during the AM and PM hours. As discussed previously
MnDOT has been considering future roundabout improvement to the I35E ramp intersections.
With the addition of roundabouts at these intersections all movements would operate at
acceptable levels in the future.
Traffic Signal Alternative Analysis
This alternative assumes a new traffic control signal at the intersection of Centerville Road
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J). In addition, based on the all-way stop analysis, the
following roadway lane configuration was included:
• Northbound Centerville Road (CR 59) – one left turn, one through and one right turn lane
• Southbound Centerville Road (CR 21) – one left turn, one through/right turn lane
• Eastbound Wilkinson Lake Blvd – one left turn, one through/right turn lane
• Westbound Ash Street (CR J) - one left turn, one through and one right turn lane
Figure 10 shows the proposed intersection configuration.
2018 Traffic Signal Build Conditions: The 2018 build conditions assume a traffic signal
system with the proposed lane configuration with the proposed Hawkins residential project fully
developed. Based on these assumptions the intersection would be operating at an overall LOS B
in the AM and PM peak hours. The results of the 2018 traffic signal build condition traffic
operations analysis are summarized in Table 10. Detailed modeling results are provided in
Appendix D.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 20
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
Table 10: 2018 Traffic Signal Build Condition Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Control Location Appr
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay(LOS)
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay/LOS Left Through Right Left Through Right Signal Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/
CSAH 59) at
Ash St (CR J)
NB 16.9 (B) 19.2 (B) 17.2 (B)
11.6 (B)
18.0 (B) 23.6 (C) 21.2 (C)
15.8 (B) WB 17.4 (B) 13.9 (B) 8.1 (A) 16.2 (B) 15.3 (B) 12.2 (B)
SB 11.0 (B) 7.3 (A) 14.6 (B) 8.4 (A)
EB 14.0 (B) 14.0 (B) 15.7 (B) 15.4 (B)
2038 Traffic Signal Build Conditions: Similar to the 2018 traffic signal build conditions the
2038 build conditions assumes a traffic signal system with the proposed lane configuration and
the proposed Hawkins residential project fully developed. Based on these assumptions the
intersection would be operating at an overall LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in and PM
peak hour. The results of the 2038 traffic signal build condition traffic operations analysis are
summarized in Table 11. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix D.
Table11: 2038 Traffic Signal Build Condition Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Control Location Appr
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay(LOS)
Movement Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay/LOS Left Through Right Left Through Right Signal Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/
CSAH 59) at
Ash St (CR J)
NB 23.6 (C) 27.7 (C) 24.0 (C)
16.5 (B)
19.4 (B) 29.3 (C) 23.8 (C)
24.5 (C) WB 24.2 (C) 17.6 (B) 8.1 (A) 23.1 (C) 21.4 (C) 27.1 (C)
SB 18.6 (B) 9.5 (A) 25.5 (C) 7.5 (A)
EB 17.9 (B) 17.7 (B) 22.2 (C) 21.6 (C)
Roundabout Alternative Analysis
This alternative assumes a new roundabout at the intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH
21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J). Based on the all-way stop analysis, the following lane
configuration was included:
• Northbound Centerville Road (CR 59) – one left/through lane and one right lane
• Southbound Centerville Road (CR 21) – one left lane, one through/right lane
• Eastbound Wilkinson Lake Blvd – one lane
• Westbound Ash Street (CR J) - one left/through lane and one right lane
Figure 11 shows the proposed intersection roundabout configuration.
2018 Roundabout Build Conditions: The 2018 build conditions assume a roundabout with the
proposed Hawkins residential project fully developed. Based on these assumptions the
intersection would be operating at an overall LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours. The results
of the 2018 roundabout build condition traffic operations analysis are summarized in Table 12.
Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix D.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 21
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
Table 12: 2018 Roundabout Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Control Location Approach Approach
Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay (LOS)
Approach
Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay (LOS) Roundabout Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
at Ash St (CR J)
NB 7.2 (A)
8.2 (A)
9.7 (A)
9.8 (A) WB 6.5 (A) 13.1 (B)
SB 9.6 (A) 6.7 (A)
EB 9.2 (A) 6.7 (A)
2038 Roundabout Signal Build Conditions: Similar to the 2018 roundabout build conditions
the 2038 build conditions assumes a roundabout with the proposed lane configuration and the
proposed Hawkins residential project fully developed. Based on these assumptions the
intersection would be operating at an overall LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in and PM
peak hour. The results of the 2038 roundabout build condition traffic operations analysis are
summarized in Table 13. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix D.
Table 13: 2038 Roundabout Operations Summary
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Control Location Approach Approach
Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay (LOS)
Approach
Delay (LOS)
Intersection
Delay (LOS) Roundabout Centerville Rd
(CSAH 21/CSAH 59)
at Ash St (CR J)
NB 10.2 (B)
13.4 (B)
17.9 (C)
22.7 (C) WB 8.6 (A) 41.7 (E)
SB 17.5 (C) 8.9 (A)
EB 13.8 (B) 9.1 (A)
Right of Way Impacts
There will be some impacts to the existing right of way and new permanent easements will need
to be established to construct the proposed traffic signal or roundabout alternatives. Figure 10
and Figure 11 show the proposed alternative configures in relationship to the existing right-of-
way. Based on these figures the roundabout alternative would require approximately 30% more
right of way. The exact location and dimensions will be determined with preparation of the
feasibility study and final design documents.
Project Costs
The preliminary planning level project cost was determined based on similar projects. Based on
the proposed alternatives shown on Figures 10 and Figure 11 the following estimated cost can
be assumed: traffic signal alternative with roadway improvements - $1,500,000; roundabout
alternative - $1,000,000. A detailed cost estimate will be prepared with the feasibility study and
during final design.
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 22
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 23
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CENTERVILLE RD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH ST (CR J)/WILKINSON LAKE BLVD PAGE 24
ICE REPORT
S.A.P. TBD
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-080
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
CONCLUSION
Traffic volumes at the intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR
J) are expected to rise through 2038 and the existing intersection geometry with the existing all-
way stop control is inadequate to handle these volumes with an acceptable level of service. In
order to provide improved acceptable levels of service at the intersection, an all-way stop, traffic
signal system or roundabout alternatives were considered.
Based on the analysis outlined in this document the following can be concluded:
1. Either a traffic signal system or roundabout both with roadway improvements at the
intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J) will
accommodate traffic volumes through 2038. While both alternatives will provide the
needed improvements, construction of a roundabout will improve safety and traffic flow
by eliminating conflicting turning movements while maintaining acceptable queue
lengths and delay times.
2. The implementation of future improvements at the Ash Street (CR J) intersections with
I35E, including the addition of the southbound Off-Ramp and northbound On-Ramp to
I35E will provide improved access and operations for these intersections.
It is therefore recommended that the City of Lino Lakes proceed with the proposed multi-lane
roundabout at the intersection Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J). A
roundabout at this intersection is justified. Traffic volumes at the intersection meet required
traffic signal warrants as well as, the roundabout will provide improved traffic operations over
existing conditions with forecasted traffic volumes and the roundabout is projected to reduce the
number and severity of crashes at the intersection.
In addition it is recommended that the City continue to work with MnDOT, Ramsey County and
Anoka County on the implementation of future improvements on Ash Street (CR J) at the
intersections with I35E.
WS – Item 3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 3
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Diane Hankee, City Engineer
Re: Traffic Policy
Background
Staff established an internal Traffic Safety Committee in 2013 to address traffic related issues
within the City. The committee includes staff from the Engineering, Community Development,
Public Services and Public Safety departments.
To assist with the review of traffic related issues, the committee has drafted a Traffic Policy
document. The purpose of the document is to establish uniform processes and procedures for
evaluating speed, safety and signage requests. The policy is based on the guidelines and
recommendations contained in the most current version of the Minnesota Manual On Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD).
The City currently practices the procedures laid out in the Traffic Policy. Adopting the policy
will provide improved communication and methods when addressing traffic related requests.
The policy will also aid in educating those not familiar with traffic guidelines and regulations.
Requested Council Direction
1. Provide feedback on the Traffic Policy.
2. Direct staff to place on the October 9, 2017 City Council meeting for consideration.
Attachments
1. Traffic Policy
LINO LAKES TRAFFIC POLICY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to delineate the City of Lino Lake’s processes and procedures for
locating and installing traffic devices, to include: signage, pavement markings and traffic
calming devices.
POLICY
It is the policy of the City of Lino Lake to follow the guidelines and recommendations contained
in the most current approved Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MnMUTCD) to make decisions on design, locations, installation and maintenance of signs,
pavement markings and traffic calming devices. Minnesota State Statute 169.06, Sub. 3 states,
"All traffic control devices erected shall conform to the state manual and specifications."
PROCEDURE
The City Engineer and Public Works Department will have primary responsibility for
determining the need for traffic devices on Lino Lake’s city streets. All requests received for
installation or evaluation of traffic devices, such as, stop signs, crosswalk markings or traffic
calming devices, will be routed to the City Engineer or designee for evaluation. The City
Engineer or designee will be responsible for providing a written response to individuals whom
request evaluation of traffic control devices.
In those instances, in which the evaluation reveals unusual factors or extenuating circumstances
to consider, the City Engineer will bring the matter to the Traffic Safety Committee for
discussion. A member of the Traffic Safety Committee may also request evaluation or
discussion concerning a request for a traffic device.
The City Engineer or designee is responsible for coordinating with state and county agencies
when a traffic evaluation request is received regarding a state or county roadway within the city
limits.
The following specific guidelines will be followed when evaluating each specific traffic device:
SPEED LIMIT DETERMINATION
The City of Lino Lakes will address speed limit related concerns based upon guidelines from
Minnesota Statutes, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) policies, Minnesota
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD), and engineering judgement.
The basis for setting a speed limit follows the Minnesota State Statutes and the MnMUTCD. The
following segments of information were taken from the Minnesota Statutes and MnMUTCD,
those of which apply to the City of Lino Lakes. A exert from the FHWA discussing best
practices is also included showing how engineering studies are used to set new speed limits or
change existing ones.
Minnesota Statues:
169.011 DEFINITIONS
Subdivision 64. Residential Roadway
A “residential roadway” is a city street or town road whose length is up to a half-mile.
169.14 SPEED LIMITS, ZONES; RADAR.
Subdivision 1. Duty to drive with due care.
No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and
prudent under the conditions. Every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining
aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due
care in operating a vehicle.
In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with
any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with
legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
Subdivision 2. Speed limits.
(a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in
excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or
prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall
be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful:
(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district;
(Subdivisions 2.2-2.7 do not apply here, therefore were excluded)
(8) 35 miles per hour in a rural residential district if adopted by the road authority
having jurisdiction over the rural residential district.
(c) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (8), is not effective unless the
road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the
beginning and end of the rural residential district for the roadway on which the speed
limit applies.
MnMUTCD:
2B.13 Speed Limit Sign
A Standard: Speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on
the basis of an engineering study that has been performed in accordance with traffic
engineering practices.
The engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-
flowing vehicles.
The speed limit (R2-1) sign shall display the limit established by law, ordinance,
regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency based on the engineering study. The
speed limits displayed shall be in multiples of 5 mph. Speed Limit signs, indicating speed
limits for which posting is required by law, shall be located at the points of change from
one speed limit to another.
An Option: Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are the
following:
• Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance
• The pace speed
• Roadside development (nearby school) and environment
• Parking practices and pedestrian activity (mainly children)
• Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period
Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report by the
FHWA Safety Program:
Most engineering approaches to speed limit setting are based on the 85th percentile
speed—the speed at which 85 percent of free-flowing traffic is traveling at or below. The
typical procedure is to set the speed limit at or near the 85th percentile speed of free-flow
traffic. Adjustments to either increase or decrease the speed limits may be made
depending on infrastructure and traffic conditions.
The 85th percentile speed method is also attractive because it reflects the collective
judgment of the vast majority of drivers as to a reasonable speed for given traffic and
roadway conditions.
This is aligned with the general policy sentiment that laws (i.e., speed limits) should not
make people acting reasonably into law-breakers. Setting a speed limit even 5 mph below
the 85th percentile speed can make almost half the drivers illegal; setting a speed limit 5
mph above the 85th percentile speed will likely make few additional drivers legal.
Under the operating speed method of setting speed limits, the first approximation of the
speed limit is to set the speed limit at the 85th percentile speed. The MnMUTCD
recommends that the speed limit be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed of free-
flowing traffic. The posted speed limit shall be in multiples of 5 mph.
While the MnMUTCD recommends setting the posted speed limits near the 85th
percentile speed, and traffic engineers say that agencies are using the 85th percentile
speed to set speed limits, the speed limit is often set much lower. At these locations, the
85th percentile operating speeds exceed the posted speed limits; and, in many cases, the
50th percentile operating speed is either near or exceeds that posted speed limit as well.
Many agencies deviate from their agency's written guidelines and instead post lower
speed limits. According to an ITE Engineering Council Technical Committee survey,
these reduced speed limits are often the result of political pressures.
However, it is important to note that setting speed limits lower than 85th percentile
speed does not encourage compliance with the posted speed limit.
Speed Limit Implementation:
The City Lino Lakes has established this policy to define the process for setting a speed limit and
to what extent they can be modified. To make a request for a speed limit change, one must send a
formal written document to the city. The local road authority can either determine the speed limit
acceptable, not acceptable, perform an engineering investigation or request the Commissioner of
Transportation do a speed study.
Streets that drive relatively similar should be set to the same speed limit for consistency, whether
they are 25, 30, 35, or 40 mph. Speed limit evaluations should only take place when specific
concerns are raised, and not on a regular basis. When final decisions are made they are not to be
requested upon again unless a situation occurs (i.e., a large development is being constructed, or
multiple accident occurs). If further monitoring needs to occur on a street, driver feedback signs
or physical changes may be considered.
Speed Concern Evaluation:
If a speed concern still exists after the determination of the appropriate posted speed limit based
on the criteria previously discussed, additional speed mitigation/traffic calming could be
considered based on the following guidelines.
Eligibility:
In order for a roadway to be eligible for speed mitigation/traffic calming, it needs to meet the
following criteria.
• Classified as a local or collector street
• Length greater than 1,000 feet
• Traffic volumes greater than 1,000 vehicles per day
• Posted speed of 30 mph or less
• Cannot be a cul-de-sac
Evaluation Process:
If the roadway is eligible for speed mitigation/traffic calming, a preliminary study will be
conducted using collected data. In analyzing the speed data, the 85th percentile speed of the
collected data will be calculated. The 85th percentile speed is defined as the speed at or below
which 85 percent of the traffic is moving.
If the 85th percentile speed is greater than 33 mph on a roadway posted at 30 mph, a speed
concern would be identified at that location. If the 85th Percentile speed is greater than 33 mph
but less than 35 mph, the speed concern will be brought before the City Council to consider the
feasibility of low cost measures as a means to calm traffic. Some low cost traffic calming
measures include:
• Education
• Lane narrowing (striping or tubular marker island)
• Pavement messages (30 MPH, SLOW, etc.)
• Additional signage
• Speed Awareness Display signs
If the 85th Percentile speed is greater than 35 mph, the speed concern will be brought before the
City Council to consider potential engineering solutions as a means to calm traffic. These
solutions are typically higher in cost. Examples of possible solutions include:
• Lane narrowing
o Raised concrete or landscaped island / median
• Curb extensions
o Mid-block chockers (concrete or planters)
o Neckdowns (Bump-outs at intersections)
o Chicanes
• Roundabouts
o Full size roundabout
o Mini-roundabout
o Neighborhood Traffic Circle
• Speed Awareness Display signs
• Raised intersection/crosswalks
• Roadway alignment revisions (adding curves to a straight roadway)
Funding:
Upon the recommendation of City staff and approval by the City Council, the appropriate
measures will be implemented by the City once funding is secured. Possible funding sources
include:
• Inclusion in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
• Special request from the City Council
• Assessment process
Review:
Following the installation of the traffic calming measure(s), a review period for up to nine
months will be initiated to measure its effectiveness and determine if the objectives were met. At
the end of the review period, an evaluation will be conducted based on the following criteria:
Figure 1 represents the decision diagram used in the speed concern evaluation process.
Figure 1 – Speed Concern Evaluation Process
Speed Concern Received
Staff Evaluation
(Data collection and evaluation)
85th
Percentile
Speed > 33
mph
Council to consider
low cost traffic
calming measures
Council to consider
potential engineering
solutions
Additional Speed Enforcement
if perceived speed concern
is still present
(No further action by City Council)
NO
Roadway
Eligible for
Traffic
Calming
NO
YES
No further action
YES
Feasibility, Funding, and Installation
Review Period
85th
Percentile
Speed > 35
mph
NO YES
Posted Speed 20mph 25mph 30mph
Low Cost
Improvements >23mph >28mph >33mph
Engineering
Solutions >25mph >30mph >35mph
STOP SIGN INSTALLATION
The traffic control at an intersection is critical to the operation of both intersecting roadways. If
incorrect traffic control is installed for the existing traffic conditions and topographic
characteristics of the intersection, unduly delays and even unnecessary accidents could occur.
The traveling public, especially persons not familiar with the area, typically drive based on
instinct. Drivers subconsciously evaluate their surroundings to determine if a stop sign or yield
sign should or shouldn’t be located on an intersection approach. It is very difficult to determine
what the correct intersection control should be; however, the following factors should be
evaluated when determining intersection control.
Traffic Conditions:
The traffic conditions of an intersection include:
• Traffic approach volume
• Speed of traffic approaching the intersection
• Number of turning vehicles in an intersection
• Vehicle makeup (i.e. trucks, buses, etc.)
• Crash history in the intersection
Topographic Conditions:
The topographic conditions of the intersections are the physical features in the area, including:
• The grade of each approaching roadway
• Location and size of adjacent buildings or structures
• Angle of the intersection
• Geometrics (number of lanes) of the intersection
• If a school, park or major pedestrian generator is located in the area
Based on these conditions and factors, potential intersection control should be evaluated and
determined. Several techniques have been developed to determine what type of intersection
control is warranted at a specific location. Policies for two-way and all-way stop sign
installation are discussed below.
Intersection Control Policies:
When developing policies for two-way and all-way stop sign controlled intersections, the traffic
conditions and topographic conditions can be used quite readily in the analysis procedure.
Additional, non-technical factors may also be considered during the analysis procedure.
Therefore, engineering judgment should be utilized when evaluating the appropriate intersection
control.
Analysis Procedure:
The best procedure in evaluating the need and location of two-way or all-way stop sign control
can be found in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD),
Section 2B-5 and 2B-7. Based on those warrants, the following two-way and all-way stop sign
installation procedures should be followed:
Step 1: Request for intersection control evaluation
This request can come from either a resident, the City Council, the Traffic Safety
Committee, or from staff observation of a particular intersection. If a request is made
from a resident, a signed petition of more than 80% of the households within a 300'
radius of the intersection, must accompany the request.
Step 2: Data collection
This step in the procedure involves collecting the data necessary to evaluate the proposed
intersection control. The data required for each phase is listed below.
• Average Daily Traffic Volume data
• Traffic speed by approach
• Vehicle classification (number of trucks, etc.)
• Pedestrian volumes crossing all approached during peak periods
• Intersection topographic information
• Detailed crash data
• Detailed site visit viewing the intersection operations for the peak hours of
a typical day
Step 3: Initial evaluation
An initial evaluation of the intersection should be completed to determine if a detailed
intersection control study should be performed. This evaluation is something that can be
applied with minimal data (i.e., ADT traffic volumes, accident history and roadway
geometrics). This procedure is as follows:
A. Minimum traffic volume: If the daily (ADT) traffic volume approaches
the intersection on each leg adds up to more than 1,000 vehicles in a day,
the intersection is a candidate for an intersection control study
(EB+WB+NB+SB = 1000+) or,
B. Accident history: If there are more than two reported crashes per year in
the previous two years or, three accidents in the previous 12 month period,
of a type that is correctable with stop sign control (i.e. right angle or
turning in front of another vehicle), an intersection is a candidate for an
intersection control study.
If the intersection does not meet these requirements no further study will be completed
without direction from the City’s Traffic Safety or City Council. A letter to the resident
requesting the information, outlining the findings will be sent by the City Engineer. This
letter will include the City’s policies for appeal of the engineer’s decision.
Step 4: Intersection Control Study
If the initial evaluation concludes that an intersection control study is necessary, the
following procedures will be followed to determine which type of traffic control is
required.
A. Intersection operation analysis: This would involve analyzing the
operation of the intersection using the current version of the Highway
Capacity Manual to determine the Level of Service and potential delays on
specific approaches. This analysis can be conducted for either a two-way
or four-way stop sign controlled intersection.
B. Collector/Arterial Intersections: The analysis procedure should only be
used for the intersections of collector or arterial roadways. The analysis
procedures as outlined in the MnMUTCD should be conducted to
determine if a two-way or four-way stop signed controlled intersection
should be installed. These procedures are as follow:
Two-way stop sign controlled intersection:
1. Intersection of a less important road with a main road
where application of the normal right-of-way road is
unduly hazardous or,
2. Street entering a through highway or street or,
3. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area or,
4. A combination of high speed restricted sight distance and
serious crash history indicating a need for control by a stop
sign.
All-way stop sign control:
1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed,
the all-way stop can be an interim measure or,
2. Crash problem indicating that five or more reported
accidents of a type susceptible to correction by a multi-way
stop sign installation in a 12-month period or,
3. Minimum traffic volumes:
a. A total vehicular volume entering the intersection
from approaches must average at least 300 vehicles
per hour for any eight hours of an average day and
b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume
from the minor street or highway must average at
least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours,
with an average delay to minor street vehicular
traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the
maximum hour but
c. When the 85% approach speed of the major street
traffic exceeds 40 MPH, the requirements can be
reduced to 70%.
C. Local Street Intersection:
This analysis procedure should only be used for the intersection of two
local streets. This analysis uses the data as collected in Step 2 of the stop
sign control policies. The analysis procedures, as outlined below, should
be conducted to determine if a two-way or four-way stop sign controlled
intersection should be installed. The procedures are as follows:
Two-Way Stop Sign Controlled Intersections:
1. If the major street traffic volume approaching the
intersection for each leg adds up to more than 1,000
vehicles per day but is less than 1,500 vehicles per day and
the minor street traffic volume is less than 50% of the
major street traffic volume (500 – 750 vehicles per day).
2. There have been more than two reported crashes, per year
in the previous two years or, three reported crashes in the
previous year of a type correctable with stop sign
installation.
3. The pedestrian volumes across the minor approach (that
which would be stopping) is more than 15 pedestrians per
hour during peak traffic hours.
4. If the safe stopping sight distance of the minor approach is
restricted by less than 100 feet by horizontal and/or vertical
roadway alignment or by other permanent obstructions (see
figure).
If condition No. 1 and one other condition are met, this intersection would be a
candidate for two-way stop sign control.
All-Way Stop Sign Control:
1. If the major street traffic volume approaching the
intersection for each leg adds up to more than 1,500
vehicles per day and the minor street traffic volume
approaches the intersection for each leg adds up to be
greater than 750 vehicles per day.
2. There have been more than two reported crashes, per year
in the previous two years or, three reported crashes in the
previous year of a type correctable with stop sign
installation.
3. If the pedestrian volumes crossing any approach is more
than 15 pedestrians per hour during the peak traffic hours.
4. If the safe stopping sight distance on the uncontrolled
approach is restricted by less than 100 feet by horizontal
and/or vertical roadway alignment or other permanent
obstructions.
5. If the 85th percentile speed in the intersection is greater than
35 mph and the highest reported speed with two or more
observations is greater than 45 mph.
If condition No. 1 and two other of the five conditions outlined above apply, this
intersection is a candidate for all-way stop sign control.
If the intersection meets the requirements, as outlined above, for either a two-way or all-way stop
sign control, the intersection is considered a candidate for stop sign control. Based on this
analysis and further review by city staff and the Traffic Safety Committee, a recommendation
will be made to City Council to either install or not to install the stop sign control.
If the intersection does not meet these requirements no further study would be completed without
direction from city council. A letter to the resident requesting the information, outlining the
findings will be sent by the City Engineer. This letter will include the City’s policies for appeal
of the engineer’s decision.
WARNING SIGN INSTALLATION
Warning signs are a critical signing element which provides information to the motoring public
with respect to potential hazards in and or adjacent to the roadway. These signs include all
yellow signs with black lettering as outlined in Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MnMUTCD) Chapter 2C. Some typical signs that fall into this category are pedestrian
crossing signs, school crossing signs, playground signs, curve signs, and other signs associated
with the geometrics of the roadway.
Warning signs are primarily for the benefit of the driver who is unacquainted with the roadway.
It is very important that these signs be placed in areas in which the sign is truly justified so that
drivers believe that the condition does exist. The use of warning signs should be kept to a
minimum as the unnecessary use of warning signs tends to breed disrespect for all signs. In
situations where the condition or activity is seasonal or temporary, the warning sign should be
removed or covered when the condition or activity does not exist.
Policies for installation of warning signs are discussed below:
Analysis Procedure:
Step 1: Requests for Warning Signs Evaluations
This request can come from either a resident, the City Council, the Traffic Safety
Committee, the school district, or from staff observation of a particular condition. If a
request is made from a resident, a signed petition of more than 80% of the households
within a 300' radius of the location must accompany the request.
Step 2: Data Collection
This step in the procedure should include collecting available data as listed below:
• Average Daily Traffic Volume
• Accident Summary
• Site Visit
• Pedestrian Traffic Volumes (if applicable)
• Traffic Speeds
• Site Topography
Step 3: Sign Installation Evaluation
An evaluation of the location should be completed to determine if the installation is
justified. This procedure for specific types of warning signs is as follows:
1. Crossing Signs (pedestrian, school, etc.)
a. Traffic Volume: If a daily traffic volume of a combined 1000 vehicles per
day in both directions, exists on the roadway of the crossing or a peak
hour volume of a combined 200 vehicles per hour on the crosswalk
approaches exist and,
b. Crossing Volume: A crossing volume of more than 30 pedestrians per day
or 10 pedestrians per peak hour or,
c. An 85th percentile speed on the roadway of more than 35 mph and a peak
speed of two observations with more than 45 mph or,
d. The safe stopping sight distance on the approach to the obstruction is less
than 300 feet.
2. Other Warning Geometric Warning Signs (curves, intersections, animal
crossings, playgroung, etc.)
Other warning signs should be placed based on engineering studies and as
outlined in the MnMUTCD Chapter 2C and MnDOT Traffic Engineering
Manual Chapter 6.
If the warning sign request meets the requirements, as outlined above the sign(s) are considered a
candidate installation. Based on this analysis and further review by city staff and the Traffic
Safety Committee, a recommendation will be made to City Council to either install or not to
install the warning sign(s).
If the requested location does not meet the requirements for installation, a letter to the resident
requesting the information, outlining the findings will be sent by the City Engineer. This letter
will include the City’s policy for appeal of the engineer’s decision.
CROSSWALK INSTALLATION
Marked and signed crosswalks are a critical element for the pedestrian network in the City. It is
of little use to have a complete sidewalk/pathway system if pedestrians cannot safely and
conveniently cross intersecting streets. When determining the need and location of crosswalks
several important concepts and issues should be considered. These include:
Creating reasonable expectations where pedestrians may cross a roadway. A crosswalk
creates a visible indication for both motorists and pedestrians as to where pedestrians may be
expected to cross a roadway.
Knowing when and where crosswalks are appropriate. Some studies have found that
pedestrians may develop a false sense of security when crossing a street in a marked
crosswalk. Other studies have found that motorists are more likely to stop for pedestrians in
marked crosswalks, especially where pedestrian right-of-way laws are enforced.
Where crosswalks might be located. Generally marked crosswalks are located at all open legs
of signalized intersections. Crossing of roadways should be encouraged at controlled
intersections (all-way stop or signalized). They may also be provided at other locations. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends that certain conditions may not warrant
installation of marked crosswalks, such as where hourly, peak pedestrian volume is very low
(less than 25 pedestrian per peak four hours), or when traffic volume is very low (less than 2,000
ADT). At all other locations, or when predominately young, elderly, or handicapped pedestrians
may be found, crosswalks may be recommended.
Analysis Procedure:
Step 1: Requests for Crosswalk Installation
This request can come from either a resident, the City Council, the Traffic Safety
Committee, the school district, or from staff observation of a particular condition. If a
request is made from a resident, a signed petition of more than 80% of the households
within a 300' radius of the location must accompany the request.
Step 2: Data Collection
This step in the procedure should include collecting available data as listed below:
• Average Daily Traffic Volume
• Crash Summary
• Site Visit
• Pedestrian Traffic Volumes
• Traffic Speeds
•
Step 3: Crosswalk Installation Evaluation
An evaluation of the location should be completed to determine if the installation is
justified based on the following:
1. At uncontrolled intersections, the installation of marked crosswalks should be
considered when there is a need. The following indicators of need should be
considered when reviewing the proposed installation of a marked crosswalk:
a. At least ten (10) pedestrians cross the street during the one-hour period or
30 pedestrians cross during the highest consecutive four-hour periods.
b. The crossing is on a direct route to and/or from a significant generator of
pedestrian traffic such as, but not limited to, the park, school, community
center, commercial district, or transit facility.
c. During the peak five-minute period of a pedestrian crossing, there are less
than five gaps in traffic where a pedestrian has sufficient time to cross the
street without impeding approaching vehicles.
2. There are several conditions where placement of marked crosswalks may not
make the crossing any safer and other improvements may be required or be
considered. Any of the following are indicators of such a condition:
a. Daily traffic volume exceeds 15,000 vehicles per day per lane.
b. Speed limit greater than 40 mph.
c. Site distance of pedestrians by motorists is less than 10 times the speed
limit. For example, a 35 mph speed limit, the site distance is less than 350
feet.
3. Marked pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian
paths across roadways under the following conditions:
a. At locations with stop signs or traffic signals to direct pedestrians to those
crossing locations and to prevent vehicular traffic from blocking the
pedestrian path when stopping for a stop sign or red light.
b. At nonsignalized street crossing locations in designated school zones. Use
of adult crossing guards, school signs and markings, and/or traffic signals
with pedestrian signals (when warranted) should be considered in
conjunction with the marked crosswalk, as needed.
c. At nonsignalized locations where engineering judgment dictates that the
number of motor vehicle lanes, pedestrian exposure, average daily traffic
(ADT), posted speed limit, and geometry of the location would make the
use of specially designated crosswalks desirable for traffic/pedestrian
safety and mobility.
4. Marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic
signals and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing
improvement) are insufficient and should not be used under the following
conditions:
a. Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph.
b. On a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised median or crossing
island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 12,000 or greater.
c. On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing
island that has (or soon will have) an ADT of 15,000 or greater.
If the request meets the requirements, as outlined above the marked crosswalk is considered a
candidate installation. Based on this analysis and further review by city staff and the Traffic
Safety Committee, a recommendation will be made to City Council to either install or not to
install the crosswalk.
If the requested location does not meet the requirements for installation, a letter to the resident
requesting the information, outlining the findings will be sent by the City Engineer. This letter
will include the City’s policy for appeal of the engineer’s decision.
TRAFFIC CALMING
The primary goal of the traffic calming program is to have guidelines and set procedures to
address neighborhood concerns related to traffic safety and speeds on city streets.
The traffic calming program requires strong community support and participation by affected
residents and property owners. It involves a review of the streets crash history, speed data, and
traffic volumes. Installation of the traffic calming devices requires specific design criteria and
analysis outcomes be satisfied. The traffic calming program provides a structured planning
process and is flexible enough to adjust to the challenges of each unique project.
Traffic Calming Objectives:
• Improve safety by reducing vehicle speeds on two-lane city streets.
• Enhance safety for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
• Maintain / enhance neighborhood livability.
Traffic Calming Guidelines:
• A combination of education, enforcement, and engineering methods will be used in the
City’s traffic calming program.
• Traffic calming devices will be planned, designed, and used in keeping with sound
engineering and planning practices. City staff will recommend the installation of traffic
calming devices such as striping, signing, center islands, roundabouts, and other
approved traffic calming devices to accomplish the traffic calming program objectives.
Installation of traffic calming devices may require the approval of the City Council.
• The installation of traffic calming devices will require strong community support by
residents living on the affected street segment. An analysis for the installation of traffic
calming devices will be conducted based on accident data, speed data, traffic volumes
and standard design criteria.
• Traffic calming measures on city streets will be installed to reduce traffic speeds. Non-
neighborhood or bypass traffic will be encouraged to use major arterial streets. Some
diversion from a traffic managed street to an adjacent street will be unavoidable.
• Installation of traffic calming devices will only be considered on two-lane city streets
with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or less.
• Emergency vehicle access will be accommodated in all residential traffic calming plans.
Traffic calming devices will be installed only with the consent of the Fire and Police
departments.
• Reasonable automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle access should be maintained on city
streets with traffic calming devices.
• Traffic calming devices will not inhibit or significantly impact transit, waste disposal
trucks, and other service vehicles.
• Removal of some on-street parking spaces may be necessary to install certain types of
traffic calming devices. The parking needs of residents will be balanced with the
neighborhood’s desire for the installation of traffic calming devices.
Procedure:
The City of Lino Lakes believes it is important to process requests in a timely manner. The
City’s program has been streamlined to effectively and efficiently utilize the City’s resources
while not compromising on the education and citizen participation element. The City’s Traffic
Calming Program is a structured process that is responsive to the needs of the neighborhood.
Please be aware that during the winter months, it may be difficult to collect data that is
representative of typical travel conditions. Request received during the winter months will be
processed by May 31st.
Initiation:
The first step is the initiation of the process by a citizen’s request for speed control along a
certain street segment. City staff’s current practice is to deal with the request on a direct basis
and to respond to the resident within a short time period. This means that instances where the
City receives an inquiry about neighborhood traffic issues, staff may respond with traditional
studies and actions. This ensures that simple or incidental requests can be addressed by City staff
without the necessity of a petition.
Roadway Eligibility:
• Road classification (local or collector)
• Length > 1,000 ft
• Volume > 1,000 vpd
• Posted speed ≤ 30 MPH
• Not a cul-de-sac
Petition No. 1 (neighborhood consensus):
If a street is eligible for traffic calming, City staff will request that resident(s) submit a petition to
the City to determine if the concern is widespread and there is consensus among the
neighborhood to pursue installation of a traffic calming device(s). City staff will prepare a map
defining the households within the affected area. The requester will be asked to circulate and
complete a City furnished petition form for residents living within the affected area. Below are
the established requirements needed for a successful petition effort.
• 67 percent of the households located in the affected area
• 80 percent of the households on the affected street
Only one vote per residential unit will be counted towards the petition.
Level 1 Analysis:
Staff will identify the issue or problem by collecting the appropriate traffic information, such as
but not limited to:
• Crash history
• Speed data collection (speed trailer and/or tube counters)
• Traffic volume (turning movement counts or tube counters)
• Existing traffic control devices
• Type of access points
• Road condition
• Site visit (sight distance measurements / analysis)
Staff will also conduct field observations and review the signing, striping, and traffic control in
the area.
The Level 1 speed study will consist of speed data collected by a speed trailer or tube counters.
In analyzing the speed data, the Pace of the traffic and the 85th Percentile Speed will be
calculated from this data. Pace and 85th Percentile speed are defined as follows:
• Pace – The 10 MPH range of speeds containing the largest number of observations
• 85th Percentile Speed – The speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving.
Typically, the 85th Percentile Speed is within two miles per hour of the upper limit of the Pace.
A normal speed distribution will contain approximately 70% of the sample within the Pace with
15% above and 15% below.
Based on the data collected, a preliminary speeding issue will be identified if:
• The calculated 85th Percentile speed from the Level 1 data is greater than the posted
speed.
• More than 15% of the vehicles are traveling faster than the 10 MPH Pace.
NOTE: Federal and State speed limit guidelines define the 85th percentile speed as a
“reasonable speed” or the speed in which 85% of motorists travel at or below. Experience has
shown that the 85th Percentile Speed most closely provides for a safe and reasonable speed limit.
Therefore, it can be expected that on a typical roadway, approximately 15 percent of the vehicles
may traveling at speeds greater than the posted speed limit.
If a preliminary speeding issue is identified, City staff will first determine if low cost measures
are feasible. If low cost measures are not feasible, the process will skip to the next step. Some
low cost measures include:
• Education and enforcement
• Lane narrowing (striping)
• Pavement messages (30 MPH, SLOW)
• Additional signage
• Improve sight lines through tree / branch removal or grading (safety improvement)
If low cost measures are deemed feasible, the appropriate measures will be implemented by the
City once funding is secured. Possible funding sources include:
• Inclusion in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
• Special request from the City Council
The City will then monitor the traffic conditions over a 3-month period. After the 3-month
period, the City will then collect new speed data. If the analysis indicates a speeding problem
still exists, education and enforcement will continue while a Level 2 analysis is conducted.
Level 2 Analysis:
A Level 2 analysis consists of a formal speed study to determine the actual, free flow speed of
vehicles on a roadway. A formal speed study differs from tube counts or speed trailer collected
data in that recorded speeds reflect how vehicles typically travel along unimpeded sections of the
road under free flow conditions. Therefore, not all vehicles have their speeds recorded as with
tube counters or speed trailers. Only the lead vehicle in a platoon of vehicles has its speed
recorded. This is because the trailing vehicles’ speeds are being metered by the lead vehicle and
don’t necessarily reflect free flow conditions.
Collecting speeds in this manner is typically done with a hand held radar unit, giving the
operator the discretion of whether or not to include the vehicle’s speed based on actual observed
free flow conditions. Only those vehicles traveling at free flow speeds are recorded and
evaluated.
This method of collecting speed data most closely matches that used to set speed limits. This
type of analysis was reserved for this stage in the process due to the increased cost of collecting
the data.
From the collected data, the 85th Percentile Speed and the Pace will again be determined and
evaluated. For a formal speed study, the City’s established threshold for a speeding problem is
an 85th percentile speed equal to or greater than 33 miles per hour on a street posted at 30 miles
per hour. If the street is deemed to have a speeding problem, the City will begin development of
traffic calming alternatives to address the specific situation.
Development / Implementation of Traffic Calming Measure(s):
The City’s Traffic Calming Program has defined three standard objectives. These objectives will
be included in all traffic calming measure alternatives in addition to any other traffic goals the
neighborhood residents may want Staff to consider. These objectives will provide the City staff
direction and a standard to measure the success of the calming measure. Staff will include the
residents’ suggestions in the conceptual plans wherever feasible. If alternative solutions are
presented, discussion of the positives and negatives of each alternative will be presented.
Petition No. 2:
Following the selection of a traffic calming measure(s), a second petition describing the
proposed improvement will need to be signed by residents living in the affected area. In order
for the improvement to proceed, 85 percent of the households in both the affected area and on the
affected street need to sign the petition.
Council Approval and Funding of Project:
Upon the recommendation of City staff and approval by the City Council, the traffic calming
device(s) will be installed. Funding allocated by the City Council will be based on the cost of
the traffic calming device(s). Funding sources may consist of:
• Inclusion in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
• Special request from the City Council
• Assessment process
Nine Month Review:
Following the installation of the traffic calming device(s), an evaluation will be conducted for up
to nine months to measure its effectiveness and to determine if the objectives were met. The
evaluation will be based on the following criteria:
• Speed data will be collected to determine if overall traffic speeds were reduced.
• A review of the accident history will be conducted to identify any adverse impacts the
traffic calming devices may have caused. By slowing traffic, eliminating conflicting
movements, and sharpening driver attention, installation of traffic calming devices may
reduce the number of accidents.
• Fire and Police departments will be consulted to provide input about any impacts they
may have experienced. Field observations and or discussions may also be conducted with
transit, waste disposal, and other service providers to ensure that services provided to the
residents are not significantly impacted.
If the objectives are satisfied as evidenced in the evaluation, no further actions will be taken. If
objectives are not met, City staff may prepare alternatives and seek direction from the City
Council.
Removal of Traffic Control Measure:
Should the residents desire to remove the alternative traffic calming devices after evaluation
results indicate the program objectives were satisfied, 90% of the residents living on the affected
street would have to sign a petition for removal. A recommendation by City staff to remove the
traffic calming device(s) will require the approval of the City Council. Any associated cost for
the removal of the traffic calming device(s) not justified by the project goals and objectives will
be fully borne by the residents.
WS – Item # 4
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 4
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
Re: Comprehensive Plan Update - Transportation
Background
On September 13, 2017 the Planning & Zoning Board met to discuss the Transportation element
of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Charles Rickert of WSB & Associates was present to
review the plan components, as well as issues raised from the online survey and public
informational meeting. A copy of his memorandum is attached for your review.
Additional public input was received at the meeting. Items discussed at the board meeting
included:
1 Planning for autonomous vehicles.
2 Implementing changes in traffic management alternatives such as flashing yellow left
turn signals.
3 The need for improvements on Birch Street.
4 Provide pedestrian facilities on arterial roads.
5 Connect pedestrian systems to commercial areas.
6 Need for improvements to Ash/Centerville Road and Centerville/CR J intersections.
7 Continue planning for northerly by-pass (Main Street 35W to 35E).
A summary of the comments from the meeting are enclosed. Mr. Rickert will be present at the
work session to discuss the plan.
On a related note staff was recently informed that Anoka County has included improvements to
Birch Street from Ware Road to West Shadow Lake Drive in its 5 year Capital Improvement
Plan. They are anticipating planning to begin in 2019 with construction proposed in 2021.
Requested Council Direction
None Required. Discussion Only
Attachments
1. Comprehensive Plan 2040 Meeting Schedule
2. September 13, 2017 Planning & Zoning Board Memorandum
3. September 13, 2017 Planning & Zoning Board Summary
Lino Lakes 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning & Zoning Board 1
September 13, 2017
Date: September 8, 2017 for September 13, 2017 Meeting
To: Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board
From: Charles Rickart PE, PTOE, Transportation Engineer
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update – Transportation Chapter
On September 13th, the Planning & Zoning Board will be asked to provide input on the Transportation
element of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Specific discussion topics for the meeting will include:
Transportation Plan Components – The Transportation Plan is made up of the following sections:
A. Goals, Policies and Trends
B. Roadway System Plan
C. Transit System Plan
D. Bicycle and Trail Plan
E. Aviation Plan
F. Plan Implementation
Maintaining and improving a multi-modal transportation system is important to the ongoing
economic health and quality of life of the City and it is needed for people to travel easily and safely to
work and other destinations, to develop property and to move goods.
Transportation Issues — The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Visioning Survey listed 10 issues and
asked participants to rank them in the order of importance. The number 1 issue identified was “Improving
the roadway system”.
With this in mind, issues have been identified including those from the current Transportation Plan, those
identified by City elected officials and staff, and those identified by the public at the information meeting
held in June.
Transportation issues identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan include:
▪ Growing congestion on regional routes such as I -35W and I-35E causing diversion of traffic to
county roads and local streets.
▪ Increasing traffic and infrastructure needs due to urbanization of the develop ing areas of Lino
Lakes, particularly in areas west and southeast of the regional park reserve within the city.
▪ Changing transportation needs due to an aging population.
▪ Increasing competition for space among modes (i.e., vehicles and bicycle/pedestrian in terests).
▪ Limited financial resources needed to maintain and improve the transportation systems as costs
are expected to increase.
Lino Lakes 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning & Zoning Board 2
September 13, 2017
In addition to the above issues the attached Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-11 from the Transportation Plan
identified congestion issues, access spacing issues and future improvement options. The attached Figure
6-14 shows the anticipated Future Roadway System (Post 2030) based on the land use plan assumed in
2009. Since the preparation of the 2009 Transportation Plan several of the identified issues have been
addressed by either MnDOT, Anoka County or the City. These include:
• Main Street(CSAH 14)/Lake Drive(CSAH 23) intersection signalized – this was listed as congested
on the map
• Birch Street/Ware Road signalized (part of the CR 34 Corridor Study recommendations)
• I35E Interchange at Main Street(CSAH 14) reconstructed
• I35E MnPass Lane constructed south of CR J
• Park and Ride Lot constructed at I35E north of Main Street (CSAH 14)
• Roundabout at 109th Avenue at Sunset Avenue constructed (relieved safety issue)
• ICE report nearing completion for Centerville Road/CR J/Ash Street/I35E
Specific roadway issues identified by elected officials, City staff and the public include:
• County Road (CR) J/CR 54 and CR J/Centerville Road Jurisdiction
• Ash Street s-curve concept with North Oaks development
• CR 49 at CR J
• Birch Street – 3 lane roundabouts at Black Duck Road and W. Shadow Lake Drive
• North Bypass – CSAH 14 Study
• Neighborhood Speeding concerns
It should be noted that with the safety and congestion analysis that will be conducted with the
Transportation Plan update, additional issues may be identified.
The questions for the Board are:
1. Are these issues appropriate and should they be included with the Transportation Plan update?
2. Are there other issues that should be included?
Anoka County Transportation Plan Update — An integral part of the Cities future year (2040) roadway
capacity and operational analysis, is input from Anoka County and their future year traffic projections. The
County considers the land use plans from each community in determining the forecasts. Earlier this year
County staff met with City staff to get input on their plan.
Based on recent conversations with County staff they are currently in the process of updating the
transportation planning models and anticipated having preliminary forecasts completed by the end of
September for review. Once they have the forecasts completed they will proceed with the assessment of
issues and identification of potential improvements. They are planning to have a draft plan completed by
the end of 2017/ early 2018 for formal agency review.
Lino Lakes 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning & Zoning Board 3
September 13, 2017
Next meeting—The next 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update meeting with the Planning & Zoning Board is
planned for October 11th to discuss the Water System (supply, sewer, surface). The starting time of the
meeting is 6:00 p.m.
Attachments:
• 2030 Transportation Plan – Figure 6-3 Issues Map
• 2030 Transportation Plan – Figure 6-11 Future Congestion (2030 Development)
• 2030 Transportation Plan – Figure 6-14 Future Roadway System (Post 2030)
Issues Map
City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 6-3
July 22, 2009
Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
J:\Maps\5833\mxd\FinalFigures\Figure_6-3_issues_map.mxd
´
WIL KINS ON LAK E
OTTER LA KE
B AL D EA GLE L AK E
AM EL IA LAK E
C ED AR L AKE
G
O
L
D
E
N LAKEBA LDW IN LA K E
WARDS LAKE SH ER MA N LAK E
RE SH AN AU LA K E
RICE L AK E
CENTERVIL LE LAK E
M A RS HA N LA KE
GEO RGE W ATCH LA KE
P ELTIER LA KE
R ONDEA U LAKE
!"#35E
!"#35E
!"#35W
UV32
UV21
UV49 UV21
UV49
UV23
UV14
UV23
UV12
UV34
UV153
HOLLY DR N4TH AVEHOLLY DR E
UV32
UV54
UV14
UV23
ST84
ST53
ST153
UV54
ST140
12TH AVE SELM ST
OTTER LAKE RDBIRCH ST
MAIN ST
20TH AVE SLAKE DRAPOLLO DR
H
O
DGSON RDWOODR
I
DG
E
L
N 20TH AVE SPELTIER LAKE DRSHADOW LAKE
DR
W
OAK LNWOOD DUCK TRL80TH ST ERONDEAU LAKE DR ESUNSET AVELINDA AVE 22ND AVE ERONDEAU LAK E RD W77TH ST E
WHITE PINE RD
77TH ST WLOIS LN
62ND STWARE RDCARL ST
2ND AVEBALDWIN LAKE RDUV34
ST84
UV14UV14
!"#35W
Lexington
CirclePines
Blaine
Centerville HugoNorth OaksShoreviewBlaineColumbus
White Bear Twp
Future Congestion (2030 Development)
City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan
´
Figure 6-11
July 22, 2009
Volume/Capacity Ratio
0.85 - 1.00 (Approaching Capacity)
1.01 + (Over Capacity)
Lakes
Streams
School Open Space/ City Parks
County Parks
Lino Lakes City Limits4,000 0 4,000Feet Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
J:\Maps\5833\mxd\FinalFigures\Figure_6-11_2030_cong.mxd
!?
!?
!?
!?!<?WILKIN SON L AK E OTTE R LAKE
B ALD E AGL E LA KE
AM ELIA L AK E
CE DA R LAKE
G
O
L
D
E
N LAKEB ALD WIN LAK E
WARDS LAK E S HE RM AN L AK E
RES HA NA U LAKE
R ICE LA KE
C EN TERVILLE L AK E
M AR SH AN LA K E
GEORGE WAT C H LAK E
PELTIER L AKE
ROND EA U LAK E
!"#35E
!"#35E
!"#35W
UV32
UV21
UV49 UV21
UV49
UV23
UV14
UV23
UV12
UV34
UV153
HOLLY DR N4TH AVEHOLLY DR E
UV32
UV54
UV14
UV23
ST84
ST53
ST153
UV54
ST140
12TH AVE SELM ST
OTTER LAKE RDBIRCH ST
MAIN ST
20TH AVE SLAKE DRAPOLLO DR
H
O
D
GSON RDWOODR
IDG
E
L
N 20TH AVE SPELTIER LAKE DRSHADOW LAKE DR
W
OAK LNWOOD DUCK TRL80TH ST ERONDEAU LAKE DR ESUNSET AVELINDA AVE 22ND AVE ERONDEAU LAK E RD W77TH ST E
WHITE PINE RD
77TH ST WLOIS LN
62ND STWARE RDCARL ST
2ND AVEBALDWIN LAKE RDUV34
ST84
UV14UV14
!"#35W
Lexington
CirclePinesBlaine Centerville HugoNorth OaksShoreview
Columbus
White Bear Twp
The appropriate design of
CSAH 34 will be determined
by a special study being
conducted by the city and
county (currently underway).
Future Roadway System (Post-2030)
City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan
´
Figure 6-14
July 22, 2009
!?Existing Full Access Interchange
!<?Existing Partial Access Interchange
(Future Full Access)
!?Future Full Access Interchange
Recommended Lanes*
Six-Lane Divided
Four-Lane Divided
Two-Lane Divided
Two-Lane
Lakes
School Open Space/ City Parks
County Parks
Lino Lakes City Limits
Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
J:\Maps\5833\mxd\FinalFigures\Figure_6-14_FB_lanes.mxd
* For Major and Minor Collectors, Minor Arterials and Principal
Arterials except I-35W and I-35E. See "Full Build-out System Needs"
of the Transportation Plan for further discussion.
4,000 0 4,000Feet
Lino Lakes 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning & Zoning Board 1
September 13, 2017 Meeting Summary
Date: September 26, 2017
To: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
Diane Hankee, City Engineer
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
From: Charles Rickart PE, PTOE, Transportation Engineer
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update – Transportation Chapter
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Summary
On September 13th, the Planning & Zoning Board met to discuss and provide input on the Transportation
element of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Specific discussion topics at the meeting will included:
1. Transportation Plan Components – WSB and City staff reviewed the primary components of the
Transportation Plan.
2. Transportation Issues — The Planning & Zoning Board was asked to provide input on general
and specific transportation issues and concerns. The following items were discussed:
General Issues and Concerns
• Growing congestion on regional routes such as I -35W and I-35E causing diversion of traffic to
county roads and local streets.
• Increasing traffic and infrastructure needs due to urbanization of the develop ing areas of Lino
Lakes, particularly in areas west and southeast of the regional park reserve within the city.
• Changing transportation needs due to an aging population.
• Increasing competition for space among modes (i.e., vehicles and bicycle/pedestrian in terests).
• Limited financial resources needed to maintain and improve the transportation systems as
costs are expected to increase.
• Driverless (automated) vehicles.
• Improve existing roadways – expansion, quality of existing roadways
• Maintaining roadways – pavement management
• Road width/narrowing, should it be considered? Policy statement design considerations,
complete streets program, one size does not fit all.
• Traffic calming – Traffic safety policy
Lino Lakes 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning & Zoning Board 2
September 13, 2017 Meeting Summary
Specific Issues and Concerns
• County Road (CR) J/CR 54 and CR J/Centerville Road Jurisdiction
• Ash Street s-curve concept with North Oaks development
• CR 49 at CR J
• CR 34 (Birch Street) – Corridor Management Plan
o Update 2010 County Plan
o Sue Peacock Pheasant Hills – Birch St roundabouts should be considered
o Get traffic off Birch St by connecting connect West Shadow to CR J
• North Bypass – CSAH 14 Study keep in plan City/County
• Neighborhood Speeding concerns
• Implement flashing yellow arrows at signalized intersections
• Lake Drive and 35W left turn lane too tight – bring median back
• Lake Drive and Elm Street intersection being reviewed by Anoka County
• Old Birch does not go straight, need curve warning to notify unfamiliar drivers.
• Intersection of Centerville Road and CR J.
• CR J and 35E interchange needs – traffic is backing up on I35E into travel lanes. Work with
MnDOT on addressing issues
• CR 23 trail from I35W to north
Anoka County Transportation Plan Update – Review the status of the Counties Transportation Plan. It
was stressed that the City will need to work with the County on identifying issues and concerns on the
County Road system.
WS – Item #5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 5
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Diane Hankee, City Engineer
Re: West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Project Update
Background
The West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Project neighborhood meeting is being held on September
26, 2017. The LaMotte neighborhood meeting will be held from 6:00 to 7:00 pm, and the West
Shadow Lake neighborhood meeting from 7:00 to 8:00 pm. Notices were sent out to the
residents.
The project website can be found linked to the City’s website or at:
https://www.lamottewestshadow.com/
The data collection for the project is 80% complete and is being processed. We anticipate
starting design within the next two weeks.
Requested Council Direction
None, information only.
1
WS – Item #6
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 6
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Katie Larsen, City Planner
Re: Watermark Development Update
Background
Attached is the October 9, 2017 Council Staff Report regarding Watermark and Lennar’s
proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan and Mattamy’s request to extend the final
plat.
Staff will review the report with Council at the work session.
Requested Council Direction
None required. Discussion Only.
Attachments
1. October 9, 2017 Council Staff Report
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017
TOPIC: Watermark
i. Consider Resolution No. 17-95 Approving Amendment to
the Land Use Plan of the PUD Development Stage Plan
ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-96 Approving Extension of
Final Plat
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Mattamy Minneapolis, LLC received PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat approval
for Watermark in June 2016. The proposed development is a master planned residential
community located in the northwest quadrant of I-35E and CSAH 14/Main Street. It contains
12 parcels totaling approximately 372 gross acres and consists of a residential mix of 706
single family lots and 165 townhome units totaling 871 housing units.
In February 2017 the City was informed that Mattamy Homes was moving out of the
Minnesota housing market and selling off its existing land holdings, including the Lino Lakes
site. In April 2017, following a request from Mattamy Homes, the City Council approved a six
(6) month extension for the submittal of the PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for the development.
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.
Lennar is proposing a 3 step approach to amend the PUD Development Stage Plan:
• Step 1 (September/October 2017): PUD Development Stage Plan Amendment to the
Land Use Plan to modify lot sizes
• Step 2 (November/December 2017): PUD Development Stage Plan Amendment to
modify architectural design standards
• Step 3 (March/April 2018): PUD Final Plan/Final
This Land Use Application is for Step 1.
2
BACKGROUND
In June 2016, the Council passed Resolution No. 16-51 approving the PUD Development Stage
Plan/Preliminary Plat for Watermark. The resolution details in its finding of fact that
Watermark is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and creates a master planned residential
development that upholds the City’s public values by creating a multi-functional, open space
greenway corridor integrated with stormwater conveyance system, wetland management and
trails. The resolution also establishes architectural design standards, lot sizes and public
dedication requirements for the entire Watermark development.
Per the applicant’s narrative, “While the locations of the Lennar’s lot sizes and housing
products differ from the Mattamy Homes’ approved Planned Unit Development Stage Plan and
Preliminary Plat, architectural standards have been established in the approving resolutions.
Lennar’s proposed open spaces, trails and sidewalks, street widths, typical street sections, street
layouts, stormwater management, sanitary sewer, and watermain are essentially the same as
proposed by Mattamy Homes.
The approved Planned Unit Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat conditions that
detached townhomes maintain a minimum 44’ width and a minimum lot area of 5,720 sq. ft.
The Lennar proposed Land Use Plan contemplates an age-targeted, homeowners association
maintained Lifestyle Villas Collection on 60’ to 65’ wide lots and will be privately owned
rather than a detached townhome. These lots maintain a minimum of 60’ in width and an
average area of 7,800 square feet. Single family detached homes will have varying lot sizes
ranging from 55’ wide to 75’ wide and range in size between 7,150 sq. ft. to 9,750 sq. ft.”
In Step 1, Lennar is proposing an amendment to the Land Use Plan of the PUD Development
Stage Plan to modify lot sizes to adjust to their available housing product types. Those
proposed changes include:
• Elimination of the 44’ wide lots
• Addition of 60’ wide lot product
• The 55’, 65’ and 75’ lots previously approved remain throughout the development
• Slight reconfiguration of the townhome area
• Addition of a second townhome product type (back to back)
• Introduction of an age-targeted “Villa” product geared toward the empty nester with
single level living
The following chart compares the approved Mattamy Homes plan with Lennar’s proposed
revised plan.
Lot Width Mattamy # Lots Lennar # Lots Difference
75 174 126 -48
65 303 315 +12
60 0 143 +143
3
55 145 115 -30
44 84 0 -84
30 (townhomes) 165 172 +7
TOTAL 871 871 0
The total number of housing units is the same at 871. The Lennar townhome neighborhood
consists of 124 row house units (multiple buildings with varying number of units per building)
and 48 back-to-back units (6 buildings with 8 units each). The total number of townhome units
is 172. This is an increase of 7 townhome units in comparison to the Mattamy Homes
development.
Land Use Area Comparison
The following table is a land use area comparison of the approved Mattamy Homes Land Use
Plan vs. the proposed Lennar Land Use Plan.
Mattamy Lennar
Gross Area = 372.24 372.24
Wetlands (remaining + mitigation) = 23.08 23.08
Lake = 22.13 22.13
Storm ponds = 18.19 18.19
Water Subtotal = 63.40 63.40
Public Park = 5.38 5.46
Public Open Space = 59.86 58.97
Private Park = 2.39 1.86
Private Open Space (TH) = 9.43 11.5
Private Open Space Roadway (TH) = 3.37 3.68
Park Subtotal= 80.43 81.47
Arterial Road ROW (CSAH 54)= 5.46 5.46
Local Road ROW = 49.45 49.45
Road ROW Subtotal= 54.91 54.91
Single Family Lots = 164.05 163.5
Townhome Lots = 9.45 8.28
HOA Amenity = 0 0.68
Lot Area Subtotal= 173.50 172.46
The difference between the two plans is negligible.
4
Density Comparison
The following table is a density comparison of the approved Mattamy Homes Land Use Plan
vs. the proposed Lennar Land Use Plan.
Mattamy Lennar
Gross Area (acres) 372.24 372.24
Wetlands & Water Bodies 45.21 45.21
Public Parks & Open Space 65.24 64.43
Arterial ROW 5.46 5.46
Other (Undevelopable) 0.00 0.68
Net Area (acres) 256.33 256.46
# of Housing Units 871 871
Gross Density (units/acre) 2.34 2.34
Net Density (units/acre) 3.40 3.40
There is no change is the gross density, net density or number of housing units.
Zoning
In June 2016, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 04-16 approving rezoning of the
development to PUD, Planned Unit Development effective upon filing the final plat. Lennar
proposes to utilize the same setbacks as established for Mattamy Homes (front = 25 feet, rear =
25 feet and side = 7.5 feet). The townhome neighborhood may require a slight modification to
the base lots to accommodate Lennar’s townhome product. Any changes for either the single
family homes or townhomes will be reviewed and approved with the PUD Final Plan/Final
Plat.
Subdivision Ordinance
No changes are proposed to street layouts, stormwater management facilities, watermain or
sanitary sewer design. Lennar also proposes dedication of public parks and open space. Step 3
will be submittal of PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. To address Council’s concerns regarding
phasing of the development, Lennar intends to submit a first phase final plat containing
substantially more land and units than originally proposed.
Comprehensive Plan
Lennar’s proposed amended Land Use Plan is consistent with the approved PUD Development
Stage Plan and Comprehensive Plan in regards to resource management system plan, housing
plan, economic development, transportation plan and utility plans.
5
Final Plat Extension
In April 2017, Council approved Resolution No. 17-32 extending the final plat submittal
deadline to December 13, 2017. Mattamy Homes has requested another final plat extension to
June 2018 as detailed in Resolution No. 17-96.
Next Steps
Council approval of the Land Use Plan amendment and the lot sizes is critical for Lennar to
move forward on the development of Watermark. If approved, Lennar will proceed to Step 2 to
modify architectural design standards for possibly both the single family homes and
townhomes. The final Step 3 will be submittal of PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. To address
Council’s concerns regarding phasing of the development, Lennar intends to submit a first
phase final plat containing substantially more land and units than originally proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2017. There were no
public comments. The Planning & Zoning Board voted 6-0 in favor of amending the Land Use
Plan. The Board and staff recommend approval of amending the Land Use Plan of the PUD
Development Stage Plan for Watermark subject to the conditions listed in Resolution No. 17-
95.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Approved Land Use Plan (Mattamy Homes)
2. Proposed Land Use Plan (Lennar)
3. Resolution No. 17-95
4. Resolution No. 17-96
LEGEND
20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 35E
73RD ST.ST.REHBEINWATERMARK
LAND USE PLAN
f:\jobs\4721 - 4740\4724 - lino lakes property\cad\survey\layouts\4724_watermark colored exhibit-rev.dwgSave Date:05/31/16
MATTAMY HOMES
7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201
Edina, MN 55439
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.1
of
1
WATERMARK
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:01/07/16 25063
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:01/07/16
BJK
C#Revisions:
1. Rev. Layout. 03/04/16
2.Rev. layout. 05/28/16environmental
engineering
surveying
·
·
·
SITE DATA
Cente
r
vil
l
e
Lake
Peltie
r
LakeRice C
r
e
e
k
Chain
o
f
l
a
k
e
s
Reser
v
e
LakeResha
n
a
u
City o
f
Cente
r
vi
ll
e
Ronde
a
u
Lake
LOCATION MAP
SOIL BORINGS WETLANDS OWNER CONTACT
3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE,
Suite 100
Blaine, MN 55449
Phone: (763) 489-7900
Fax: (763) 489-7959
www.carlsonmccain.com
20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 35E73RD ST.
ST.REHBEIN
WATERMARKLAND USE PLANf:\jobs\6721 - 6740\6731 - watermark\cad c3d\survey\6731_sba land use plan revd2.dwgSave Date:07/21/17Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.1of1WATERMARKLino Lakes, MinnesotaI hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of MinnesotaPrint Name:Signature:Date:License #:25063Drawn:Designed:Date:06/19/17BJKC#Revisions:1. 06/22/17 Revise Legend.2. 07/10/17 Revise layout.3. 08/23/17 Revise labels.environmentalengineeringsurveying···Cente
rv
i
l
leLake Pel
t
ie
rLakeRice
C
reekChain
o
f
lakesReserveLakeReshanau
Ci
ty
o
f
Cente
rv
i
l
le RondeauLake LOCATION MAP 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE,Suite 100Blaine, MN 55449Phone: (763) 489-7900Fax: (763) 489-7959www.carlsonmccain.comLENNAR16305 - 36TH Avenue N. Suite 600Plymouth, Minnesota 55446 LEGEND 20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)73RD ST.
ST.REHBEIN
SITE DATA SOIL BORINGS WETLANDS OWNER CONTACT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-95
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF THE
PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN FOR WATERMARK
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2016 the City passed Council Resolution No. 16-51 approving a PUD
Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for a residential development called Watermark; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2017 the City has received an application to amend the Land Use
Plan of the PUD Development Stage Plan; and
WHEREAS, City staff completed a review of the amended Land Use Plan prepared by Carlson
McCain with revision date August 23, 2017 ; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on September 13,
2017 and the Board recommended approval of the amended Land Use Plan with a 6-0 vote; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
hereby finds the proposed amended Land Use Plan consistent with the approved PUD
Development Stage Plan and Comprehensive Plan in regards to resource management system
plan, housing plan, economic development, transportation plan and utility plans; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Lino Lakes in order to
provide maximum PUD flexibility and adapt to changing market demands, detailed civil, grading
and landscaping plans and architectural design standards, floor plans, elevations, exterior
materials, styles, color packages and HOA documents will be reviewed and approved with each
PUD Final Plan/Final Plat; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby
approves the amended Land Use Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to the PUD Development
Stage Plan for Watermark subject to the following conditions:
1. All other conditions of Resolution No. 16-51 shall be met unless amended by further
Council action.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this ___ day of _______, 2017.
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:
2
_______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 35E73RD ST.
ST.REHBEIN
WATERMARKLAND USE PLANf:\jobs\6721 - 6740\6731 - watermark\cad c3d\survey\6731_sba land use plan revd2.dwgSave Date:07/21/17Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.1of1WATERMARKLino Lakes, MinnesotaI hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of MinnesotaPrint Name:Signature:Date:License #:25063Drawn:Designed:Date:06/19/17BJKC#Revisions:1. 06/22/17 Revise Legend.2. 07/10/17 Revise layout.3. 08/23/17 Revise labels.environmentalengineeringsurveying···Cente
rv
i
l
leLake Pel
t
ie
rLakeRice
C
reekChain
o
f
lakesReserveLakeReshanau
Ci
ty
o
f
Cente
rv
i
l
le RondeauLake LOCATION MAP 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE,Suite 100Blaine, MN 55449Phone: (763) 489-7900Fax: (763) 489-7959www.carlsonmccain.comLENNAR16305 - 36TH Avenue N. Suite 600Plymouth, Minnesota 55446 LEGEND 20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)73RD ST.
ST.REHBEIN
SITE DATA SOIL BORINGS WETLANDS OWNER CONTACT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-96
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF
THE PUD FINAL PLAN/FINAL PLAT FOR WATERMARK
WHEREAS, review and approvals of plats are governed by Minnesota Statutes and City of Lino
Lakes ordinances; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2016 the City passed Council Resolution No. 16-51 approving a PUD
Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for a residential development called Watermark; and
WHEREAS, Section 1007.024(6)(h)7 states unless a Final Plan covering the area designated in
the Development Stage Plan as the first stage of the PUD has been filed within one (1) year from
the date the City Council grants Development Stage Plan approval, or in any case where the
applicant fails to file Final Plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the
provisions of this Ordinance and/or an approved Development Stage Plan, the approval shall
expire. The City Council may at its discretion extend for six month intervals the filing deadline
for any Final Plan when, for good cause shown, such extension is necessary; and
WHEREAS, an extension of time for the submittal of the PUD Final Plan/ Final Plat by
December 13, 2017 was approved by the City Council on with Resolution No. 17-32; and
WHEREAS, Mattamy Homes has requested another 6 month extension while they finalize land
sale negotiations with Lennar.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes,
1. The PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Watermark shall be submitted by June 30, 2018
unless an additional extension is granted by the City Council.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 9th day of October, 2017.
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
WS – Item 7
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 7
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
Re: Development Interest
Woods Edge Property
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 Council 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
Police
Station
Early ChildhoodCenter
MIXED-USEhousing overcommercial
townhomes
retailcommercial
proposed trail connectionto regional trailsystem
local trail connection
Rice Creek
Chain of Lakes
Regional Park
local trail connection
MIXED-USEhousing overcommercial
MIXED-USEhousing overcommercial
neighborhoodpark
WS – Item 8
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 8
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Jeff Karlson
Re: 2017 Telecommunications Right-of-Way User Amendments
Background
On May 30, 2017, Governor Dayton signed into law a bill amending Minnesota’s
Telecommunications Right-of-Way User Law, which streamlines the permitting process
for placement of small wireless facilities on municipal rights of way. The new legislation
allows telecommunications right-of-way users to construct, maintain, and operate small
wireless facilities on any public right-of-way, but subjects those users to local regulations
by cities to manage their rights of way and to recover management costs.
During the North Metro Telecommunications Committee meeting on September 20
(which Councilmember Maher attended), Mike Bradley, legal counsel for NMTC, talked
about the rollout of 5G technology and the use of small cell antennas. Wireless
companies are rolling out a new generation of wireless services called 5G, which will
rely on a lot more antennas to bring services closer to urban areas. All these antennas will
be connected to more fiber so that 1 gig service can be available to all customers. To do
that companies will need to access utility poles, light poles, traffic signals, and even stop
signs and other public property that are in the public right-of-way.
It is incumbent upon the City Council to adopt an ordinance that will regulate the
placement of cell towers, small wireless facilities, and other telecommunications
equipment.
Mr. Bradley was at a League of Minnesota Cities task force meeting and found out that
the League is not putting together a model ordinance to address the new law. That means
cities are going to have to prepare their own ordinances. The new legislation also
requires the drafting of a model lease agreement for use of the public property in the
public right-of-way. Bradley’s clients have expressed interest in having him draft a
model ordinance and lease agreement, which he could prepare at a reasonable cost to
participating cities.
Attachments
LMC Information Memo
WS – Item 9
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 9
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Jeff Karlson
Re: Vehicle Replacement Policy Update
Background
Councilmember Rafferty requested a review of the Vehicle Replacement Policy that was
adopted April 10, 2017.
Attachments
Vehicle Replacement Policy – Police Division
1
City of Lino Lakes
Public Safety Department – Police Division
Vehicle Replacement Policy
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Vehicle Replacement Policy is to propose a vehicle replacement plan for the
Police Division to follow, and to establish the specific vehicle needs and requirements of the
City. This document may be modified or updated annually due to the changing needs of citizens
or changes in the automotive industry.
2. Objectives
The primary objectives of the City of Lino Lakes is to control the overall cost of operating and
maintaining the fleet of vehicles, to maintain the vehicles in a manner that extend their useful
life, to control the growth in size of the fleet, to standardize the composition of the fleet, and to
accurately budget for maintenance replacement costs. All new purchases for vehicles are part of
the budget cycle and are coordinated through the City Administrator for recommendation.
3. Acquisition
The goal of the City’s acquisition practices is to obtain the lowest possible price and the highest
possible quality for vehicles. Before preparation of the Police Capital Equipment Plan, the
Public Safety Director will review the vehicle replacement schedule and appropriate
maintenance and repair records with the Public Services Director and Mechanic and plan the
acquisition of replacement vehicles. Any request for new vehicles that will increase the size of
the fleet must be approved by the City Council.
4. Maintenance
The goal of the Public Safety Department is to keep vehicles in sound operating condition.
Accurate and complete vehicle maintenance records are an important tool for making responsible
management decisions. Preventative maintenance routines and intervals are based on local
driving conditions and manufacturer’s recommendations of each type of vehicle. Preventative
maintenance is the key to avoiding the repair or replacement of costly major vehicle components
such as engines, transmissions, and drive trains. Appropriate records for each vehicle are
maintenance logs, fuel usage logs, and cumulative costs of parts and labor.
5. Replacement
It is the policy of the City of Lino Lakes to replace police vehicles after a minimum of 100,000
miles. The goal is to keep the vehicle for at least five years. However, vehicle maintenance
costs are variable and distinct to each vehicle. The ultimate aim is to analyze the costs associated
with a vehicle and to identify the point when each vehicle is reasonably depreciated but not yet
incurring significant maintenance costs. Based on the vehicle records, it may be determined that
2
a vehicle can be replaced later or may need to be replaced earlier than the schedule calls for.
Any request for replacing vehicles must be cost-justified to the City Administrator and City
Council.
6. Guidelines and Procedures
The Police Division has inventoried existing vehicles and has prepared a replacement schedule
for police vehicles. The schedule will be updated annually and will be used as the basis for
planning for the replacement of vehicles through the annual budget. Each vehicle recommended
for replacement will include the following information:
a. miles of use
b. useful life
c. cost of maintenance
d. overall condition (mechanical, operating, safety, and appearance)
e. downtime
f. availability of replacement parts
g. funding
The guideline for vehicles considered for replacement is primarily based on 100,000 miles of
use, but additional consideration is given to age, functionality, and overall condition of the
vehicle. As vehicles reach the 100,000 mile threshold, maintenance evaluations will be
performed by the Public Services Director and Mechanic. If the evaluation indicates the vehicle
would be economical to retain for an additional year, the vehicle will be retained. Depending on
the availability of funds, vehicles will be replaced when they are at the end of their economic
life, no longer safe to operate, not reliable enough to perform their intended function, or there is a
demonstrated cost savings to the City of Lino Lakes.
Adopted by the City Council on April 10, 2017
WS – Item 9a
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 9a
Date: October 2, 2017
To: City Council
From: Jeff Karlson
Re: RFP for Engineering Services
Background
Mayor Reinert requested this item be placed on the October 2 work session agenda for
discussion.
WSB has provided engineering services since 2011. Prior to WSB, TKDA provided
engineering services to the City for 23 years.
Item #11
Monthly Progress Report
October 2, 2017
Item Last Action Taken Staff Status
Digital Scanning Project 8/7/17 – City Clerk provided a written
report of what has been completed
Julie Staff is utilizing a volunteer
and employee on light duty
assignment
White Bear Lake Restoration
Assn. v. Dept. of Natural
Resources (DNR)
8/30/17 – Ramsey Co. Judge Margaret
Marrinan ruled that the DNR violated
state law to the detriment of WBL and
ordered DNR to stop issuing well permits
within a 5-mile radius of WBL
Jeff DNR announced last week that
it will appeal the court ruling
Location of Veteran’s
Memorial
12/5/16 – The Council’s preferred
location is the island in front of city
hall
Mike
The Council may need to
make a decision on who
will prepare a design
Upgrade of HD
Audio/Visual Equipment
in Council Chambers and
Control Room
8/28/17 – Council awarded bid to
Alpha Video in the amount of
$96,220.189
Jeff Work will be scheduled in
the following weeks
Channel 16 Upgrade 10/4/16 – NMTV Operations
Committee agreed that the local
government channels needed more
attention
Jeff
The updated bulletin board
was switched over after
Labor Day
Culvert Maintenance ACD
10-22-32
7/5/17 – Staff was directed to monitor
the culvert and to work with the
RCWD on a longer term solution
Mike
RCWD cleaned the culvert.
Staff continues to monitor
it.