Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2017 Council PacketEXPANDED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, October 9, 2017 *********** City Council Meeting 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and Rafferty City Administrator: Jeff Karlson CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.  Roll Call - Council Members Rafferty, Kusterman, Manthey, and Mayor Reinert were present; Council Member Maher absent  Pledge of Allegiance  Open Mike / Public Comment - none  Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items The agenda was approved as amended to remove Item 6B, at the request of staff PROCLAMATION Proclamation Honoring Toastmasters and Recognizing October as Toastmasters Month 1. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) October 9, 2017 (Check No. 106820 through 106905) in the amount of $354,092.96 B) Consider approval of Sept. 28, 2017 Work Session Minutes C) Consider approval of Sept. 28, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes D) Consider Resolution No. 17-111, Approving Election Judges for November 7 General Election E) Consider Approving Exempt Gambling Permit and Scholarship Raffle, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1E as presented, was adopted 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT No report 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT No report Council Agenda -2- October 9, 2017 4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT A) Consider Donation of Seized Property to Bikes for Kids, John Swenson Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Manthey, to approve donation of property as presented, was adopted B) Consider Hire of Paid On-Call Firefighter, John Swenson Action Taken: Motion by Manthey, seconded by Kusterman, to approve the hiring of Jesse Fronek as recommended, was adopted 5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT No report 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A) Watermark, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 17-95 Approving Amendment to the Land Use Plan of the PUD Development Stage Plan Action Taken: Motion by Manthey seconded by Kusterman, to approve Resolution No. 17-95 as presented, was adopted ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-96 Approving Extension of Final Plat Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 17-95 as presented, was adopted B) Century Farm North, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 17-97 Approving 4th Amendment to PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-98 Approving PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Century Farm North 7th Addition iii. Consider Resolution No. 17-99 Approving Development Agreement deleted from agenda C) Consider Resolution No. 17-100 Approving Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Permit Level C at 426 Pine Street, Katie Larsen Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 17-100 as presented, was adopted D) Consider Resolution No. 17-114 Accept Quotes for the Birch Street Trail Replacement Project and the Century Farms Trail Project, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 17-114 as presented, was adopted E) Consider Resolution No. 17-112 Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Construction Contract, 2017 Surface Water Project, Diane Hankee Council Agenda -3- October 9, 2017 Action Taken: Motion by Manthey, seconded by Kusterman, to approve Resolution No. 17-112 as presented, was adopted F) Consider Resolution No. 17-113 Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Contract, Bald Eagle Boulevard, Driver Feedback Signs, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 17-113 as presented, was adopted G) Consider Resolution No. 17-115 Approving Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report for Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd., Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Rafferty, to approve Resolution No. 17-115 as presented, was adopted H) Consider Resolution No. 17-116 Approving a Traffic Policy for the City of Lino Lakes, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Manthey, seconded by Kusterman to approve Resolution No. 17-116 as presented, was adopted 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment Adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Community Calendar – A Look Ahead October 9, 2017 through October 23, 2017 Wednesday, October 11 6:00 pm, Council Chambers Planning & Zoning Monday, October 23 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session Monday, October 23 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting Updated 10/6/2017 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, October 9, 2017 *********** City Council Meeting 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and Rafferty City Administrator: Jeff Karlson CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.  Call to Order and Roll Call  Pledge of Allegiance  Open Mike / Public Comment  Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items PROCLAMATION Proclamation Honoring Toastmasters and Recognizing October as Toastmasters Month 1. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) October 9, 2017 (Check No. 106820 through 106905) in the amount of $354,092.96 B) Consider approval of Sept. 28, 2017 Work Session Minutes C) Consider approval of Sept. 28, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes D) Consider Resolution No. 17-111, Approving Election Judges for November 7 General Election E) Consider Approving Exempt Gambling Permit and Scholarship Raffle, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT No report 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT No report 4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT A) Consider Donation of Seized Property to Bikes for Kids, John Swenson B) Consider Hire of Paid On-Call Firefighter, John Swenson Council Agenda -2- October 9, 2017 5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT No report 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A) Watermark, Katie Larsen 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 B) Century Farm North, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 17-97 Approving 4th Amendment to PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-98 Approving PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Century Farm North 7th Addition iii. Consider Resolution No. 17-99 Approving Development Agreement C) Consider Resolution No. 17-100 Approving Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Permit Level C at 426 Pine Street, Katie Larsen D) Consider Resolution No. 17-114 Accept Quotes for the Birch Street Trail Replacement Project and the Century Farms Trail Project, Diane Hankee E) Consider Resolution No. 17-112 Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Construction Contract, 2017 Surface Water Project, Diane Hankee F) Consider Resolution No. 17-113 Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Contract, Bald Eagle Boulevard, Driver Feedback Signs, Diane Hankee G) Consider Resolution No. 17-115 Approving Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report for Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd., Diane Hankee H) Consider Resolution No. 17-116 Approving a Traffic Policy for the City of Lino Lakes, Diane Hankee 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment Community Calendar – A Look Ahead October 9, 2017 through October 23, 2017 Wednesday, October 11 6:00 pm, Council Chambers Planning & Zoning Monday, October 23 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session Council Agenda -3- October 9, 2017 Monday, October 23 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting PROCLAMATION HONORING TOASTMASTERS MONTH OCTOBER, 2017 WHEREAS, Toastmasters International, the world’s leading organization devoted to communication, public speaking and leadership skills, provides a mutually-supportive and positive learning environment in which every member has the opportunity to develop their communication and leadership skills which, in turn, fosters self-confidence and personal growth; and WHEREAS, Toastmasters, founded October 1924, has over 345,000 members in 142 countries, with over 14,200 clubs worldwide; and WHEREAS, Toastmasters clubs are made up of 20-30 people who gather weekly to follow an agenda of prepared speeches, impromptu speeches and evaluations as members learn through practice, by listening to one another, and by studying educational manuals from Toastmasters International which offer guidelines for speeches, and the monthly Toastmaster magazine is an excellent source to gain everyday speaking tips – for both personal and professional use. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeff Reinert Mayor of the City of Lino Lakes, do hereby proclaim October 2017 in the City of Lino Lakes as: “TOASTMASTERS MONTH” in the City of Lino Lakes and urge all citizens to join me in congratulating Toastmasters for the inspiring role they play in assisting individuals develop self-confidence and communication skills which enhance all aspects of their lives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Lino Lakes to be affixed. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council on October 9, 2017. __________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor __________________________ Attest: Julie Bartell, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 25, 2017 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 MINUTES 2 3 DATE : September 25, 2017 4 TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5 TIME ENDED : 6:25 p.m. 6 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, 7 Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 8 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 9 10 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Safety Director John 11 Swenson; Community Development Director Grochala; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; 12 City Planner Katie Larsen; City Engineer Diane Hankee; City Clerk Julie Bartell. 13 14 1. LMCTI Auto Coverage – Finance Director Cotton noted that the council had 15 requested additional information on the city’s insurance claims (to the League of 16 Minnesota Cities) for hail damage to city vehicles. Ms. Cotton first explained that the 17 insurance deductible of $1,000 is charged per event so the city will pay that just once for 18 the multiple vehicles damaged. She further explained that that the city does pay for 19 repairs and receive a reimbursement; the mayor thought that was unusual but 20 acknowledged that was the system being used. The cost is in the area of $120,000. 21 Mayor Reinert remarked that claims from a private sector source, especially in that 22 amount, wouldn’t be anticipated up front but, with government funds, there seems to be 23 more expectation. He isn’t suggesting anything inappropriate but was mainly looking for 24 education on the topic. 25 26 2. Review Regular Council Agenda of September 25, 2017 – 27 28 Items 2A – 2G – Finance Director Cotton reviewed the resolutions: adopting the 29 preliminary budget, setting the hearing and cancelling various debt service levies that are 30 allowed but not needed because there are adequate resources. 31 32 Mayor Reinert noted that he’s still anticipating a discussion on a parks and trails 33 management plan. 34 35 Item 3A – 2nd Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 09-17, Amending the Lino 36 Lakes Code of Ordinances (lawful gambling tax and reporting) – City Clerk Bartell 37 further explained the staff recommendation to amend the City Code so that lawful 38 gambling organizations in the city no longer must pay a tax to the city on their profits and 39 to institute a change to reporting requirements. Council Member Rafferty questioned if 40 the city intends to institute an investigation fee instead and Ms. Bartell explained that a 41 fee will be proposed to begin in 2018 and that fee would represent the cities costs in 42 enforcing lawful gambling regulations. 43 44 The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. 45 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 25, 2017 DRAFT 2 46 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 47 October 9, 2017. 48 49 50 51 52 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 53 54 COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2017 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 MINUTES 2 3 4 DATE : September 25, 2017 5 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 7:25 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, Maher, 8 Manthey, and Mayor Reinert 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : 10 11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael 12 Grochala; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; City Planner Katie 13 Larsen; City Engineer Diane Hankee; and City Clerk Julie Bartell 14 15 PUBLIC COMMENT 16 17 Norma Heuer, 8289 20th Avenue N, addressed the council regarding an asphalt plant planned for the 18 City of Columbus, about a half block from her home. She explained that the proposed plant will now 19 also be a cement plant, thus creating additional traffic, pollution, etc. She asked what the City of 20 Lino Lakes can do for its residents who will be impacted by the proposed development. Mayor 21 Reinert noted that the proposed development mentioned by Ms. Heuer is becoming less and less 22 palatable for this city. Community Development Director Grochala noted that he is not aware of the 23 proposed change to the development (adding cement production). Ms. Heuer remarked that traffic to 24 and from the plant (large trucks) will be funneled from one point and will have a bad impact on the 25 residents. Director Grochala explained that the impacted roadway is maintained by Anoka County so 26 there will be a traffic study required. 27 28 Mayor Reinert directed staff to report on the matter at the next work session, with information on 29 increased activity planned. He reiterated his contact with the City of Columbus elected officials at 30 which time he learned of their high interest in the development; it surprised him they were interested 31 in such a development. He noted that the nearby Running Aces facility is strongly opposed to the 32 plant. 33 34 SETTING THE AGENDA 35 36 The agenda was approved as presented. 37 38 SPECIAL CEREMONY 39 40 Firefighters Boonstra, Lindahl and Stalker took the Oath of Fire Service. 41 42 Officer Connor Williams took the Oath of Police Service. 43 44 COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2017 DRAFT 2 A reception honoring the new members was held following the ceremony at the Public Safety 45 Department. 46 47 CONSENT AGENDA 48 49 Council Member Maher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1C, as presented. 50 Council Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 51 52 ITEM ACTION 53 54 Consideration of Expenditures: 55 56 September 25, 2017 (Check No. 106729 – 106819) 57 in the amount of $740,349.08 Approved 58 59 September 5, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes Approved 60 61 September 11, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes Approved 62 63 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 64 65 The following items were reviewed by the Finance Director, Sarah Cotton. They represent adoption 66 of a preliminary budget (including a maximum levy and tax rate), setting of a public hearing and 67 cancelling the levy of funds for debt service where those funds are not needed. 68 69 Mayor Reinert noted that this action represents approval of a preliminary budget that can go down but 70 not up. He acknowledged the hard work of the council and staff in bringing forward a good and lean 71 budget that brings down the tax levy, with the knowledge that revenues have gone up for the city and 72 there are increased property values. 73 2A) Consider Resolution No. 17-102, Adopting the Preliminary 2017 Tax Levy, Collectible in 74 2018 75 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 17-102 as presented. Council Member 76 Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 77 2B) Consider Resolution No. 17-103, Setting the Date and Time for a Public Hearing for the 78 Proposed 2018 Operating Budget and 2017 Tax Levy, Collectible in 2018 79 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-103 as presented. Council 80 Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 81 2C) Consider Resolution No. 17-104, Canceling the 2017/2018 Debt Service Tax Levy for 82 G.O. Tax Increment Financing Bond, Series 2007A 83 Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-104 as presented. Council Member 84 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 85 COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2017 DRAFT 3 2D) Consider Resolution No. 17-105, Canceling the 2017/2018 Debt Service Tax Levy for 86 G.O. Improvement Bond, Series 2013A 87 Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-105 as presented. Council Member 88 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 89 2E) Consider Resolution No. 17-106, Canceling the 2017/2018 Debt Service Tax Levy for 90 G.O. Bond, Series 2014A 91 Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-106 as presented. Council Member 92 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 93 2F) Consider Resolution No. 17-107, Canceling the 2017/2018 Debt Service Tax Levy for 94 G.O. Capital Note, Series 2016A 95 Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-107 as presented. Council Member 96 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 97 2G) Consider Resolution No. 17-108, Canceling the 2017/2018 Debt Service Tax Levy for 98 Taxable G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2016B 99 Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-108 as presented. Council Member 100 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 101 102 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 103 104 3A) Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 09-17, Amending the Lino Lakes Code of 105 Ordinances by removing Section 611.10, Gambling Tax – City Clerk Bartell explained that the 106 ordinance presented for 2nd reading would amend the city’s lawful gambling regulations. The 107 amendments: 1) remove language requiring payment of a tax to the city, recommended because the 108 city is now very limited in how it can utilize these tax funds; and 2) remove the requirement for 109 gambling organizations to file monthly reports with the city. She added that staff intends to add an 110 annual investigation fee to the city fee schedule in lieu of the tax. 111 112 Council Member moved to waive the full reading of Ordinance No. 09-17 as presented. Council 113 Member seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 114 115 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the 2nd Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 09-17 as 116 presented. Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried; Yeas, 5; Nays none. 117 118 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 119 120 There was no report from the Public Safety Department. 121 122 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 123 124 There was no report from the Public Services Department. 125 126 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 127 COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2017 DRAFT 4 128 6A) Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 08-17, Vacating Drainage Easement on 520 62nd 129 Street – City Planner Larsen first indicated that Resolution No. 17-101 is included in her request for 130 action. She reviewed the request for vacation of a drainage easement as well as the amendment to an 131 easement requested by resolution. 132 Council Member Manthey remarked that this vacation has been fully explored and developed through 133 contact with the watershed district and others. 134 Council Member Rafferty moved to waive the full reading of Ordinance No. 09-17 as presented. 135 Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 136 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the 2nd Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 09-17 as 137 presented. Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried; Yeas, 5; Nays none 138 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-101 as presented. Council 139 Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 140 6B) Consider Resolution No. 17-109, Authorizing Update of Pavement Management Plan - 141 Community Development Director Grochala noted the city’s original development of a pavement 142 management plan in 2004 intended to rate conditions and guide maintenance of the city’s roadways. 143 Staff is requesting authorization to have the city’s plan updated as it is normally done every and also 144 provide a more engaged update to the plan, including utilizing a new computerized rating system. 145 Council Member Rafferty received information on the annual update of the plan; this would be more 146 indepth. 147 Mayor Reinert noted the concept behind having a plan driving the city’s road maintenance efforts and 148 funding. 149 Council Member Kusterman remarked that a lot can change in four years so he comprehends that a plan 150 done that many years ago needs review. Community Development Director Grochala explained that the 151 scheduled update is appropriate because it will provide a relook for the purpose of planning annual 152 sealcoat and overlay projects, larger street reconstruction projects, and this would also update the 153 software. 154 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-109 as presented. Council Member 155 Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 156 6C) Consider Resolution No. 17-110, Authorizing the Request for Quotes for the Birch Street 157 Trail Replacement, and the Century Farms Trail – City Engineer Hankee reviewed her written report 158 that outlines the staff recommendation to request quotes for trail replacement and development. She 159 reviewed the anticipated costs and funding sources available within the current budget. 160 Council Member Kusterman noted that the Birch Park trail can collect water after rain; he wonders if that 161 can be improved. Ms. Hankee said the trail will be raised two to three inches and that should be helpful. 162 However, with a heavy rain, a complete water remediation would be necessary and would involve 163 addition of drainage facilities. Ms. Hankee added that staff will continue to look for the best plan for the 164 trail without moving water where it could a problem. 165 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 17-109 as presented. Council Member 166 Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 167 COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2017 DRAFT 5 168 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 169 170 There was no Unfinished Business. 171 172 NEW BUSINESS 173 174 There was no New Business. 175 176 COMMUNITY EVENTS 177 178 ABSENTEE VOTING STARTED Friday, September 22. You may vote early at City Hall. Hours 179 are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Information is available on the City website to 180 apply for a ballot by mail. 181 182 WALDOCH FARM PUMPKIN PATCH AND CORN MAZE will be open daily September 23 183 through October 31 from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 184 185 COMMUNITY CALENDAR 186 187 Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 188 September 26, 2017 through October 9, 2017 189 Wednesday, September 27 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board 190 Monday, October 2 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 191 Thursday, October 5 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC 192 Monday, October 9 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board 193 194 ADJOURN 195 196 There being no further business, Council Member Rafferty moved to adjourn at 7:25 p.m. Council 197 Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 198 199 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, October 9, 2017. 200 201 202 203 204 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 205 206 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Julie Bartell, City Clerk MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-111, Election Judge Approval VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The City of Lino Lakes will conduct a municipal election on November 7, 2017 to elect a mayor and two council members. BACKGROUND The governing body of a municipality has the authority to appoint qualified applicants to serve as election judges. Attached is a list of qualified individuals who, if appointed, will be trained to serve as Lino Lakes’ Election Judges for the 2017 General Election. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 17-111, Appointing Election Judges for the November 7, 2017 Municipal General Election. ATTACHMENTS Election Judge Roster Resolution 17-111 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-111 APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE NOVEMBER 7, 2017 GENERAL ELECTION WHEREAS, a municipal election will be held on November 7, 2017; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 204B.20, election judges shall be appointed to serve in an election precinct and the appointing authority shall designate a judge to serve as the head election judge; and WHEREAS, training sessions for election judges in Lino Lakes are provided through an on- line program; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 204B.21, Subd. 2, requires appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes that the attached list of certified eligible voters are hereby appointed to serve as election judges and head judges for the 2017 Municipal Election if called to do so. 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 General Election, Tuesday, November 7, 2017 Lino Lakes P-1 Public Works Building, 1189 Main ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Mary Fogarty, Head Judge Pamela Jacobson, Head Judge Kristine Kroll, Head Judge Mary Ayde, Election Judge Jo Anne Bucholz, Election Judge Margo Fischbach, Election Judge Kathi Gallup, Election Judge Sylvia Marier, Election Judge Mariel Resch, Election Judge Clemence Robinson, Election Judge Kay Taylor, Election Judge Lino Lakes P-2 Lino Lakes Fire Station #1, 7741 Lake Dr, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Colleen Borys, Head Judge Lisa MacNeil, Head Judge Amy Barron, Election Judge Rebecca Bilder, Election Judge Mary Elizabeth Glenn, Election Judge Cindy Lindemyer, Election Judge Patrick McCool, Election Judge John Nordlund, Election Judge Lino Lakes P-3 St. Joseph's Catholic Church, 171 Elm ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Eileen Couture, Head Judge Juliane Kvalbein, Head Judge Martin Asleson, Election Judge Bernard Fischbach, Election Judge Jaclynn Gunn, Election Judge Leanne Petyo, Election Judge Calvin Winbush, Election Judge Lino Lakes P-4 Civic Complex, 600 Town Center PKWY, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Diane Bergeson, Head Judge Sharon O'Toole, Head Judge Nan Corson, Election Judge Bankim Desai, Election Judge Robert Doocy, Election Judge Kathryn McCool, Election Judge Jay Peterson, Election Judge Holly Thomas, Election Judge Barbara Winbush, Election Judge Melanie Zierden, Election Judge Lino Lakes P-5 Rice Creek Covenant Church, 125 Ash ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55126 Nicole Glowacki, Head Judge Kay Jakubowski, Head Judge Angela Carlson, Election Judge Patricia Doocy, Election Judge Judge Board Report, 2017 Local Fall Election Page 1 of 2Printed: 9/27/2017 11:08 AM Elizabeth Doucette, Election Judge Ruth Howard, Election Judge Sue Hughes, Election Judge Thomas Jacobson, Election Judge Lino Lakes P-6 Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch St, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Betty Utecht, Head Judge Richard Caldecott, Election Judge Patricia Fanone, Election Judge Kimberli Johnson, Election Judge Sherri Leu, Election Judge Jeffrey Lucey, Election Judge Jean Miers, Election Judge Lyndell Moberg, Election Judge Lino Lakes P-7 Rice Lake Elementary School, 575 Birch ST, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Mary Altstatt, Head Judge Kathy Wall, Head Judge Steven Davis, Election Judge Margaret Heiskary, Election Judge Lorita Janas, Election Judge Theresa Klaman, Election Judge Stephen Minar, Election Judge Marg Penn, Election Judge Paul Wagener, Election Judge Sheryl Zipf, Election Judge Judge Board Report, 2017 Local Fall Election Page 2 of 2Printed: 9/27/2017 11:08 AM CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Approving Exempt Gambling Permit for Turkey Bingo and a Scholarship Raffle at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church (two events) VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote INTRODUCTION St. Joseph’s Catholic Church has applied for two exempt permits. One is to conduct their annual Turkey Bingo on November 23, 2017 with the money raised to be used for the food shelf and the second is a Raffle to be held on November 28, 2017 with the proceeds from this event to be used to award college scholarships to members of St. Joseph Catholic Church. BACKGROUND Non-profit organizations are allowed, under the State Gambling Statutes, to apply for an exemption from a gambling license if they conduct five (5) or fewer gambling occasions per calendar year. St. Joseph Catholic Church conducts five (5) or less per calendar and, therefore, remains exempt from requiring a gambling license. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 349, Section 349.166, Subd. 2 does, however, require that the non- profit organizations applying for the exemption permit, notify the city that they are applying for the exemption and receive local approval. The application and background materials are on file in City Clerk’s office. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion approving the applications for exemption with no waiting period. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4A STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Swenson, Public Safety Director MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Donation of Seized Property to Bikes for Kids VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The City of Lino Lakes Ordinance 213.07 authorizes the Public Safety Department to dispose of unclaimed property in a manner authorized by a majority vote of the City Council. BACKGROUND As part of the continued management of police division property and evidence room, staff identified the below listed bicycles for disposal: 1. RA-17051854 – Bicycle serial number None 2. RA-17087440 – Bicycle serial number HS091201631 3. RA-17092822 – Bicycle serial number 55487393 4. RA-17125735 – Bicycle serial number 6532854 5. RA-17133065 – Bicycle serial number 2C5615 6. RA-17143589 – Bicycle serial number R4426WMAT 7. RA-17155739 – Bicycle serial number SAN0001728 All related court and investigative matters has been completed. Staff has complied with all statuary obligations to notify all concerned parties and received no communications related to any of these cases or the related property. To eliminate the expense of destroying any of the bicycles, staff is requesting they be donated to the non-profit organization Bikes for Kids based in Ham Lake, MN. This non-profit organization refurbishes donated bicycles and provides them to kids in need in Anoka County and throughout the world. Click here to visit their website. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Public Safety Department to donate the listed bicycles to the non-profit Bikes for Kids. ATTACHMENTS None CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4B STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Swenson, Public Safety Director MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Hire Paid On-Call Firefighter VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The Lino Lakes Public Safety Department is requesting council approval to hire a paid on-call firefighter. BACKGROUND As directed by Council Resolution 14-50 staff is integrating fire operations into the Public Safety Department. Staff has been engaged in a fire recruiting and hiring process for paid on- call firefighter candidates as part of the integration process. The hiring process has been extensive including an interview process, background investigation, medical examinations, and drug screen. This process has identified candidates that will continue the Public Safety Department’s proud tradition of delivering high quality services to the Lino Lakes Community. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council approve the hiring of Jesse Fronek for the position of paid on- call firefighter effective October 16, 2017. ATTACHMENTS None 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 55’ to 65’ wide homesites and will be privately owned rather than a detached townhome. These homesites maintain a minimum of 55’ in width and an average area of 7,800 square feet. Single family detached homes will have varying homesites 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 3 60 0 143 +143 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 4 The difference between the two plans is negligible. 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 5 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. 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 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Century Farm North i. Consider Resolution No. 17-97 Approving 4th Amendment to PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-98 Approving PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Century Farm North 7th Addition iii. Consider Resolution No. 17-99 Approving Development Agreement VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Century Farm North is a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) in northwest Lino Lakes and was approved in 2003. It includes a mix of housing styles including typical single family lots, single family airpark lots with hangars, single family detached townhomes (individual house lots located within a commonly owned yard lot) and attached townhomes. There have been six (6) final plats and three (3) PUD amendments to date. The first amendment allowed for the conversion of 16 single family detached townhomes to 16 single family lots. The second amendment expanded the preliminary plat boundary to include the Morell 1 acre parcel, realigned Robinson Drive and created new parcels. The third PUD amendment allowed for side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet on both sides of either the principal or attached accessory structures. This flexibility will also apply to the four (4) platted lots in Century Farm North 7th Addition. The developer, Gary Uhde, is requesting a fourth amendment to the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for Outlot C, Century Farm North 6th. This outlot was approved for 12 townhomes (2 buildings with 6 units each) in 2003. Due to a weakened townhome market, Mr. Uhde, is proposing to re-plat the outlot from 12 townhome units to 4 single family lots. The current Land Use Application is for the following: • PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat Amendment • PUD Final Plan/Final Plat This staff report is based on the following plan sets: 2 • Century Farm North PUD/Preliminary Plat Amendment 7th Addition Civil Plan Set prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc. dated August 18, 2017 • Preliminary Plat, Certificate of Survey/Resource Inventory prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. dated August 18, 2017 • Original Approved Preliminary Plat dated August 3, 2017 • Final Plat prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. BACKGROUND Lot Summary The Lot Summary reflects changes from the approved original PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, final plats and four (4) amendments. Phase Single Family Lots Air Park Single Family Detached Townhomes Attached Townhomes TOTAL Original Proposed Original Proposed Original Proposed Original Proposed Original Proposed 1st 30 26 9 8 16 16 0 0 55 50 2nd 1 0 0 0 22 23 42 42 65 65 3rd 0 0 9 14 9 9 34 34 52 57 4th 0 0 0 0 1 1 38 38 39 39 5th 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 6th 11 29 0 0 10 0 0 0 21 29 7th 0 4 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 4 TOTAL 47 59 18 22 58 54 126 114 249 249 Difference 12 4 -4 -12 0 Zoning and Land Use Current Zoning PUD, Planned Unit Development Current Land Use Vacant Residential Future Land Use per CP Medium Density (4.0 to 5.9 units per acre) Utility Staging Area 1A = 2008-2015 Topography and MLCCS Flat with sod on hydric soils and saturated altered/non-native vegetation 3 Density Calculations Acres Gross Property Area 95.63 Wetland 12.72 Arterial (CR 53) ROW 1.28 Park Dedication 13.32 Net Property Area 68.31 # Units 249 Density 3.65 units/acre The density calculations are based on the entire preliminary plat for Century Farm North. At the time the original PUD was approved in 2003, the City’s Comprehensive Plan for medium density residential development allowed for 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. Although the current Comprehensive Plan for medium density requires 4.0 to 5.9 dwelling units per acre, the developer has the right to develop at a density consistent with the original PUD. Zoning Requirements and Standards The PUD provides flexibility from the strict standards of the zoning ordinance. Unless otherwise stated in the PUD resolution, the regulations and performance standards of the zoning ordinance and R-2 Two Family Residential District will be in effect. R-2 District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size (sq. ft.) 7,500 9,065 to 14,812 Min. Lot Width (feet) Interior Lot 60 62 to 65 Corner Lot 80 NA Min. Lot Depth (feet) 125 146 to 225 Double Frontage Lot 135 146-225 Building Setback (feet) -From Streets- 4 Local Street 25 NA Collector or Arterial 40 40 -Rear- Principal 25 25 Accessory 5 5 -Side- Principal 10 7.51 Accessory 5 7.51 Buffer 15’ if side or rear lot abuts collector or arterial street NA 1Resolution No. 16-135 approved the third amendment to the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for Century Farm North to allow for side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet on both sides of either the principal or attached accessory structure. These setbacks shall also apply to the proposed 4 single family lots. Per Section 1007.042(5)(b)1.e, air conditioning equipment must be 10 feet from any side lot line. No encroachment shall be permitted in the drainage and utility easement. In many cases, the air conditioning units may need to be in the rear yards. Each lot must be able to provide for a minimum 10’x10’ deck if the house plan shows a main floor patio door. The certificate of survey submitted with the building permit shall show the location of a future deck to verify compliance. Building Design Standards The building design standards as established in the R-2, Two Family Residential District shall apply to the single family lots except the following PUD criteria as approved by Resolution No. 14-43 regarding garages and front porches shall apply: a. All single family dwellings shall have a minimum double garage. b. All single family dwellings shall include a front porch or stoop that is covered, unenclosed and a minimum of 3 feet in depth. c. All single family dwelling and garage elevations shall include a variation in exterior building materials such as brick, stone, rock face, concrete block, wood, stucco, vinyl, steel, fiber cement and aluminum siding. d. Side or rear loaded garages are permitted. The elevation facing the street shall require a minimum of one (1) window. 5 e. The garage doors shall incorporate architectural design features such as decorative windows, panels, hinges, etc. f. Garages in excess of two stalls shall be broken up so the additional stalls are recessed from the main garage façade. g. Garage width does not exceed 32 feet. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Existing Land Use Future Land Use North PUD Residential Medium Density Residential South PUD Residential Medium Density Residential East PUD Residential Medium Density Residential West PUD Open Space Medium Density Residential Impervious Surface Coverage Pre-Development Post-Development Impervious (acres) 0 (0%) 0.47 (39%) Pervious (acres) 1.21 (100%) 0.74 (61%) TOTAL (acres) 1.21 1.21 These calculations are for the proposed site area only. Individual single family lots shall not exceed 50% impervious. Subdivision Ordinance Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code The PUD amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision ordinance. The proposed development is not considered premature, is consistent with the original PUD and meets the performance standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance. Blocks and Lots The preliminary plat amendment creates 1 block with 4 lots and 1 outlot and will be final platted as Century Farm North 7th Addition. Outlot A is the land surrounding the cul de sac and shall be deeded to the homeowners associate for maintenance. Typical lots are shown as 62-65 6 feet wide and 146-225 feet deep. Lots 2-4 are double frontage lots and meet the 135 foot depth requirement. Streets and Alleys All four (4) single family lots will ingress/egress from Robinson Drive. Robinson Drive is classified as a minor collector roadway and was fully reconstructed from CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) to Century Trail with the development of Century Farm North 6th Addition. An 8.5 foot wide bituminous trail was also constructed along the section of Robinson Drive in front of the single family homes. This section of trail will remain. With the proposed Century Farm North 7th Addition, Morgan Lane (a private road maintained by the townhome association) will cul de sac and terminate. With the original townhome development, Morgan Lane would have been extended to Robinson Drive. As per the original PUD plan, a sidewalk is required along the east side of the property extending from Morgan Lane to Robinson Drive. Easements Standard drainage and utility easements are shown around the interior perimeter of lots. The side easements between Lot 2 and Lot 3 shall be wide enough to accommodate a watermain. The City Engineer noted the existing 21 inch storm sewer crossing the front of Lot 1 shall be realigned. If realigned, the existing drainage and utility easement as dedicated on Century Farm North 4th Addition shall be vacated and re-dedicated on the plat or by separate document. Staff met with the developer and his engineer prior to the September 13, 2017 Planning & Zoning Board meet and determined the storm sewer pipe did not need to be relocated. The house pad can be moved south on the lot out of the easement. There is no need to vacate and re-dedicate any easements. Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Stormwater will drain to the existing stormwater ponds located west of the subject site. The Century Farm North 7th Addition project is permitted under RCWD #13-043 for surface water management. RCWD staff stated that the overall proposed impervious surface appears to be less than originally intended, therefore, no amendment to the permit is needed. The permit expires on February 15, 2018. Utilities Public water, sanitary and storm sewer utilities were installed with the construction of Robinson Drive. The watermain shall loop from Morgan Lane to Robinson Drive in between Lot 2 and Lot 3 for better fire protection and water quality. Public Land Dedication 7 The original Century Farm North development fulfilled the public land dedication requirements for the entire development through parkland dedication and trail construction. No credit shall be given for the proposed PUD 4th amendment/Century Farm North 7th Addition. Tree Preservation and Mitigation Plan A Tree Preservation and Mitigation Plan is not required since the site has been rough graded. There are four (4) cottonwoods being removed on the south end of Lot 1 and Lot 2. These are not considered significant trees and do not require tree mitigation and replacement. Landscaping Landscaping is subject to the approved PUD Landscape Plan. Although the approved landscape plan indicates landscape plantings around the townhome development, the PUD landscape plan will be amended to require four (4) boulevard trees along Robinson Drive and landscape plantings near the Morgan Lane cul de sac. The developer shall be responsible for installing the landscaping. Comprehensive Plan The PUD Development Stage Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in regards to resource management system, land use, housing, transportation and utilities. The four (4) single family lots are consistent with the Century Farm North residential development. Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) The subject site is not within the I-35E AUAR Corridor. Wetlands There are no wetlands on the subject site. Floodplain There is no floodplain located within the subject site. Final Plat The PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Century Farm North 7th Addition is also being processed concurrently with the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat amendment. Findings of Fact The Findings of Fact for the final plat are detailed in Resolution No. 17-98. Development Agreement 8 A Development Agreement has been drafted by the City and shall be executed by the City and the developer and recorded by the developer. Title Commitment The City Attorney has reviewed the title commitment and final plat and notes that consent from First National Bank of Elk River is required. RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2017. There were no public comments. The Board recommended approval of the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat amendment and PUD Final Plan/Final Plat with a 6-0 vote. The Board and staff recommend approval of the fourth PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat and PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Century Farm North 7th Addition subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolutions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-97 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Resolution No. 17-98 4. Final Plat 5. Resolution No. 17-99 6. Development Agreement 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-97 APPROVING FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTURY FARM NORTH WHEREAS, on April 28, 2003 the City passed Council Resolution No. 03-60 approving a PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for a residential development called Century Farm North; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2017 the City received an application to amend the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat hereafter referred to as “Amendment”; and WHEREAS, the original 2003 PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat was approved for twelve (12) townhome units on the area currently platted as Outlot C, Century Farm North 6th Addition; and WHEREAS, the Amendment is to allow for Outlot C, Century Farm North 6th Addition be platted into four (4) single family lots; and WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the Amendment based on the following: • Century Farm North PUD/Preliminary Plat Amendment 7th Addition Civil Plan Set prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc. dated August 18, 2017 • Preliminary Plat, Certificate of Survey/Resource Inventory prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. dated August 18, 2017 • Original Approved Preliminary Plat dated August 3, 2017 • Final Plat prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc.; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on September 13, 2017 and the Board recommended approval of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby determines the Amendment is compliant with the comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision ordinance. The proposed development is not considered premature, is consistent with the original PUD Development Stage Plan and meets the performance standards of the city ordinances; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the fourth amendment to the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for Century Farm North to allow for Outlot C, Century Farm North 6th Addition be platted into four (4) single family lots subject to the following conditions: 1. The building design standards as established in the R-2, Two Family Residential District shall apply to the four (4) single family lots except the following PUD criteria as approved by Resolution No. 14-43 regarding garages and front porches shall also apply. a. All single family dwellings shall have a minimum double garage. 2 b. All single family dwellings shall include a front porch or stoop that is covered, unenclosed and a minimum of 3 feet in depth. c. All single family dwelling and garage elevations shall include a variation in exterior building materials such as brick, stone, rock face, concrete block, wood, stucco, vinyl, steel, fiber cement and aluminum siding. d. Side or rear loaded garages are permitted. The elevation facing the street shall require a minimum of one (1) window. e. The garage doors shall incorporate architectural design features such as decorative windows, panels, hinges, etc. f. Garages in excess of two stalls shall be broken up so the additional stalls are recessed from the main garage façade. g. Garage width does not exceed 32 feet. 2. Side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet on both sides of either the principal or attached accessory structure shall apply to the four (4) single family lots. 3. Air conditioning equipment must be 10 feet from any side lot line. No encroachment shall be permitted in the drainage and utility easement. 4. The certificate of survey submitted with each building permit shall show the location of a future minimum 10’ x 10’ deck. 5. Morgan Lane is a private drive that shall be maintained by the Century Farm North Robinson Addition Homeowners Association. This includes the landscaping and ground cover on Outlot A, Century Farm North 7th Addition. 6. The sidewalk east of Lot 4, Century Farm North 7th Addition extending from Morgan Lane north to Robinson Drive shall be owned and maintained by the Century Farm North Robinson Addition Homeowners Association. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the fourth amendment subject to the following additional conditions: 1. All comments from City Engineer letter dated September 14, 2017 shall be addressed. 2. All comments from Environmental Coordinator letter dated September 7, 2017 shall be addressed. 3. A summary table created in Microsoft Excel by lot, block and outlots of parcel sizes (gross, unbuildable and net area) and setbacks (front, rear and side) shall be required. 4. The developer shall provide the City with documentation from the Century Farm North Robinson Addition Homeowners Association agreeing to the ownership and maintenance of Outlot A, Morgan Lane and the sidewalk east of Lot 4 . 5. Outlot A shall be deeded to the Century Farm North Robinson Addition Homeowners Association. a. The applicant shall provide a draft copy of the deed to the City for review and comment. 6. All Plan Sheets: a. Correct spelling of Amendment in title. 7. L1, Landscape Plan: a. Shall indicate where native seed mixes are going to be planted. b. Specific native seed mix shall be noted on the plan sheet. c. Shall clearly show what ground cover will be planted on Outlot A. 8. Preliminary Plat: a. The High Water Level (HWL) shall be clearly marked on the preliminary plat. 3 b. A 10 foot buffer line above the HWL shall be clearly marked on the preliminary plat. c. Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be revised so the lots are entirely above the HWL plus 10 foot buffer line. i. The rear lot lines shall be parallel to the front lot line. ii. The area below the 10 foot buffer shall be combined with Outlot A. 9. Final Plat a. Consent from First National Bank of Elk River is required. 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: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-98 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUD FINAL PLAN/FINAL PLAT FOR CENTURY FARM NORTH 7TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the City has received an application for PUD Final Plan/Final Plat approval for Century Farm North 7th Addition hereafter referred to as “Development”; and WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the proposed “Development” based on the following plans and information: • Century Farm North PUD/Preliminary Plat Amendment 7th Addition Civil Plan Set prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc. dated August 18, 2017 • Preliminary Plat, Certificate of Survey/Resource Inventory prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. dated August 18, 2017 • Original Approved Preliminary Plat dated August 3, 2017 • Final Plat prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc.; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on September 13, 2017 and the Board recommended approval of the Century Farm North PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council the approved the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat amendment with Resolution No. 17-97; and WHEREAS, Planning & Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the Century Farm North 7th Addition final plat at the September 13, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS, the proposed development is not considered premature and meets the performance standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The final plat substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed below. 2. The City Attorney approved the status of title/property ownership related to the final plat subject to the conditions listed below. 3. A Development Agreement has been completed. 4. Conditions attached to approval of the preliminary plat have been fulfilled or secured by the Development Agreement. 5. All fees, charges and escrow related to the preliminary or final plat have been paid in full. 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the PUD Final Plan/Final Plat Century Farm North 7th Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Consent from First National Bank of Elk River is required. 2. Conditions of Resolution No. 17-97 shall be met. 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 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-99 RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CENTURY FARM NORTH 7TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the City Council approved the PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Century Farm North 7th Addition with Resolution No. 17-98 on October 9, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City’s subdivision ordinance and conditions of approval require the execution of a development agreement between the Developer and the City of Lino Lakes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the Development Agreement between Century Farm North Development, Inc. and the City of Lino Lakes for Century Farm North 7th Addition and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such agreement on behalf of the City. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 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 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Century Farm North 7th Addition THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of ____________, 2017, by and between the City of Lino Lakes, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and Century Farm North Development, Inc. a Minnesota corporation “Developer”. 1. Subdivision. Developer received preliminary plat approval from the City by Resolution No. 03-60 for a plat known as Century Farm North “Subdivision”. The preliminary plat was amended by Ordinance No. 06-14, Ordinance No. 07-11, Resolution No. 14-43, Resolution No. 16-135 and Resolution No. 17-97. Unless otherwise stated, all terms and conditions of this Agreement relate to work within the Subdivision. 2. Final Plat Approval. The City’s approval of the final plat of Century Farm North 7th Addition, as legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, is contingent upon execution and delivery of this agreement and all required petitions, bonds, security, and documents, and satisfaction of all conditions of approval required by Resolution No. 17- 97 and Resolution No. 17-98. The Final Plat is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3. Phased Development. The City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent additions of the plat if the Developer has breached this Agreement and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 4. Developer Plans. a. The Subdivision shall be developed in accordance with the following Developer Plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Engineer. The Developer Plans may be prepared and revised after entering into this Agreement but must be approved by the City before commencement of any work. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. b. The Developer Plans as of the date of this Agreement are: i. Century Farm North 7th Addition plan set containing 8 sheets, prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc., dated August 18, 2017. ii. Century Farm North 7th Addition Final Plat, prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc., dated August 18, 2017. 5. Permits. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all site grading and development approvals and permits from all appropriate Federal, State, Regional and Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 2 Local jurisdictions prior to the commencement of site grading or construction and prior to the City awarding construction contracts for public improvements. 6. Developer Improvements. The Developer shall secure a contractor to install these improvements, hereinafter referred to as the “Developer Improvements,” which contractor shall be approved by the City in its absolute discretion. The cost of Developer Improvements is as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto. All Developer Improvements shall require City inspection and approval and, where appropriate, the approval of any other governmental agency having jurisdiction. The Developer shall construct and install at the Developer's expense the following improvements according to the following terms and conditions: a. Site Grading i. No grading shall commence until all requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) have been satisfied. ii. All site grading shall be conducted in accordance with the grading plan as approved by the City and in accordance with NPDES and RCWD requirements. The Developer shall perform the work in accordance with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements. b. Grading and Erosion Control i. The Developer shall grade the site to within 0.2 foot of the grades shown on the approved grading plan. No deviations will be allowed unless a revised plan is submitted and approved by the City and all other regulatory agencies. ii. The street right-of-way, storm water storage ponds, and surface water drainage ways shall be graded prior to commencement of utility construction. iii. The Developer shall be responsible for ascertaining that site geotechnical and groundwater conditions are adequate and conforming with the grading and site improvement as proposed. iv. The Developer’s engineer shall certify in writing, with an as-built survey, that all grading complies with the approved grading plan prior to issuance of any building permits. v. The Developer shall promptly clear dirt and debris within public right -of- ways and drainage and utility easements resulting from construction by the Developer, its purchasers, builders and contractors within five (5) Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 3 days after notification by the City. The Developer shall be responsible for all necessary street and storm sewer maintenance, including street sweeping, until all home construction is completed, unless otherwise released by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on them, including detour signs if necessary. If and when the streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth, hard driving surface and adequate drainage on all temporary streets. c. Final street grading, subbase, gravel base, concrete curb and gutter, and bituminous base course and wear course shall be furnished and installed. d. Sidewalks, paths and street lighting as required by the City. e. Storm sewers, when determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, including all necessary laterals, catch basins, inlets and other appurtenances, shall be furnished and installed. f. Sanitary sewer mains, laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services and other appurtenances, shall be furnished and installed. g. Water mains, laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services, hydrants, valves and other appurtenances, shall be furnished and installed. h. The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall be placed after all street and lawn grading has been comple ted in order to preserve the lot markers for future property owners. Lot corner irons on the back property line shall be installed so that the top of the iron corresponds to the finished ground elevation in accordance with the approved grading plan. Guard stakes shall be appropriately installed to mark these irons. i. Landscaping shall be furnished and installed in accordance with the approved plans. j. The Developer shall arrange for all gas, telephone, cable TV and electric utility services to the Subdivision in accordance with City Code and State law. The Developer is solely responsible for the cost of utility installation. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements enumerated in Paragraph 6 by November 30, 2017. The Developer may request a reasonable extension of time from the City. If the extension is granted, it shall be Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 4 conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 8. City Improvements. No City improvements are proposed to be constructed for this subdivision. 9. Record Drawings. a. Upon project completion, Developer shall submit record drawin gs, in electronic format, of all public and private infrastructure improvements , including grading, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities, and roads, constructed by Developer. The files shall be drawn in Anoka County NAD 83 Coordinate system and provided in both AutoCAD .dwg and Adobe .pdf file formats. The plans shall include accurate locations, dimensions, elevations, grades, slopes and all other pertinent information concerning the complete work. The Developer shall also submit certified compaction testing results for the site grading operations. b. A summary of the record plan attribute data for the storm sewer, watermain, and sanitary sewer structures and pipes shall be submitted in the form of an Excel Spreadsheet as provided by the City Engineer. c. No securities will be fully released until all record drawings have been submitted and accepted by the City Engineer. 10. Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts and Security. a. The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms and conditions of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer for the installation and construction of all Developer Improvements. Concurrent with the execution hereof by the Developer, the Developer will furnish to, and at all times thereafter maintain with the City, a cash deposit, certified check, or Irrevocable Letter of Credit, based on one hundred fifty (150%) percent of the total estimated cost of Developer's Improvements. b. Irrevocable Letter of Credit. If an Irrevocable Letter of Credit is utilized, it shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of the City of Lino Lakes and shall state that it is issued to guarantee and assure performance by the Developer of all the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and construction of all required improvements referenced therein in accordance with the ordinances and specifications of the City. The letter shall be in a form, and from a bank, as approved by the City. The City reserves the right to draw, in whole or in part, on any portion of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit for the purpose of guaranteeing the terms and conditions of this agreement. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended for additional periods of one year from present or future Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 5 expiration dates. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit may not be terminated without the City’s written consent. c. Not Applicable d. Reduction of Security. The Developer may request reduction of the Letter of Credit or cash deposit based on prepayment or the value of the completed improvements at the time of the requested reduction. 11. Warranty. The Developer warrants all utility work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of two years after its completion and acceptance by the City. All new streets shall be warranted by the developer for a period of one year from the time the final inspection of the street is completed and accepted by the City. All trees, grass and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and disease free for 12 months after planting. Prior to final acceptance of the Developer Improvements the City shall require a Performance Bond or Cash Escrow to cover the warranty provisions of this Agreement. The amount shall be determined by the City Engineer. 12. Dedication. The Developer shall dedicate to the City, at no cost to the City, any permanent or temporary easements that may be necessary for the construction and installation of the Developer Improvements. All such easements required by the City shall be in writing, in recordable form, containing such terms and conditions as the City shall determine. 13. Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and City acceptance of the work and construction required by this Agreement, the public improvements lying within public right-of-way and easements shall become City property without further notice or action unless the improvements are to be deemed private infrastructure. 14. Recording and Release. The Developer agrees that the terms of this Development Agreement shall be a covenant on any and all property included in the Subdivision. The Developer agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Development Agreement with the Anoka County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners. This shall be recorded against the Subdivision described on Page 1. 15. Escrow for City’s Costs. a. The Developer agrees to establish a non -interest bearing escrow account with the City in an amount determined by the City Administrator or his designee for the payment of all costs incurred by the City related to the development of the Subdivision including, but not limited to, the following (See Exhibit C for breakdown of costs): Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 6 i. Administration - 3% of Developer Improvement Costs ii. City Engineering iii. Street lighting installation (by utility company) iv. Traffic signing improvements v. Boulevard tree planting vi. Street, storm sewer and pond maintenance vii. Property Taxes. Should the recording of the Final Plat occur after July 1 st, any and all property taxes on any public property dedicated as a part of this plat shall be the responsibility of the Developer. b. If the above escrow amounts are insufficient, the Developer shall make such additional deposits as required by the City. The City shall have a right to reimburse itself from the Escrow upon notice to the Developer, with suitable documentation supporting the charges. 16. Developer Fees. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall pay the following fees related to the development of the Subdivision (See Exhibit C for breakdown of costs): a. Park Dedication – No fees required. Paid with the original development. b. Street Lights – None required, paid with the original development. c. Sealcoating - Not required, paid with the original development. d. Aerial Photo Fees e. Trunk Sewer Unit Charges The City established trunk unit charges to uniformly distribute the costs of public trunk sanitary sewer infrastructure. Each individual connection to the sanitary sewer system shall be charged a unit charge per SAC unit (currently at $3,073 per SAC unit). The calculation of the SAC units shall be based on the procedure outlined in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sewer Availability Charge Procedure Manual. Trunk sewer unit charges addressed under this paragraph are in addition to any SAC charges imposed by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. An estimate of the total charge and the trunk utility credit for developer installed trunk oversizing is specified in Exhibit C. Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 7 f. Trunk Water Unit Charges The City established trunk unit charges to uniformly distribute the costs of public trunk water infrastructure. Each individual connection to the water system shall be charged a unit charge per SAC unit (currently at $4,069 per SAC unit). The calculation of the SAC units shall be based on the procedure outlined in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sewer Availability Charge Procedure Manual. An estimate of the total charge and the trunk utility credit for developer installed trunk oversizing is specified in Exhibit C. g. Surface Water Management Area Charges The City established a trunk area charge to uniformly distribute the costs of public trunk surface water infrastructure and water quality improvements. The Surface Water Management Charge shall be based on developable acreage, in the amount specified in Exhibit C. 17. Assessment of Charges and Waiver of Rights. a. In consideration of the construction of City Improvements listed in Paragraph 8 and /or provision of sewer, water and storm water services, the Developer agrees that the costs of City Improvements together with Trunk Sewer Unit Charge, Trunk Water Unit Charge and the Surface Water Management Area Charge (collectively, “the Charges”) may be assessed against the Subdivision parcels. The Developer hereby waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including notice and hearing requirements, any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the properties, and any right to appeal. b. Unless the Developer pays the entire balance owed for the Charges contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement , the Developer shall provide to the City a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to 35% of the total assessments for the Charges as estimated by the City Engineer (see Exhibit C). The letter of credit shall be in a form, and from a bank, as approved by the City. The letter of credit or cash escrow may be used by the City upon default by Developer in the payment of special assessments. The cash escrow or letter of credit shall remain in place throughout the term of the special assessments. The letter of credit may not be terminated without the City’s written consent. c. Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns, agrees that within 30 days after the date of sale of a lot, the Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns, at its own cost and expense, shall pay the entire unpaid charges assessed or to be assessed under this agreement against such property. Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 8 d. If a certificate of occupancy is issued before the special assessments have been levied, the Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns shall pay the City the sum of cash equal to 120% of the Engineer's estimate of the special assessments for such Charges that would be levied against the property. Upon such payment the City shall issue a certificate showing the assessments are paid in full. Notwithstanding the issuance of said certificate, the Developer shall be liable to the City for any deficiency and the City shall pay the Developer any surplus arising from the payment based upon such estimate. e. Acceleration upon Default. In the event the Developer violates any of the covenants, conditions or agreements herein, violates any ordinance, rule or regulation of the City, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota or other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the plat or development, or fails to pay when due any installment of any special assessment levied pursuant to this agreement, or any interest thereon, the City at its option, in addition to its rights and remedies hereunder, after 10 days written notice to the Developer, may declare all of the unpaid special assessments which are then estimated or levied pursuant to this agreement due and payable in full, with interest. The City may seek recovery of such special assessments due and payable from the security provided herein. In the event that such security is insufficient to pay the outstanding amount of such special assessments plus accrued interest the City may certify such outstanding special assessments in full to the County Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.061, subdivision 3, for collection the following year. The City, at its option, may commence legal action aga inst the Developer to collect the entire unpaid balance of the special assessments then estimated or levied pursuant hereto, with interest, including reasonable attorney's fees, and Developer shall be liable for such special assessments and, if more than one, such liability shall be joint and several. In addition to any other rights and remedies upon Developer’s default, the City may refuse to issue building permits and/or Certificates of Occupancy for any property within the Subdivision until such time as such default has been corrected to the satisfaction of the City. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of this agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorneys' fees, if the City prevails in any enforcement action. 18. Building Permits. No building permits shall be issued until: a. Site grading, City sewer, water, storm sewer, and bituminous base construction of the streets, temporary street signs, gas, electric, and telephone are completed and approved by the City, except as provided below. i. A record drawing of the site grading for the model home lots shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the model homes. Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 9 ii. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, the Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, material men, employees, agents or third parties. Any such costs shall be reimbursed from Developer’s escrow. 19. Special Provisions. a. Conditions of approval required by Resolution No. 17-97 shall be met. 20. Hours of Construction Activity. All construction activity shall be limited to the hours as follows: Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday and Holidays No working hours allowed 21. Insurance. Developer or its general contractor shall take out and maintain until one year after the City accepted the Developer Improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's or general contractor’s work, as the case may be, or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for one person and One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of Two Million and no/100 ($2,000,000.00) Dollars or more. The City, its employees, its agents and assigns shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer or its general contractor shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. 22. Developer’s Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Developer waives Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 10 its rights to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 429. 23. General. a. Binding Effect The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Subdivision and shall be deemed covenants running with the land, unless otherwise released pursuant to section 14 of this Agreement. b. Validity. If a portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, p aragraph or phrase in this agreement is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of the Development Agreement. c. Notices Whenever in this agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses below by certified mail (return receipt requested). Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties are as set forth until changed by notice given as above. Century Farm North Development, Inc. Attn: Gary M. Uhde 3157 Berwick Knoll Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 11 24. Land Use Controls - Planned Unit Development. a. Century Farm North is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as approved by the City Council by Ordinance No. 12-03, Ordinance No. 06-14, Ordinance 07-11, Resolution No. 03-60, Resolution No. 14-43, Resolution No. 16-135 and Resolution No. 17-97. b. The City of Lino Lakes approved Resolution No. 17-97 to allow for Outlot C, Century Farm North 6th Addition be platted into four (4) single family lots. c. The building design standards as established in the R -2, Two Family Residential District shall apply to the four (4) single family lots except the PUD criteria as approved by Resolution No. 14-43 regarding garages and front porches shall also apply. d. Side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet on both sides of either the principal or attached accessory structure shall apply to the four (4) single family lots. e. Air conditioning equipment must be 10 feet from any side lot line. No encroachment shall be permitted in the drainage and utility easement. f. The certificate of survey submitted with each building permit shall show the location of a future minimum 10’ x 10’ deck. g. Morgan Lane is a private drive that shall be maintained by the Century Farm North Robinson Addition Homeowners Association. This includes the landscaping and ground cover on Outlot A, Century Farm North 7th Addition. h. The sidewalk east of Lot 4, Century Farm North 7th Addition extending from Morgan Lane north to Robinson Drive shall be owned and maintained by the Century Farm North Robinson Addition Homeowners Association. Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 12 DEVELOPER CITY OF LINO LAKES By ______________________ By _________________________ Mayor Its ______________________ ATTEST By _________________________ City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ANOKA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on ________ day of ____________, 2017, by Jeff Reinert as Mayor of the City of Lino Lakes on behalf of said City. _______________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ANOKA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on ________ day of ____________, 201 7 by Julianne Bartell as City Clerk of the City of Lino Lakes on behalf of said City. _______________________________ Notary Public Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 13 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF __________ ) On this _______ day of _______________, 2017, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ____________, __________________ of ___________________. (Developer), who executed the foregoing instrument. ______________________________ Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 14 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Outlot C, Century Farm North 6th Addition Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 15 EXHIBIT B Final Plat Century Farm North 7th Addition Development Agreement October 9, 2017 page 16 EXHIBIT C Securities, Escrows & Fees 9/22/2017 EXHIBIT C Securities, Escrows & Fees PROJECT: Century Farm North 7th Addition NUMBER OF REU's:4 APPLICANT: Century Farm North Development, Inc.NO. OF LOT FRONTAGES 4 AREA:1.2 IMPROVEMENTS COST DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENT COSTS (Public) SITE GRADING $7,000 EROSION CONTROL $2,470 LANDSCAPING $2,000 SIDEWALK & TRAIL $5,000 STREETS $42,038 STORM SEWER CONST.$3,500 SANITARY SEWER CONST.$2,275 WATERMAIN CONST.$16,125 ENGINEERING & SURVEYING $10,000 Total $90,408 Letter of Credit Amount X 150%$135,611 ESCROW for CITY'S COSTS ADMINISTRATION $2,720 ENGINEER PLAN REVIEW $500 ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $2,500 PROJECT FINAL DOCUMENTS & CITY ENGINEER $2,500 STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION $0 STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE $1,500 PROPERTY TAXES $1,000 BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING $1,940 Total $12,660 DEVELOPMENT FEES PARK DEDICATION -$ PARK DEDICATION CREDIT -$ Subtotal Park Dedication Fee -$ AUAR -$ SEAL COATING FEE -$ AERIAL PHOTO FEE -$ STREET LIGHTING OPERATION -$ Total -$ TRUNK SANITARY SEWER $12,292 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER CREDIT $0 TRUNK WATERMAIN $16,276 TRUNK WATERMAIN CREDIT $0 TOTAL TRUNK SEWER & WATER FEES $28,568 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Paid with CFN6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CREDIT TOTAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES $0 Total $28,568 SUMMARY OF COSTS LETTER OF CREDIT DEVELOPER IMP'MENT COSTS $135,611 LETTER OF CREDIT DEVELOPMENT FEES (35% ASSESSMENTS)$9,999 ESCROW $12,660 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-100 Approving Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Permit Level C at 426 Pine Street VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Permit Level C at 426 Pine Street. BACKGROUND The applicant, Stephen Witzel, submitted a Land Use Application for a conditional use permit for a Home Occupation Permit Level C to be located at 426 Pine Street. Mr. Witzel owns Mobile Maintenance, Inc, a handyman service that specializes in the repair and service on manufactured home on the lots where they are located. Mr. Witzel currently resides at 925 Evergreen Trail in Lino Lakes and is considering moving to 426 Pine Street. In March 2017, Mr. Witzel applied for a conditional use permit for Home Occupation Permit Level C for 180 Pine Street. In April 2017, the City Council denied the conditional use permit per Resolution No. 17-29 due to traffic concerns on an unimproved gravel road. History The property located at 426 Pine Street is the former site of the Rehbein Arena/BMX Racing track. In September 1997, Council approved a conditional use permit for the operation of a commercial recreational BMX bike racing arena. The commercial bike racing has not been in operation for over one year; therefore, the conditional use permit has expired. Zoning and Land Use The subject site (426 Pine Street) consists of 3 parcels (PIN# 05-31-22-22-0006, 05-31-22-22- 0003 and 05-31-22-22-0005). These parcels are zoned R-Rural and allow for a Home Occupation Permit Level C with a conditional use permit. The area of the combined parcels is approximately 25 acres. Current Zoning R, Rural Current Land Use Rural Residential 2 Future Land Use per CP Urban Reserve Utility Staging Area Post 2030 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North (City of Columbus) Residential Rural Residential 2030 Rural Residential East R, Rural Rural Residential Urban Reserve South R, Rural Rural Residential Urban Reserve West R, Rural Rural Residential Urban Reserve Section 1007.047 regulates Home Occupation Permits. A Level C entails a more intense home occupancy use of the property in regards to the number of on-site employees, customers and traffic and requires a conditional use permit. The ordinance details requirements under (6) General Provisions and (9) Home Occupation Level C. These requirements must be in compliance at all times. See Attachment #4 for a full copy of the ordinance. The applicant has acknowledged these requirements in his submitted narrative. It should be noted that although the applicant uses the word “intend” in many of the responses, the requirements must be met at all times. Site Plan Review Site Plan The applicant submitted an aerial map indicating the locations of the existing house and accessory structures. The home occupation will operate out of the smaller accessory structure near the house noted as #3 on the aerial site plan. No office is proposed on site. Accessory structures #1 and #2 are to be used for personal storage and livestock. An existing parking area behind accessory structure #1 (the former arena) will be utilized for parking of no more than ten (10) business vehicles under 1 ton. The applicant proposes to install an eight (8) foot high screen fence around the parking area. Per the applicant’s narrative: “Mobile Maintenance, Inc. is a handyman service that specializes in the repair and service on manufactured homes on the lots where they are located. The daily activities would typically include employees coming to pick up, load materials, go to the jobsite, provide repair services, and return to site to drop off vehicles. Because no repairs to the homes are done at the office, there is typically no equipment used onsite. The materials that would be stored in the accessory structures would typically be furnace parts, plumbing parts, some lumber, and other parts associated with the repair of manufactured homes. There will be no office onsite. Personal vehicle trips per day is less than 10. The number of deliveries and/or pickups is typically trash twice per week and material delivery on Thursdays. Although we are open for business 7 days 3 a week, there are rarely anyone around on weekends. The existing parking area is adjacent to the building as shown on the site plan provided. It is approximately 100ft wide by 115ft. There are several other areas that could be used for parking but we do not plan to have that many vehicles there anyway. The existing parking is hard surface, or class 5, in the parking area.” See Attachment #3 for applicant’s full narrative. Grading Plan and Stormwater Management As noted above, an erosion control plan or stormwater management plan may be required for the parking lot improvements depending on the extent of the grading and improvements. Public Utilities The site is served by private well and septic system. The septic system shall be designed and sized to accommodate any future building renovations. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Plan Landscaping and tree preservation is not required for the home occupation. Wetlands Wetlands are located on portions of the parcel but are not impacted by the accessory structures or home occupation. The applicant shall be cognizant of the existence of the wetlands on site. Floodplain The 2015 DFIRM indicates Zone A floodplain on the parcel. The existing house and accessory structures do not appear to be impacted by the floodplain. Architectural Plans and Exterior Building Materials No improvements or remodeling are proposed at this time to the house or accessory structures. A building permit is required for any future building improvements. A fence permit is required for any fence construction. Signage Per Chapter 1010: Signs, one sign with a maximum size of 6 square feet placed at least 10 feet from the property line is allowed without a permit. Site Improvement Performance Agreement A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is not required. Conditional Use Permit-Findings of Fact 4 Council Resolution No. 17-100 details the findings of fact. Planning and Zoning Board The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2017. There were no public comments. The Board recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the added condition that a screened dumpster no larger than 20 yards be allowed on site. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Board recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Permit Level C at 426 Pine Street ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. City Engineer Letter dated September 5, 2017 4. Resolution No. 17-100 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet §¨¦I-35W M A I N S TMAIN S T LAKE DRLAKE DRRROONNDDEEAAUULLAAKKEERRDDWW 7 9 T H S T79TH S T OAK LNOAK LNDDIIAANNEESSTTMARILYN DRMARILYN DREVA STEVA STVV II CCKKYY LLNN JAMES STJAMES ST EEVVEERRGGRREEEENNTTRRLL LOIS LNLOIS LN OAK CTOAK CTHENRY LNHENRY LNCOUNTRY LNCOUNTRY LNCC AA RR LL SS TT WWOOOODDDDUUCCKKTT RRLL ANDALL ST ANDALL ST 77TH ST77TH ST ARLO LNARLO LN ELBE STELBE STKELLY ST KELLY STBLUEBILL LNBLUEBILL LNT H O M A S S TTHOMAS S T MAPLE STMAPLE STORANGE STORANGE ST 81 S T S T81ST S T KNOLL DRKNOLL DRRR OO NN DD EEAAUULLAAKKEERRDDEEOLIVE STOLIVE ST AAEENNOONNPPLLNN AA NNCCYYDDRRNOTTINGHAM LNNOTTINGHAM LNW O O D LA N D D R W O O D LA N D D R CAROLE DRCAROLE DRCCOOUUNNTTYYPPAARRKKWWAAYYHH4TH AVE4TH AVEPINE ST NEPINE ST NE Site Location Map µ 426 Pine Street Date: 8 /22/2017 0 300 600150 Feet 567567 384384 431431 83408340 455455 503503 519519 83238323 403403 426426 426426 409409 402402 558558 471471 535535 551551 83438343 508508 490490 510510 407407 487487 83838383392392 4TH AVE4TH AVEAANNDDAALLLLSSTT PINE ST NEPINE ST NE Aerial Map426 Pine Street µ Accessory Structure-Home Occupation166 Pine Street Date: 8 /22/2017 Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\426 Pine Street (Home Occupation CUP Level C)\Staff Reports\20171009 CC\a3 Engineering comments.docx Memorandum To: Katie Larsen, City Planner From: Diane Hankee PE, City Engineer Date: September 5, 2017 Re: 426 Pine Street Conditional Use Permit Plan Review WSB Project No. 10153-000 We have reviewed the 426 Pine Street Conditional Use Permit application for a home occupation Mobile Maintenance, Inc, a handyman service that specializes in the repair and service on manufactured homes. Engineering • Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control The applicant is not proposing site grading at this time. • Stormwater Management Paving the existing Class 5 is considered an overlay and it would be exempt from stormwater management. • Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer The site is served by private well and septic system. The septic system shall be improved as necessary to accommodate the proposed use. • Transportation The home occupation is proposed to generate 40 vehicle trips per day and 15 delivery/ pickup trips per day. The existing parking area will be used for parking and is approximately 100ft by 115ft. Comments: 1. The existing roadway system is sufficient to accommodate the proposed traffic. Ms. Katie Larsen September 5, 2017 Page 2 S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\426 Pine Street (Home Occupation CUP Level C)\Staff Reports\20171009 CC\a3 Engineering comments.docx 2. The existing parking area shall be a paved hard surface. The applicant shall submit a parking lot paving plan per the City’s development standards. • Floodplain Majority of the parcel is included within the floodplain. The existing house appears to be outside of the floodplain however the accessory structure is within the floodplain. A LOMA will be required by FEMA if a mortgage is used to finance the property. • Wetlands and Mitigation Plan There is a significant portion of the site where wetlands are present. The application does not propose to impact the Wetlands. Wetlands shall be protected per state law. • Drainage and Utility Easements Not applicable for a Conditional Use Permit. • Development Agreement Not applicable for a Conditional Use Permit. • Grading Agreement A grading agreement is not applicable at this time. • Stormwater Maintenance Agreement A Stormwater Maintenance Agreement is not applicable at this time. • Permits Required The following permits are required. Comments: 1. City of Lino Lakes Zoning Permit for Driveway Improvements. If you or the applicant has any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diane Hankee at (651) 982-2430 or diane.hankee@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us. 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-100 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION LEVEL C AT 426 PINE STREET WHEREAS, on July 26, 2017 the City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Level C at 426 Pine Street and hereafter referred to as “Development”; and WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-Rural and allows for a Home Occupation Permit Level C with a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the legal description of the subject site is: PID #05-31-22-22-0006: N 375 FT OF W3/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SEC 5 TWP 31 RGE 22, EX E 400 FT THEREOF, EX RDS, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC; and PID #05-31-22-22-0003: E 400 FT OF N 650 FT OF W3/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SEC 5 TWP 31 RGE 22, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC; and PID #05-31-22-22-0005: THE W3/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SEC 5 TWP 31 RGE 22, EX E 400 FT OF N 650 FT THEREOF, ALSO EX THAT PRT OF SD W3/4 DESC AS FOL: BEG AT A PT ON W LINE OF SD W3/4 800 FT S OF NW COR THEREOF, TH S ALG SD WLINE 208 FT, TH E 208 FT, TH N 208 FT, TH W 208 FT TO POB, ALSO EX N 375 FT OF SD W3/4, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC; and WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the proposed “Development” based on an aerial map/site plan and narrative submitted by the applicant; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on September 13, 2017 and the Board recommended approval of the conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed development application has been found to be consistent with the policies and recommendations of the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan including: 2 a. Land Use Plan. The 25 acre parcel is guided Urban Reserve and zoned R, Rural. A Home Occupation Level C is allowed with a conditional use permit. b. Transportation Plan. Pine Street is a major collector road and has an improved, paved road surface east of 4th Avenue along 426 Pine Street. The existing improved road has structural design and capacity to accommodate the added traffic proposed by the home occupation. c. Utility (Sewer and Water) Plans. The parcel is served by private well and septic system. The City’s utility plans are not impacted. d. Local Water Management Plan. The City’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) is incorporated into Chapter 2: Resource Management System Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The goal of the LSWMP is to improve of the quality of surface waters by delivering good quality stormwater runoff to lakes and wetlands. The proposed home occupation will occur in an existing accessory structure on a 25 acre parcel. Regulations of Chapter 1011: Stormwater, Erosion and Sediment Control shall be met to ensure runoff will not increase and surface water (wetlands) will not be impacted. e. Capital Improvement Plan. There will be no changes to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan related to the home occupation. f. Policy Plan. The proposed home occupation is consistent with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Policy Plan) in regards to land use, transportation, utilities, local water management and capital improvements. g. Natural Environment Plan. The City’s Natural Environment Plan is incorporated into Chapter 2: Resource Management System Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. One goal of the Plan is to identify, protect and preserve the desirable natural areas and ecological and aquatic resources of the community. 3 The City’s greenway corridor exists on the parcel. The proposed home occupation will occur in an existing accessory structure and will not impact the City’s Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenway and Trail System. 2. The proposed development application is compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The proposed home occupation is compatible with present and future land uses. The surrounding land uses are rural residential on large rural lots. 3. The proposed development application conforms to performance standards herein and other applicable City Codes. The proposed home occupation conforms to the performance standards of the City Code. 4. Traffic generated by a proposed development application is within the capabilities of the City when: a. If the existing level of service (LOS) outside of the proposed subdivision is A or B, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service more than one grade. b. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is C, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service below C. c. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is D, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service below D. d. The existing LOS must be D or better for all streets and intersections providing access to the subdivision. If the existing level of service is E or F, the subdivision developer must provide, as part of the proposed project, improvements needed to ensure a level of service D or better. e. Existing roads and intersections providing access to the subdivision must have the structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the proposed subdivision or the developer will pay to correct any structural deficiencies. f. The traffic generated from a proposed subdivision shall not require City street improvements that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital Improvement Plan. However, the City may, at its discretion, consider developer-financed improvements to correct any street deficiencies. g. The LOS requirements in paragraphs a. to d. above do not apply to the I- 35W/Lake Drive or I-35E/Main St. interchanges. At City discretion, interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka County and the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, and a plan must be prepared to determine improvements needed to resolve deficiencies. This plan must 4 determine traffic generated by the subdivision project, how this traffic contributes to the total traffic, and the time frame of the improvements. The plan also must examine financing options, including project contribution and cost sharing among other jurisdictions and other properties, that contribute to traffic at the interchange. h. The City does not relinquish any rights of local determination. Pine Street is a major collector road and has an improved, paved road surface east of 4th Avenue along 426 Pine Street. The existing improved road has structural design and capacity to accommodate the added traffic proposed by the home occupation. 5. The proposed development shall be served with adequate and safe water supply. The site is served by a private well that can serve the proposed home occupation.. 6. The proposed development shall be served with an adequate and safe sanitary sewer system. The site is currently served by a private septic system. The septic system shall be designed and sized to accommodate any future building modifications. 7. The proposed development shall not result in the premature expenditures of City funds on capital improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. There will be no premature expenditures of City funds. 8. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The proposed home occupation will not involve uses and activities detrimental to persons or property. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. All work and the use of power tools and/or equipment shall be performed inside the home occupation accessory structure with the doors and windows closed. 9. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. The natural features (wetlands) will not be impacted. There are no other known natural, scenic or historic features on the existing site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the conditional use permit for Home Occupation Level C at 426 Pine Street with the following conditions: 5 1. All regulations of Section 1007.047 Home Occupation Permits shall be in effect. 2. The owner of Mobile Maintenance, Stephen Kenneth Witzel, must occupy the property at 426 Pine Street as his primary place of residence. 3. Storage of materials related to the home occupation business shall only be allowed in the accessory structure near the house as labeled #3, hereto attached as Exhibit A. 4. Storage of materials related to the home occupation business shall not be allowed in any other accessory structure unless an amendment to the conditional use permit is approved by the City. 5. No exterior storage of commercial or personal items/materials shall be allowed on site at any time. a. The parcel is 25 acres and there is no limit to the number of size of accessory structures that could be constructed on site to store items/materials. 6. One (1) screened trash dumpster no larger than 20 yards shall be allowed on site. a. The screening shall be a privacy fence at least 6 feet and no greater than 8 feet in height. 7. No more than two (2) trash/recycling haulers per week for both residential and commercial purposes shall be allowed. 8. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 9. All work and the use of power tools and/or equipment shall be performed inside the home occupation accessory structure with the doors and windows closed. 10. Per the Section 1007.047(9)(a)7, all off street parking generated by the home occupation shall be provided on a hard surface in or adjacent to the driveway. 11. The proposed parking area shall be enclosed by an eight (8) foot privacy fence. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. The owner of Mobile Maintenance, Stephen Kenneth Witzel, shall provide proof to the City of homesteading the property at 426 Pine Street as his primary place of residence prior to the home occupation permit becoming effective. 2. All comments from the City Engineer letter dated September 5, 2017 shall be addressed. 3. The applicant shall revise the site plan to show the location and fencing of the dumpster. 4. The applicant shall provide details of the dumpster privacy fence. 5. A Building Permit is required for any building improvements. 6. A Fence Permit is required for any fence construction. 7. A Zoning Permit is required for any driveway or parking area improvements. 8. The three (3) parcels shall be combined through Anoka County. a. The applicant shall provide proof of combination to the City prior to the home occupation permit becoming effective. 6 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 Go gle Maps Imagery ©201 7 Google, Map data ©201 7 Goog le /) flo f~'>_j"-_,_/ .i'ves/.ri .2) ~rs , s/;,r'!JC >,j,J;,-~ ,pr)'m ,-,. 1- ::J) tf'us1 11r<'P ,\-£r.:yc-/J/£r'-'j. ¥) £;;,.; -1:':3 t1 j:<y w-/ ?I Sl"m'r''> ~ ""''"' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: October 09, 2017 TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-114, Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Construction Contract, 2017 Trail Improvement Project VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote Required INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting authorization to accept quotes and award the construction contract for the 2017 Trail Improvement Project. BACKGROUND The 2017 Trail Improvement Project includes: Birch Street Trail Replacement The Birch Street Trail Replacement project is a trail maintenance project located along Birch Street between Deerwood Lane and Living Waters Lutheran Church. Enclosed location map. The project is funded through the annual trail maintenance budget. Century Farms Trail The Century Farms Trail project includes the construction of a new trail connecting Century Trail south the Century Trail east through the park. Enclosed location map. The project is funded through park dedication. Quotes for the project were received on October 6, 2017. The quotes were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated. CONTRACTOR BIRCH ST CENTURY FARM TOTAL BID Allied Blacktop Company $63,677.00 $140,810.00 $204,487.00 Muellner Blacktop, Inc. Did not quote Did not quote Did not quote Arcade Asphalt, Inc. $32,680.00 $54,870.00 $87,550.00 Pearson Brothers, Inc. Did not quote Did not quote Did not quote Lino Lakes Blacktop, Inc. Did not quote Did not quote Did not quote The engineers estimate for the project was $97,000.00. The low bid was submitted by Arcade Asphalt, Inc. of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, in the amount of $87,550.00. The completion date for this project is June 16, 2018. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 17-114 accepting quotes and awarding a construction contract for the 2017 Trail Maintenance Project, in the amount of $87,550.00 to Arcade Asphalt, Inc. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-114 2. Birch Street Trail Map 3. Century Farms Trail Map CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-114 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES, AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, 2017 TRAIL MAINTENANCE PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for the construction of the 2017 Trail Maintenance Project, quotes were received, and tabulated: CONTRACTOR BIRCH ST CENTURY FARM TOTAL BID Allied Blacktop Company $63,677.00 $140,810.00 $204,487.00 Muellner Blacktop, Inc. Did not quote Did not quote Did not quote Arcade Asphalt, Inc. $32,680.00 $54,870.00 $87,550.00 Pearson Brothers, Inc. Did not quote Did not quote Did not quote Lino Lakes Blacktop, Inc. Did not quote Did not quote Did not quote WHEREAS, it appears that Arcade Asphalt, Inc. of Lino Lakes, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract Arcade Asphalt, Inc. for the construction of the 2017 Trail Maintenance Project in the amount of $87,550.00; 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 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 2017 TRAIL MAINTENANCE PROJECTBIRCH STREET (CSAH 34)BITUMINOUS TRAIL REPLACEMENT LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 2017 TRAIL MAINTENANCE PROJECTBIRCH STREET (CSAH 34)BITUMINOUS TRAIL REPLACEMENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: October 09, 2017 TOPIC : Resolution No. 17-112, Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Construction Contract, 2017 Surface Water Maintenance Project VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote Required INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting authorization to accept quotes and award the construction contract for the 2017 Surface Water Maintenance Project. BACKGROUND The City’s annual Surface Water Management program addresses areas in need of maintenance, and conforms with the City’s Surface Water Pollution and Prevention Plan. The proposed maintenance for this year includes cleaning of storm sewer outfalls, removal of vegetation and sediment deltas in stormwater ponds, minor pond excavation and storm sewer structure repair/replacement. Sites are selected for maintenance based on public input, input from Public Works, and feasibility of locations. Quotes were received for the above-referenced project on September 29, 2017. The quotes were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated. CONTRACTOR TOTAL QUOTE Olson’s Sewer Service, Inc. $84,577.92 CW Houle, Inc. Did not quote. Penn Contracting Inc. Did not quote. North Pine Aggregate Did not quote. The low quote was submitted by Olson’s Sewer Service, Inc., Forest Lake, Minnesota, in the amount of $84,577.92. The 2017 General Fund Streets Budget includes $125,000 for Surface Water Maintenance projects. The completion date for this project is December 31, 2017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 17-112 accepting quotes and awarding a construction contract for the 2017 Surface Water Maintenance Project, in the amount of $84,577.92 to Olson’s Excavating Service. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-112 2. Vicinity Map CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-112 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES, AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, 2017 SURFACE WATER MAINTENANCE PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for the construction of the 2017 Surface Water Maintenance Project, quotes were received, and tabulated: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID Olson’s Sewer Service, Inc. $84,577.92 CW Houle, Inc. Did not quote. Penn Contracting, Inc. Did not quote. North Pine Aggregate Did not quote. WHEREAS, it appears that Olson’s Sewer Service, Inc. is the lowest responsible quote; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Olson’s Sewer Service, Inc., in the name of the City of Lino Lakes for the construction of the 2017 Surface Water Maintenance Project according to the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk; and 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 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 Site 1-6910 Otter Lake Road Site 6-6401 Cassopeia Court Site 7-730 Country Lakes Drive Site 9-624 River Birch Place Site 3-6910 Chippewa Trail Site 5-Rohavic Oaks Site 4-6116 Oakwood Lane Site 2-7139 Ivy Ridge Site 8-7381 Jon Street Site 10-7718 Carole Drive %&d( %&d( %&c( %&c( Peltier Lake George Watch Lake Marshan Lake Centerville Lake Rice Lake Reshanau Lake Baldwin Lake Amelia Lake Otter Lake 24TH AVEC ED A R ST 77TH ST LAMOTTE DROTTER LAKE RD21ST AVEMAIN ST 80TH ST IN TE R S TA TE 35W CYPRESS STWEST SHADOW LAKE DRA S P E N L N RONDEAU LAKE RD WLACASSE DRELBE STIVY RIDGE LNWOODDUCK TRLEAGLE CTINTERSTATE 35EAQUA CIRLI NDA LNT I MBE RWOL F T RLLAKE DRSUNSET AVEN O R T H R D A P O L L O D R BALD EAGLE BLVD WCOUNTY PARKWAY HTART CT12TH AVEPARK CT COYOTE TRLELM ST RICE CT F O X R D 62ND ST J A M E S S T MARILYN DRLOIS LNHODGSON RDFAWN LNEVERGREEN TRL LILAC ST WA R E R DSUNSET AVE NECENTURY TRLMARVY S T SHERMAN LAKE RDTEAL CTASH ST GLENVIEW DR PELTIER LAKE DR2ND AVEHOLLY DRCLEARWATER CREEK DRCOUNTRY LNC A R L S T MYRTLE LN 64TH ST P A L O M I N O L N REILIN G RD KELLY ST MAPLE ST AENON PLOLIVE ST TALLE LNNANCY DRPALM STW H I T E P I N E R D P H E A S A N T R U N S CENTERVILLE RDOTTER LAKE DR TH O MA S ST C O U N T Y P A R K W A Y G RONDEAU LAKE RD EA QU A L NLEONARD AVE81ST ST BIRCH ST HOLLY CT H AW T H O R N R D JOYER LNREHBEIN ST MAIN ST TO SB I35E4TH AVE20TH AVEPINE ST NE !5 2017 Stormwater Maintenance 0 3,500Feet¯Site Location Map2017 Stormwater Maintenance ProjectLino Lakes, MN Document Path: K:\02988-410\GIS\Maps\2017StormwaterMaintenance.mxd Date Saved: 8/28/2017 2:45:46 PM1 inch = 3,500 feet CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-113, Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Contract, Bald Eagle Boulevard, Driver Feedback Signs VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote Required INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting authorization to accept quotes and award the contract for the Bald Eagle Boulevard, Driver Feedback Signs. BACKGROUND Quotes were received for the above-referenced project. The quotes were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated. CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID Traffic Safety Corp. $7,097.00 WSB and Associates, Inc. $7,130.00 The low bid was submitted by Traffic Safety Corp., Sacramento, CA, in the amount of $7,097.00. The completion date for this project is December 15, 2017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 17-113 accepting quotes and awarding a construction contract for the Bald Eagle Boulevard, Driver Feedback Signs, in the amount of $7,097.00 to Traffic Safety Corp.. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-113 2. Driver Feed Back Sign Quotes CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-113 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES, AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, BALD EAGLE BOULEVARD DRIVER FEEDBACK SIGN WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for the Bald Eagle Boulevard Driver Feedback Signs, quotes were received, and summarized: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID Traffic Safety Corp. $7,097.00 WSB and Associates, Inc. $7,130.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Traffic Safety Corp. is the lowest responsible quoter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Traffic Safety Corp., in the name of the City of Lino Lakes for the supply of the Bald Eagle Boulevard Driver Feedback Signs. 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 Quote Traffic Safety Corp. 2708 47th Avenue Sacramento, CA 95822 Phone: 916-394-9884 Fax: 916-394-2809 www.xwalk.com Bill To:Ship To: City of Lino Lakes Circle Pines, MN 55014-1189 United States City of Lino Lakes Circle Pines, MN 55014-1189 United States diane.hankee@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us Page:1 Salesperson: Customer Number: 0074780 9/27/2017 02-QUOTEMN Isabel P Martin Quote Number: Quote Date: isabel.martin@xwalk.com 10/27/2017Expires On: Confirm To: Diane Hankee 651-982-2430 Ship VIA BEST WAY Terms Net 30 Days From Invoice Date Item / Description UOM Price AmountQty Quoted Notes: SI-SP250-S EA 5,898.002.00 Solar Powered Safe Pace 250 Radar Speed Sign 2,949.00 90W OPTION SI-SP-DATA EA 800.002.00 Data Collection Software One per sign 400.00 OPTIONAL Net Order:6,698.00 Freight:399.00 Sales Tax:0.00 7,097.00Order Total: Thank you for considering us!! Please contact us with any questions. Terms and conditions apply. All prices are in U.S. dollars. Freight at Customer's Expense For Traffic Safety Warranty information:http://www.xwalk.com/pages/sys_warranty.htm September 16, 2017 City of Lino Lakes Re: Quote Dear Mrs. Hankee, WSB & Associates, Inc. Sean Delmore, PE, PTOE Principal Please note that this quote does not include: installation, labor, sign posts, mounting hardware, or concrete. Equal Opportunity Employer The signs will be delivered for the cost indicated on the next page. Training is also included in this quote for $350. Any applicable sales tax will be on top of the total detailed on the next page. Payment terms are Net 30 Days. Diane Hankee Page 1 This letter is in response to your request for a quote for Driver Feedback (DFB) signs, which would be installed by others. The following page contains the details of your quote. Please feel free to call me direct at 763-512-5248 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Minneapolis ▪ St. Cloud September 16, 2017 City of Lino Lakes Re: Quote Quote Details Description Units Price Line Total Training 1 $350 $350 90W Solar Kit w/upgrade, incl:90w Solar Panel, 140AH Battery, Battery Box, Wiring/Conduit2 $1,140 $2,280 IQ1200 Full Matrix Driver Feedback Sign 2 $2,275 $4,550 *Does not include any applicable taxes $7,180 * $300 $0 $7,480 Minneapolis ▪ St. Cloud TOTAL SHIPPING Page 2 Equal Opportunity Employer Diane Hankee SUBTOTAL DISCOUNT St. Cloud  Minneapolis  St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com Technical Memorandum To: Diane Hankee, PE Copy: Michael Grochala City Engineer Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes City of Lino Lakes From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE File: WSB No. 2029-240 Principal/Traffic Engineer Date: July 20, 2017 Subject: Bald Eagle Boulevard at Partridge Court Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review Introduction/Background Concerns have been raised by residents in the West Oaks Homeowners Association concerning the safety of pedestrians crossing Bald Eagle Boulevard from the residential area to the marina/dock area. Their request is for the installation of flashing speed limit signs as a traffic calming device on Bald Eagle Boulevard north and south of Partridge Court. The installation of neighborhood traffic calming devices should follow the following process: Identified Issue/Concern - The first step in initiating the process is with an issue or concern received by City staff from the public or City Council or identified by City staff. Eligibility - In order for a neighborhood street to be eligible for low cost, low impact improvements, it will be evaluated initially based on the following characteristics. Table 1 provides a quick reference on what streets are eligible.  Roadway Functional Classification  Daily traffic volumes  Posted speed Table 1 – Project Eligibility Criteria Street Functional Classification Daily Traffic Volume Posted Speed Limit Eligibility Arterial Not Eligible Collector Not Eligible Local > 1200 > 35 No Local < 1200 < 30 Yes Bald Eagle Blvd Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review 2 | Page Data Collection - If the street is determined eligible for low cost, low impact traffic improvements, the following basic street data would be collected to be used in the evaluation process.  Peak hour and daily traffic volume data by direction  Vehicle speed data  Crash data  Existing roadway characteristics Data Evaluation - A Traffic Analysis will be conducted using data collected. The study will evaluate what potential low cost; low impact improvements could be implemented to address issues and concerns in three primary areas:  Safety  Speed  Cut-through Traffic Criteria have been developed that address each primary area of concern with potential improvements to address specific issues. A Traffic Calming Issues Criteria Flow Chart is attached. Traffic Calming Evaluation In order to evaluate the current safety and operational conditions in the Bald Eagle Boulevard area, the existing traffic characteristics were collected and reviewed. This included:  Traffic volumes  Vehicle speeds  Crash history  Current traffic control (signing, pavement markings, crosswalks, etc.). A. Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes - Existing traffic data was collected on April 18 and 19, 2017. The counts were conducted for each approach on Bald Eagle Boulevard using tubes and at the intersection of Partridge Court using video cameras. The results of the traffic vehicle counts are shown below in Table 2 and pedestrian counts in Table 3. Table 2 – Traffic Volume Summary Intersection Approach Average Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Bald Eagle Blvd 366 18 46 Southbound Bald Eagle Blvd 378 41 21 Westbound Partridge Ct 38 1 3 Eastbound Partridge Ct 41 4 1 These traffic volumes are similar in comparison to other local City streets which typically range from 250 to 750 vehicles per day. These traffic counts are typical residential volumes and are far short of the volumes required to meet all-way Stop Sign warrants. Bald Eagle Blvd Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review 3 | Page Table 3 – Traffic Pedestrian Volume Summary Roadway Crossing Average Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Bald Eagle Blvd north of Partridge Ct 10 1 2 Bald Eagle Blvd south of Partridge Ct 4 1 0 It should be noted that while the vehicle counts represent typical average conditions, the pedestrian counts would be considered low. Pedestrian levels during the summer would be higher and accommodations should be provided for the safe crossing. B. Vehicle Speeds - In conjunction with the daily traffic counts, vehicle speeds were also collected. Vehicle speed data is typically given as the 85% speed. The 85% speed represents the speed at which 85% percent of the counted vehicles are traveling at or below. Research indicates that this value is where most drivers will operate their vehicle in a reasonable manor. Below in Table 4 is a summary of speed data collected. Table 4 – Speed Data Summary Intersection Approach 85% Speed (mph) Highest Recorded Speed (mph) % Over Speed Limit Bald Eagle Blvd North of Partridge Ct 36 48 (2 occurrences) 63% As indicated in the table, the 85% recorded speed is above the posted 30 mph speed limit. Based on this data, speeding appears to be an issue through this area. C. Crash History - Using the State of Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (CMAT), crash data from the past 5 years was documented. It was determined that there have been no reported crashes in the area including at the intersection of Bald Eagle Boulevard and Partridge Court. D. Roadway Characteristics - The existing roadway characteristics was documented within the study area. This included roadway geometrics and location of: warning signs, stop signs, speed limit signs, other warning signs, pedestrian crossing signs and crosswalks. A summary of the roadway characteristics is discussed below:  Lanes: Two, 12 foot lanes (one in each direction)  Pavement Markings: Yellow center line and white edge lines  Intersection Control (Bald Eagle Blvd at Partridge Ct): Side Street Stop  Speed Limit Sign: Posted 30 mph  Curve Warning Signs: For curves north of Partridge Ct  Pedestrian Crosswalk Warning Signs: Northbound advanced sign and at crosswalk, and; and southbound advance sign approaching the crosswalk. No southbound warning sign at the crosswalk is present.  Pedestrian Crosswalk: Stripped zebra crosswalk north side of Partridge Ct  Roadway Alignment: Both horizontal and vertical curves restricting sight lines entering and exiting Partridge Ct and view of the pedestrian crosswalk.  A private parking area is provide on Partridge Ct just west of Bald Eagle Blvd for local residents using the marina on the east side of the roadway. Bald Eagle Blvd Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review 4 | Page Traffic Calming Alternatives Several traffic calming alternatives could be provided that would “enhance” the safety of both vehicles accessing and pedestrians crossing of Bald Eagle Boulevard. It is assumed that the existing standard “Zebra” crosswalk markings and signing would remain with any of the alternatives. Each alternative is discussed below with an estimated cost: 1. Pushbutton with Advanced Flasher – In addition to the standard pedestrian crossing signs this alternative provides for an advanced warning yellow flasher in each direction on Bald Eagle Boulevard. The system can be either pushbutton activated or timer activated. The primary advantage to this alternative is that flasher system provides warning of the crosswalk in advance of the intersection giving vehicles additional time to slow down or stop. The primary disadvantage is the cost ranging from $20,000 to $30,000 for the system. 2. Pushbutton Flasher at Crosswalk (Solar) – In addition to the standard pedestrian crossing signs this alternative provides a yellow warning flasher at the crosswalk. The system can be either pushbutton activated or timer activated. Each flasher could be direct wired or solar powered. The primary disadvantage is that vehicles on Bald Eagle Boulevard do not have the advance warning to slow down or stop, however, it will provide for warning of a pedestrian in the crosswalk and the cost is less than the advanced flasher system. The estimated cost ranges from $15,000 to $20,000 for the system. 3. Pushbutton “Blinking” LED Signs (Solar) – This option provides for either pushbutton or timer activated LED “Blinking” yellow lights around the crosswalk signs at the crosswalk. Similar to the crosswalk flasher system, the primary disadvantage is that approaching vehicles on Bald Eagle Boulevard do not have advance warning of a pedestrian crossing. The estimated cost ranges from $4,000 to $6,000 for the system. 4. Driver Feed-Back (Dynamic) Speed Signs – Driver feed- back signs are signs that display the actual speed of a vehicle as it drives by the location. On neighborhood streets where the 85% speed is determined to be greater than 33 mph, a driver feed-back sign could be used to warn the driver that they are speeding. These signs could be located on Bald Eagle Blvd north and south of Partridge Court. The cost for installation of two driver feed-back signs would range from $8,000 to $10,000. Bald Eagle Blvd Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review 5 | Page Recommendation In conclusion, based on the analysis and review of the data above:  A vehicle speeding issue currently exists on Bald Eagle Boulevard with the 85% speed above the posted 30 mph at 36 mph.  There is a sight line issue for both vehicles exiting Partridge Ct and pedestrians crossing Bald Eagle Blvd.  There is a lack of a warning sign southbound at the pedestrian crossing at Partridge Court. Therefore, the following is recommended: 1. Installation of driver feed-back (Dynamic) speed signs on Bald Eagle Boulevard, both north and south of Partridge Court. 2. Clear the brush and trees in the Bald Eagle Blvd right of way north of Partridge Ct. 3. Installation of a pedestrian warning sign with down arrow on southbound Bald Eagle Boulevard at the Partridge Ct crosswalk. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6G STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-115, Approving Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report for Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd. VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council approval of the 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 17-115 Approving the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report for Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-115 2. Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report for Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-115 APPROVING INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION CENTERVILLE ROAD (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) AT ASH STREET (COUNTY ROAD J) /WILKINSON LAKE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, of the Intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd has unsatisfactory levels of service; and WHEREAS, the local road authorities including the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County and Ramsey County, in partnership with the North Oaks Development Company and the City of North Oaks have prepared an Intersection Control Evaluation report; and WHEREAS, the Intersection Control Evaluation report recommends the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, hereby approves the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) report for Centerville Road (CSAH 21/CSAH 59) at Ash Street (CR J)/Wilkinson Lake Blvd. 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 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. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6H STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: October 9, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-116, Approving a Traffic Policy for the City of Lino Lakes VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote Required INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting Council approval of a Traffic Policy for the City of Lino Lakes. 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 Of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD). The City currently practices the procedures laid out in the Traffic Policy. Recently on Arlo Lane staff used the methodology outlined in the Traffic Policy to evaluate a stop sign request and speed analysis. Adopting the policy will provide improved communication and methods for addressing traffic related requests. The policy will also aid in educating those not familiar with traffic guidelines and regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 17-116 Approving a Traffic Policy for the City of Lino Lakes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-116 2. Traffic Policy CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-116 RESOLUTION APPROVING A TRAFFIC POLICY WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes has a Traffic Safety Committee comprised of staff from the Engineering, Community Development, Public Services and Public Safety departments, that reviews traffic related issues; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Committee recommended establishing Traffic Policy of uniform process and procedures for evaluating speed, safety and signage requests based on the Minnesota Manual Of Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and WHEREAS, the policy will provide improved communication and methods for addressing traffic related requests. The policy will also aid in educating those not familiar with traffic guidelines and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes here by approves the Traffic Policy. 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 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 Roadway Eligible for Posted Speed 20mph 25mph 30mph Low Cost >23mph >28mph >33mph 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 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 NO YES No further action YES Feasibility, Funding, and Installation Review Period 85th Percentile Speed > 35 mph NO YES 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.