Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-2017 Council PacketEXPANDED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, November 27, 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 COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M. Community Room (not televised) 1. Review Regular Agenda CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.  Roll Call - Council Members Rafferty, Kusterman, Manthey, Maher, and Mayor Reinert were present  Pledge of Allegiance  Open Mike / Public Comment - none  Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items The agenda was approved as presented SPECIAL PRESENTATION Proclamation Recognizing Hockey Day Minnesota 1. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) November 27, 2017 (Check No. 107140 through 107260) in the amount of $463,941.23 B) Consider approval of November 13, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes not approved C) Consider approval of November 6, 2017 Closed Council Session Minutes Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve Consent Agenda Items 1A and 1C as presented, was adopted; Item IB was not approved and will be reviewed for correction 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT A) 2018 City Fee Schedule, Sarah Cotton i) Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 11-17, Establishing the 2018 City Fee Schedule ii) Consider Resolution No. 17-134, Approving Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 11-17 Council Agenda -2- November 27, 2017 EXPANDED AGENDA Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 11-17 as presented: Yeas, 5; Nays none Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 17-134 as presented, was adopted 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT A) Consider Resolution No. 17-137, Approving a New On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License for Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar, Julie Bartell Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 137 as presented, was adopted B) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 06-17, Adding Chapter 616 to the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances, relating to Therapeutic Massage Licensing, Julie Bartell Action Taken: Motion by Manthey, seconded by Kusterman, to approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 06-17 as presented, was adopted 4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT A) Consider Acceptance of Monetary Donation to Lino Lakes Public Safety Canine Unit, John Swenson Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Manthey, to approve the acceptance of $500 as recommended, 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 Brian Gustafson as recommended, was adopted 5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT A) No report. 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A) Consider Resolution No. 17-130 Approving a Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width for 41 Century Trail, Katie Larsen Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Rafferty, to approve Resolution No. 130 as presented, was adopted B) Consider Resolution No. 17-131 Approving a Variance to Allow for the Minor Subdivision of a Portion of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North, Katie Larsen Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 131 as presented, was adopted C) Consider Resolution No. 17-132 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for St. Joseph of the Lakes Church Rectory, Katie Larsen Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 132 as presented, was adopted Council Agenda -3- November 27, 2017 EXPANDED AGENDA D) Consider Resolution No. 17- 127, Approving Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 127 as presented, was adopted E) Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 12-17, Vacating Drainage and Utility Easement Lot 2, Block 1 of St. Clair Estates, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Rafferty, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 11-17 as presented: Yeas, 5; Nays none F) Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report), Diane Hankee i. Consider Resolution No. 17-135, Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements, West Shadow Lake Area Street and Utilities Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Rafferty, to approve Resolution No. 17-135 as presented, was adopted ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-136, Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements, LaMotte Area Street and Utilities Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Rafferty, to approve Resolution No. 17-136 as presented, was adopted G) Consider Resolution No. 17-137, Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Construction Contract, Surfacewater Maintenance Project, Block 3 – Pheasant Hills Preserve 5th Addition, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 17-137 as presented, was adopted 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. on a motion by Rafferty, seconded by Manthey Community Calendar – A Look Ahead November 27, 2017 through December 11, 2017 Wednesday, November 29 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board Wednesday, November 29 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board Monday, December 4 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session Thursday, December 7 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC Monday, December 11 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, November 27, 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 COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M. Community Room (not televised) 1. Review Regular Agenda CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.  Call to Order and Roll Call  Pledge of Allegiance  Open Mike / Public Comment  Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items SPECIAL PRESENTATION Proclamation Recognizing Hockey Day Minnesota 1. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) November 27, 2017 (Check No. 107140 through 107260) in the amount of $463,941.23 B) Consider approval of November 13, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes C) Consider approval of November 6, 2017 Closed Council Session Minutes 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT A) 2018 City Fee Schedule, Sarah Cotton i) Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 11-17, Establishing the 2018 City Fee Schedule *Council may vote to dispense with the full reading of the ordinance *Roll call vote is required for adoption of the ordinance ii) Consider Resolution No. 17-134, Approving Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 11-17 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT A) Consider Resolution No. 17-137, Approving a New On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License for Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar, Julie Bartell Council Agenda -2- November 27, 2017 B) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 06-17, Adding Chapter 616 to the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances, relating to Therapeutic Massage Licensing, Julie Bartell 4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT A) Consider Acceptance of Monetary Donation to Lino Lakes Public Safety Canine Unit, John Swenson B) Consider Hire of Paid On-Call Firefighter, John Swenson 5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT A) No report. 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A) Consider Resolution No. 17-130 Approving a Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width for 41 Century Trail, Katie Larsen B) Consider Resolution No. 17-131 Approving a Variance to Allow for the Minor Subdivision of a Portion of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North, Katie Larsen C) Consider Resolution No. 17-132 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for St. Joseph of the Lakes Church Rectory, Katie Larsen D) Consider Resolution No. 17- 127, Approving Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, Diane Hankee E) Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 12-17, Vacating Drainage and Utility Easement Lot 2, Block 1 of St. Clair Estates, Diane Hankee *Council may vote to dispense with the full reading of the ordinance *Roll call vote is required for adoption of the ordinance F) Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report), Diane Hankee i.Consider Resolution No. 17-135, Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements, West Shadow Lake Area Street and Utilities ii.Consider Resolution No. 17-136, Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements, LaMotte Area Street and Utilities G) Consider Resolution No. 17-137, Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Construction Contract, Surfacewater Maintenance Project, Block 3 – Pheasant Hills Preserve 5th Addition, Diane Hankee 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment Council Agenda -3- November 27, 2017 Community Calendar – A Look Ahead November 27, 2017 through December 11, 2017 Wednesday, November 29 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board Wednesday, November 29 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board Monday, December 4 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session Thursday, December 7 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC Monday, December 11 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING HOCKEY DAY MINNESOTA SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 2018 WHEREAS, the inception of Hockey Day Minnesota was in 2007 and is a continuing celebration and commemoration of the Land of 10,000 Lakes’ official pastime; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Wild originated Hockey Day Minnesota with the partnership of Fox Sports North’s production and local communities’ who host the event each year; and WHEREAS, the communities that make up the Centennial School District are excited that the Centennial Boys High School hockey team is participating in this full day of outdoor hockey by playing Moorhead High School on Lake George in St. Cloud at 4:30 p.m. on January 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, fans still have fresh memories of Centennial’s victory over the Moorhead Spuds Boys Hockey team in the 2004 State High School Championship Game. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeff Reinert, Mayor of the City of Lino Lakes, do hereby recognize the Centennial Boys High School hockey team’s participation in Hockey Day Minnesota and urge all citizens to cheer on the Cougars as they represent the community in this celebration of great hockey in Minnesota. 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 this 27th day of November 2017. __________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor __________________________ Attest: Julie Bartell, City Clerk COUNCIL MINUTES November 13, 2017 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 MINUTES 2 3 4 DATE : November 13, 2017 5 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 7:30 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; City Engineer Diane Hankee; Finance Director 13 Sarah Cotton; and City Clerk Julie Bartell 14 15 PUBLIC COMMENT 16 17 No one was present to address the council regarding a matter not on the agenda. 18 19 SETTING THE AGENDA 20 21 The agenda was approved as presented. 22 23 CONSENT AGENDA 24 25 Council Member Kusterman noted an expense relating to a bill of Ratwik, Roszak and Maloney, the 26 city’s attorney. It is a monthly bill received from that contractor. It was clarified that the expense in 27 question relates to a legal opinion sought regarding a resident who filed for city office who also works 28 for the city’s engineering contractor, WSB & Associates; a written legal opinion was received and the 29 cost was roughly $800. Council Member Kusterman questioned why this expenditure would be 30 ordinary and necessary to the workings of the city. He has worked in accounting for many years and 31 he doesn’t feel this would be ordinary. Were there conflict of interest checks on all candidates this 32 year? 33 34 Administrator Karlson was asked to respond to the reasoning behind seeking that legal opinion and he 35 explained that a member of the council raised questions about one candidate for city council that 36 works for the city’s contracted engineering firm and he felt it rose to the level that the question should 37 be posed to the City Attorney. He clarified that the question was originally posed to him by the 38 mayor. 39 40 Mayor Reinert noted that the situation of having a conflict of interest as a member of the council is 41 taken seriously by the City. 42 43 Council Member Rafferty concurred; he works for an architectural firm that could possibly have 44 business with the City. He originally approached the City Administrator with the question and it was 45 COUNCIL MINUTES November 13, 2017 DRAFT 2 confirmed that there was no conflict. There was discussion about a situation that could be perceived 46 as a conflict and Mr. Rafferty explained that he falls on the side of caution when that perception could 47 be seen. 48 49 Mayor Reinert recalled his discussion with the City Administrator and how it came to be that the city 50 attorney would be asked; he was not aware that any legal costs would be incurred. He is surprised at 51 the price but he understands that the City Administrator wanted to have that legal review. Perhaps 52 the question is why the cost is so high. Mayor Reinert also mentioned that the city council is 53 discussed going out for RFP for legal services. 54 55 Council Member Kusterman suggested it was a blaming situation; he suggests that all council 56 members should have been consulted in this case. 57 58 Council Member Manthey concurred that the matter was one for the entire council to review. He 59 feels that the council having transparency is highly important. He believes that the council has 60 discussed perceptions of possible conflict for its members in the past so an experienced member of 61 the council would have already known the answer. 62 63 Mayor Reinert suggested this is a case of sour grapes based on election results. He had a 64 conversation with the administrator and Mr. Karlson chose to approach the city attorney for an 65 opinion. It was not a created situation for political gain. 66 67 Council Member Manthey noted that the matter of paying the bill is on the agenda for council 68 approval tonight; the council as a whole is expected to make that decision. 69 70 Mayor Reinert asked if the council would like to add discussion of a policy on legal opinions and the 71 city administrator to the next work session agenda. The council concurred. 72 73 Council Member Kusterman added that the RFP process for city attorney was initiated after the 74 opinion was received. 75 76 Council Member Maher asked the City Administrator if he would normally contact the city attorney 77 without a clear council direction to do so. 78 79 Administrator Karlson said he would normally contact the city attorney on matters that he feels 80 requires that course and it is not always with council direction; he noted that other city staff has the 81 ability to do the same. 82 83 Mayor Reinert reviewed the general process of seeking RFPs. He also recalled a discussion with the 84 city’s contracted engineering firm and his quest for an opinion on a good timeline for RFP – how 85 often should the city seek them. He read an email from that firm’s representative responding to the 86 question. 87 88 Council Member Manthey asked if that communication came after the candidate of that firm filed for 89 office; he suspects it did and it doesn’t look good. 90 COUNCIL MINUTES November 13, 2017 DRAFT 3 91 Mayor Reinert said the communication went out the day after the council had the discussion. 92 93 Council Member Manthey said he is attempting to get to the bottom of the matter. 94 95 Council Member Kusterman noted that there were reasons articulated at the council work session for 96 not going out an RFP, yet those were not mentioned in the Mayor’s communication. Firms aren’t 97 waiting to go through that extensive process without billing those costs back in some way, not to 98 mention that a long term provider is a benefit to staff and a new provider will cost city funds in the 99 engagement process. 100 101 Mayor Reinert disagreed. He recalled the city’s switch from TKDA to WSB Engineering a few years 102 ago and a planned transition period that helped greatly. He doesn’t believe that staff wanted to 103 change at that time but the switch has turned out to be positive and he believes staff would agree. 104 105 Council Member Rafferty said he hears the argument. Seven years ago he recalls making the 106 recommendation. He works with an architectural firm and he acknowledges that doing an RFP is part 107 of doing business. He feels that an RFP is a standard thing that has to happen. 108 109 Council Member Kusterman requested that the Council Code of Conduct be discussed at the work 110 session as well. 111 112 Council Member Maher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A, 1B and 1D. Council 113 Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 114 115 Council Member Maher moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1C and 1D as presented. Council 116 Member Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Council Member Manthey 117 abstained from voting. 118 119 ITEM ACTION 120 121 Consideration of Expenditures: 122 123 November 13, 2017 (Check No. 107007 – 124 107139, $398,769.45 Approved 125 126 Resolution No. 17-125, Supporting Anoka County’s 127 Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve Master Plan 128 Amendment Approved 129 130 October 23, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes Approved 131 132 October 23, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes Approved 133 134 Consider Amendment to City of Lino Lakes Flexible 135 COUNCIL MINUTES November 13, 2017 DRAFT 4 Spending Accounts Plan Approved 136 137 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 138 2A) Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 11-17, Establishing the 2018 City Fee Schedule – 139 Finance Director Cotton presented the ordinance for first review. This represents the city’s fee 140 schedule for the coming year. Recommended changes are highlighted in the ordinance before the 141 council. 142 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 11-17, as presented. 143 Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 144 2B) Consider Resolution No. 17-126, Authorizing the Transfer and Commitment of Legion 145 Land Sale Proceeds - Finance Director Cotton explained that the resolution will provide for 146 appropriate action relative to the previously directed transfer of proceeds from the sale of land to the 147 American Legion. 148 149 Council Member Manthey remarked that the parking lot has been a positive addition to the area and he 150 sees the service it provides. 151 Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No 17-126 as presented. Council Member 152 Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 153 154 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 155 3A) Consider Extending the Temporary Building Inspector Position – Administrator Karlson 156 recalled that the city hired a temporary building inspector last spring. Due to a continuing high 157 workload in that department, he is recommending that this position be extended. 158 159 Council Member Manthey remarked that he suspects that the storm damage repair work underway in the 160 city will continue into next year; the position is only extended through December? Community 161 Development Director Grochala explained that the 2018 budget includes a temporary position for a 162 portion of the year but that doesn’t preclude that staff could come forward with additional needs. 163 164 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the extension as recommended by staff. Council Member 165 Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 166 3B) Consider Appointment of Parks Maintenance Worker – Administrator Karlson reviewed the 167 written staff report. He explained the process that brings forward the candidate recommended for 168 hiring. 169 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the appointment of Macklin Glasby. Council Member 170 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 171 172 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 173 4A) Consider Hiring of One Records Technician – Public Safety Director Swenson requested 174 council authorization to hire an individual to this vacant position. He explained the hiring process and 175 his recommendation. 176 COUNCIL MINUTES November 13, 2017 DRAFT 5 177 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the hiring of Brooke Jacobson. Council Member Manthey 178 seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 179 4B) Consider Acceptance of Monetary Donation to Lino Lakes Public Safety Canine Unit – 180 Public Safety Director Swenson explained that the Coss Family Foundation would like to donate 181 $15,000 to the department for future needs of the department’s canine unit. 182 183 Council Member Rafferty asked if it makes sense to get a dog into training in preparation of the 184 replacement of the current dog. Director Swenson said he will investigate that possibility as the current 185 dogs gets closer to retirement. 186 187 Council Member Maher moved to accept the donation as recommended. Council Member Rafferty 188 seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 189 190 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 191 192 There was no report from the Public Services Department. 193 194 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 195 196 6A) Item 6A was deleted from the agenda (by staff) 197 198 6B) Consider Resolution No. 17- 128, Approving Payment of Final Pay Voucher No. 4, 2016 199 Aqua Lane to Black Duck Drive Trunk Water Main Project – City Engineer Hankee reviewed the 200 process that brought this project to fruition and to this point of payment. She explained the elements 201 included in the project. Construction is complete and it came in under budget. 202 203 Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 17-128 as presented. Council Member 204 Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 205 206 6C) Public Hearing: Consider Ordinance No. 12-17, Vacating Drainage and Utility Easement 207 Lot 2, Block 1 of St. Clair Estates – City Engineer Hankee reviewed the ordinance that would 208 provide for vacation of certain easements, necessary because of information discovered during project 209 activities in the area. 210 211 Mayor Reinert opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, the public 212 hearing was closed. 213 214 Council Member Rafferty commented that he didn’t originally support this development but he sees 215 now that the project is moving forward as planned and this is part of that. 216 217 Council Member Maher moved to approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 12-17 as presented. 218 Council Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 219 220 COUNCIL MINUTES November 13, 2017 DRAFT 6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 221 222 There was no Unfinished Business. 223 224 NEW BUSINESS 225 226 There was no New Business. 227 228 COMMUNITY EVENTS 229 230 MONTHLY RECYCLE DAY will be held at Lino Park (7850 Lake Drive) on Saturday, November 231 18th from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. See city website for a list of accepted items. 232 233 AMERICAN LEGION Auxiliary Fundraiser will be hosting a chili cook off and a bake sale on 234 Sunday, November 19th before the start of the noon football game. 235 236 TURKEY BINGO will be held at St. Joseph’s Church on Sunday, November 19th from 1:00 p.m. to 237 4:00 p.m. 238 239 COMMUNITY CALENDAR 240 241 Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 242 November 13, 2017 through November 27, 2017 243 244 CITY HALL CLOSED NOVEMBER 23 & 24 - THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY 245 Monday, November 27 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 246 Monday, November 27 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting 247 248 ADJOURN 249 250 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 251 252 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, November 27, 2017. 253 254 255 256 257 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 258 259 CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION November 6, 2017 DRAFT 1 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION 4 5 DATE 6 TIME STARTED 7 TIME ENDED 8 MEMBERS PRESENT 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : November 6, 2017 : 5:34 p.m. : 5:57 p.m. : Council Members Rafferty, Manthey, Maher, Kusterman and Mayor Reinert : none 11 12 Staff present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson 13 14 Mayor Reinert called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. in the Council Work Room at 15 Lino Lakes City Hall. Before the meeting was closed, Mayor Reinert read a statement on 16 the purpose of the meeting. The meeting was closed as a session of the city council 17 pursuant to the Open Meeting Law for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. 18 19 The meeting was recorded and is available in the Office of the City Clerk. 20 21 The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m. 22 23 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 24 November 27, 2017. 25 26 27 28 29 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 30 31 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 2A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Sarah Cotton, Finance Director MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: 2018 City Fee Schedule VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The City Council is being asked to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 11-17, Establishing the 2018 City Fee Schedule and Resolution No. 17-134, Authorizing Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 11-17. BACKGROUND In order to provide for a more efficient and timely method of reviewing and adjusting the various fees charged by the City, fees are consolidated into one schedule to be reviewed and adopted on an annual basis. The City’s current fee schedule has been circulated to department directors with a request to update or amend the schedule as appropriate for 2018. Staff has reviewed the fees in place to ensure their ongoing equity and cost recovery ability. Ordinance No. 11-17 (the proposed 2018 Fee Schedule) is attached. Recommended amendments to the ordinance are printed in red. The changes proposed for 2018 are outlined below for your review:  Investigation Fees, Background Check Fees, Rental License Fees, Building Permits, Trunk Utility Connection Fees, Lateral Service Connection Fees, Surface Water Management, Land Use, and Development Fees – Staff has adjusted fees to account for inflationary increases; they are generally consistent with neighboring cities. The Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 11-17 on November 13, 2017. Staff is now recommending approval of the second reading and summary publication of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 11-17, Establishing the 2018 Fee Schedule 2. Approve Resolution No. 17-134, Authorizing Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 11- 17 1   1st Reading: November 13, 2017 Publication: December 5, 2017 2nd Reading: November 27, 2017 Effective: January 5, 2018 City of Lino Lakes Ordinance No. 11-17 An Ordinance Adopting The 2018 City of Lino Lakes Fee Schedule and Providing for the Issuance Of Licenses, Permits and Collection of Fees Thereof; Repeals All Ordinances, Parts Of Ordinances and Previous Fee Schedules that Conflict Therewith. The City of Lino Lakes City Council does ordain the following: Section 1. Findings. Pursuant to Minnesota Law, the Lino Lakes City Charter, and the Lino Lakes City Code, and upon a review of a study conducted by City Staff, a fee schedule for City services and licensing is hereby adopted as follows: 2018 FEE SCHEDULE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 3.2 Beer Investigation, Initial Application Only $262.50$267.75 (1 or 2); $462.50$471.75 (3+) 3.2 Beer Off-Sale $200.00/Year 3.2 Beer On-Sale $300.00/Year 3.2 Beer On-Sale Temporary $50.00 + $5.00/Day Club License $300.00 Liquor License Investigation Fee, Initial Application Only $262.50$267.75 (1 or 2); $462.50$471.75 (3+) Liquor On-Sale License $4,500.00/Year Liquor Off-Sale $200.00 Liquor Temporary Permit $50.00 Temporary Set-Up License $25.00 Wine License Investigation Fee, Initial Application Only $262.50$267.75 (1 or 2); $462.50$471.75 (3+) Wine $500.00/Year Sunday Liquor $200.00/Year On-Sale Brewer Taproom $500/Year Off-Sale Growler $200/Year AMUSEMENT & COMMERCIAL RECREATION Cabaret License $35.00 Dances $200.00/Year Gambling Permit Application $10.00 State Licensed Gambling Regulation Tax 0.10% of gross receipts less prizes paid BUSINESS & MISCELLANEOUS Assessment Search Fee $20.00/Search Background Check Fee $35.00/Background Burning Permit $50.00 Dog Kennel - Private $20.00/Year Dog Kennel – Commercial $105.00/Year 2   Dog License Male/Female $10.50 Dog License Male/Female $5.25(Spayed or Neutered) 3   Copies: Per Page 1st 10 Copies1-10 pages - Free,; 11-100 pages - then $.25 per pPage; Over 100 pages – Actual Cost Copies: New Resident Labels $5.00 per Month Flat Fee Copies: Large Scale (>11”x17”) $.50 per sq. foot City Charter 1st Copy Free; $10.00 Each Add’l City Code Book $75.00 City Map $2.50 Comp. Plan. $55.00 CD or DVD $7.00 Environmental Handbook $55.00 Fax Charge 1st 10 Pages Free, then $.25 per Page Garbage Hauler License $75.00/First Truck; $45.00 each add’l Overweight Permit $20.00 Pawn Shop Class A $10,000.00 Pawn Shop Class B $7,000.00 Class A Secondhand Goods Dealer $720.00 Class B Secondhand Goods Dealer $105.00 Class C Secondhand Goods Dealer No Fee Pawn Shop Investigation $15,000 400 (deposit on costs) Pawn Shop In-State Investigation $750$765.00 Pawn Shop Out-State Investigation $20,000400.00 Peddler, Solicitor, Transient Merchant $250.00/6 months (Up to 3 Backgrounds – Each Additional Background $35/Background) Rental License (annual) $5067.00 for 1 or 2 units $5067.00 + $10 15 per unit for 3 or more units (fee to be reduced by 50% if issues less than six months from expiration date) Rental License Re-inspection Fee $5067.00 Special Event Permit $50.00 Tobacco License $50.00 Return Check Charge $30.00 Zoning Maps $5.00/Large or Colored Zoning Ordinance $25.00 PARK & RECREATION USER FEES Field Rental – Resident Only Baseball/Softball Drag Only $20.00/Evening Baseball/Softball Drag & Chalk $30.00/Evening Soccer (Excluding Youth) $65.00/Evening Picnic Shelter Reservation Residents - No Fee Non-Resident - $25.00 Playground Grab Bags $10.00 / $25.00 FIRE REGULATIONS Annual Permit for Sale Of Consumer Fireworks $350 exclusive retail seller / $100 in conjunction with existing retail store POLICE FEES (Costs include all applicable taxes) Achieving Compliance through Education (ACE) Program Fees 4   Equipment Violation $50.00 Moving Violation $100.00 5   Ordinance Violation $75.00 Parking Violation $100.00 Status Offense $50.00 Other Violations $100.00 Copy of Report Free to subject of data up to 3 pages; 4th page $1.00; then $.25 add’l pages up to 100 Copy of Report – Mail In $4.00 up to 4 pages; $.25 per page thereafter Vehicle Lockouts No charge Clearance Letter $15.00 Fingerprinting $15.00 by appointment Photographs $25.00 plus developing cost Electronic Photographs $10.00 per page of four False Alarms 3 free; 4-10 $52.50; 11 or more $105.00/calendar yr. Vehicle Forfeiture Fee $100.00 per vehicle DVD (Police Dept) $25.00 Dangerous Dog Registration $250.00$255.00/Year BUILDING - CONSTRUCTION UTILITIES Building Permit Fee Schedule Building Permit Fees shall be based on the Fee Table. Fire Suppression Permit fee shall be based on Fee Table Minimum fee of $67.00 for all permits Fee Table Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $1,360.00 $67.00 $1,361.00 to $2,000.00 $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.15 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: Work commencing before permit issuance Double Permit Fee Erosion Control Inspection Fee (single, two-family, townhomes up to 8 units) $155160.00 Multi-family > 8 units, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional determined by separate agreement. 6   Change of use/occupancy inspections $67.00 per trip Erosion Control Re-inspection Fee $67.00 per trip Inspections outside of normal business hours $67.00 per hour* Re-inspection fee $67.00 per trip Inspections for which no fee is specifically designed $67.00 per trip Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions $67.00 per hour** For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both Actual Cost*** Plan Review Fee a. 65% of the Building Permit Fee b. 25% of the Building Permit Fee for review of similar plans (Master Plan) in a 12 month period Easement Encroachment Fee County Recording Fee plus $25.00 Accessory Building Permit: 200 sq. ft. or under in size $67.00 Accessory Building Permit: over 200 sq. ft. in size See Building Fee Table Fence Permit: 6 feet or under in height $67.00 Fence Permit: over 6 feet in height See Building Fee Table Grading Permit $155.00 Grading Permit Escrow Deposit (if not included in Dev. Contract) $300.00 Roofing Permit $103.00 Siding Permit $103.00 Swimming Pool Permit: In Ground $155.00 Swimming Pool Permit: Above Ground $103.00 Window/Door Replacement Permit $77.00 per unit (max. $155.00) Retaining Wall Permit $67.00 Mechanical (HVAC) permit: Gas Fireplace $67.00 (plus $32.50 for each addt’l fireplace) Mechanical (HVAC) Permit: Residential (except new construction) $67.00 Mechanical (HVAC) Fee: New Construction Residential (does not include fireplaces) $77.00 Mechanical (HVAC) Permit: Commercial 2% of the contract price ($67.00 minimum fee) Manufactured Home Permits $155.00 Plumbing Permit 11.00 per fixture ($67.00 minimum fee) Sewer Connection Inspection Fee $200.00 7   Water Connection Inspection Fee $250.00 Contractor License Verification $5.00 per permit Contractor Lead Certification Verification (effective Feb 1, 2011) $5.00 per permit Contractor License $50.00 Metropolitan Council SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) Per Met Council ¾” Water Meter City cost plus 10% handling fee 1” Water Meter City cost plus 10% handling fee MXU Unit City cost plus 10% handling fee Touch Pad $18.00 Curb Stop Covers $70.00 Septic Installation or Repair Permit $200250.00 Septic Pumping Permit $10.00 Demolition Permit $67.00 Lawn Sprinkler/Irrigation System Permit (effective June 26, 2008) $67.00 Irrigating or Watering of New Landscaping Permit (sod or seed) No Charge Lawn Sprinkling Violation $25.00 for first violation $50.00 for each subsequent citation Driveway Replacement Permit $67.00 Sign Permit: Existing Billboard $85.00 per year Sign Permit: Permanent See Building Fee Table Sign Permit: Sandwich Board $25.00 Sign Permit: Temporary (portable/banner) $25.00/Term Fee Refund – Per applicant request, City staff may refund permit fees up to 80% for voided permits. Plan review fees and state surcharge fees are non-refundable. No refund shall be provided if permit has expired. All permits issued are subject to applicable State surcharge fees. * Inspections made outside of normal business hours is a three-hour minimum charge ** Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages, and fringe benefits of the employees involved. *** Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. An escrow may be required, as determined by the City Engineer, to cover all costs incurred by the City for plan revision and construction observation. 8   ESCROW DEPOSITS In order to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, escrow deposits shall be collected if exterior work cannot be completed due to inclement weather, as determined by City Staff, whereupon a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy would be issued subject to the execution of an escrow agreement and payment thereof. Any unfinished work must be completed within six months (weather permitting) from the date of issuance. The following escrow amounts are hereby established: a. Driveway - $1,000.00 b. Exterior Concrete - $1,000.00 c. As-built Surveys - $1,000.00 d. Stucco (final coat only) - $1,000.00 e. Garage Floor - $1,000.00 f. Landscaping - $2,500.00 (landscaping may be escrowed year-round per City Staff) Escrow deposits include a $75.00 non-refundable administrative fee. Escrow deposits can be submitted through one of the following procedures: a.) Escrow can be paid to the City upon execution of an agreement signed by both the payee and the City. b.) The title company or lending institution can hold the escrow upon execution of an agreement signed by both the title company or lending institution and the City. RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT Excavation Permit Fees Hole (includes administration, plan review, inspection, testing and mapping)...………….. $125.00 Trench (includes administration, plan review, inspection, testing & mapping)...$70.00 per 100 lineal feet plus hole fee Obstruction Permit Fee (includes administration, recording, review & inspection)…$50.00 plus $.05 per lineal foot Permit Extension Fee (includes administration, recording & review)………………………………$55.00 Delay Penalty ……………………………………………………………………………………….$60.00 for up to three days of non-completion and non-prior notice before specified date. After three days an additional charter of $10.00 per day will be levied Degradation Fee Formula: This formula covers degradation for depreciation caused by intrusion into the right-of-way. The depreciation applies to the original surface of the right-of-way and to the overlays and seal-coats applied to the surface. The formula includes life expectancy schedules for each and has an estimated cost per square yard based on the quality of the right-of-way surface required for different levels of traffic. This formula creates a degradation fee which is determined by the cost per square yard for street, overlay, and seal-coat, multiplied by the depreciation schedule, multiplied by the area of the street patch. Degradation Fee: (cost per square yard for street overlay, and seal-coat x depreciation schedule rates) x area of street patch = degradation fee. 9   UTILITY FEES Sewer Utility Rates (to be considered by separate Ordinance, No. 11-13) Water Meter Rental $400.00 (Deposit) / $25 Per Month Additional Accessories $25.00 Per Month Utility Non-Payment Certification Fee $30.00 Underground Utility Permit $50.00 Meter Testing (Our Cost, Delivered To Minneapolis) 5/8” – 3/4" Meter Test $50.00 1” Meter Test $65.00 1-1/2” – 2” Meter Test $100.00 City Trunk Utility Connection Fees The Trunk Utility Connection Fee consists of two components; a Trunk Charge and an Availability Charge. Trunk Charge The trunk charge shall be paid at the time of subdivision approval or at the time of hook-up, whichever is first. Residential trunk charges are based on one unit per dwelling unit. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (CII) trunk charges are based on a factor of 2.92 units per acre. Sanitary Sewer Unit $3,0731,505.00 Per Sac Unit Water Unit $4,0692,162.00 Per Sac Unit Availability Charge For residential properties, the availability charge shall be paid at the time of subdivision approval or at the time of hook-up, whichever is first. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional availability charges shall be paid at the time of building permit. Fees are based on the number of sanitary access charge (SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). Residential uses shall be assigned one unit per dwelling unit unless otherwise noted by MCES. City Sewer (CSAC)  $1,408.00 Per SAC Unit City Water (CWAC) $1,360.00 Per SAC Unit Lateral Service Connection Fees: If the lot or tract of land, or portion thereof, to be served by a lateral connection has not been assessed for the cost of construction, then the applicant shall pay, upon hook-up, a lateral connection in accordance with Resolution No. 02-149 (Bisel Amendment) based on the following front foot charges: Sanitary Sewer $4042.00 Per Front Foot Watermain $37.5039.50 Per Front Foot The Lateral Service Connection Fee shall be in addition to the City Trunk Utility Connection Fees. Water Utility Rates (to be considered by separate Ordinance, No. 11-13) 1  Late Penalty: 10% of unpaid balance, assessed quarterly Vacant Buildings: Owners of a commercial/industrial building(s) connected to City water and/or sewer utilities that are vacant due to business closures or other reasons may apply to have the number of billed REU’s reduced to one (1) REU for purposes of calculating utility fees effective from the date the building(s) were vacated for as long as the building(s) remain unoccupied. When the building(s) again becomes occupied the owner must inform the City of such occupation, at which time the number of REU’s will be determined and utility fees assessed according to the current fee structure. (Ordinance No. 06-13, passed 8-26-13) * REU = a residential equivalent connection: 1. Residential – a single housing unit 2. Non-Residential REU = per Met Council Service Availability Charge Procedures Manual SURFACE WATER MGMT Land Use Type   I. II. III. Single/Two Multi Family Commercial/Industrial/ Family Lots Lots Institutional Property Fee Charge per Sq. Ft.Acre of Development $0.1506,865 $0.2029,235 Area $0.22410,225 Surface Water Management Charge: Applied to developing parcels in accordanceFees are based on developable land in accordance with the policy provisions established in Resolution No. 92-70. Credits may be earned for subwatershed trunk improvements. CULVERT PRICES All culvert prices are based on market prices and include tax & delivery and 15% administration fee Formatted Table 1  ESCROW LAND USE FEE DEPOSIT Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (I-35E AUAR) $269 per acre To be charged at the time of land use approval for projects within the I-35E Corridor AUAR area that require preliminary plats; conditional use permits; site and building plans; and planned unit developments. Once paid, the same land will not be charged again. Administrative Permit $67 (no fee for Transient Merchant if issued by City Clerk) Application Fee (Required With Each Submittal) $200 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 40 Acres or Less $3,000 More Than 40 Acres $5,000 Conditional Use Permit Residential $7501,000 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional $5,000 Environmental Assessment Worksheet $10,000 Interim Use Permit $7501,000 Ordinance Amendment Map Amendment (Rezone) 40 Acres or Less $1,500 Over 40 Acres $5,000 Text Amendment $1,500 Planned Unit Development General Concept Plan $3,000 Development Stage Plan $10,000 Final Plan $5,000 Site Plan Review $5,000 Subdivision Concept Plan Review $1,500 Minor Subdivision / Lot Split Preliminary Plat 40 Acres or Less $2,5003,000 $5,000 Over 40 Acres $10,000 Final Plat $1,5002,000 1  Tax Increment Financing or Tax Abatement $7,500 Vacation (Street, Utility, Drainage) $7501,000 Variance or appeal $750 Zoning Confirmation Letter $30 *An escrow account shall be established as indicated above to cover all expenses incurred by the City as part of the plan review. In the case of applications including multiple requests the highest escrow deposit amount will be the only one initially required. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City during plan review. If the escrow account drops below 10% of the original deposit amount the City will require the submittal of an additional escrow deposit sufficient to cover any anticipated expenses. Upon City determination that the project is complete or expired, the City will return the remaining escrow deposit to the applicant. DEVELOPMENT FEES Aerial Photo Cost RecoveryGIS Mapping Fee $90.00 per lot Park Dedication – Commercial / Industrial $2,2002,400 per acre Park Dedication - Residential $2,5753,000 per unit Street Sealcoating $0.345 per square foot Tree Preservation Mitigation Fee $300.00 per tree Street Lighting Operation Fee (New Development) $105 per light ($7/mo/light x 15 months) ENGINEERING Flood Plain Elevation Certificate $200.00 Fee Elevation Certificate Survey Add’l $1,000.00 Escrow Deposit Digital Contour Mapping $800 per ½ Section Increment STAFF TIME Staff time for chargeable event/projects shall be charged as the employee’s hourly rate of pay plus benefits plus calculated overhead costs (when applicable). Overtime will be charged at 1.5 times the calculated hourly rate. LATE FEE Late penalty fee: a late charge of 10% or $25.00, whichever is greater, will be charged for fees not paid when due. Section 2. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this ____ day of __________________, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was introduced by Council Member _____________and was duly seconded by Council Member ___________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 1  The following voted against same: ____________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-134 APPROVING A SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 11-17 FOR PUBLICATION WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 11-17, Establishing the 2018 Fee Schedule, for first reading on November 13, 2017 and second reading and final passage on November 27, 2017; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11-17 is lengthy and MN statute 412.191 allows the city to publish a summary of an ordinance, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance, and WHEREAS, the publication in the official newspaper will include a notice that a full printed copy of the ordinance is available at City Hall; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota: That the City Council approves the summary in Attachment A for publication according to state law and the City Charter. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of November, 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 ATTACHMENT A, RESOLUTION 17-134 CITY OF LINO LAKES SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 11-17 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2018 CITY OF LINO LAKES FEE SCHEDULE; REPEALS ALL ORDINANCES, PARTS OF ORDINANCES AND PREVIOUS FEE SCHEDULES THAT CONFLICT THEREWITH. The City of Lino Lakes City Council does ordain the following: Section 1. Findings. Pursuant to Minnesota Law, the Lino Lakes City Charter, and the Lino Lakes City Code, and upon a review of a study conducted by City staff, a fee schedule for City services and licensing is hereby adopted as follows: 2018 FEE SCHEDULE A. Alcoholic Beverages; B. Amusement and Commercial Recreation; C. Business and Miscellaneous; D. Park & Recreation User Fees; E. Fire Regulations; F. Police Fees; G. Building – Construction Utilities; H. Escrow Deposits; I. Right-Of-Way Management; J. Utility Fees; K. Surface Water Management; L. Culvert Prices; M. Land Use; N. Development Fees; O. Engineering; P. Staff Time; Q. Late Fee Section 2. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its publication. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council on November 27, 2017. This is a summary of the adopted ordinance. A full printed copy of the ordinance is available at City Hall. AGENDA ITEM 3A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy Clerk MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC Consider Resolution 17-137, Approving New On-Sale Liquor and Sunday Sales License VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar is currently open and operating at 7090 21st Avenue North. The current liquor license holder is moving out of state. A new applicant, Edgar Alcocer, has applied for a new On-Sale and Sunday Sales Liquor License. BACKGROUND The application submitted to the City is complete, the related fees have been paid and insurance information has been provided to the City as required. In addition, the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation on the applicant. In accordance with the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances, Section 701 relating to Liquor Licensing, this application requires approval by the City Council. The code also requires that opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. The council may then, in its discretion, grant or refuse the application. If local approval is granted, Edgar Alcocer’s application for a liquor license will be forwarded to the Minnesota Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division for review. The applicant is aware that approval is subject to all the provisions and conditions of the laws of the city, state and federal government. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the On-Sale Liquor and Sunday Sales License for Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 17-137 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-137 APPROVING ISSUANCE OF NEW ON-SALE LIQUOR AND SUNDAY LICENSE FOR FIESTA CANCUN, 7090 21ST AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the city has received an application for an On-Sale Liquor and Sunday License from Edgar Alcocer, dba/Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar located at 7090 21st Avenue North; and WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed said application and determined that the request meets the requirements of the City Code and Minnesota State Statutes for the type of licenses requested; and WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department of the City of Lino Lakes has conducted an investigation of the applicant, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has provided proof of insurance as required and paid the necessary fees; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves a new on-sale liquor and Sunday license for Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar subject to all the fees, provisions and conditions of the laws of the city, state and federal government and the applicant will comply with all said laws. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of November, 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 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Julie Bartell, City Clerk MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 06-17, Adding Chapter 616 to the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances, regarding Therapeutic Massage VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Municipalities in the State of Minnesota have regulatory authority and can license certain business activities in order to prevent public nuisance and protect the public welfare within their jurisdiction. BACKGROUND The business of therapeutic massage is occurring within the city. Therapeutic massage can be a legitimate form of health care and/or a maintenance technique for individuals. There is equal recognition, however, that there is the potential for illicit massage operations. Accordingly, in order to protect against the existence of illicit operations and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, including protection of the City’s legitimate massage therapists’ profession and reputation, staff recommends that it is necessary to regulate the business of therapeutic massage through a licensing process. Ordinance No. 06-17 would add language to the City Code that institutes a license requirement for both therapeutic massage businesses and individual massage therapists. The ordinance provides for the following process: -License application submitted to the City with payment of an established fee (to be included in fee schedule); - Application reviewed and a background check performed by Public Safety Department; - Recommendation on the issuance of a license, based on concurrence with the city’s regulations, forwarded by staff to the City Council for consideration; -License may be issued for a maximum of one year; issuance and renewal contingent upon meeting the conditions established in the ordinance including inspection of premises. If the ordinance is approved, the city will attempt to notify existing businesses (or individuals and will establish a specified period of time to apply for a license. RECOMMENDATION Consideration of the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 06-17, Adding Chapter 616 to the City Code relating to Therapeutic Massage. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 06-17 1st Reading: Publication: 2nd Reading: Effective: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 06-17 AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 616 RELATING TO THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE The City Council of Lino Lakes do ordain as follows: Section 1. That the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances be amended by adding thereto a new Chapter 616 to read as follows: CHAPTER 616. THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE 616.01 PURPOSE AND FINDINGS The purpose of this chapter is to regulate massage therapists and therapeutic massage businesses. Therapeutic massage businesses are subject to abuses that are contrary to the morals, health, safety and general welfare of the community. Control of these abuses requires efforts on the part of the City and its Public Safety Department. 616.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the terms defined in this section shall have the following meanings ascribed to them. Applicant: Any corporation, partnership, or other business or individual filing an application with the City seeking a massage therapist or therapeutic massage business license pursuant to this chapter. Client: An individual receiving therapeutic massage services. Department: The Public Safety Department. Director: The Director of the Public Safety Department or his or her duly-appointed designee. Employees: All employee s, agents, contractors, or other persons associated with a therapeutic massage business who spend a significant amount of time on the premises of a therapeutic massage business or who assist in or administer therapeutic massage services, whether or not on the premises. A self-employed massage therapist is considered to be an Employee for purposes of this chapter. Licensee: The holder of a license to operate a therapeutic massage business or work as a massage therapist. Massage Therapist: A person who practices or administers therapeutic massage services. Premises: The physical location(s) identified by the applicant where therapeutic massage services are to be administered, excluding hospitals, sanatoriums, rest homes, nursing homes, boarding homes, or other institutions for the hospitalization or care of human beings, duly licensed under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 144.50 through 144.69, and also excluding locations where therapeutic massages services are only sporadically administered, such as the homes of therapeutic massage clients. The home of a massage therapist where therapeutic massage services are regularly administered constitutes a licensed premises. Therapeutic Massage Business: Operation of a business that employs and/or contracts with massage therapists to administer therapeutic massage services for a fee, including self- employed massage therapists, and other than a hospital, sanatorium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home, or other institution for the hospitalization or care of human beings, duly licensed under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 144.50 through 144.69, whether or not the therapeutic massage services are rendered at the licensed premises. This does not include massage therapists working under the supervision of a licensed medical practitioner. Therapeutic Massage Services: The rubbing, stroking, kneading, tapping, or rolling of the body of another with the hands or objects for the exclusive purpose of physical fitness, relaxation, or beautification, and for no other purpose, including specified sexual activities defined in section 615.02 of this title. 616.03 LICENSE REQUIRED. Except as provided for by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.709, no individual shall practice, administer or provide therapeutic massage services to the public, and no corporation, partnership, other business or individual shall engage in the business of operating a therapeutic massage business as defined in Section 616.02 of this chapter, either exclusively or in connection with any other business enterprise, without first obtaining a license issued by the city. 616.04 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE; LICENSE FEE (1) Application. An application form for a massage therapist or therapeutic massage business license shall be made available by the City Clerk. In addition to the general licensing application requirements included in Section 601.02 of this Code, each written application for a massage therapist or therapeutic massage business license shall contain the following: (a) If the application is made on behalf of a corporation, partnership, or other business, it shall be accompanied by appropriate business records showing the names and addresses of all individuals having a pecuniary interest in the business and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of the officers and shareholders. (b) If the applicant intends to utilize a Premises to provide therapeutic massage services, applicant shall furnish to the city the address of the Premises and the city zoning designation for the Premises, as well as the applicant’s interest in the Premises, such as a lease, deed, or contract for deed. If the application is by a natural person, it shall be signed and sworn to by that person; if by a corporation, by one of the officers; if by a partnership, by one of the partners, and if by an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof. (c) Personal history form(s) providing information to the Department for the purpose of conducting a background check on all anticipated Employees and the individuals identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter. (d) Verification that all Employees anticipated to perform therapeutic massage services on behalf of the therapeutic massage business are certified or have experience defined in Section 616.06, subd. 6 of this chapter. (2) License, Background and Miscellaneous Fees. A fee in the amount specified in the city’s ordinance establishing fees and charges shall be paid to the city along with the completed application form. In the event that the license is denied upon application, the license fee shall be refunded; however no part of the license investigation fee shall be returned to the applicant. No part of the annual license fee shall be refunded if the license is suspended, revoked, or discontinued. The initial license fee may be prorated. The licensee shall be responsible for any city costs in enforcing the license provisions including but not limited to re-inspection fees and attorney fees. (3) Establishment Licensing/Individual Licensing. An applicant may apply for both a therapeutic massage business license and massage therapist licenses for its Employees. (4) License Term; Renewal. Each license shall be issued for a maximum period of one year. Each license may be renewed only by making application as provided in Section 616.04 of this chapter. All licenses expire on June 30 of each year. 616.05 CONDITIONS GOVERNING ISSUANCE; APPLICANT DATA The city has established the following conditions governing the issuance of massage therapist and therapeutic massage business licenses. The city is empowered to conduct any and all investigations to verify applicant data, including ordering a computerized criminal history inquiry and/or a driver's license/identification history inquiry on the applicant, anticipated Employees, and all individuals identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter. The City Council shall consider the issuance of a license to an applicant within 30 days after receipt of an application unless one or more of the following, or any of the conditions in Section 616.06, are found to be true: (1) The applicant is under 18 years of age. (2) The applicant is delinquent in his or her payments to the city of taxes, fees, fines or penalties assessed against him or her. (3) The applicant has failed to provide information reasonably necessary for issuance of the license or has falsely answered a question or request for information on the application form. (4) The applicant is unable to provide photo identification issued by a federal, state or territory of the United States of America. This includes a valid passport, state-issued driver’s license, or other official form of identification (5) The Premises has not been approved for occupancy and use by the appropriate city personnel or is not in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances. (6) The license fee required by this chapter has not been paid. 616.06 CONDITIONS GOVERNING ISSUANCE; APPLICANT AND OTHER DATA If the applicant meets the criteria in Section 616.05, the City Council shall consider the issuance of a license to an applicant within 30 days after receipt of an application unless any one of the following apply to the applicant, its anticipated Employees, or any of the individuals identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter: (1) Conviction of a felony within five (5) years of the date an application for a license is filed with the city. (2) Conviction of any sexually oriented crime or ordinance violation, including, but not limited to, Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.321-.324, 617.241, 617.293-.294, 617.246-.247, 617.23, 609.342-.345, 609.365, or criminal attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the foregoing offenses within five (5) years of the date an application for a license is filed with the city. (3) Has been determined to have engaged in any conduct prohibited by Minnesota Statutes Section 146A.08, as it may be amended from time to time, within five (5) years of the date an application for a license is filed with the city. (4) Under requirement to register as a predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes Section 243.166, or any similar law in Minnesota or elsewhere, within ten (10) years. (5) Have had a massage therapist or therapeutic massage business denied or revoked of a massage therapist license by a state, city or other licensing authority within five (5) years. (6) Has been ordered to pay civil penalties by a state, city or other licensing authority within five (5) years. (7) Cannot provide proof of their eligibility to work in the United States. (8) Fail to meet one of the following criteria: (a) Current certification from National Certification Board for therapeutic Massage and Bodywork; or (b) Membership with the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) or Associated Bodywork and Massage Professionals (ABMP); or (c) Graduation from an educational institution which is either registered with the MN Higher Education Office, or recognized by one of the accredited professional associations listed above, is a member of AMTA or ABMP. With respect to (1)-(8) of this Section, a pending appeal shall have no effect on the determination whether to issue a license. 616.07 RESTRICTIONS ON LICENSE; REGULATIONS (1) Inspection. No therapeutic massage business that operates out of a Premises shall be granted a license or renewal of a license without passing a city inspection to determine compliance with this chapter. Compliance shall be determined in accordance requirements set forth in Section 616.08 of this chapter. (2) Minors. No person shall give, or assist in the giving, of any therapeutic massage services to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years, unless the parent or guardian of such minor person has consented thereto in writing. (3) List of Services. The licensee or a designated Employee or individual identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter shall post or provide to the client a list of services available and the cost of each. No massage therapist shall offer or perform any service other than those posted or listed. (4) Complementary and Alternative Health Care Client Bill Of Rights. Prior to providing therapeutic massage services, the licensee or a designated Employee or individual identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter must provide clients with the complementary and alternative health care client bill of rights as stated by Minnesota Statutes, must have the client sign a written statement attesting that the client has received the statement, and must comply with all other requirements of state law in chapter 146A or other applicable law. The licensee or a designated Employee or individual identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter must post a copy as required by law and ensure compliance with the statutory provisions. (5) Compliance with Law. The licensee, Employees, and individuals identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter shall comply with applicable ordinances, regulations, and laws of the city, the state of Minnesota, and the United States. (6) Hours of Operation. Massage therapists shall not perform therapeutic massage services nor shall clients be permitted on a Premises between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. (7) Posting of License. The license, if granted, shall state on its face the name of the licensee, the expiration date, and the address of the Premises. The license shall be posted in a conspicuous place at or near the entrance to Premises so that it may be easily read at any time. Transient individual massage therapists must provide a copy of their current license when performing therapeutic massage services within the city upon request. (8) Transfer of License Prohibited. A licensee shall not transfer his or her license to another, nor shall a licensee change the location of a Premises under authority of a license without providing the city with notice of a change in location prior to such a change occurring. (9) Windows. The exterior windows of the commercial Premises must not be one hundred percent (100%) opaque during hours that the Premises is open for business, except for windows in massage rooms and restrooms. (10) Advertising. No licensee shall advertise through any media that is classified for adults only or for sexually oriented business or similar classification, or use any advertising that refers to therapeutic massage services as appealing to or satisfying an erotic or prurient interest, lust, sexual or passionate desire. (11) Clients. Clients shall at all times have his/her anus, intergluteal cleft (buttocks crease) and genitals covered with clothing or properly draped with nontransparent material. The person who is receiving massage therapy of the breast or buttocks (gluteal) shall have the breast or buttock (gluteal muscle) that is not then immediately receiving massage therapy properly covered and draped with nontransparent material. 616.08 INSPECTION. (1) Inspection Access. The applicant or licensee shall permit the Director or his/her authorized representative to inspect the Premises for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the law, at any time the therapeutic massage business is occupied or open for business. (2) Requirements. The applicant and licensee shall meet the following requirements: (a) A therapeutic massage business must take reasonable steps to prevent the spread of infections and communicable diseases on the Premises. (b) Premises must be equipped with adequate and conveniently located toilet room(s) for the accommodation of its Employees and Clients. The toilet room(s) must be well ventilated by natural or mechanical methods and be enclosed with a door. The toilet room(s) must be kept clean and in good repair and be fully and adequately illuminated. (c) A therapeutic massage business must provide single service disposal paper or clean linens to cover the table, chair, furniture or area on which the Client receives the therapeutic massage services and must be sanitized after each administration of therapeutic massage services. (d) Therapeutic massage tables, chairs or furniture on which the Client receives therapeutic massage services must have surfaces that can be readily cleaned and disinfected after each massage. (e) The massage therapist must wash his or her hands and arms with water and soap, antibacterial scrubs, alcohol or other disinfectants prior to and following each administration of therapeutic massage services. (f) Rooms in a Premises must be fully and adequately illuminated. (g) A Premises must have a janitor's closet that provides for the storage of cleaning supplies. (h) Premises must provide adequate refuse receptacles. (i) Premises must be maintained in good repair and sanitary condition. (j) Premises must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 144.411 et seq. (k) Any massage therapist shall at all times be dressed professionally. 616.09 GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. (1) Suspension. The City Council may suspend a license for a period not to exceed thirty (60) days if it is determined that a licensee, an Employee, or an individual identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter: (a) Violated any provisions of this chapter; (b) Engaged in excessive use of alcoholic beverages or use of illegal drugs while on the Premises, or prior to or while administering therapeutic massage services; (c) Refused to allow an inspection of the Premises as authorized by this chapter; (d) Demonstrated inability to operate or manage the therapeutic massage business in a peaceful and law abiding manner thus necessitating action by law enforcement officers; (2) Revocation. The City Council may revoke a license if a cause of suspension in Subdivision 1 of this section occurs and the license has been suspended within the preceding twelve (12) months, or if any of the following are true: (a) A licensee gave false or misleading information in the material submitted during the application process. (b) A licensee, Employee, or individual identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter knowingly allowed illegal possession, use, or sale of controlled substances on the Premises. (c) A licensee, Employee, or individual identified in Section 616.04, subd. 1(a) of this chapter knowingly operated the therapeutic massage business during a period of time when the licensee's license was suspended. (d) A licensee is convicted of any offense listed in Section 616.06 of this chapter, or if any subdivision (3), (5), or (6) of Section 616.06 are true. (e) A licensee permits an Employee to perform therapeutic massage services for the therapeutic massage business, when the licensee knows that that person has been charged or convicted of any offense listed in Section 616.06 of this chapter, or, with respect to that person, if any of subdivisions (3), (5), or (6) of Section 616.06 are true. (e) The licensee is delinquent in his or her payments to the city of taxes, fees, fines or penalties assessed against him or her. (3) Conviction Appeal. A pending appeal of a conviction shall have no effect on the, or an appeal of anything in subdivisions (3), (5) or (6) of Section 616.06, shall have no bearing on the suspension or revocation. (3) No license shall be suspended or revoked unless the licensee has been given written notice and a public hearing. The notice shall give at least ten days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee. The City Council may, without any advance notice or hearing, suspend any license pending a hearing on revocation for a period not exceeding 15 days. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this ____ day of __________________, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was introduced by Council Member_____________and was duly seconded by Council Member ___________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ____________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4A STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Swenson, Public Safety Director MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Acceptance of Monetary Donation to Lino Lakes Public Safety Canine Unit VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The Lino Lakes Public Safety Department is requesting council approval to accept a donation of $500.00 from Jeanne Mayer. BACKGROUND On November 14, 2017 staff received a check in the amount of $500.00 from a Lino Lakes resident to the Lino Lakes Public Safety Police Division Canine Unit. The donor stipulated that the donation be used for the police canine unit. If acceptance of this donation is approved the donated funds will be deposited in the Police Canine fund for the purchase of a police canine and subsequent training and certifications. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of acceptance of the $500.00 donation from Jeanne Mayer for the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department’s Canine Unit. ATTACHMENTS None CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4B STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Swenson, Public Safety Director MEETING DATE: November 27, 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 Brian Gustafson for the position of paid on-call firefighter effective December 11, 2017 ATTACHMENTS None 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-130 Approving a Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width for 41 Century Trail VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council to consider Resolution No. 17-130 approving a variance for curb cut/driveway width for 41 Century Trail. Complete Application Date: October 12, 2017 60-Day Review Deadline: December 11, 2017 120-Day Review Deadline: February 9, 2018 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 8, 2017 City Council Work Session: November 27, 2017 City Council Meeting: November 27, 2017 BACKGROUND The property owner of 41 Century Trail, Colleen Flaherty Reyes, submitted a Land Use Application for a curb cut/driveway width variance. She is requesting a curb cut width of 28 feet be allowed. City ordinance allows for a maximum 26 foot curb cut/driveway width. ANALYSIS Earlier this summer, the property owner made improvements to their driveway without a permit. The driveway was resurfaced and widen to 28 feet all the way to the curb. Per Section 1007.044(3)(h): 7. Curb Cut/Driveway Width. No curb cut shall exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width within a residential zoning district, or thirty-six (36) feet in width if the property is in a commercial, industrial, or public/semi-public zoning district, as measured at the street right-of- 2 way line unless approved by the City Engineer. The driveway associated with such curb cut may increase in width at an angle not greater than forty-five (45) degrees. Attachment 3 is a Driveway Exhibit depicting a 26 foot wide curb cut and 45 degree angle. The property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development for an urban residential subdivision. The City Engineer does not approve widening of the curb cut. The property owner would be required to cut out a 40 square foot concrete section of the driveway. They are requesting a variance instead of having to cut out a section of the driveway. Findings of Fact Resolution No. 17-130 details the findings of fact. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended denial of the variance. The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed the variance application on November 8, 2017 and recommended approval with a 3-2 vote. Resolution No. 17-130 approves of a variance to allow for a 28 foot wide curb cut/driveway width at 41 Century Trail. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location & Aerial Map 2. Certificate of Survey with Dimensions 3. Driveway Exhibit 4. Resolution No. 17-130 0 50 10025 Feet 4848 4747 5454 77567756 3535 4141 77627762 PP II NN TT OOLL NN CCEENNTTUURRYYTTRRLLAerial Map41 Century Trail µDate: 1 0/31/2017 DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STREET A 26' RIGHT OF WAY LINE PROPERTY LINEDRIVEWAYPROPERTY LINECURB CURB CUT WIDTH AT RIGHT OF WAY LINE: 26 FT. MAXIMUM IF RESIDENTIAL 36 FT. MAXIMUM IF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY MAY INCREASE AT AN $1*/(127*5($7(57+$1ƒ Sept. 2013 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-130 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR CURB CUT/DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR 41 CENTURY TRAIL WHEREAS, the City received a land use application for a variance for curb cut/driveway width for 41 Century Trail; and WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is Lot 14, Block 2, Century Farm North, Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development for an urban residential subdivision and allows for driveways in residential zoning districts; and WHEREAS, Section 1007.044(3)(h)7 states no curb cut shall exceed 26 feet in width within a residential zoning district as measured at the street right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the property owner reconstructed the driveway and curb cut to 28 feet wide at the street right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Board reviewed the variance application on November 8, 2017 and recommended approval with a 3-2 vote. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria. 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and to promote the safety and general welfare of the public, by establishing minimum requirements for off-street parking of motor vehicles upon various parcels of land or structures. The variance to allow for a 28 foot curb cut/ driveway width is harmonious with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2 Per the Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided for Low Density Residential land use. The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant’s property is intended for single family dwellings with houses, garages and driveways. 3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; however, there is no practical difficulty in complying with the required 26 foot curb cut/driveway width. 4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner was created by the landowner installing a driveway without a permit. There are no unique circumstances to the property causing them to not be able to comply with the ordinance. 5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality which is a single family residential neighborhood with houses, garages and driveways. 6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. The variance will not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district. The property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development for a residential subdivision and driveways are consistent with residential uses. 7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. Not applicable. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves a variance to allow for a 28 foot wide curb cut/driveway width for 41 Century Trail. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of November, 2017. 3 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: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-131 Approving a Variance to Allow for the Minor Subdivision of a Portion of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration for approval of a variance to allow for the minor subdivision of a portion of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North. Complete Application Date: October 27, 2017 60-Day Review Deadline: December 26, 2017 120-Day Review Deadline: February 24, 2018 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 8, 2017 City Council Work Session: December 4, 2017 City Council Meeting: December 11, 2017 BACKGROUND Ms. Garcia owns a portion of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North that abuts 3 parcels along Carl Street. She lives at 345 Carl Street. Ms. Garcia would like to subdivide the outlot into 3 parcels so they can be combined with the existing 3 parcels and eliminate the outlot all together. A minor subdivision and variance are required. ANALYSIS Outlot A, Lino Air Park North was platted in 1977. This portion of the outlot is 2 feet wide and 1,283.33 feet long and runs along the north side of Carl Street. These types of parcels are commonly referred to as “spite strips”. This outlot came to staff’s attention when working with Randy Rennaker. Mr. Rennaker was interested in purchasing the vacant parcel east of 345 Carl Street (PID #07-31-22-14-0005) and the residential parcel at 7801 4th Avenue (PID #07-31-22-14-0004) from Richard and Jean 2 Goldade. Mr. Rennaker wishes to construct a single family home on the vacant parcel and sell 7801 4th Avenue. The vacant parcel is a substandard unsewered lot of record. Per Section 1007.042(1): (d) Any substandard unsewered lot of record existing at the effective date of this Ordinance and held in separate ownership different from the ownership of adjoining lots may be used for the erection of a structure conforming to the use regulations of this Ordinance provided that: 1. The lot was a separate parcel with its own parcel identification number on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. 2. It can be demonstrated that the lot can accommodate the proposed principal structure, onsite well if the public water system is not available, and an onsite wastewater treatment system including both a primary and secondary drain field area in accordance with MN Stat. 7080 and other applicable requirements. 3. The lot has direct frontage on an improved public street which has been accepted for maintenance by the City of Lino Lakes. 4. All building and site improvements adhere to all required setbacks. Unfortunately, the vacant parcel cannot be built upon because it does meet criteria #3 above. The vacant lot does not have direct frontage on an improved public street because the 2 foot wide outlot exists between the lot and the public street. Minor Subdivision & Variance To create a buildable lot, Outlot A, Lino Air Park North will be subdivided into 3 parcels (Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C). These outlot parcels will then be combined with their respective whole parcels (345 Carl Street, the vacant parcel and 7801 4th Avenue). The vacant parcel will then have direct frontage on Carl Street. Zoning and Subdivision Requirements The parcels are zoned R, Rural. The outlot parcel sizes are as follows: Required per R, Rural Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C Min. Lot Size 10 acres 1,316 sf (0.03 acres) 658 sf (0.02 acres) 592 sf 0.01 acres) Min. Lot Width 330 feet 658.18 329.09 296.06 3 Variances are required because Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C do not meet the zoning requirements in regards to lot size and lot width. The new lot sizes after combining the current lot with the outlot parcel are as follows: 345 Carl Street Vacant Parcel 7801 4th Avenue Current Lot Size 9.97 acres 4.98 acre 4.48 acres Outlot Parcel 0.03 acres 0.02 acres 0.01 acres TOTAL Lot Size 10.0 acres 5.00 acres 4.49 acres The combined lot sizes remain consistent with the rurally zoned properties in the surrounding area. Carl Street is platted with 66 feet of right-of-way along this section and will not be affected by the minor subdivision or variance. Road Easement Document #713024 conveys to the public a 50 foot wide permanent easement for street and utility purposes along 4th Avenue. The surveyor verified the road easement covers that portion of Outlot A and it will not be affected. Findings of Fact Resolution No. 17-131 details the findings of fact. RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed the variance application on November 8, 2017 and recommended approval with a 5-0 vote. Resolution No. 17-130 approves a variance to allow for the minor subdivision of a portion of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. Minor Subdivision Survey 3. Resolution No. 17-130 0 200 400100 Feet 78397839 77797779 78297829 78617861 78707870 398398384384346346368368360360 423423 426426 345345 78017801 390390352352 78407840 376376336336 C A R L S TCARL S T 4TH AVE4TH AVESHERWOOD LNSHERWOOD LN Aerial Map µDate: 11 /1/2017 345 Carl Street VacantParcel 7801 4thAvenue Outlot A 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-131 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF OUTLOT A, LINO AIR PARK NORTH WHEREAS, the City received a land use application for a variance to allow for the minor subdivision of a portion of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North; and WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is that part of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North, Anoka County, Minnesota lying in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Outlot A, Lino Air Park North was platted in 1977. It is 2 feet wide and runs along the north side of a section of Carl Street; and WHEREAS, there is a vacant substandard unsewered lot along Carl Street that abuts Outlot A; and WHEREAS, Section 1007.042(1)(d) states that any substandard unsewered lot may be used for the erection of a structure if the lot has direct frontage on an improved public street; and WHEREAS, the vacant parcel cannot be built upon because it does not have direct frontage on an improved street because a portion of Outlot A lies between the vacant parcel and Carl Street; and WHEREAS, to create a buildable lot, Outlot A will be subdivided into 3 parcels and these parcels will be combined with their respective whole parcels; and WHEREAS, variances are required because the newly created parcels do not meet the zoning requirements in regards to lot size and lot width. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria. 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2 The general purpose and intent of the R, Rural ordinance is to aid in guiding development toward fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance by eliminating an unbuildable outlot and combining 3 parcels with existing rurally zoned parcels. 2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided for Low Density Residential land use. The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The newly created parcels will remain rurally zoned and allow for the construction of single family detached dwelling on the vacant parcel. 3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner by eliminating an unbuildable outlot and creating 1 buildable rural lot for the purpose of constructing 1 single family home. 4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner was not created by the landowner. Outlot A, Lino Air Park North was platted in 1977 by another property owner. 5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The surrounding area is a rural residential neighborhood. 6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. The variance will not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district. The property is zoned R, Rural and single family detached dwellings are permitted uses. 7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. 3 Not applicable. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves lot size and lot widths variances to allow for the minor subdivision of a portion of Outlot A, Lino Air Park North into Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C subject to the following conditions: 1. The newly created parcels shall be combined with the respective parcels. a. Parcel A shall be combined with PID #07-31-22-14-0001. b. Parcel B shall be combined with PID #07-31-22-14-0005. c. Parcel C shall be combined with PID #07-31-22-14-0004. 2. Proof these parcels were combined with Anoka County shall be provided prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. A building permit shall be required prior to any construction on the vacant parcel. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of November, 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 6C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-132 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for St. Joseph of the Lakes Church Rectory VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for St. Joseph of the Lakes Church Rectory. Complete Application Date: October 5, 2017 60-Day Review Deadline: December 4, 2017 120-Day Review Deadline: February 2, 2018 Environmental Board Meeting: October 25, 2017 Park Board Meeting: N/A Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 8, 2017 Tentative City Council Work Session: November 27, 2017 Tentative City Council Meeting: November 27, 2017 BACKGROUND St. Joseph of the Lakes Church is proposing to construct a 2,000 sf single family home on their property to be used for the pastor’s residence/church rectory building. The property address is 171 Elm Street. ANALYSIS St. Joseph of the Lakes owns 3 parcels totaling approximately 22 acres. In November 1995, Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the church to construct a 35,000 sf addition to the building. The church currently owns the single family home located at 202 Elm Street and it is used as the pastor’s residency. This property is being sold. Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and allows for churches (Public, Educational and Religious Buildings) with a conditional use permit. Any change involving a structural enlargement of the facility requires an amendment to the conditional use permit 2 Current Zoning R-1, Single Family Residential Current Land Use HOW- House of Worship Future Land Use per CP Low Density Residential Utility Staging Area 1A (2008-2015) Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Medium Density Residential East R-1, Single Family Rural Residential Low Density Residential South R-1, Single Family Single Family Residential Low Density Residential West R-4, High Density Multi-Family Medium Density Residential Site and Building Plan Review Site Plan The 3 parcel site is approximately 22 acres. On site improvements include the church, accessory buildings, parking lot, outdoor pavilion and cemetery. The church rectory/single family home is proposed to be constructed on the west side of the parking lot and accessed from the existing west driveway. There will be no new access onto Elm Street. Building Setback (feet) Required per R-1 Proposed From Collector Streets 40 feet 65 feet Rear Yard 30 feet 600 feet Side Yard 50a feet 213.9 feet a50 foot side yard setback required per R-1 Conditional Use Permit criteria. Setback requirements are met. The church rectory/single family home has a main floor area of 1,929 sf and has 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. The porch, patio and garage area is 1,177 sf for a total building footprint of 3,106 sf. It is a single level, slab on grade home. The exterior will be vinyl siding with brick accents on the façade. Siding color will be neutral in color with taupe/earth tones to compliment the other structures on campus. 3 The November 8, 2017 Planning & Zoning Staff Report noted that PID # 18-31-22-34-0002 and PID # 18-31-22-34-0012 shall be combined. These parcels were combined at Anoka County on November 17, 2017. Grading Plan and Stormwater Management This project proposes to construct 4,356± sf of new impervious surface area. The area of the proposed church rectory/single family drains to the southwest to a 15” storm sewer pipe. The City Engineer has reviewed the site plan and does not see any issues. Detailed grading plans will be submitted and reviewed with the building permit application. A stormwater maintenance agreement is not required. Public Utilities The site is served by municipal 16” watermain and 24” sanitary sewer main along Willow Pond Trail. The proposed church rectory/single family house will hook-up to the existing 8” watermain service and 6” sanitary sewer service located north of the house. These utilities have capacity to handle one single family home. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Plan A 50 foot wide tree stand exists along the west property line and will not be disturbed by construction. Other significant trees (spruce, maples, elm) are noted on the survey near the location of the proposed single family home and they will not be disturbed. Canopy cover, foundation landscaping, open area landscaping or boulevard trees will not be required. Architectural Plans and Exterior Building Materials The church rectory/single family home meets the requirements of Section 1007.043(2)(a) regarding Building Type and Construction for Single Family Dwellings. The church rectory/single family home has a main floor area of 1,929 sf and has 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. The porch, patio and garage area is 1,177 sf for a total building footprint of 3,106 sf. It is a single level, slab on grade home. The exterior will be vinyl siding with brick accents on the façade. Siding color will be neutral in color with taupe/earth tones to compliment the other structures on campus. Signage No new signage is proposed. Impervious Surface Coverage Pre-Development Post-Development Impervious 6.58 acres (36.9%) 6.68 acres (37.5%) Pervious 11.24 acres (63.1%) 11.14 acres (62.5%) 4 TOTAL AREA 17.82 acres 17.82 acres In the R-1, Single Family District, the impervious surface of the property shall not exceed 40%. The proposed post-development impervious surface coverage is 37.5% impervious. This requirement is met. Public Land Dedication No land dedication or cash in lieu of land dedication shall be required for the church rectory/single family home. Comprehensive Plan Resource Management System The Resource Management System Plan goal of preserving surface water quality is supported by the implementation of stormwater management practices such as grading, erosion and sediment control during construction, on site stormwater management and low floor- groundwater separation. Land Use Plan The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Low Density Residential. The proposed church and church rectory/single family home construction is consistent with the designated land use and residential neighborhood. Housing Plan The goals and policies of Housing Plan are not negatively impacted by the construction of the church rectory/single family house. Transportation Plan Goals of the Transportation Plan are to ensure that street and roads are as safe as possible and to reduce unnecessary traffic. The church is accessed via Elm Street and there will be no change to the existing driveways for the church rectory/single family house. Elm Street is a major collector road and no impacts to the traffic levels of service are anticipated. Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Plan The site is served by municipal 12” watermain and 8” sanitary sewer main along Elm Street. The proposed church rectory/single family house will hook-up to the existing 8” watermain service and 6” sanitary sewer service located north of the house. These utilities have capacity to handle one single family home. Wetlands There are no wetlands on site. 5 Floodplain There is no floodplain on site. Shoreland District The parcels are not within a Shoreland District. AUAR The parcels are not within the I-35E AUAR corridor. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement A Stormwater Maintenance Agreement is not required. Site Improvement Performance Agreement A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is not required. Conditional Use Permit-Findings of Fact Council Resolution No. 17-132 details the findings of fact. Planning and Zoning Board The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on November 9, 2017. There were no public comments. The Board recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the stipulation that Condition #2 on the November 8, 2017 Planning & Zoning Board staff report be omitted. Condition #2 stated that “The single family home/church rectory is accessory to the church and shall only be occupied by members of the church.” RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Board recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for St. Joseph of the Lakes Church Rectory with conditions listed in Resolution No. 17-132. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. Certificate of Survey 3. Architectural Rectory Plans 4. Resolution No. 17-132 0 200 400100 Feet Rectory §¨¦I-35W 72907290 72867286 72887288 72817281 72757275 7271727172777277 193193 171171 72937293 72877287 7281728172807280 72797279 72737273 72827282 72877287 72807280 72837283 72857285 ELM STELM ST SUNRISE DRSUNRISE DRMOURNING DOVE RDMOURNING DOVE RD2ND AVE2ND AVERICE LAKE DRRICE LAKE DRLLEEAACCTTWW IILL LL OO WW PP OO NN DD TT RR LL Aerial Map171 Elm Street µ E. G. RUD & SONS, INC. Professional Land SurveyorsEST. 1977 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361−8200 Fax (651) 361−8701 www.egrud.com NORTH BENCHMARK 17539HS CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~for~ ST. JOSEPH OF THE LAKES ~of~ 171 Elm Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 HOUSE DETAIL NOTES TREE DETAIL O A K 2 0 -2 9 5 0 .2 6 LEGEND PARCEL A DESCRIPTION:PARCEL B DESCRIPTION:IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE EXISTING: PROPOSED: 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-132 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. JOSEPH OF THE LAKES CHURCH RECTORY WHEREAS, on October 5, 2017 the City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit for St. Joseph of the Lakes Church Rectory and hereafter referred to as “Development”; and WHEREAS, the property address is 171 Elm Street, Lino Lakes, MN; and WHEREAS, the legal description of the subject site is: PID #18-31-22-34-0002: THAT PRT OF E1/2 OF W1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC 18 TWP 31 RGE 22 LYG SELY OF I-35W, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC; and PID #18-31-22-34-0012: THAT PRT OF E1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC 18 TWP 31 RGE 22 LYG SELY OF I 35 W, EX PRT PLATTED AS ST JOSEPH CEMETARY, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC; and WHEREAS, St. Joseph of the Lakes Church is proposing to construct a 2,000 sf single family home on their property to be used for the pastor’s residence/church rectory building; and WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and allows for churches (Public, Educational and Religious Buildings) with a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, in November 1995, Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the church to construct a 35,000 sf addition to the building; and WHEREAS, any change involving a structural enlargement of the facility requires an amendment to the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on November 8, 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: 2 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: a. Land Use Plan. b. Transportation Plan. c. Utility (Sewer and Water) Plans. d. Local Water Management Plan. e. Capital Improvement Plan. f. Policy Plan. g. Natural Environment Plan. The proposed construction of a church rectory/single family home for the pastor’s residence is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed development application is compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The proposed construction of a church rectory/single family home for the pastor’s residence is compatible with present and future land uses. The current land use to the north across I-35W are townhomes, to the south are single family homes, to the west are townhomes and to the east are single family homes. 3. The proposed development application conforms to performance standards herein and other applicable City Codes. The proposed construction of a church rectory/single family home for the pastor’s residence meets zoning performance standards of the General Building and Use Provisions and R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district. 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. 3 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 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. The church rectory/single family home will utilize the existing west driveway egressing/ingressing onto Elm Street. The church rectory/single family home will not generate any excess traffic or change the level of service. Elm Street has structural capacity to accommodate one new single family home. 5. The proposed development shall be served with adequate and safe water supply. The site is served by municipal water that can accommodate the demands of a new church rectory/single family home. 6. The proposed development shall be served with an adequate and safe sanitary sewer system. The site is served by municipal sanitary sewer that can accommodate the demands of a new church rectory/single family home. 4 7. The proposed development shall not result in the premature expenditures of City funds on capital improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. No City funds are being expended on this project. 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 construction of a church rectory/single family home for the pastor’s residence is an allowed use within the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district with an approved conditional use permit. The addition will not generate excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 9. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. There are no natural, scenic or historic features on the existing site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby makes the following: In addition to the administrative requirements of a conditional use permit, the following specific performance standards of Section 1007.090(9)(d) are also met: 1. Side yard setbacks shall not be less than fifty (50) feet. The side yard setback of the proposed single family home is 214 feet from the west property line and 600+ feet from the east property line. 2. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with §1007.043 (17) of this Ordinance. The proposed construction of a single family home for the pastor’s residence is located on the west side of the existing church parking lot. Landscape screening exists along the west property line. No additional screening is required. 3. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with §1007.044 of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with §1007.043 (17) this Ordinance. The proposed single family home has a 3 stall garage and 30 foot long driveway that will provide adequate off-street parking. 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the conditional use permit for St. Joseph of the Lakes church rectory at 171 Elm Street with the following conditions: 1. The single family home/church rectory shall be connected to municipal sanitary sewer and watermain. Applicable fees shall apply. 2. A building permit is required prior to construction. 3. All comments from the WSB City Engineer letter dated November 2, 2017 shall be addressed. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of November, 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 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee and Katy Thompson, City Engineers MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17- 127, Approving Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting council consideration to approve the Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. BACKGROUND The Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project is in the northeast area of Lino Lakes bounded by Main Street to the south, the City of Hugo to the east, Peltier Lake to the west, and Rehbein Street to the north. The site is approximately 1,350 acres and is largely agricultural or undeveloped within the City of Lino Lakes. The surface water in this area is effectively landlocked, with the only the aging agricultural field drains, installed in the early 20th century, providing drainage in the region. These agricultural drains are at capacity and unable to meet the demands of future development within the watershed, consistent with the City of Lino Lake’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As allowed under Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Rule C.5(f), this Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) is presented as an alternative means to meet the requirements of Rule C.6 (Water Quality Treatment) and Rule C.7 (Peak Stormwater Runoff Control) for future development in this area, anticipated to be completed in several phases, using a regional stormwater management approach. The CSMP identifies RCWD permit approvals for future development in the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement area, provide landowners with options for managing their stormwater runoff in the future, and provide a framework to distribute future regional treatment benefits and requirements amongst future developments, so no single project is burdened with more challenges in meeting the RCWD requirements. Once approved by the City Council the CSMP will be submitted the RCWD for their review and approval. Katy Thompson of WSB will be present to go through the plan with Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 17- 127, Approving Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-127 2. Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-127 APPROVING NORTHEAST LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the Feasibility Study related to the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Study on June 6, 2016. The study identified the need to develop a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) to convey surface water from land lying north of Main Street between the City of Hugo and Peltier Lake consisting of approximately 1,350 acres; and WHEREAS, a CSMP is allowed under Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Rule C.5f, as an alternative to meet the requirements of Rule C.6 for water quality treatment and Rule C.7 for peak stormwater runoff control; and WHEREAS, the CSMP identifies RCWD permit approvals for future development in the northeast Lino Lakes drainage improvement area. It provides landowners options for managing stormwater runoff in the future, and provides a context for distributing future regional treatment benefits and requirements amongst future developments with uniform permitting; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan be approved to provide management for surface water within the designated improvement area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is hereby authorized to submit the CSMP to the Rice Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 13th day of November, 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 NORTHEAST LINO LAKES DRAINAGE AREA COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Draft October 19, 2017 Prepared for: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 WSB PROJECT NO. 02029-790 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Drainage Areas and Resources of Concern ................................................................................. 2 1.3 Water Resources Design Criteria.................................................................................................. 3 1.3.1 Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan .............................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 Northeast Lino Lakes Alternative Urban Areawide Review ...................................................... 3 1.3.3 Resource Management Plan (RMP) ......................................................................................... 3 1.3.4 Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) .................................................................................. 4 1.3.5 Regulations and Policies ........................................................................................................... 4 1.3.6 Regulatory Requirement Overview ........................................................................................... 5 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 City of Hugo................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 City of Lino Lakes .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Existing Land Uses ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Soils and Geology ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Groundwater.................................................................................................................................. 7 2.6 Surface Water Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 7 2.6.1 I-35E Construction..................................................................................................................... 7 2.6.2 Drain tile systems ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.6.3 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 8 2.7 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 8 3 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC Analyses ........................................................................................ 9 3.1 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Upper Rice Creek ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Clearwater Creek ........................................................................................................................ 11 3.4 Hardwood Creek ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.5 Rice Creek HEC-RAS ................................................................................................................. 13 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 14 5 PROPOSED CONDITIONS MODELS ................................................................................................. 15 5.1 Hydrology Updates ...................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Hydraulic Updates ....................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Upper Rice Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions ........................................................... 16 5.2.2 Clearwater Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions ............................................................ 17 5.2.3 Hardwood Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions ............................................................. 18 5.2.4 Rice Creek HEC-RAS – Proposed Conditions ........................................................................ 18 6 RCWD RULE C REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................... 19 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 6.1 Rule C Overview ......................................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Water Quality Treatment [RCWD Rule C.6] ................................................................................ 19 6.2.1 Volume Reduction Practices ................................................................................................... 20 6.2.2 NURP Basins .......................................................................................................................... 20 6.2.3 Additional BMPs for Consideration of Future Development ................................................... 21 6.3 Peak Stormwater Runoff Control [RCWD Rule C.7] ................................................................... 21 6.3.1 Allowable Peak Discharges ..................................................................................................... 21 6.3.2 Flood Control Storage ............................................................................................................. 21 6.3.3 Outlet Control Structures ......................................................................................................... 22 6.3.4 Low Floor and Low Entry Freeboard REquirements ............................................................... 22 7 CSMP STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 23 7.1 Regional BMP Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................ 23 7.2 Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 23 8 Future Development Submittals .......................................................................................................... 24 8.1 Interim Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 25 9 References ........................................................................................................................................... 26 List of Appendices Appendix A – Figures Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Existing Land Uses Figure 3. Drainage Areas and Resources of Concern Figure 4. Lino Lakes Full Build Land Use Figure 5. Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan Figure 6. Lino Lakes Park, Greenway and Trail System Figure 7. Lino Lakes I-35E AUAR Area Figure 8. CSMP Soils Figure 9. CSMP Surficial Geology Figure 10. InfoSWMM Model Updates Figure 11. Proposed InfoSWMM Model Figure 12. Infiltration Suitability Appendix B – Existing Modeling Inputs and Results Appendix C – CSMP Regional System Conceptual Design Appendix D – Proposed Modeling Inputs and Results Appendix E – Total Phosphorus Event Mean Loading Calculations Appendix F – CSMP Design Standards by Parcel Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project is in the northeast area of Lino Lakes bounded by Main Street to the south, the City of Hugo to the east, Peltier Lake to the west, and Rehbein Street to the north. The site is approximately 1,350 acres and is largely agricultural or undeveloped within the City of Lino Lakes. The surface water in this area is nearly landlocked, inhibiting site improvements and future development in line with the City of Lino Lakes’ 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The area was historically landlocked until the installation of agricultural field drains in the early 20th century. These agricultural drains are now at capacity and are incompatible with the proposed land uses within the watershed. In addition, these agricultural drains do not provide any water quality benefits to the receiving waterbody—Peltier Lake—an impaired water of the state. As allowed under Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Rule C.5(f), this Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) is presented as an alternative means to meet the requirements of Rule C.6 (Water Quality Treatment) and Rule C.7 (Peak Stormwater Runoff Control) for the development of this area, which will be done in several phases, using a regional stormwater system. This CSMP is intended to streamline RCWD permit approvals for future development in the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement area, as well as to distribute the regional treatment benefits amongst future developments, so no single project is burdened with more challenges in meeting the RCWD requirements. Projects in this area will conform to the design requirements in the CSMP detailed in Sections 6 through 8, or will be allowed to demonstrate how the stormwater runoff will be treated to meet the applicable Lino Lakes ordinances and current RCWD Rules and requirements. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 2 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Lino Lakes submits this CSMP to the RCWD for the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project. The goal of this CSMP is to document how future development within the project area will meet RCWD Rule C requirements using a regional stormwater management approach. This CSMP presents the approach for meeting the water quality treatment and peak stormwater runoff control requirements. The RCWD Rules adopted at the time of printing were effective on January 1, 2017. This CSMP documents the existing and proposed stormwater-related impacts for the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project. The main components of this plan include a detailed analysis of the existing site conditions and limitations, as well as a conceptual design of the proposed regional best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs have been modeled based on recently-submitted development plans, ghost plats and discussions with landowners. The goal of this plan is to document a conceptual design that will guide future development of the area, while alleviating stress on the existing drainage system, and meeting the intent of the RCWD Rules C.6 and C.7. 1.1 Project Location The Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project is in Anoka County primarily within the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, but includes portions of the City of Hugo. The site is a 1,350-acre area that is bounded by Main Street to the south, the City of Hugo to the east, Peltier Lake to the west, and Rehbein Street to the north (Figure 1, Appendix A). The City of Lino Lakes is the largest municipality by percentage of area within the RCWD and project site is located entirely within the RCWD boundary in the Middle Rice Creek planning region (RCWD 2016). Land use in this area is predominantly agricultural (Figure 2, Appendix A). Much of this watershed currently drains to the south to Clearwater Creek via field drains. Clearwater Creek is impaired for aquatic life and has had a history of significant bank erosion problems. Additional information and discussion of existing conditions is provided in Section 2. 1.2 Drainage Areas and Resources of Concern The CSMP area is located within the Clearwater Creek Drainage Area and the Peltier Lake Resource of Concern (RCWD Drainage System Data 2017) (Figure 3, Appendix A). The area is currently serviced by three Anoka County drainage systems: Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 72 in the north Judicial Ditch (JD) 2 in the north ACD 55 in the south ACD 72 and JD 2 discharge directly to Peltier Lake, while ACD 55 enters Clearwater Creek (also known as JD 3), to the south before discharging to Peltier Lake. The remainder of the study area surface flows directly to Peltier Lake. Peltier Lake has been listed as an impaired waterbody within the greater Anoka Chain of Lakes since 2002 for aquatic recreation, with the main pollutant identified as excess phosphorus from watershed runoff and internal loading (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2013). RCWD has an average total phosphorus concentration within the lake of 224 µg/L, average chlorophyll a of 107.0 µg/L, and a transparency of 1.0 meters, all indicating relatively opaque water and poor water quality (RCWD 2016). Additionally, the Anoka Chain of Lakes has limited flood storage capacity (Houston Engineering, Inc. 2013). Any improvements to the drainage system will need to show no adverse impacts to receiving waters, as defined below: No damage to structures, buildings, and infrastructure as a result of an increase in flooding (increased water surface elevations, velocities, or number of days of inundation); Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 3 No property damage or increased maintenance costs resulting from an increase in the amount of erosion, bank failure, or accelerated sedimentation; No decrease in water quality resulting from an increase in phosphorus and sediment loads; and No permanent loss of the use of flood storage volume during the flood peak within the Anoka Chain of Lakes. 1.3 Water Resources Design Criteria A number of documents, studies, and guidelines are already in place to guide the development within the CSMP study area. It is expected that portions of the study area may be developed by the Cities of Lino Lakes and Hugo, Anoka County, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and yet to be determined private developers. The following sections outline the supporting planning, studies and regulations, leading to the development of this CSMP, as well as regulatory agencies’ roles during development. 1.3.1 Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan The City of Lino Lakes’ 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Lino Lakes 2010) has defined the Land Use Plan (Figure 4, Appendix A) which was prepared in conjunction with the Resource Management System Plan (Figure 5, Appendix A), the City’s Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways and Trail System Plan (Figure 6, Appendix A), and the City’s Local Surface Water Management Plan to manage and protect community resources. As part of this process, the Land Use Plan was analyzed to determine impacts to the natural environment and identify appropriate mitigation measures, which are identified in the Resource Management System Plan. This process ensures that adequate infrastructure is in place to accommodate the community’s growth and that natural resources are protected. The ultimate purpose of this Land Use Plan is to implement the community vision developed by the Citizen Vision Committee, and to manage future growth in an efficient manner while protecting Lino Lakes’ valuable natural resource and community assets. The land use plan is in the process of being updated for the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. While it is not expected to change significantly, the Northeast Drainage area is expected to play a prominent role in the Local Surface Water Management Plan and the prioritization of future infrastructure funding. 1.3.2 Northeast Lino Lakes Alternative Urban Area wide Review The I-35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was a proactive, citizen driven environmental review process that comprehensively assessed the environmental impacts of development in a 4,600-acre growth area in the City (Figure 7, Appendix A) and was completed in 2005. The overarching goal of the whole project was to balance development with natural resource conservation. The result of the AUAR process was a Mitigation Plan that documents the actions the City will take to mitigate environmental impacts. The foundation of the Mitigation Plan is the Conservation Design Framework (CDF). The goals of the CDF are to: 1) Conserve the most ecologically significant natural resources within the AUAR area 2) Protect ecologically sensitive natural resources from adjacent land uses by through buffering 3) Connect ecologically significant resources via multifunctional greenway corridors - corridors for wildlife, trails, and surface water management features The AUAR defined Stormwater Management Areas to address stormwater issues by implementing an integrated system of bio-swales, wet prairie, and wetlands aligned in series to effectively reduce post- development runoff rates and volume, as well as to enhance water quality. 1.3.3 Resource Management Plan In partnership with RCWD, the City of Lino Lakes developed a Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide a watershed-based approach to wetland management and evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit applications. As part of the RMP, a Wetland Preservation Corridor was identified, linking high priority wetlands to enhance multiple wetland functions and reducing habitat fragmentation; it has been incorporated within this CSMP study. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 4 1.3.4 Special Area Management Plan Prepared for the City of Lino Lakes and the RCWD, this Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) facilitates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Clean Water Act Section 404 permit evaluations within the subwatersheds addressed by the SAMP and prioritizes future restoration projects and management of aquatic resources. Areas within the CSMP study area were identified as having medium to high restoration potential. It also recognized that the existing ACD 55 and ACD 72 tile systems are ineffective for traditional urban runoff volumes and were preliminarily scoped for wetland restoration and volume credits for future development. The Peltier RMU ACD 72 and ACD 55 tile systems scored second and third, respectively, of all preferred projects for their roles in urban runoff management and a conceptual restoration plan was developed. Due to the uncertain nature of future development, the SAMP suggested to wait until a more-concrete development plan was presented for the area (Lino Lakes 2010). 1.3.5 Regulations and Policies A great number of rules, ordinances, regulations and policies are expected to govern the development of land within the CSMP study area. The following is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but provide a summary of the prominent stormwater and flood control policies. 1.3.5.1 Main Street Shoppes RCWD Permits #13-029 and #13-040 In 2013, a landowner within the CSMP study area applied for a RCWD permit to develop an 18.5-acre lot located at the northeast corner of Main Street (CSAH 14) and Otter Lake Road in Lino Lakes. Under this permit, stormwater treatment was provided for the street development and a future commercial site. RCWD informed the applicant that the downstream drainage system (ACD 55 Branch 8) was constrained and under 2008 Rule C.5(d), adverse impact requirements must be met by one of the following methods: Meet the volume control standard of 1.1-inches over the proposed impervious surface (Rule C.6) and show no increase in runoff volume for the 2-year 24-hour event (6,511 cubic feet per Rule C.5(d)); or Reduce the peak runoff rate for the 2-year 24-hour design event to 0.03 cfs, as determined by the District Engineer (2008 Rule C.5(d) and Houston Engineering 2013), from the proposed 1.5 cfs. This would result in a nearly 99 percent reduction in peak rate from the existing runoff rate of 2.5 cfs. The developer chose to meet the volume control option and designed a water reuse system to irrigate 0.65 acres of existing agricultural land with water from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) pond, installed for rate control. The irrigation pool volume was established between elevations 908 and 911, to be drawn down over three weeks of irrigation during a period without rainfall. This volume (6,607 cubic feet) is equivalent to the increase in volume generated from the 2-year 24-hour design event. As companion permit to RCWD #13-029, #13-040 approved the development of the present-day McDonald’s site on the commercial site and used the volume reduction from Permit #13-029 to offset the proposed impervious surface. 1.3.5.2 RCWD Resolution #2015-31 The RCWD Board of Managers approved Resolution #2015-31 on September 23, 2015, recognizing the limitations on the existing regional drainage system in the Northeast Lino Lakes area and affirming that should the proposed projects be constructed as proposed, the RCWD would be able to issue permits in line with their Rules and standards based on this CSMP. 1.3.5.3 City of Lino Lakes Overlay District The City of Lino Lakes will update Chapter 1011: Stormwater, Erosion, and Sediment Control of the City Code to reflect the requirements of this CSMP, define the Northeast Drainage Overlay District, and the regulations and policies for development within it. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 5 1.3.5.4 Rice Creek Watershed District Rules The RCWD Rules in effect at the time of writing this CSMP are dated January 1, 2017. Future rule revisions will require detailed review of this CSMP for compatibility with the proposed rule revisions and may require updates to the CSMP itself. 1.3.5.5 Minnesota Statute 103E Minnesota Statute 103E defines the drainage authority powers, benefitted party rights and procedures for petitioning maintenance, alterations, diversions, impoundments and abandonment of the ditch and tile system in the CSMP area. The RCWD is the drainage authority for ACD 55 and ACD 72 and any proposed modifications or abandonment of the ditch system will require a petition by the benefitted landowner to begin the public hearing proceedings. 1.3.6 Regulatory Requirement Overview The approval of this CSMP does not waive any regulatory requirements for development within the study boundaries, it simply provides a framework to review development projects within this area as part of a greater regional system. All future projects must obtain all necessary and required permits prior to construction from the appropriate regulatory agencies. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 6 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The CSMP area is almost entirely within the City of Lino Lakes, however the CSMP does include upstream contributing land from the City of Hugo. This section provides a brief overview of the existing conditions used in the conceptual design of this CSMP. 2.1 City of Hugo The City of Hugo contributes 215 acres of the nearly 1,350-acre area and has an existing flow rate of 50.3 cfs into the City of Lino Lakes and ACD 55 drain tile system. Hugo has existing stormwater infrastructure and storage related to commercial and residential development east of Elmcrest Avenue. These sites were permitted under the City of Hugo’s permit program, followed RCWD rules, and instituted a more stringent rate control standard of 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre limit on the 100-year event (Hugo 2002). 2.2 City of Lino Lakes The majority of the CSMP area is located within the City of Lino Lakes and serviced by the agricultural drain tile systems, ACD 55 and ACD72. ACD 55 and ACD 72 drain tiles were designed to provide drainage for agricultural lands and are already at capacity, limited by the existing crossings under I-35E. The City of Lino Lakes has also identified this area as being a Runoff Sensitive Area for stormwater rate and volume control given the limitations of the existing ditch system (Lino Lakes 2005). Low points in the area can remain inundated for weeks following the 100-year event due to the limited pipe capacity in the County Ditch systems. Because the low-lying areas take so long to drain back to their normal water levels, the next rain event may compound flooding beyond the 100-year flood level. Constraints of the drain tile system have limited landowners’ ability to develop their land consistent with the City of Lino Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan. Development must meet RCWD Rule C for Stormwater Management Plans, which includes water quality and rate control. However, since the existing drainage system is at capacity under existing conditions, RCWD has established reduced peak rates for the maximum discharge rate under development on all sites draining to ACD 55 and ACD 72 (Houston Engineering, Inc. 2013). Unfortunately, the soils underlying most the area are poorly suited for infiltration, have a high groundwater table, or are wetlands, all of which limit stormwater management opportunities and the volume reduction requirement of Rule C. As discussed in Section 1.3.5.1 there is a small commercial development in Lino Lakes at Main Street and Otter Lake Road. Due to the limited capacity of the existing ACD 55 Branch 8 drain tile system, the McDonald’s development was required to install a water reuse and spray irrigation system in addition to meeting the standard RCWD rules to reduce the stormwater runoff volume for the 2-year event from their site (RCWD Permits #13-029 and #13-040) and alleviate some of the burden on ACD 55 Branch 8. 2.3 Existing Land Uses Most the land in the CSMP area is agricultural or undeveloped (Table 2-1 and Figure 2, Appendix A) (Metropolitan Council 2017) and drains to one of the county ditch systems via unbuffered surface inlets. Table 2-1. Metropolitan Council Generalized Existing Land Use within the CSMP Land Use Hugo East Central West Lino Total CSMP Total Agricultural 59.2 385.8 400.6 98.4 884.8 944.1 Farmstead 4.7 7.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 12.2 Institutional 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 7 Land Use Hugo East Central West Lino Total CSMP Total Major Highway 0.0 13.6 24.8 0.0 38.4 38.4 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 15.4 Retail and Other Commercial 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 Single Family Attached 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 21.2 Single Family Detached 32.5 6.0 7.8 4.2 18.0 50.5 Undeveloped 82.1 119.5 13.7 49.9 183.1 265.2 Total Areas 215.6 533.9 447.3 152.5 1,133.7 1,349.3 2.4 Soils and Geology Soils in the CSMP area are mapped as primarily loam and sandy loam. Depressions and areas adjacent to Peltier lake are mapped as peat or muck (Figure 8, Appendix A) (Soil Survey Staff 2017). The surficial geology of the CSMP area is loamy till with peat and muck around Peltier Lake and in isolate pockets (Figure 9, Appendix A). The loamy till is from the New Ulm formation and is chiefly loam texture with unsorted sediment. Peat and muck was deposited in the quaternary era and is composed of partially decomposed organic matter deposited in marshes. Peat and muck also includes fine grained organic matter laid down in ponded water and marl (Setterholm 2013). 2.5 Groundwater Groundwater within the CSMP is generally close to the ground surface. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) modeled much of the project area as having a depth to the water table as 0- 10 feet (MnDNR 2017) and the NRCS soils data shows the annual minimum depth to groundwater table to be less than 2.3 feet below the ground surface for the entire study area (NRCS 2017). Groundwater reaches the surface at Peltier Lake, the wetlands around Peltier Lake and within closed depressions. 2.6 Surface Water Hydrology Surface water in the study area ultimately drains to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes through Peltier Lake, Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek (Jurisdictional Ditch 2), Clearwater Creek (Jurisdictional Ditch 3), Anoka County Ditch 55 and Anoka County Ditch 72, as shown on Figure 1, Appendix A. 2.6.1 I-35E Construction I- 35E, running from Burnsville, through Lino Lakes, and ending in Columbus was constructed in 1970. The construction of the four-lane highway effectively separated the East and Central CSMP regions by placing fill to elevate the roadway through swamp sections (Minnesota Department of Transportation 1972). While the two regions remain connected by the 10-inch and 12-inch drain tiles on ACD 55 Branch 8 and Main Trunks, Interstate I-35E acts as a berm preventing overland flows from flowing downstream from the east to west. 2.6.2 Drain tile systems The ditch and tile network was developed to manage stormwater runoff and to keep fields dry during the growing season. They have significantly altered drainage basins and changed the pre-settlement subwatershed divides. The existing capacity of the tile networks are insufficient to convey stormwater runoff from future development within the Northeast Drainage Area. Alterations to the ditch and drain tile system must go through legal proceedings as defined under Minnesota Statutes 103E, to ensure ditch capacity and landowner drainage rights are preserved. The properties that are serviced by the ditch system are entitled to the benefits of the drainage system and, in effect, own the drain tile system under Minnesota Statutes 103E. The drainage of the systems must be Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 8 maintained in perpetuity, until such time the assessed land owners choose to petition RCWD for the abandonment of the drain tile on their property. 2.6.3 Wetlands There are a number of wetlands within the CSMP area. Wetlands range in size from an extensive wetland complex that fringes Peltier Lake to wetlands in small farm field depressions. Wetlands range in type from seasonally flooded depressions to shallow and deep marshes. The quality of wetlands likely varies. Some of the wetlands appear to be farmed and are likely degraded. Wetland delineations have been completed for the West and Central regions of the CSMP area (WSB & Associates, Inc. 2017 and Kjolhaug Environmental Services 2014). 2.7 Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey was completed for the W est region of the CSMP area (Blondo 2016). The survey reviewed historical records and past surveys. An archaeological systematic surface survey was conducted and concluded in the finding of no previously unidentified cultural resources. No additional cultural materials were identified during this survey. No further investigation or evaluation of the project area is required at this time. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 9 3 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES The models used in the CSMP have been derived from the RCWD district-wide modeling efforts for Rice Creek. InfoSWMM models for Upper Rice Creek (URC), Hardwood Creek (HWC), and Clearwater Creek (CWC) (Figure 11, Appendix A) were refined to be divided along the boundaries of the study area (Figure 12, Appendix A). The hydrographs from the revised InfoSWMM models were incorporated into the Rice Creek unsteady state HEC-RAS model. The models used in the CSMP have been derived from the RCWD District-wide modeling efforts for Rice Creek. InfoSWMM models for URC, HWC, and CWC were refined to include the boundaries of the study area. The hydrographs from the revised InfoSWMM models were incorporated into the Rice Creek unsteady state HEC-RAS model. There are several interactions between the different models, Figure 1 highlights the model interactions, the following discussion attempts to clearly state the specific changes made to each of the received RCWD models. Figure 1. Hydraulic Model Interactions 3.1 Hydrology A total of 40 subcatchments from the three RCWD InfoSWMM models are part of the Northeast Lino Lakes CSMP. To compare the CSMP existing and proposed conditions directly, subcatchments along the CSMP boundary were required to be subdivided. The InfoSWMM and HEC-RAS models were updated to reflect this change, and the revised existing conditions modeling is discussed in detail by model below. For all the InfoSWMM models, the hydrologic inputs for the 40 subcatchments were revised based on recent land use data from the City of Lino Lakes, City of Hugo, and the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) (Table 3-1). All areas were recalculated based on the GIS data and weighted curve numbers and depression storage were recalculated for all the subcatchments within the CSMP area as well (Table 3-2). Upper Rice Creek InfoSWMM Clearwater Creek InfoSWMM Hardwood Creek InfoSWMM Rice Creek HEC- RAS LEAVE3 LEAVE4 LEAVING_ SYSTEM2 J3MT_001 J3MT_001 PELTIER_LAKE Peltier Lake Stage Peltier Lake Stage Peltier Lake Stage Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 10 Table 3-1. Existing Land Uses, Impervious Percentages, Curve Numbers, and Total Phosphorus Concentrations. LAND USE DESCRIPTION 1 ESTIMATED IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE 2 A 3 B 3 C 3 D 3 TP 4 [MG/L] AGRICULTURAL 0% 67 78 85 89 0.32 FARMSTEAD 10% 59 74 82 86 0.46 INSTITUTIONAL 65% 49 69 79 84 0.18 MAJOR HIGHWAY 75% 83 89 92 93 0.25 PARK, RECREATIONAL, OR PRESERVE 10% 39 61 74 80 0.04 RETAIL AND OTHER COMMERCIAL 75% 89 92 94 95 0.22 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 65% 77 85 90 92 0.40 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 40% 51 68 79 84 0.30 UNDEVELOPED 0% 30 58 71 78 0.04 1 Metropolitan Council Generalized Land Use 2016 2 Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3 NRCS National Engineering Handbook 4 MPCA Minnesota Stormwater Manual Table 3-2. Existing Land Uses by Region (in acres) Land Use Description HUGO EAST CENTRAL WEST TOTAL Agricultural 59.2 385.8 400.6 98.4 944.1 Farmstead 4.7 7.5 0.0 0.0 12.2 Institutional 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 Major Highway 0.0 13.6 24.8 0.0 38.4 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 Retail and Other Commercial 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Single Family Attached 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 Single Family Detached 32.5 6.0 7.8 4.2 50.5 Undeveloped 82.1 119.5 13.7 49.9 265.2 Totals 215.6 534.1 447.3 152.6 1,349.6 3.2 Upper Rice Creek The URC model was updated to split existing catchments MRC_RC_001 into MRC_RC_001 and MRC_RC_001.5 along Peltier Lake Drive on the west CSMP boundary. Existing catchment MRC_RC_002 was also split into two subcatchments (MRC_RC_002 and MRC_RC_002.5) along the southwest CSMP boundary. A nearly five-acre discrepancy in drainage area between the received model input and GIS data was noticed at CWC_RC_PELTIER_008. As a precaution, all drainage areas were recalculated, but this subcatchment appeared to be an anomaly. The URC model was re-run and the inflow hydrograph at junction PELTIER_LAKE was exported from InfoSWMM and inserted into the existing conditions Rice Creek HEC-RAS model at storage area SA Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 11 Peltier Lake. The URC model contains three interactions between the CWC and HWC InfoSWMM models. Table 3-3 summarizes the URC model interaction results. Table 3-3. Upper Rice Creek Model Outflow Summary [cfs] URC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY LEAVING_SYSTEM2 RCWD 2014 NOT INCLUDED NOT INCLUDED 13.5 4.5 Revised Existing 0 1.7 30.0 5.9 Difference [cfs] 0 1.7 16.5 1.4 LEAVING_SYSTEM3 RCWD 2014 0 0 0.6 0 Revised Existing 0 0 0.7 0.6 Difference [cfs] 0 0 0.1 0.6 LEAVING_SYSTEM4 RCWD 2014 0 0 0 0 Revised Existing 0 0 0.1 0 Difference [cfs] 0 0 0.1 0 PELTIER_LAKE RCWD 2014 1,389.5 2,417.5 4,515.7 883.7 Revised Existing 1,448.8 2,523.1 4,726.6 896.4 Difference [cfs] 59.3 105.6 210.9 12.8 3.3 Clearwater Creek The CWC model was updated to split existing catchment ACD55MT_007 into ACD55MT_007 and ACD55MT_007.5 along the south central CSMP boundary. Inflows from the Upper Rice Creek model at LEAVE3 and LEAVE4 were input at storage areas SA55MT_009 and SA55MT_028. The CWC model was re-run and the inflow hydrograph at junction J3MT_001 was exported from the InfoSWMM model and replaced in the existing conditions Rice Creek HEC-RAS model at RS 125483.9. A summary of the CWC model interactions is provided in Table 3-4. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 12 Table 3-4. Clearwater Creek Model Outflow Summary [cfs] CWC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY J3MT_001 RCWD 2014 201.8 337.8 563.9 446.0 Revised Existing 217.3 350.0 566.0 443.6 Difference [cfs] 15.5 12.2 2.2 -2.4 Finally, the CWC model includes the existing flows entering Lino Lakes from Hugo under Elmcrest Avenue. Table 3-5 summarizes the existing flows entering the CSMP study area. Table 3-5. City of Hugo Existing Outflows [cfs] CWC LINK 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY CA55MTL_013 2.7 3.8 5.0 4.3 CA55MTL_012 0.3 1.2 3.6 1.6 CA55MTL_011 1.8 6.8 21.5 6.4 CA55MTL_014 5.2 9.9 16.4 12.5 CA55MTL_014B 0.0 0.8 5.9 2.8 TOTAL HUGO 10.0 22.5 52.4 27.6 3.4 Hardwood Creek The HWC model was updated to split existing catchment SMT_002 into SMT_002 and SMT_002.5. The soils data for subcatchment SMT_004A was updated to reflect the subcatchment hydrologic input data. The HWC model was unstable when first run, the initial water surface elevation at the outlet node OUT (El. 885.67) was higher than the next two upstream nodes’ starting water surface elevations, creating a backflow from Peltier Lake into Hardwood Creek. The lower HWC model nodes were adjusted, per Table 3-6, to prevent water from backing up into the system at the start of the model runs. Table 3-6. HWC Initial Water Surface Elevation Corrections INFOSWMM NODE RCWD 2014 INVERT ELEV RCWD 2014 INITIAL WSEL ELEV. REVISED INVERT ELEV REVISED INITIAL WSEL ELEV. OUT 860 885.67 882 885.67 JMT_001 882.44 885.19 882.44 885.67 JMT_002 881.66 885.18 881.66 885.67 JMT_003 883.1 883.96 883.1 885.96 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 13 INFOSWMM NODE RCWD 2014 INVERT ELEV RCWD 2014 INITIAL WSEL ELEV. REVISED INVERT ELEV REVISED INITIAL WSEL ELEV. JMT_004 883.25 886.11 883.25 886.11 JMT_005 883.64 886.114 883.64 886.114 JMT_006 884.49 886.357 884.49 886.357 Finally, the inflow hydrograph from the URC model node LEAVING_SYSTEM2 was input at junction node JM_016 in the HWC model as ACD72_LEAVE2_100YR. The HWC model was re-run and the total inflow hydrograph at junction JMT_001 was exported from InfoSWMM and imported into the existing conditions HEC-RAS model at RS 125004.6. Table 3-7. Hardwood Creek Model Outflow Summary [cfs] HWC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY JMT_001 RCWD 2014 80.7 202.5 685.6 932.0 Revised Existing 99.8 214.3 669.3 903.2 Difference [cfs] 19.1 11.7 -16.3 -28.8 3.5 Rice Creek HEC-RAS The existing conditions HEC-RAS model was updated with the inflow hydrographs from all the InfoSWMM models and re-run to establish the existing water surface elevations in Peltier Lake for the CSMP study and the results are summarized in Table 3-8. Table 3-8. Peltier Lake Stage Summary [ft] 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY PELTIER LAKE STAGE RCWD 2014 885.73 886.28 887.20 887.53 REVISED EXISTING 885.76 886.41 887.22 887.51 DIFFERENCE [FT] 0.03 0.13 0.02 -0.02 Due to the relatively minor changes in stage at Peltier Lake, it was assumed that re-importing the stage hydrograph into the InfoSWMM models would result in negligible changes to the overall InfoSWMM results. As a result, the Peltier Lake stage data was not updated in the revised existing conditions InfoSWMM modeling and the models presented above were used as the baseline existing conditions. Detailed input and result tables from the existing conditions modeling may be found in Appendix B. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 14 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The City of Lino Lakes proposed to improve drainage in the Northeast Area by developing a regional stormwater management plan, accomplished through improving stormwater conveyance, adding water quality BMPs, and managing stormwater runoff rate and volume control. The proposed improvements will benefit not only the landowners within the Northeast Area, but also the downstream waterbodies by improving stormwater runoff water quality, increasing to the extent feasible water reuse and irrigation practices, and maintaining existing flood elevations throughout the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes. The proposed improvements to the CSMP area include: Replacement of the existing culvert under Peltier Lake Drive Open channel system from Peltier Lake Drive to 20th Avenue, including a public greenway corridor with additional water quality features, such as iron-enhanced filtration or biofiltration within the floodplain areas Regional storage facilities, phased with future developments, to provide flood control storage and additional water quality treatment opportunities Outlet control structures with gates on selected regional storage facilities to minimize the risk of adversely impacting flood levels on Peltier Lake New 60-inch storm drain crossing under I-35E to the proposed regional storage facility sited between 20th Avenue and I-35E Construction of new storm sewer along the future Otter Lake Road extension Preservation of the agricultural drain tile system to maintain drainage rights until all land within the study area develops. Drain tile may be abandoned or realigned as development progresses, at the benefitted landowners’ expense and discretion. A conceptual layout and system details are provided in Appendix C. Additional design requirements proposed for land development within the CSMP area are outlined in Sections 6 through 8. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 15 5 PROPOSED CONDITIONS MODELS After establishing the revised existing conditions models to use as a baseline for comparison in Section 3, we developed the proposed conditions modeling in cooperation with RCWD to ensure compatibility with the District modeling procedures. The proposed conditions reflect future land uses in the study area, assumed site grading to drain the study area to the central storm drainage system, assumed private disconnection of agricultural drain tile within the study area, and conceptual regional stormwater storage BMPs connected by a new open conveyance system and revised outlet to Peltier Lake (Figure 13, Appendix A and Appendix C). 5.1 Hydrology Updates Curve numbers were estimated using the MLCSS, City of Lino Lakes, and City of Hugo 2030 projected land uses, NRCS soil data, recent wetland delineations, and the National Wetland Inventory. The following assumptions were made: 1. Hugo and Lino Lakes will be fully built out per their 2030 approved land use plans 2. Future development will be graded to drain to a regional BMP; this may include the use of drain tile or imported fill to improve drainage in clay soils. A hydrologic soil group type B was assumed for new development. 3. Existing wetlands within the RCWD Wetland Management Corridor (WMC) will be preserved or restored per RCWD Rules within the WMC in Lino Lakes. Many of the existing wetlands have been drained and are currently farmed. By protecting and improving the quality of the existing wetlands, the proposed curve number is reduced in several subcatchments. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 provide a summary of the land uses and curve numbers used in the modeling: Table 5-1. Proposed Land Uses, Impervious Percentages, and Curve Numbers LAND USE DESCRIPTION 1 MAX. IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE 1 A 2 B 2 C 2 D 2 TP 3 [MG/L] Large lot residential 10% 59 74 82 86 0.46 Low density residential 40% 47 65 76 82 0.50 Medium density residential 50% 54 70 79 84 0.30 High density residential 65% 70 81 87 90 0.40 Commercial 75% 86 91 93 94 0.22 Industrial 75% 81 88 91 93 0.25 Public semi-public 65% 39 61 74 80 0.18 Vehicular right-of-way 75% 83 89 92 93 0.25 Mixed use 75% 77 85 90 92 0.22 Wetland management corridor 0% 30 58 71 78 0.03 1 Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan 2 NRCS National Engineering Handbook 3 MPCA Minnesota Stormwater Manual Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 16 Table 5-2. Proposed Land Uses by CSMP Region (in acres) LAND USE DESCRIPTION HUGO EAST CENTRAL WEST TOTAL Right-of-Way 0 14.1 27.9 2.5 44.5 Large Lot Residential 46.1 0.2 0 0 46.3 Low Density Residential 150.6 0.3 0 42.8 193.7 Medium Density Residential 3.9 0.1 15.9 51.1 71 High Density Residential 0 0 0 18.9 18.9 Commercial 0.3 82.1 1 0 83.4 Industrial 0 346.7 29.9 0 376.6 Mixed Use 0 0 353.7 0 353.7 Public/Quasi-Public 14.7 0 0 0 14.7 Wetland Protection Zone 0 90.6 18.9 37.3 146.8 Totals 215.6 534.1 447.3 152.6 1,349.6 Like the revised existing conditions, the proposed models were updated and model interactions were evaluated. 5.2 Hydraulic Updates 5.2.1 Upper Rice Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Condit ions The URC model contains the vast majority of the CSMP study area, so this model was updated to include the re-routed ACD55 subcatchments from the CWC model and the re-routed ACD72 subcatchments from the HWC model (Table 5-3 and Figure 13, Appendix A). It was assumed that future site grading would eliminate the existing outflows into each of these systems. Table 5-3. Proposed Upper Rice Creek Outflows URC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY LEAVING_SYSTEM2 Revised Existing 0 1.7 30.0 5.9 Proposed 0 0 0 0 Difference [cfs] 0 -1.7 -30.0 -5.9 LEAVING_SYSTEM3 Revised Existing 0 0 0.7 0.6 Proposed 0 0 0 0 Difference [cfs] 0 0 -0.7 -0.6 LEAVING_SYSTEM4 Revised Existing 0 0 0.1 0 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 17 URC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY Proposed 0 0 0 0 Difference [cfs] 0 0 -0.1 0 PELTIER_LAKE Revised Existing 1,448.8 2,523.1 4,426.6 896.4 Proposed 1,069.3 2,032.3 4,128.4 856.4 Difference [cfs] -379.5 -490.8 -598.2 -40.1 With the reconfiguration of the URC model now including the re-routing of ACD 55 main trunk and Branch 8, the flows entering from the City of Hugo are now included in this model. A summary of the Hugo flows entering the City of Lino Lakes is presented in Table 5-4. Table 5-4. City of Hugo Proposed Outflows [cfs] URC LINK 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY CA55MTL_013 2.0 3.5 5.0 4.3 CA55MTL_012 0.3 1.2 3.3 1.6 CA55MTL_011 2.1 7.3 17.7 6.4 CA55MTL_014 3.6 8.3 13.9 12.5 CA55MTL_014B 0.0 0.1 3.9 2.8 TOTAL HUGO 8.0 20.4 43.8 27.6 The flows leaving the City of Hugo are somewhat decreased from the existing conditions due to the conversion of agricultural lands to low density residential, as the slightly lower curve numbers provides more infiltration and less runoff. 5.2.2 Clearwater Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Condit ions The CWC model was updated to reflect the re-routing of ACD 55 mainline and Branch 8 into the CSMP study area, contained in the URC model discussed above. The result is a minor decrease in flows through the Clearwater Creek system for all design events (Table 5-5). Table 5-5. Clearwater Creek Proposed Outflows CWC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY J3MT_001 Revised Existing 217.3 350.0 566.0 443.6 Proposed 219.7 349.0 593.5 439.1 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 18 Difference [cfs] 2.4 -1.0 27.5 -4.5 5.2.3 Hardwood Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditio ns The HWC model was updated to reflect the re-routing of ACD 72 into the CSMP study area, contained in the URC model discussed above. The result is a negligible change in flows through the Hardwood Creek system for all design events (Table 5-6). Table 5-6. Hardwood Creek Proposed Outflows HWC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY JMT_001 Revised Existing 99.8 214.3 669.3 903.2 Proposed 101.5 212.5 669.3 902.9 Difference [cfs] 1.7 -1.8 0.02 -0.3 5.2.4 Rice Creek HEC-RAS – Proposed Conditions The proposed conditions HEC-RAS was updated with the inflow hydrographs from the InfoSWMM models and run to establish the proposed water surface elevations in Peltier Lake for the CSMP study (Table 5- 7). Table 5-7. Peltier Lake Stage Summary [ft] 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY PELTIER LAKE STAGE Revised Existing 885.76 886.41 887.22 887.51 Proposed 885.73 886.27 886.98 887.51 Difference [ft] -0.03 -0.14 -0.24 0.00 The detailed input and result tables from the proposed modeling is provided in Appendix D. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 19 6 RCWD RULE C REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Rule C Overview The Northeast Lino Lakes CSMP area is located within a single resource of concern drainage area (Figure 3, Appendix A). General drainage patterns as documented in this CSMP will be maintained with any future developments so that stormwater runoff will remain within the Peltier Lake ROC drainage area and be managed to meet RCWD’s Rule C requirements. As allowed for under RCWD Rule C.5(f), this CSMP has been prepared as an alternative means to meet the requirements of Rule C.6 Water Quality Treatment and Rule C.7 Peak Stormwater Runoff Control for the development of the area, which is anticipated to be completed in several distinct phases. The peak runoff control and water quality treatment requirements will be met, in aggregate, for the area as a whole. 6.2 Water Quality Treatment [RCWD Rule C.6] RCWD’s water quality treatment requirements will be met through a variety of measures, including stormwater detention ponds, biofiltration, and infiltration, as is feasible. Figure 14, Appendix A shows the locations and suggested types of regional BMPs. It is anticipated that the study area will include water quality treatment trains with sedimentation BMPs located in upland areas designed to remove solids and particulate matter. These will be combined with surface and media filtration to remove dissolved particulates, nitrogen, and phosphorus prior to entering the new system and discharging into the regional BMPs. Total phosphorus loading under existing and proposed land use conditions was estimated using event mean concentrations from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2016). Under existing conditions, the CSMP area contributes approximately 12.6 pounds of total phosphorus annually to Peltier Lake. With the proposed full-build out land uses, in absence of any stormwater treatment, the CSMP area loading would increase to approximately 14.4 pounds per year (Table 6-1 and Appendix E). Table 6-1. Summary of Total Phosphorus (TP) Loading by Region without Stormwater Treatment REGION Area [ac] Existing TP Load [lb] Proposed TP Load [lb] TP Load Change [lb] HUGO 215.6 0.72 1.36 +0.64 EAST 553.9 4.90 6.43 +1.53 CENTRAL 447.3 5.89 6.30 +0.41 WEST 152.5 1.06 0.31 -0.75 TOTALS 1,349 12.6 14.4 +1.83 The proposed land uses in the West region, including the wetland management corridor and medium density residential have a lower total phosphorus concentration (0.03 and 0.3 mg/L, respectively) than the existing land use of agricultural row crops (0.32 mg/L) and contribute to the reduction in the proposed total phosphorus loading. However, as required by RCWD Rule C.6, water quality treatment is a necessary component of development and we expect the TP loading to be reduced significantly with the required stormwater treatment practices in place. A challenge for the CSMP area will be to infiltrate stormwater to meet the water quality volume reduction in Rule C.6. Review of the CSMP area led to the development of Figure 15, Appendix A (Infiltration Suitability). This map was developed using the following four criteria: Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 20 1. Located outside of a vulnerable Drinking Water Source Management Area (Minnesota Department of Health 2014); 2. Must have a type A or B hydrologic soil group; 3. Depth to water table greater than 24-inches; and 4. Located outside of the National Wetland Inventory wetlands. Only 19.3 percent of the CSMP area meet the majority of these four criteria for infiltration. RCWD Rule C.6 requires that, where feasible, infiltration must be used. However, most the CSMP area will need to use alternative BMPs to treat stormwater runoff. For the purposes of this conceptual analysis, we have assumed NURP stormwater ponds, with a TP removal factor of 0.50 will be used. The summary of the required water quality volumes is presented in Table 6-2. Table 6-2. Assumed Water Quality Treatment Summary (Lino Lakes) Impervious Surface Constructed to Date 38 acres Proposed Impervious Surface 706 acres Area Suitable for Infiltration 218.5 ac Required Volume Reduction [1.1” runoff from impervious] 11.8 ac-ft Required NURP Volume [2.5” runoff from drainage area] 89.4 ac-ft Required Water Quality Volume for Lino Lakes Full Build Out 101.2 ac-ft Estimated TP Reduction through Infiltration and Ponding 60% Proposed TP Loading with Stormwater Treatment 6.62 lbs 6.2.1 Volume Reduction Practices As discussed above, Rule C.6 requires that where feasible, infiltration must be provided for stormwater runoff from new and/or reconstructed impervious surfaces. The proposed impervious surface area is based on the City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Water quality treatment volume required for phosphorus removal is calculated as follows: Required WQ Treatment Volume [ac-ft] = Aimpervious * 1.1 inches / TP Removal Factor / 12 in/ft Infiltration practices are allocated a TP Removal Factor of 1.0. On-site infiltration is not feasible for most of the CSMP are due to poor soils, high groundwater and the presence of wetlands. Using NRCS soils data and the National Wetland Inventory, only 19 percent of the area may be suitable for infiltration practices within Lino Lakes. As development proceeds within the CSMP area, developers will be required to demonstrate that infiltration is not feasible on-site before utilizing the regional NURP basins or other BMP alternatives (Appendix F for infiltration requirements by parcel). 6.2.2 NURP Basins Stormwater ponds used for water quality treatment must use a TP Removal Factor of 0.5, per Rule C.6, and sized per the NURP criteria, which includes a permanent dead pool sized to store the runoff volume from a 2.5-inch rainfall event of the tributary area. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 21 6.2.3 Additional BMPs for Consideration of Future Development Additional onsite water quality practices will be encouraged as part of future development, and as part of the Lino Lakes AUAR requirements. The following may be considered, if feasible: Stormwater reuse for irrigation – initial estimates indicate that up to 36 acre-feet of stormwater could be used for irrigation purposes over public open spaces, however the actual amount of volume infiltrated will be defined based on RCWD Rule C.6 Soil amendments – consistent with the RCWD Soil Amendment Guidelines Small-scale BMPs such as tree trenches, raingardens, cisterns, etc. Mechanical separators Media filtration to improve water quality 6.3 Peak Stormwater Runoff Control [RCWD Rule C.7] All stormwater runoff from the area either surface flows directly to Peltier Lake or is conveyed to the lake via the county ditch system (Figure 1, Appendix A). As discussed in Sections 3 and 5, InfoSWMM and HEC-RAS models were developed to evaluate the existing discharge rates entering Peltier Lake. The proposed land uses will result in more impervious surface and higher runoff rates and volumes leaving the CSMP study area and entering Peltier Lake. The regional BMPs will include outlet control structures to regulate the flood releases from the BMPs so they do not impact flood levels on Peltier Lake. 6.3.1 Allowable Peak Discharges Per RCWD Rule C.7, the proposed discharge rates are limited to the existing discharge rates from a site; however, because this area has been identified as a Runoff Sensitive Area, the City will impose a restriction of 0.1 cfs per acre on new private developments for the 100-year peak discharge rate, which is also the same rate requirement the City of Hugo implemented in 2003 as part of their Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. This will result in a maximum peak discharge rate from the CSMP area into Peltier Lake of no more than 135 cfs. Table 6-3. Northeast Lino CSMP Allowable Peak Discharge Rates Storm Event Rainfall Depth [in] Discharge to Peltier Lake [cfs] 2-year 24-hour 2.83 68 10-year 24-hour 4.21 133 100-year 24-hour 7.06 135 100-year 10-day 7.20 135 Future development in the CSMP area must not exceed the NOAA Atlas 14 permitted rates to Peltier Lake, as shown in Table 6-3. 6.3.2 Flood Control Storage To meet the proposed discharge rates, a significant amount of land is needed to provide live storage for flood control. As part of the City’s land use practices, the existing wetlands are intended to remain in place where possible and will provide some incidental flood storage capacity. Table 6-4 shows the live storage assumed for flood reduction used in the modeling. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 22 Table 6-4. Required Live Storage by Region BMP ID Estimated Live Storage Required [ac-ft] Allowable Bounce [ft] Min. Area for Live Storage [ac] Max. Release Rate [cfs] EAST 250 4 63 75 CENTRAL 260 4 65 120 WEST 50 4 13 135 TOTAL 560 141 135 6.3.3 Outlet Control Structures Each regional NURP pond’s water levels will be controlled by an outlet control structure and operable gate. In the event of a 100-year design storm, the gated will be closed to minimize the risk of increasing flood stage on Peltier Lake, the ponds will be sized to include enough live storage to hold the water until the gates are reopened after the flood threat on Peltier Lake has passed. The exact location and design of these facilities will be determined as development in the CSMP area progresses. It will be expected that the storage areas will experience a significant bounce in elevation during the 100-year storm event and will need to be planted with a suitable planting palette that can tolerate periodic inundation to maintain the vegetated buffer around the pond. The estimated peak discharges and timing of the 100- year 24-hour event is shown in Table 6-5. Table 6-5. 100-yr 24-hr Maximum Discharge Rate between Regions BMP ID Estimated Peak Discharge [cfs] Estimated Event Runoff Volume [ac-ft] Timing of Peak Elevation [hrs. after start of rainfall] EAST 75 257 77.8 CENTRAL 120 470.2 78.0 WEST 135 526 78.2 The gates will be operated by the City of Lino Lakes and shall be placed to control the release of water from each regional storage facility. Each gate must be closed when Peltier Lake reaches an elevation one foot below the 100-year flood elevation of 887.7 [NAVD88] on the rising limb of the lake stage hydrograph and remain closed until the flood elevation on Peltier Lake recedes below the 100-year flood elevation of 887.7, on the falling limb of the lake stage hydrograph. 6.3.4 Low Floor and Low Entry Freeboard Requireme nts The lowest floor and lowest opening of future buildings and structures near the regional BMPs must adhere to the freeboard requirements presented in RCWD Table C6 and Chapter 1011: Stormwater, Erosion, and Sediment Control of the City Code. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 23 7 CSMP STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 7.1 Regional BMP Capacity Analysis Since the area is not fully developed, it is the goal of this CSMP to lay the framework for future developments within the City of Lino Lakes CSMP area to utilize the regional BMPs to meet the RCWD stormwater management requirements. Table7-1 summarizes the existing impervious surfaces and the proposed infiltration requirements based on the City of Lino Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan land uses (Figure 4, Appendix A) and applicable RCWD Rules at the time of development. The details of the water quality volume calculations can be found in Appendix E. Table 7-1. Maximum Impervious Area at Full Development Existing Impervious [ac] Proposed Impervious [ac] EAST 14.5 332.3 CENTRAL 22.0 317.3 WEST 1.69 56.8 TOTAL 38.1 706.4 As conceptually designed, the regional BMPs provide enough water quality volume to mitigate the proposed impervious surface per the requirements in the RCWD Rule C.6. 7.2 Operation and Maintenance The outlet control gates will be operated by the City of Lino Lakes and shall be placed to control the release of water from each regional storage facility. The gates will be operated by the City of Lino Lakes and shall be placed to control the release of water from each regional storage facility. Each gate must be closed when Peltier Lake reaches an elevation one foot below the 100-year flood elevation of 887.7 [NAVD88] on the rising limb of the lake stage hydrograph and remain closed until the flood elevation on Peltier Lake recedes below the 100-year flood elevation of 887.7, on the falling limb of the lake stage hydrograph. The City of Lino Lakes will maintain permanent easements for all regional stormwater facilities to perform routine and periodic maintenance activities as required by their MS4 permit. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 24 8 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTALS It should be noted that the design standards outlined in this document will only be applied to the parcels in Lino Lakes. Developments within the City of Hugo must obtain permit approvals from their respective government and regulatory agencies independent of this CSMP. Future developments will be responsible to submit a proposal to the City first. The submittal will document which parcel (or portion of a parcel) will be developed. The application must document that the land use proposed and proposed impervious area are consistent with this CSMP (Figure 4, Appendix A) and the planned impervious areas as shown in Appendix F. If future developments wish to deviate from the standards outlined in this CSMP, it is the responsibility of the developer to prepare an application documenting the proposed deviation(s) and how that difference will be mitigated. The developer’s application must include: Name of the parcel or portion of the parcel(s) proposing development Name of the CSMP Region Existing and proposed topography and narrative of infrastructure proposed to convey stormwater Document the total area for existing and proposed conditions, broken down by pervious and impervious areas Document infiltration potential on site based on soil boring data Name of the regional BMP (if constructed) to which the proposed project is tributary Proposed method of pre-treatment prior to stormwater discharge entering the regional system Requested water quality allocations from regional BMP (if constructed) and maximum allocated to proposed development (Appendix F) Developers also must meet current Lino Lakes and RCWD Rules to the extent practicable, including: Compliance with maximum post-development discharge rate for the 100-year event to be less than or equal to 0.1 cfs per acre Maximize volume reduction practices on site and infiltrate where practicable and in accordance with RCWD Rules Compliance with current RCWD Rule C.6 Water Quality If the development exceeds the CSMP planned impervious area (Appendix F), the applicant must demonstrate how the additional runoff will be treated to meet the applicable RCWD rules and does not cause adverse impact as defined below. No damage to structures, buildings, and infrastructure as a result of an increase in flooding (increased water surface elevations, velocities or number of days of inundation); No property damage or increased maintenance costs resulting from an increase in the amount of erosion, bank failure or accelerated sedimentation; No decrease in water quality resulting from an increase in phosphorus and sediment loads; and No permanent loss of the use of flood storage volume during the flood peak within the Anoka Chain of Lakes. If developers choose to exceed the impervious limits or request any other deviations to the assumptions laid out herein, they will be required to address any additional stormwater requirements on that parcel at their own expense to ensure all applicable RCWD rules and requirements are met. Any such BMPs will be considered private and be maintained by, and at the expense of, the owner/developer of the parcel. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 25 8.1 Interim Conditions The intent of this CSMP is to define the final build-out conditions for the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Area; however, it is highly unlikely the entire study area would develop at once. At this point in time, it is anticipated that the proposed stormwater conveyance system would be built from the downstream outlet at Peltier Lake to the east as private landowners choose to develop their property and abandon the agricultural drain tiles. The City will review all proposed development projects in this area against the CSMP design standards and require a detailed hydraulic review of temporary construction conditions from the developer. It is expected that developers may wish to utilize the existing drain tile system to discharge stormwater until the downstream regional BMPs and outlet are constructed. This hydraulic review will be at the developer’s expense, must utilize the modeling presented in this CSMP for consistency, and will summarize the following information: Identification of the drain tile system and existing allocation of drain tile capacity Incorporation of any watershed changes since the previous modeling was completed, including update of curve numbers, time of concentration, and man-made infrastructure changes Current capacity of the drain tile system, reflective of the watershed updates, for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour design storms, as well as the 100-year 10-day snowmelt event. Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour design storms, as well as the 100-year 10-day snowmelt event. Identification of any proposed impacts to upstream or downstream benefitted landowners and Peltier Lake Compliance with the design standards outlined in this CSMP does not alleviate the developer from obtaining all necessary and required permits. It is highly recommended that developers submit permit applications to RCWD and the City of Lino Lakes early to facilitate the design review, especially for any variances or temporary use of the existing drain tile system. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 26 9 REFERENCES Bauer, Emily J. (2016). C-39, Geologic Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/178852. Blondo, Steven J. and Kelly Wolf. November 23, 2016. “A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed City of Lino Lakes Northeast Lino Drainage Study.” City of Hugo. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. May 2002 City of Hugo. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. March 15, 2010. http://www.ci.hugo.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=4A42E80D-D1B1-48A1-940D- F92071D6D492&Type=B_LIST (accessed October 20, 2015). City of Lino Lakes. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. September 12, 2011. http://www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=67FBFAB1-0B78-448F-85B7-AFF5C3B73FEF&Type=B_BASIC (accessed October 20, 2015). City of Lino Lakes. City of Lino Lakes Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). Prepared by Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. October 2010. City of Lino Lakes. I-35E Corridor Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). September 26, 2005. http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=581A5670-E592-4178-B9B2- 7B0B72922A8E&Type=B_BASIC (accessed October 20, 2015). City of Lino Lakes. Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan. June 2008. City of Lino Lakes. Surface Water Management Plan. December 2005. http://www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B92EFCBF5-B800-4B28-AD6A- B8C3B7009FB0%7D/uploads/SWMP-Final_with_Appendix.pdf (accessed October 20, 2015). Houston Engineering, Inc. Hydraulics and Hydrology Evaluation Anoka County Ditch 55 memo. May 6, 2013. Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report for Mattamy Homes Site, Lino Lakes, Minnesota. February 10, 2014. Metropolitan Council. Generalized Land Use 2016 data. Published June 28, 2017. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-plan-generl-lnduse2016. Accessed August 28, 2017. Minnesota Department of Health. Drinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability. September 1, 2014. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-drinking-water-supply (accessed October 15, 2015). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Anoka County Geologic Atlas, Part B. February 2, 2017. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/cga/c27_anoka/c27b.zip (accessed May 1, 2017). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota Public Drainage Manual. September 1991. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Minnesota_Public_Drainage_Manual.pdf (accessed October 20, 2015). Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 27 Minnesota Department of Transportation. Construction Plans for Grading and Bridges: Trunk Highway No. 35E-390 between S. Anoka Co. Line and 0.2 mi N. of N. Corp. Limits of Lino Lakes. February 24, 1972. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Event Mean Concentrations for Total Phosphorus. http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Event_mean_concentrations_for_total_phosphorus (accessed April 5, 2016). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes Nutrient TMDL. July 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=17164 (accessed October 20, 2015). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake TMDL. July 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=20171 (accessed October 20, 2015). National Stormwater Quality Database. Event Mean Concentrations of Pollutants in Stormwater Runoff by Land Use. http://www.bmpdatabase.org/nsqd.html (accessed April 5, 2016). Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Custom Soil Resource for Anoka County, Minnesota and Washington County, Minnesota. September 4, 2017. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Part 630 Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook. July 2004. Rice Creek Watershed District. Resolution #2015-31. 2015. Rice Creek Watershed District. Rice Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan. Adopted January 4, 2010, amended November 9, 2016. Rice Creek Watershed District. Drainage System GIS data. 2017. http://rcwd.houstoneng.net/ditchportal/gisdata/drainagesystemsgis.zip (accessed July 18, 2017). Rice Creek Watershed District. Rice Creek Watershed District Rules. Adopted December 14, 2016, effective January 1, 2017. Setterholm, Dale, R. C-27 Geologic Atlas of Anoka County, Minnesota [Part A]. Minnesota Geological Survey, 2013. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/116119. Accessed July 27, 2017. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ (accessed May 1, 2017). WSB & Associates, Inc. Northeast Drainage Study Level 2 Wetland Delineation Report. April 5, 2017. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix A – Figures Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Existing Land Uses Figure 3. Drainage Areas and Resources of Concern Figure 4. Lino Lakes Full Build Land Use Figure 5. Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan Figure 6. Lino Lakes Park, Greenway and Trail System Figure 7. Lino Lakes I-35E AUAR Area Figure 8. CSMP Soils Figure 9. CSMP Surficial Geology Figure 10. InfoSWMM Model Updates Figure 11. Proposed InfoSWMM Model Figure 12. Infiltration Suitability §¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadACD 55 Br 8ACD 55 Main TrkACD 72 Main TrkACD 72 Br 11ACD 72 Main TrkHardwood Ck [JD2]Clearwater Ck [JD3]Elmcrest Ave NPeltier Lake Dr§¨¦35WRice CreekA C D 7 2 B r 1 PeltierLakeCentervilleLakeRondeauLakeGeorgeWatchLakeGeorgeWatchLakeHUGOCENTERVILLELINO LAKESSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_LocationMap.mxd Date Saved: 8/25/2017 12:12:22 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamLakesFigure 1 - Project LocationNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 2,000 feetLINO LAKES4STUDY AREA§¨¦35E§¨¦35W§¨¦694§¨¦35 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\WR\CSMP\InfoSWMM\Fig_ExLanduse.mxd Date Saved: 9/4/2017 5:11:01 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryFarmsteadSingle Family DetachedSingle Family AttachedRetail and Other CommercialInstitutionalPark, Recreational or PreserveMajor HighwayAgriculturalUndevelopedFigure 2 - Existing Land UsesNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,153 feet §¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadACD 55 Br 8ACD 55 Main TrkACD 72 Main TrkACD 72 Br 11ACD 72 Main TrkElmcrest Ave NPeltier Lake DrA C D 7 2 B r 1 PeltierLakeCentervilleLakeHUGOCENTERVILLELINO LAKESDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_ROC.mxd Date Saved: 10/19/2017 4:46:15 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD Resources of ConcernCentervillePeltierRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamLakesFigure 3 - Drainage Areas andResources of ConcernNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,153 feet Figure 4. Lino Lakes Full Build Out Land Use Figure 5. Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan Figure 6. Lino Lakes Park, Greenway, and Trail Plan Figure 7. I-35E Corridor AUAR Area §¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadACD 55 Br 8ACD 55 Main TrkACD 72 Main TrkACD 72 Br 11ACD 72 Main TrkClearwater Ck [JD3]Elmcrest Ave NPeltier Lake DrA C D 7 2 B r 1 WbWbWbWbWbCbDuWbWbWbWbDuDuGcHdBNeAWbBmWbNeAWbNeAWbWbDu75CbGcCbWb225WbNeANeA75NeAHdBBmNeACbNeACbHdBNeAWbWbDuDuDuGc225WbCbWbNeANeADu544NeANeAWbNeADuDuNeADuDuWb75NeABmGcDuWbDuDu132BNeADuWbDuNeA123GcGc123NeA225Gc75Gc113123Du225NeA113WbCbGcNeANeAGcHdB123BmWbNeAWbGcCbHdBMaCbNeACbNeANeADuGcWbNeA123WbNeAGc123NeA132CWbGcWbWbNeADuWbNeANeAWbNeABmDuDu225GcDu225CbNeANeAWb113NeANeADu113225NeAHdC2GcWb123225NeA123NeANeA225GcNeA123NeABmNeA132BGcNeADuWbHdBNeADuGcGcWbNeANeANeADu75NeANeAGcNeABm75GcNeAGcBmRfNeA123NeANeA123BtBHdBWbDuNeAWb75113Bm225DuNeANeANeAGc123WbWbWb225BmHdBNeAWb132B132C123NeACb123GcWbHdC2NeA132BNoGcNeABtBBmDuDu132C225WbDu225NeA225132BBmBmNeA12375123NeA123113NeA132CBm225Wb132CBmNeAGcNeANeAGc113132BBmWb225WbGc225HdC2WbWbNeAGcNeA132CHdC2NeADuNo75Wb132BWbBmBm123NeANeANeAHdBNeAGcWb123225NeADu132C123Bm132BNeANeA113123DuCb132BNeANeAWbWb113113HdB75NeA132BNeAGcNeANeA132BWb123NeADu123NeAWb225NeA225NeA225113HdB225Wb225123HdB132BWbNeA225NeANeANeANeANeANeAWb123544NeA132BNeA132CDu132B132C132B123NeABm123HdBNeA75HdB113NeA75225HdBGcDuHdBDuHdB75Ma225113WbDu132BBm123DuGcGcWbNeA123HdBNeABm113123NeABm132BNeA75132CGc132CWb123132C225123DuNeAWbCbNeA225225BmWbDuNeANeAWb132BNeA132CNeA113WbNeAGcWb132B75GcWbDu225123Wb132BNeANeA75GcGcBmMaDuGcGcDuNeAGcNeA123NeANeAGcNeADuNeA132BNeANeAHdC275NeAGcGc132BWbNeA132C123GcCbDuNeAWb123HdC2Wb75HdC2NeADuWbGc225WbDuCbNeAWb132CNeA225WbGcNeAWbWb225DuNeA75WbWb113GcWbDu225NeANeA75WbWb132C132CNeANeABmWbDuDuGc75GcNeAHdBNeADuWb132CNeADuDuHdBDuNeAWbNeAWbBmDuNeANeANeABmNeAWbBmPeltierLakeCentervilleLakeHUGOCENTERVILLELINO LAKESSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_Soils.mxd Date Saved: 9/5/2017 1:29:14 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamLakesNRCS Soils DataWebster loamDundas fine sandy loamHayden fine sandy loam, 2-6% slopesHayden fine sandy loam, 6-12% slopesNessel fine sandy loam, 1-4% slopesCathro muckBluffton loamBlomford loamy fine sandBraham loamy fine sand, 2-6% slopesDundas loamGlencoe loamMarkey muckNowen sandy loamRifle mucky peatFigure 8 - NRCS SoilsNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,200 feet113/Wb123132B/HdB132C/HdC2225/NeA544/Cb75BmBtBDuGcMaNoRf §¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadACD 55 Br 8ACD 55 Main TrkACD 72 Main TrkACD 72 Br 11ACD 72 Main TrkHardwood Ck [JD2]Clearwater Ck [JD3]Elmcrest Ave NPeltier Lake Dr§¨¦35WA C D 7 2 B r 1 QntQlQbsQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQntQllQllQpQpQlQbtQllQbtQntQlQaQbtQbtQntQpQaQlQpQlQbsQpQbtQbtQbtQnaQbtQpQbtQbtQbtQlQlQpQnaPeltierLakeCentervilleLakeRondeauLakeHUGOCENTERVILLELINO LAKESLINO LAKESDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_SurfGeology.mxd Date Saved: 9/5/2017 12:43:22 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamLakesSurficial GeologyQUATERNARY UNITSHudson EpisodeAlluviumLake sandLake silt and clayPeat and muckNew Brighton FormationSand faciesSand over gray loamy to sandy tillNew Ulm FormationLoamy tillSandy tillMixed tillFigure 9 - Surficial GeologyNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,500 feetQaQlQllQpQntQnaQndQbsQbt SMT_002SMT_004AACD55MT_024ACD55MT_007ACD55MT_010ACD55MT_011ACD55MT_012ACD55MT_013ACD55MT_014ACD55MT_015ACD55MT_017ACD55MT_018ACD55MT_022ACD55MT_025ACD55MT_027ACD55BR8_001ACD55MT_026ACD55MT_028ACD55MT_009ACD55MT_008ACD72_05ACD72_06ACD72_07ACD72_08ACD72_09ACD72_10ACD72_11ACD72_12ACD72_14ACD72_15ACD72_16ACD72_17CWC_RC_PELTIER_002CWC_RC_PELTIER_008CWC_RC_PELTIER_009MRC_RC_PELTIER_001MRC_RC_PELTIER_001CWC_RC_PELTIER_002ACD55MT_007SMT_002Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, Sources: Esri, DeLorme, USGS, NPSDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_InfoSWMM-Updates.mxd Date Saved: 10/19/2017 5:07:01 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamRevised CSMP SubcatchmentsExisting URC SubcatchmentsExisting HWC SubcatchmentsExisting CWC SubcatchmentsFigure 11 - InfoSWMM UpdatesNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 2,000 feetClearwater CreekInfoSWMM ModelHardwood CreekInfoSWMM ModelUpper Rice CreekInfoSWMM Model ACD72_06ACD72_14ACD72_15ACD72_16ACD72_17CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5ACD55MT_028ACD55MT_009ACD55MT_025ACD55MT_021ACD55MT_022ACD55MT_020ACD55MT_019ACD55MT_017ACD55MT_010ACD55BR8_001ACD72_05ACD55MT_007.5CWC_RC_PELTIER_008ACD72_08ACD55MT_018ACD55MT_016ACD55MT_015ACD55MT_012ACD55MT_013ACD55MT_014ACD55MT_011ACD55MT_024ACD55MT_008ACD55MT_027ACD55MT_026ACD72_07ACD72_09CWC_RC_PELTIER_009ACD72_11ACD72_10SMT_002.5ACD72_12SMT_004ASource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_InfoSWMM-Proposed.mxd Date Saved: 9/4/2017 4:59:55 PMLegendCSMP BoundarySubcatchmentURC SubcatchmentsHWC SubcatchmentsCWC SubcatchmentsProposed Open ChannelProposed CulvertFigure 12 - Proposed InfoSWMMNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,153 feetkjkjkjkjkjProposed Regional BMP Location Peltier Lake§¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\CSMP_InfiltrationSuitability_050217.mxd Date Saved: 10/19/2017 4:57:46 PMLegend" " " " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " " """"""""Depth to Groundwater < 24"Marginal Infiltration SuitabilityNWI WetlandsUnsuitable Soil Hydrologic GroupDWSMAFigure 13 - Infiltration SuitabilityNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 1,200Feet¯1 inch = 1,153 feetSUMMARY OF INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY DRAINAGE AREA FEASIBLE AREAHugo 215.6 ac 54.0 acEast 533.9 ac 93.6 acCentral 447.3 ac 94.1 acWest 152.5 ac 30.8 acTOTAL 1,349.3 ac 272.3 ac Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix B – Existing Modeling Inputs and Results APPENDIX B - EXISTING INFOSWMM INPUTS Area [ac] % ACD55BR8_001 EAST 97.893 2.606 2.662 83.92 0.383 2.623 1448.157 48.943 ACD55MT_007 15.426 6.492 42.085 86.392 0.315 3.994 842.32 14.243 ACD55MT_007.5 CENTRAL 28.801 0.27 0.937 83.309 0.401 1.921 1432.659 41.07 ACD55MT_008 CENTRAL 67.641 2.929 4.33 83.661 0.391 2.211 1901.152 47.811 ACD55MT_009 EAST 183.161 4.941 2.698 80.744 0.477 2.732 2224.56 71.466 ACD55MT_010 EAST 62.93 1.756 2.79 81.159 0.464 2.69 1492.03 32.658 ACD55MT_011 HUGO 3.786 0.51 13.471 64.693 1.092 5.042 403.227 13.546 ACD55MT_012 HUGO 35.618 2.189 6.146 70.134 0.852 3.866 1734.4 52.683 ACD55MT_013 HUGO 11.098 0.849 7.65 64.529 1.099 4.518 680.302 22.179 ACD55MT_014 HUGO 5.4 2.785 51.574 79.447 0.517 5.124 412.514 11.946 ACD55MT_015 HUGO 5.531 1.051 19.002 67.218 0.975 6.032 505.331 15.851 ACD55MT_016 HUGO 3.326 1.903 57.216 84.489 0.367 4.547 372.214 7.245 ACD55MT_017 HUGO 13.926 2.738 19.661 70.353 0.843 4.733 757.112 14.894 ACD55MT_018 HUGO 3.327 1.748 52.54 85.141 0.349 8.157 551.035 11.84 ACD55MT_019 HUGO 10.416 2.803 26.911 74.272 0.693 5.082 688 19.414 ACD55MT_020 HUGO 6.666 3.746 56.196 84.303 0.372 4.571 605.766 8.784 ACD55MT_021 HUGO 0.94 0.597 63.511 87.103 0.296 8.891 145.006 5.002 ACD55MT_022 HUGO 4.717 2.644 56.053 84.883 0.356 5.321 462.272 6.886 ACD55MT_024 HUGO 1.905 0 0 78.97 0.533 5.759 377.6 12.071 ACD55MT_025 HUGO 108.941 5.54 5.085 75.944 0.634 3.413 2125.104 50.431 ACD55MT_026 CENTRAL 14.835 0 0 83.86 0.385 1.947 747.365 21.106 ACD55MT_027 CENTRAL 68.153 14.25 20.909 86.642 0.308 3.694 2562.48 35.808 ACD55MT_028 EAST 79.294 0.542 0.684 81.005 0.469 2.751 1642.512 54.456 ACD72_01 65.858 18.642 28.306 74.686 0.678 3.357 1859.984 50.243 ACD72_02 29.642 2.958 9.979 82.006 0.439 2.947 990.642 46.065 ACD72_03 14.011 5.599 39.961 75.735 0.641 4.667 714.949 35.11 ACD72_04 9.337 2.843 30.449 73.817 0.709 4.533 510.846 33.887 ACD72_04B 12.063 4.305 35.688 73.871 0.707 4.065 803.469 42.85 ACD72_05 CENTRAL 18.806 1.169 6.216 73.054 0.738 3.939 823.824 20.601 ACD72_06 WEST 58.465 0.042 0.072 84.663 0.362 1.918 1511.829 41.142 ACD72_07 CENTRAL 6.461 1.573 24.346 72.832 0.746 4.582 586.395 13.794 ACD72_08 CENTRAL 4.943 0 0 83.872 0.385 1.855 377.011 12.432 ACD72_09 CENTRAL 56.87 0.348 0.612 81.134 0.465 2.527 1526.32 34.619 ACD72_10 CENTRAL 29.044 0.519 1.787 83.141 0.406 2.477 1076.064 21.697 ACD72_11 CENTRAL 15.616 0.179 1.146 83.093 0.407 2.481 807.602 22.992 ACD72_12 CENTRAL 54.612 0.645 1.181 82.763 0.417 2.382 1535.963 43.825 ACD72_14 EAST 22.761 1.946 8.55 83.26 0.402 3.065 895.154 20.349 ACD72_15 EAST 20.515 0 0 76.274 0.622 2.248 705.899 26.563 ACD72_16 EAST 16.123 1.998 12.392 83.199 0.404 3.327 814.832 15.796 ACD72_17 EAST 2.514 0 0 75.592 0.646 3.275 286.424 8.357 CWC_RC_PELTIER_001 9.39 3.756 40 76.529 0.613 5.025 915.954 12.302 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002 81.513 19.035 23.352 72.982 0.740 3.913 1955.04 49.709 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5 WEST 41.091 0 0 75.001 0.667 1.69 1241.749 53.468 CWC_RC_PELTIER_003 14.456 5.443 37.652 74.82 0.673 4.31 1318.4 15.471 CWC_RC_PELTIER_004 19.176 7.67 39.998 76.572 0.612 4.81 1052.8 14.314 CWC_RC_PELTIER_005 4.37 1.481 33.89 79.956 0.501 4.698 383.493 10 CWC_RC_PELTIER_006 18.884 7.552 39.992 79.531 0.515 4.795 1049.6 18.963 CWC_RC_PELTIER_008 CENTRAL 58.298 0.003 0.005 85.479 0.340 1.831 1889.84 31.093 CWC_RC_PELTIER_009 CENTRAL 21.211 0 0 84.681 0.362 1.826 941.146 27.839 L_PELTIER_07 49.286 20.395 41.381 82.103 0.436 3.602 2052.512 34.637 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001 1273.83 87.291 6.853 84.246 0.374 1.555 10258.94 62.15 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5 WEST 52.956 1.646 3.108 75.591 0.646 2.576 1554.475 48.632 MRC_RC_PELTIER_002 126.454 18.542 14.663 66.827 0.993 3.293 3248 108.645 MRC_RC_PELTIER_003 13.412 4.543 33.873 80.493 0.485 7.193 710.306 11.773 Subcatchment ID Impervious Calcs WCN Ia [in] Tc [min] Slope [%]Width [ft]Area [ac] CSMP Region 1 of 2 APPENDIX B - EXISTING INFOSWMM INPUTS Area [ac] % Subcatchment ID Impervious Calcs WCN Ia [in] Tc [min] Slope [%]Width [ft]Area [ac] CSMP Region MRC_RC_PELTIER_004 3.183 1.273 39.994 71.109 0.813 4.325 373.661 13.445 MRC_RC_PELTIER_006 87.354 1.633 1.869 82.325 0.429 2.182 1788.768 47.406 MRC_RC_PELTIER_009 38.801 9.219 23.76 75.187 0.660 4.161 1315.488 10 SMT_002 314.096 38.51 12.261 81.019 0.469 3.556 5123.472 101.506 SMT_002.5 CENTRAL 1.986 0.067 3.374 78.479 0.548 1.827 278.718 10.515 SMT_004A EAST 48.753 0.675 1.385 86.1 0.323 1.815 1186.091 34.849 2 of 2 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix C – Regional BMP Conceptual Layout SALO TRUSTEE BERNICE & SALO TRUSTEE JAMESLEIBEL HAL LLAKE DRIVEPELTIER 20TH AVE K:\02029-790\Cad\Plan\NE Area 6-22-16 Final.dwg Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix D – Proposed Model Inputs and Results APPENDIX D - PROPOSED INFOSWMM INPUTS Area [ac]% ACD55BR8_001 EAST 97.893 66.771 68.208 88.125 0.270 2.623 1448.157 42.056 ACD55MT_007 15.426 6.492 42.085 86.392 0.315 3.994 842.320 14.243 ACD55MT_007.5 CENTRAL 28.801 20.985 72.862 87.965 0.274 1.921 1432.659 34.770 ACD55MT_008 CENTRAL 67.641 50.731 75 88.151 0.269 2.211 1901.152 40.674 ACD55MT_009 EAST 183.161 99.514 54.331 83.626 0.392 2.732 2224.560 65.029 ACD55MT_010 EAST 62.93 38.407 61.031 88.768 0.253 2.69 1492.030 24.983 ACD55MT_011 HUGO 3.786 0.51 13.471 64.693 1.092 5.042 403.227 13.546 ACD55MT_012 HUGO 35.618 2.189 6.146 70.134 0.852 3.866 1734.400 52.683 ACD55MT_013 HUGO 11.098 0.849 7.65 64.529 1.099 4.518 680.302 22.179 ACD55MT_014 HUGO 5.4 2.785 51.574 79.447 0.517 5.124 412.514 11.946 ACD55MT_015 HUGO 5.531 1.051 19.002 67.218 0.975 6.032 505.331 15.851 ACD55MT_016 HUGO 3.326 1.903 57.216 84.489 0.367 4.547 372.214 7.245 ACD55MT_017 HUGO 13.926 2.738 19.661 70.353 0.843 4.733 757.112 14.894 ACD55MT_018 HUGO 3.327 1.748 52.54 85.141 0.349 8.157 551.035 11.840 ACD55MT_019 HUGO 10.416 2.803 26.911 74.272 0.693 5.082 688.000 19.414 ACD55MT_020 HUGO 6.666 3.746 56.196 84.303 0.372 4.571 605.766 8.784 ACD55MT_021 HUGO 0.94 0.597 63.511 87.103 0.296 8.891 145.006 5.002 ACD55MT_022 HUGO 4.717 2.644 56.053 84.883 0.356 5.321 462.272 6.886 ACD55MT_024 HUGO 1.905 0 0 78.97 0.533 5.759 377.600 12.071 ACD55MT_025 HUGO 108.941 5.54 5.085 75.944 0.634 3.413 2125.104 50.431 ACD55MT_026 CENTRAL 14.835 11.126 74.998 87.999 0.273 1.947 747.365 18.183 ACD55MT_027 CENTRAL 68.153 48.062 70.521 88.104 0.270 3.694 2562.480 33.893 ACD55MT_028 EAST 79.294 48.292 60.902 83.651 0.391 2.751 1642.512 49.918 ACD72_01 65.858 18.642 28.306 74.686 0.678 3.357 1859.984 50.243 ACD72_02 29.642 2.958 9.979 82.006 0.439 2.947 990.642 46.065 ACD72_03 14.011 5.599 39.961 75.735 0.641 4.667 714.949 35.11 ACD72_04 9.337 2.843 30.449 73.817 0.709 4.533 510.846 33.887 ACD72_04B 12.063 4.305 35.688 73.871 0.707 4.065 803.469 42.85 ACD72_05 CENTRAL 18.806 9.792 52.068 77.511 0.580 3.939 823.824 18.111 ACD72_06 WEST 58.465 26.355 45.078 71.683 0.790 1.918 1511.829 61.122 ACD72_07 CENTRAL 6.461 4.846 75.004 88.3 0.265 4.582 586.395 8.391 ACD72_08 CENTRAL 4.943 3.707 74.995 88.028 0.272 1.855 377.011 10.703 ACD72_09 CENTRAL 56.87 38.368 67.466 84.609 0.364 2.527 1526.320 30.841 ACD72_10 CENTRAL 29.044 21.251 73.168 87.84 0.277 2.477 1076.064 18.352 ACD72_11 CENTRAL 15.616 9.699 62.109 85.313 0.344 2.481 807.602 21.305 ACD72_12 CENTRAL 54.612 38.978 71.373 87.56 0.284 2.382 1535.963 37.003 ACD72_14 EAST 22.761 17.071 75.001 88.455 0.261 3.065 895.154 16.877 ACD72_15 EAST 20.515 12.668 61.75 83.046 0.408 2.248 705.899 21.514 ACD72_16 EAST 16.123 11.203 69.485 85.996 0.326 3.327 814.832 14.334 ACD72_17 EAST 2.514 1.824 72.554 87.037 0.298 3.275 286.424 5.766 CWC_RC_PELTIER_001 9.39 3.756 40 76.529 0.613 5.025 915.954 12.302 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002 81.513 19.035 23.352 72.982 0.740 3.913 1955.040 49.709 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5 WEST 41.091 11.984 29.165 75.745 0.640 1.69 1241.749 36.837 CWC_RC_PELTIER_003 14.456 5.443 37.652 74.82 0.673 4.31 1318.400 15.471 CWC_RC_PELTIER_004 19.176 7.67 39.998 76.572 0.612 4.81 1052.800 14.314 CWC_RC_PELTIER_005 4.37 1.481 33.89 79.956 0.501 4.698 383.493 10 CWC_RC_PELTIER_006 18.884 7.552 39.992 79.531 0.515 4.795 1049.600 18.963 CWC_RC_PELTIER_008 CENTRAL 58.298 42.354 72.651 87.418 0.288 1.831 1889.840 28.965 CWC_RC_PELTIER_009 CENTRAL 21.211 15.908 74.999 88 0.273 1.826 941.146 24.673 L_PELTIER_07 49.286 20.395 41.381 82.103 0.436 3.602 2052.512 34.637 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001 1273.83 87.291 6.853 84.246 0.374 1.555 10258.944 62.150 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5 WEST 52.956 18.452 34.844 73.035 0.738 2.576 1554.475 52.300 MRC_RC_PELTIER_002 126.454 18.542 14.663 66.827 0.993 3.293 3248.000 108.645 Tc [min] Slope [%]Width [ft]Subcatchment ID CSMP Region Area [ac] Impervious Calcs WCN Ia [in] 1 of 2 APPENDIX D - PROPOSED INFOSWMM INPUTS Area [ac]% Tc [min] Slope [%]Width [ft]Subcatchment ID CSMP Region Area [ac] Impervious Calcs WCN Ia [in] MRC_RC_PELTIER_003 13.412 4.543 33.873 80.493 0.485 7.193 710.306 11.773 MRC_RC_PELTIER_004 3.183 1.273 39.994 71.109 0.813 4.325 373.661 13.445 MRC_RC_PELTIER_006 87.354 1.633 1.869 82.325 0.429 2.182 1788.768 47.406 MRC_RC_PELTIER_009 38.801 9.219 23.76 75.187 0.660 4.161 1315.488 10 SMT_002 314.096 38.51 12.261 81.019 0.469 3.556 5123.472 101.506 SMT_002.5 CENTRAL 1.986 1.489 74.975 88.166 0.268 1.827 278.718 7.574 SMT_004A EAST 48.753 36.537 74.943 88.285 0.265 1.815 1186.091 32.125 NOTES: 1. Subcatchments in Hugo and outside the CSMP study area proided for reference only. No changes from existing conditions were made to these subcatchments. 2 of 2 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix E – Water Quality Calculations Appendix E - Existing Total Phosphorus Loading by Subcatchment Area TP Load [ac][in][in][ac-ft] ACD55BR8_001 EAST 97.893 83.92 1.92 0.384 0.19 1.55 ACD55MT_007 15.426 86.392 1.58 0.316 0.26 0.33 ACD55MT_007.5 CENTRAL 28.801 83.309 2 0.4 0.18 0.43 ACD55MT_008 CENTRAL 67.641 83.661 1.95 0.39 0.19 1.07 ACD55MT_009 EAST 183.161 80.744 2.38 0.476 0.13 1.98 ACD55MT_010 EAST 62.93 81.159 2.32 0.464 0.14 0.73 ACD55MT_011 HUGO 3.786 64.693 5.46 1.092 0 0 ACD55MT_012 HUGO 35.618 70.134 4.26 0.852 0.01 0.03 ACD55MT_013 HUGO 11.098 64.529 5.5 1.1 0 0 ACD55MT_014 HUGO 5.4 79.447 2.59 0.518 0.11 0.05 ACD55MT_015 HUGO 5.531 67.218 4.88 0.976 0 0 ACD55MT_016 HUGO 3.326 84.489 1.84 0.368 0.21 0.06 ACD55MT_017 HUGO 13.926 70.353 4.21 0.842 0.01 0.01 ACD55MT_018 HUGO 3.327 85.141 1.75 0.35 0.23 0.06 ACD55MT_019 HUGO 10.416 74.272 3.46 0.692 0.04 0.03 ACD55MT_020 HUGO 6.666 84.303 1.86 0.372 0.2 0.11 ACD55MT_021 HUGO 0.94 87.103 1.48 0.296 0.28 0.02 ACD55MT_022 HUGO 4.717 84.883 1.78 0.356 0.22 0.09 ACD55MT_024 HUGO 1.905 78.97 2.66 0.532 0.1 0.02 ACD55MT_025 HUGO 108.941 75.944 3.17 0.634 0.06 0.54 ACD55MT_026 CENTRAL 14.835 83.86 1.92 0.384 0.19 0.23 ACD55MT_027 CENTRAL 68.153 86.642 1.54 0.308 0.27 1.53 ACD55MT_028 EAST 79.294 81.005 2.34 0.468 0.13 0.86 ACD72_05 CENTRAL 18.806 73.054 3.69 0.738 0.03 0.05 ACD72_06 WEST 58.465 84.663 1.81 0.362 0.21 1.02 ACD72_07 CENTRAL 6.461 72.832 3.73 0.746 0.03 0.02 ACD72_08 CENTRAL 4.943 83.872 1.92 0.384 0.19 0.08 ACD72_09 CENTRAL 56.87 81.134 2.33 0.466 0.14 0.66 ACD72_10 CENTRAL 29.044 83.141 2.03 0.406 0.18 0.44 ACD72_11 CENTRAL 15.616 83.093 2.03 0.406 0.18 0.23 ACD72_12 CENTRAL 54.612 82.763 2.08 0.416 0.17 0.77 ACD72_14 EAST 22.761 83.26 2.01 0.402 0.18 0.34 ACD72_15 EAST 20.515 76.274 3.11 0.622 0.06 0.1 ACD72_16 EAST 16.123 83.199 2.02 0.404 0.18 0.24 ACD72_17 EAST 2.514 75.592 3.23 0.646 0.06 0.01 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002 81.513 72.982 3.7 0.74 0.03 0.2 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5 WEST 41.091 75.001 3.33 0.666 0.05 0.17 CWC_RC_PELTIER_008 CENTRAL 58.298 85.479 1.7 0.34 0.23 1.12 CWC_RC_PELTIER_009 CENTRAL 21.211 84.681 1.81 0.362 0.21 0.37 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001 1273.83 84.246 1.87 0.374 0.2 21.23 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5 WEST 52.956 75.591 3.23 0.646 0.06 0.26 SMT_002 314.096 81.019 2.34 0.468 0.13 3.4 SMT_002.5 CENTRAL 1.986 78.479 2.74 0.548 0.09 0.01 Subcatchment ID CSMP Region CN S 1.1-in Event Runoff 1 of 4 Appendix E - Existing Total Phosphorus Loading by Subcatchment SMT_004A EAST 48.753 86.1 1.61 0.322 0.25 1.02 2 of 4 Appendix E - Existing Total Phosphorus Loading by Subcatchment Weighted TP TP Load [mg/L][lb] 0.277 1.17 0.356 0.32 0.318 0.37 0.316 0.92 0.201 1.08 0.248 0.49 0.174 0 0.142 0.01 0.084 0 0.326 0.04 0.137 0 0.355 0.06 0.124 0 0.338 0.06 0.18 0.01 0.363 0.11 0.399 0.02 0.381 0.09 0.192 0.01 0.214 0.31 0.32 0.2 0.298 1.24 0.299 0.7 0.266 0.04 0.32 0.89 0.281 0.02 0.32 0.07 0.311 0.56 0.318 0.38 0.282 0.18 0.305 0.64 0.309 0.29 0.279 0.08 0.308 0.2 0.241 0.01 0.188 0.1 0.145 0.07 0.307 0.94 0.32 0.32 0.051 2.94 0.19 0.13 0.229 2.12 0.317 0.01 3 of 4 Appendix E - Existing Total Phosphorus Loading by Subcatchment 0.319 0.88 4 of 4 Appendix E - Proposed TP Loading by Subcatchment Area TP Load Weighted TP TP Load [ac][in][in][ac-ft][mg/L][lb] ACD55BR8_001 EAST 97.893 88.125 1.35 0.27 0.32 2.61 0.221 1.57 ACD55MT_007 15.426 86.392 1.58 0.316 0.26 0.33 0 0 ACD55MT_007.5 CENTRAL 28.801 87.965 1.37 0.274 0.31 0.74 0.215 0.43 ACD55MT_008 CENTRAL 67.641 88.151 1.34 0.268 0.32 1.8 0.222 1.09 ACD55MT_009 EAST 183.161 83.626 1.96 0.392 0.19 2.9 0.189 1.49 ACD55MT_010 EAST 62.93 88.768 1.27 0.254 0.34 1.78 0.186 0.9 ACD55MT_011 HUGO 3.786 64.693 5.46 1.092 0 0 0.46 0 ACD55MT_012 HUGO 35.618 70.134 4.26 0.852 0.01 0.03 0.449 0.04 ACD55MT_013 HUGO 11.098 64.529 5.5 1.1 0 0 0.468 0 ACD55MT_014 HUGO 5.4 79.447 2.59 0.518 0.11 0.05 0.5 0.07 ACD55MT_015 HUGO 5.531 67.218 4.88 0.976 0 0 0.462 0 ACD55MT_016 HUGO 3.326 84.489 1.84 0.368 0.21 0.06 0.5 0.08 ACD55MT_017 HUGO 13.926 70.353 4.21 0.842 0.01 0.01 0.285 0.01 ACD55MT_018 HUGO 3.327 85.141 1.75 0.35 0.23 0.06 0.499 0.08 ACD55MT_019 HUGO 10.416 74.272 3.46 0.692 0.04 0.03 0.356 0.03 ACD55MT_020 HUGO 6.666 84.303 1.86 0.372 0.2 0.11 0.5 0.15 ACD55MT_021 HUGO 0.94 87.103 1.48 0.296 0.28 0.02 0.499 0.03 ACD55MT_022 HUGO 4.717 84.883 1.78 0.356 0.22 0.09 0.5 0.12 ACD55MT_024 HUGO 1.905 78.97 2.66 0.532 0.1 0.02 0.3 0.02 ACD55MT_025 HUGO 108.941 75.944 3.17 0.634 0.06 0.54 0.5 0.73 ACD55MT_026 CENTRAL 14.835 87.999 1.36 0.272 0.31 0.38 0.22 0.23 ACD55MT_027 CENTRAL 68.153 88.104 1.35 0.27 0.32 1.82 0.216 1.07 ACD55MT_028 EAST 79.294 83.651 1.95 0.39 0.19 1.26 0.21 0.72 ACD72_01 65.858 74.686 3.39 0.678 0.05 0.27 0 0 ACD72_02 29.642 82.006 2.19 0.438 0.15 0.37 0 0 ACD72_03 14.011 75.735 3.2 0.64 0.06 0.07 0 0 ACD72_04 9.337 73.817 3.55 0.71 0.04 0.03 0 0 ACD72_04B 12.063 73.871 3.54 0.708 0.04 0.04 0 0 ACD72_05 CENTRAL 18.806 77.511 2.9 0.58 0.08 0.13 0.229 0.08 ACD72_06 WEST 58.465 71.683 3.95 0.79 0.02 0.1 0.42 0.11 ACD72_07 CENTRAL 6.461 88.3 1.33 0.266 0.32 0.17 0.224 0.1 ACD72_08 CENTRAL 4.943 88.028 1.36 0.272 0.31 0.13 0.221 0.08 ACD72_09 CENTRAL 56.87 84.609 1.82 0.364 0.21 1 0.219 0.6 ACD72_10 CENTRAL 29.044 87.84 1.38 0.276 0.31 0.75 0.216 0.44 ACD72_11 CENTRAL 15.616 85.313 1.72 0.344 0.23 0.3 0.188 0.15 ACD72_12 CENTRAL 54.612 87.56 1.42 0.284 0.3 1.37 0.228 0.85 ACD72_14 EAST 22.761 88.455 1.31 0.262 0.33 0.63 0.25 0.43 ACD72_15 EAST 20.515 83.046 2.04 0.408 0.18 0.31 0.211 0.18 ACD72_16 EAST 16.123 85.996 1.63 0.326 0.25 0.34 0.234 0.22 ACD72_17 EAST 2.514 87.037 1.49 0.298 0.28 0.06 0.243 0.04 CWC_RC_PELTIER_001 9.39 76.529 3.07 0.614 0.07 0.05 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002 81.513 72.982 3.7 0.74 0.03 0.2 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5 WEST 41.091 75.745 3.2 0.64 0.06 0.21 0.19 0.11 CWC_RC_PELTIER_003 14.456 74.82 3.37 0.674 0.05 0.06 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_004 19.176 76.572 3.06 0.612 0.07 0.11 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_005 4.37 79.956 2.51 0.502 0.12 0.04 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_006 18.884 79.531 2.57 0.514 0.11 0.17 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_008 CENTRAL 58.298 87.418 1.44 0.288 0.29 1.41 0.215 0.82 CWC_RC_PELTIER_009 CENTRAL 21.211 88 1.36 0.272 0.31 0.55 0.22 0.33 L_PELTIER_07 49.286 82.103 2.18 0.436 0.16 0.66 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001 1273.83 84.246 1.87 0.374 0.2 21.23 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5 WEST 52.956 73.035 3.69 0.738 0.03 0.13 0.258 0.09 MRC_RC_PELTIER_002 126.454 66.827 4.96 0.992 0 0 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_003 13.412 80.493 2.42 0.484 0.12 0.13 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_004 3.183 71.109 4.06 0.812 0.02 0.01 0 0 1.1-in Event Runoff CN SCSMP RegionSubcatchment ID 1 of 2 Appendix E - Proposed TP Loading by Subcatchment MRC_RC_PELTIER_006 87.354 82.325 2.15 0.43 0.16 1.16 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_009 38.801 75.187 3.3 0.66 0.05 0.16 0 0 SMT_002 314.096 81.019 2.34 0.468 0.13 3.4 0 0 SMT_002.5 CENTRAL 1.986 88.166 1.34 0.268 0.32 0.05 0.226 0.03 SMT_004A EAST 48.753 88.285 1.33 0.266 0.32 1.3 0.248 0.88 2 of 2 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix F – CSMP Design Standards by Parcel Proposed CSMP Allocations by ParcelCSMPParcel AreaPlanned ImperviousArea Suitable for InfiltrationLive Storage AllocationMax. RateEx. Max RateRegion[ac][ac][ac][ac-ft][cfs][cfs]11-31-22-43-0005WEST1.050.1600.3%0.130.11-11-31-22-43-0006WEST10.2200.4%0.180.10-12-31-22-31-0001CENTRAL58.937.924.922.8%7.35.890.1512-31-22-31-0002CENTRAL19.87.415.292.4%6.231.980.1212-31-22-33-0001CENTRAL19.6810.337.553.5%9.11.970.1912-31-22-33-0003CENTRAL9.884.676.982.2%5.750.990.1212-31-22-33-0004CENTRAL11.126.476.052.5%6.471.110.1312-31-22-34-0003CENTRAL39.2127.6918.578.8%22.83.920.4312-31-22-34-4GAPCENTRAL0.180.140.020.04%0.110.020.0012-31-22-41-0001EAST37.3422.5518.167.0%17.493.730.2012-31-22-41-0002EAST2.341.7600.4%1.10.230.0112-31-22-42-0001EAST31.6622.2816.45.8%14.583.170.1312-31-22-43-0002CENTRAL5.160.00400.001%00.520.0012-31-22-43-0003EAST30.6520.1610.695.7%14.363.070.1212-31-22-44-0001EAST39.6423.328.587.4%18.563.960.1113-31-22-11-0001EAST39.5217.940.037.4%18.513.950.1113-31-22-12-0002EAST30.394.1805.7%14.233.040.0813-31-22-13-0002EAST30.2222.662.855.7%14.153.020.0813-31-22-14-0001EAST39.3324.4111.497.4%18.423.930.1113-31-22-21-0003CENTRAL40.032913.299.0%23.274.000.4813-31-22-21-0004CENTRAL3424.3314.47.6%19.763.400.4013-31-22-22-0002CENTRAL1.41.051.40.3%0.810.140.0013-31-22-22-0003CENTRAL4.763.582.91.1%2.770.480.0613-31-22-23-0003CENTRAL39.9128.208.9%23.23.990.3513-31-22-23-0004CENTRAL39.9729.547.618.9%23.234.000.2913-31-22-31-0001CENTRAL39.629.4508.9%23.023.960.6213-31-22-31-0002CENTRAL201504.5%11.632.000.4113-31-22-32-0001CENTRAL19.5514.6604.4%11.361.960.2813-31-22-33-0001CENTRAL39.0128.7208.7%22.683.905.1513-31-22-34-0001CENTRAL37.928.4308.5%22.033.792.7113-31-22-41-0003EAST10.337.6301.9%4.841.030.0413-31-22-41-0004EAST10.227.420.81.9%4.791.020.0413-31-22-41-0005EAST25.1316.758.934.7%11.772.510.0913-31-22-42-0001EAST30.5721.8705.7%14.323.060.1113-31-22-43-0002EAST10.827.4902.0%5.071.080.0413-31-22-44-0001EAST54.633.67010.2%25.545.460.2314-31-22-11-0001WEST19.477.755.7312.7%6.351.950.2414-31-22-11-0002WEST19.489.256.1112.8%6.391.950.2214-31-22-12-0002WEST44.1815.2816.7728.6%14.34.420.21Parcel Identification NumberRegional BMP Allocation1 of 2 Proposed CSMP Allocations by ParcelCSMPParcel AreaPlanned ImperviousArea Suitable for InfiltrationLive Storage AllocationMax. RateEx. Max RateRegion[ac][ac][ac][ac-ft][cfs][cfs]Parcel Identification NumberRegional BMP Allocation14-31-22-13-0002WEST49.828.76016.1%8.064.98-14-31-22-14-0001WEST38.9612.3025.5%12.773.900.0414-31-22-21-0001WEST0.90.450.350.6%0.290.09-14-31-22-21-0004WEST2.340.960.811.5%0.770.23-24-31-22-11-0005EAST185.1701.8%4.451.800.0424-31-22-11-0007EAST1.240.8400.2%0.520.120.0124-31-22-11-0008EAST16.549.3502.8%7.061.650.0624-31-22-12-0001EAST28.128.7902.4%5.92.810.0524-31-22-21-0002CENTRAL5.450.2800.1%0.220.555.8724-31-22-21-0003CENTRAL14.160.4700.1%0.361.426.972 of 2 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 12-17, Vacating Drainage & Utility Easements, Lot 2, Block 1, St. Clair Estates VOTE REQUIRED: 4/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration of Ordinance No. 12-17, Vacating Drainage & Utility Easements, Lot 2, Block 1, St. Clair Estates. BACKGROUND The St. Clair Estates residential subdivision was platted in August of 2017. A builder for this development, Sharper Homes, has requested a vacation of a drainage and utility easement on Lot 2, Block 1. This lot is unique to the development due to the rear yard drainage system, as shown on the enclosed map. Sharper Homes is a semi-custom home builder, where they take standardized floor plans and make modifications to accommodate a buyer's needs. Lot 2 Block 1 renders some of their floor plans unavailable and may eliminate the possibility of a deck. Sharper Homes, is currently working with a buyer for this lot, and would like to assure the buyer that the stock plan meets their needs, and would allow for a modest deck. ANALYSIS The drainage and utility easement was put in place with the St. Clair Estates plat to maintain public access to the rear yard storm sewer and drainage system. The proposed changes include moving the storm sewer approximately 5 feet away from the building pad, and the associated portion of the drainage and utility easement be vacated. The developer’s engineer has submitted the proposed storm sewer design modification and easement vacation which was reviewed and approved by City staff. The proposed easement vacation is to accommodate Sharper Homes request for their semi- custom home proposed on Lot 2 Block 1 of St. Clair Estates. An Ordinance is required to vacate the easement and the City Council held a public hearing for the vacation on November 13, 2017 upon which there were no comments on the proposed ordinance. 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 12-17 Vacating Drainage & Utility Easements, Lot 2, Block 1, St. Clair Estates. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 12-17 2. Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Sketch 1 1st Reading: 11/13/2017 Publication: 2nd Reading: 11/27/2017 Effective: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 12-17 ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (Lot 2, Block 1, St. Clair Estates) The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains: Section 1: Findings of Fact 1. The City Council of Lino Lakes has determined to vacate a portion of the drainage and utility easement, as created and dedicated over, under, and across Lot 2, Block 1, in the plat of St. Clair Estates, Anoka County, Minnesota; and 2. A public hearing was held on November 13, 2017 before the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers after due published and posted notice had been given and reasonable attempts were made to give personal notice to all affected property owners, and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. It appears to be in the best interest of the City to vacate such drainage and utility easements; and 4. Four-fifths of all members of the City Council concur with this ordinance. Section 2: Easement Vacated Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Description: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, St. Clair Estates, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows. Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 45 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 2 a distance of 43.78 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 03 degrees 48 minutes 30 seconds East 80.17 feet to the north line of said Lot 2; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 45 seconds West along said north line 7.77 feet; thence South 01 degrees 45 minutes 01 seconds East 80.04 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom the north and south 5 feet of said Lot 2. Attached hereto Exhibit A 2 Section 3: Effect This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter and upon the easement vacation of Lot 2 Block 1 of St. Clair Estates recording with Anoka County, Minnesota. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of November, 2017. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was introduced by Council Member_____________and was duly seconded by Council Member ___________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ____________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee PE, City Engineer MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report) i. Consider Resolution No. 17-135, Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements, West Shadow Lake Area Street and Utilities ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-136, Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements, LaMotte Area Street and Utilities VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration to authorize the Preparation of Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report) for the West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Area Street and Utility Improvement Projects. BACKGROUND On May 8, 2017 the City Council accepted the Feasibility Report for the West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Area Street Reconstruction Projects. The report was completed to provide a cost for the 2017-2021 Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan. The Street Reconstruction Plan was approved by Council on June 12, 2017 which allows the City to issue Street Reconstruction Bonds to cover the cost of the improvements. There are no assessments proposed for street and stormwater improvements. The next step in the process is to consider the extension of municipal utilities while continuing to work on the roadway design. Neighborhood meetings are scheduled on November 28, 2017 to provide information to residents on the extension of municipal utilities. The LaMotte neighborhood meeting will be held from 6:00 to 7:00 pm, and the West Shadow Lake neighborhood meeting from 7:00 to 8:00 pm. The preliminary design, project costs, and assessments amounts will be presented. The first stage of the roadway and drainage design is being completed. We are working on determining the roadway width, safety, and stormwater management/quality improvements. The Reshanau Lake outlet culvert is one of the design schedule critical paths. Staff received a petition from property owners to keep the lake elevation at a recreational level. We believe this to be the current culvert restricted elevation. Considerations with this request include the permitting agencies of Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). We obtained data on the culvert. The next step is to work with RCWD who will review their Chain of Lakes system modeling. They will review elevations and impacts that changing a lake level has on both upstream and downstream watersheds. The agencies will include the impact to the flood elevation of Reshanau Lake. A lake level change could result in additional properties being within a new Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone. The permitting for this type of request typically takes multiple years. At the last neighborhood meeting residents were interested in testing their wells. The City provided well testing kits to each property owner in both neighborhoods. We are hoping to receive feedback on the results at the upcoming neighborhood meeting West Shadow Lake Area Area residents have previously expressed interest in the extension of municipal sewer and water as part of the project. The existing septic systems are aging and the lot sizes may limit the ability to replace systems cost effectively. Currently there are systems that are located in the public right of way which will need to be considered with the roadway reconstruction project. Extending sanitary sewer would improve the water quality within the watershed and specifically Reshanau Lake which is an impaired water. The septic system age is as follows, note the majority of these systems do not meet current standards and are considered non- compliant: Number of Systems: 62 0-5 Years Old: 5% 5-10 Years Old: 8% 10-15 Years Old: 8% 15-20 Years Old: 6% 20+ Years Old: 73% The Minnesota Department of Health had 49 wells on record. The well age is as follows: Number of Wells 49 10-15 Years Old 2% 15-20 Years Old 2% 20-25 Years Old 10% 25-30 Years Old 10% 30+ Years Old 76% The extension of both municipal utilities would provide property owners the opportunity to subdivide their parcels. There are approximately 9 subdividable parcels with a majority of them located on the west side of West Shadow Lake Drive. If municipal utilities are extended in the West Shadow Lake area, the project costs would be covered by either special assessments or connection charges. The extension of municipal utilities will ultimately be up to the property owners. The procedure for assessing beneficial properties is governed by Minnesota State Chapter 429 and the City’s Charter. The first step is being considered tonight. A Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report) including the project cost, preliminary design and a proposed assessment roll will be presented to Council on December 11, 2017. The Public Hearing would then be held in January of 2018. The overall project schedule is to start construction in the fall of 2018 with a majority of construction extending into 2019. LaMotte Area The LaMotte neighborhood currently has municipal sanitary sewer. The extension of a municipal water system would come from the City of Centerville’s water supply. We are planning to have the property owners complete a survey of interest for watermain extension prior to starting the City’s Charter/Minnesota State 429. However they are being included in the first stage of the process in the event that they choose to have municipal water extended to their neighborhood. The LaMotte Area Roadway Reconstruction Project is planned to be bid and constructed in 2018. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of: i. Resolution No. 17-135 Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report), West Shadow Lake Area Street and Utilities. ii. Resolution No. 17-135 Authorizing Preparation of Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report), LaMotte Area Street and Utilities. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-135 2. Resolution No. 17-136 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-135 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON IMPROVEMENTS (AMENDING MAY 8, 2017 FEASIBILITY REPORT) WEST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE AREA STREET AND UTILITY PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 17-42 the City Council accepted the feasibility report for the West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Project prepared by WSB & Associates, dated May 8, 2017, and WHEREAS, The City is proposing to reconstruct West Shadow Lake Drive (north of Birch Street), Sandpiper Drive, and Shadow Court and construct associated stormwater improvements in accordance with the 5-year Street Reconstruction Plan adopted June 12, 2017, Resolution 17- 54, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the best interest of the City to consider the extension of sanitary sewer and water utilities along West Shadow Lake Drive (north of Birch Street), Sandpiper Drive, and Shadow Court in conjunction with said street improvements, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the utility extension, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and the City Charter, and WHEREAS, the number of benefitted property owners is estimated at 74 and will be determined as part of the report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes: City Council directs staff to amend the feasibility report dated May 8, 2017 to include the number of benefitted property owners and all necessary project costs in both unit price and in total for all components of the project including, but not limited to, the extension of sanitary sewer and water utilities. That the proposed improvement be referred to WSB and Associates, Inc., for study and that they are instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of November, 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. 17-136 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON IMPROVEMENTS (AMENDING MAY 8, 2017 FEASIBILITY REPORT) LAMOTTE AREA STREET AND UTILITY PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 17-42 the City Council accepted the feasibility report for the West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Project prepared by WSB & Associates, dated May 8, 2017, and WHEREAS, The City is proposing to reconstruct LaMotte Drive and LaMotte Circle along with associated stormwater improvements in accordance with the 5-year Street Reconstruction Plan adopted June 12, 2017, Resolution 17-54, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the best interest of the City to consider the extension of water utility along LaMotte Drive and LaMotte Circle in conjunction with said street improvements, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the utility extension, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and the City Charter, and WHEREAS, the number of benefitted property owners is estimated at 43 and will be determined as part of the report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes: City Council directs staff to amend the feasibility report dated May 8, 2017 to include the number of benefitted property owners and all necessary project costs in both unit price and in total for all components of the project including, but not limited to, the extension of sanitary sewer and water utilities. That the proposed improvement be referred to WSB and Associates, Inc., for study and that they are instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of November, 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 Council Meeting November 27, 2017 Authorization to Prepare Report on Improvements Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report Feasibility prepared to provide street and drainage costs for the Street Reconstruction Plan Street Reconstruction Plan to issue Bonds Report to include Municipal Utility options Neighborhood Meetings Nov. 28, 2017 to discuss process for considering utility extension LaMotte 6:00 to 7:00 PM West Shadow Lake 7:00 to 8:00 PM Roadway design balanced with stormwater management and quality improvements Reshanau Lake outlet culvert ◦Existing culvert is blocked, the elevation is ~ 2 feet higher and the flow is restricted ◦Received a request from residents to maintain lake elevations = restricted conditions RCWD and MNDNR permitting agencies ◦Review system model for watershed impacts ◦Flood elevations evaluated as request may create an increase ◦Process may take multiple years –separate project Well testing for property owners Residents expressed interest in municipal utilities ◦Replace aging systems -lot size limitations ◦Older systems are non-compliant with current standards ◦Municipal Utilities required to subdivide Water Quality ◦Reshanau and Rice Lakes Impaired Waters ◦Remove riparian lots from ISTS Septic System Ages Number of Systems:62 0-5 Years Old:5% 5-10 Years Old:8% 10-15 Years Old:8% 15-20 Years Old:6% 20+ Years Old:73% Well Ages Number of Wells 49 10-15 Years Old 2% 15-20 Years Old 2% 20-25 Years Old 10% 25-30 Years Old 10% 30+ Years Old 76% Sanitary Sewer exists within the project area Extend Water System from the City of Centerville (JPA) ◦Geographic location ◦Loop system and easements ◦Ground water pressure Roadway Project ◦No Assessments ◦Street Reconstruction Bonds Municipal Utilities ◦To Be Determined 1.Assessments per Minnesota State Chapter 429 and the City’s Charter Sub dividable lots assessment is deferred until connection Adopted and payable (not required to connect unless failing) 2.Connection Charges Payable at the time of connection Roadway Project ◦No Assessments ◦Street Reconstruction Bonds Sanitary Sewer Repair ◦No Assessments ◦Utility Operating Fund Extend Water System ◦Neighborhood survey to determine interest ◦Funding either through 1.Assessments (includes a public process) 2.Connection Charges (Payable at the time of connection) The Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report) will include: ◦Preliminary utility design ◦Proposed assessment roll Presented to Council on December 11, 2017 The Public Hearing to follow in January of 2018 Design thru March 2018 Project Bidding April 2018 Additional Public/Neighborhood Meetings ◦Per Minnesota State Chapter 429 and the City’s Charter ◦60% and 90% Design Stage ◦Pre construction Construction ◦LaMotte 2018 ◦WSL late 2018 into 2019 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6G STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: November 27, 2017 TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-138, Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Construction Contract, Surface Water Maintenance Project – Block 3, Pheasant Hills Preserve 5th Addition VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote Required INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting authorization to accept quotes and award the construction contract for a Surface Water Maintenance Project, Block 3 - Pheasant Hills Preserve 5th Addition. 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. Sites are selected for maintenance based on public input, input from Public Works, and feasibility of locations. The City received a storm water maintenance request to resolve a backyard drainage issue in the Pheasant Hills Preserve 5th Addition. This type of project falls outside of the City’s annual maintenance program. Accordingly, the property owner has agreed to pay 100% of the cost of the improvement. The proposed improvement will include installation of draintile, yard drains, regrading and restoration. An escrow account will be established to secure funds to complete the proposed work. Quotes were received for the above-referenced project on November 13, 2017. The quotes were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated. CONTRACTOR TOTAL QUOTE Olson’s Sewer Service, Inc. $19,688.00 Northland Landscape and Construction, Inc. $32,880.00 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 $19,688.00. An escrow in the amount of 125% of the project cost will be in place prior to award of the contract. The completion date for this project is December 31, 2017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 17-138 accepting quotes and awarding a construction contract for a Surface Water Maintenance Project, Block 3 – Pheasant Hills Preserve 5th Addition, in the amount of $19,688.00 to Olson’s Excavating Service. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 17-138 2. Construction Plan CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 17-138 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES, AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, A SURFACE WATER MAINTENANCE PROJECT, BLOCK 3 – PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE 5TH ADDITION WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for the construction of a Surface Water Maintenance Project, Block 3 – Pheasant Hills Preserve 5th Addition, quotes were received and tabulated: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID Olson’s Sewer Service, Inc. $19,688.00 Northland Landscape and Construction, Inc. $32,880.00 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 a Surface Water Maintenance Project, Block 3 – Pheasant Hills Preserve 5th Addition according to the plans on file in the office of the City Clerk; and Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 27th day of November, 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