The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-02-2020 Council Work Session PacketCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, March 2, 2020 Community Room 6:00 P.M. Oath of Office – Tony Cavegn 1. CSAH 34 Birch Street (509 Birch Street) Project Update, Michael Grochala 2. Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study, Michael Grochala, Rick DeGardner & WSB 3. 87 Lilac Street Concept Plan, Katie Larsen 4. 617 Apollo Drive-Muddy Cow Site & Building Plan Review, Katie Larsen 5. Creation of Joint Powers Entity for Metro I-Net, Jeff Karlson 6. Trunk Utility Fees, Michael Grochala 7. Schedule Advisory Board Candidate Interviews, Jeff Karlson 8. Ambulance Service PSA, John Swenson 9. Use of Force Simulator, John Swenson 10. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council 11. Monthly Progress Report, Jeff Karlson 12. Review Regular Agenda 13. Adjourn WS – Item 1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 1 (Revised) Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Birch Street (CSAH 34) proposed improvements Background Following discussion at the February 3, 2020 work session the Project Management Team (PMT) has continued to work on revisions to the preliminary layout and develop project costs estimates. Project Layout Anoka County in the process of trying to adjust the West Shadow roundabout to avoid removal of the existing house in the northeast corner. This may require a variance for front yard setback. Staff has indicated we would be supportive of a request should it be needed. Terminating the project immediately east of West Shadow Lake Drive will eliminate the extension of the south side trail, linking Fawn Lane to Old Birch. The trail extension would be completed when a permanent solution for this section is constructed. Staff has received requests to install a street light at the Old Birch/Birch Street intersection. Depending on the scope of the County project this may need to be addressed separately by the City. Anoka County has received a couple additional resident comments to include the Old Birch roundabout in the project. Cost Estimates The County received a bid estimate of $4,000.00 to salvage the brick from 509 Birch Street. The cost does not include mortar removal or hauling of the material. A draft Joint Powers Agreement has been prepared for City review. The agreement sets forth a basic understanding of both the City and County project responsibilities and cost share. The City’s estimated share, based on the two roundabout option, is approximately $571,000. Over 1/3 of the costs are related to relocation of trunk water main. This cost will be funded by the Water Utility fund. The balance of the City’s share would be funded by Municipal State Aid funds. Any proposed landscaping, within the roundabouts, would be 100% City Cost. These figures will be refined as the project design proceeds. The PMT is in the process of reviewing the four lane signal design, and three roundabout option to provide a general estimate of potential costs. Representatives from Anoka County and WSB will be present at the work session to discuss the project. To maintain a 2021 construction schedule we are proposing to act on Municipal Consent and JPA approval by the first meeting in April. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting feedback on the design considerations, cost share and what, if any, additional information the City Council would like provided to reach consensus on the design. Attachments 1. January 28, 2020 Open House comments 2. Preliminary JPA and Cost Estimate Open House comments We are happy about the proposed changes to Birch St. We often take the backroads to get to Hodgsen Rd rather than attempting to cross traffic to go. Same is true when leaving Rice Lake Elementary after drop off or pick up. Going left is our route, but will often take a right and wind through the neighborhood to reach our house that is east of Rice Lake Elementary. If a solution to help Old Birch intersection, do it now otherwise it will be an issue for 20 years. Possible left turn only added. Prefer no additional stoplights. Use roundabouts. Prefer to avoid loss of ball fields - any option to add one if we lose one? Detours were really bad last project. Put in signals or signs at CR J & Centerville Rd for sure and something at Ware & CR J. I'm fearful that the introduction of two roundabouts will restrict traffic to the point that there will be gridlock off Hodgson to Birch. It's going to create long lines on Hodgson - luck to get 6 cars/light. I would have to turn right & travel a distance to turn left on Birch St? This is non-sensical. What does the math show? Thank you. Two roundabouts by school should help traffic flow once people get used to them. Doesn't seem it will affect Black Duck getting out to Birch going east either early AM or late afternoon. Too many people pass on the shoulder if you're stopped to turn left out to Black Duck. I like the roundabouts. I like that it ends at Kingfisher. I won't like if we need to go to Old Birch to go west. That will make a lot of traffic for those south of Birch, between West Shadow Lake and Old Birch. Thank you for keeping us involved with the decisions. Add parking for Rice Lake Elementary events, cars park on the street right now. Moving the trail in front of 441 Birch doesn't seem to have much value. The space is enough for snow and other needs. Seems like overkill with 2 roundabouts. Do we need 2 by the school? I don't think speed is high on that stretch compared to east of the church to Centerville Rd. Passing on the shoulder at Black Duck Rd & Birch is happening a fair amount and is very dangerous!! Turning onto Birch from Black Duck Road due to speed as well. I was hoping the project scope would include Hokah Drive. Approve and recommend 3rd roundabout. We think the roundabouts will help the traffic flow at the school and solve the intersection problem at West Shadow Lake Rd. Stopping the median between West Shadow and Kingfisher Ct allows the residents to continue to take lefts in and out of their neighborhoods. This is a win for the residents. It doesn't make sense to only look at part of the corridor. The 2011 study is out of date and residents should be privy to the thinking along the whole corridor. Just like in 2011, it's not a promise of what will happen, but we should be able to see the conceptual thinking. Two roundabouts are excellent! They will slow traffic down. I live on W Shadow Lake and at 8 am and 6 pm it is extremely difficult to make a left turn going south away from the school. Traffic exceeds the 50 mph signs. Excited to have a roundabout where Birch meetgs Old Birch. Great!! Thrilled to have a bike path on the south side of Birch to Old Birch as well. Huge safety concern with all the kids moving into Saddle Club development. Thank you for adding the roundabout at Old Birch Street as well as extening the sidewalk on the south side of Birch. This will improve safety. We're very much concerned with how congested traffic will be at the school entrance. We don't think the roundabout will allow smooth, continuous flow in both directions during school start and end. A turn signal there that could be left in amber mode on the school side & full mode during the critical school hours would be much more effective. I think that at the end of the school day the circles will be a grid lock. You need to run your simulation with the volume of cars and traffic at school pick up at end of day and adjust accordingly. Good with what is proposed as long as they keep tunnel and have crosswalks at roundabouts. Would like to see well marked crosswalks at Deerwood. Yes roundabouts! New ideas are often hard for everyone, but roundabouts are definitely the best. We need to listen to the experts. PLEASE put in a roundabout at Old Birch, it's so dangerous and dark with NO street lights and people flying/driving at 55 mph. Also please lower the speed limit. I trust the roundabouts will be extra large. Financially it would be best to include Old Birch now when you have the bids, contractors, etc... Later it will be a ton more $. Please go all the way to Old Birch!! :) We are thankful for what the county is going to do along Birch St in front of the school. It would be a good idea to add the roundabout at Birch & Old Birch (as is currently proposed). We live in the Saddle Club development and can definitely say that traffic at that intersection can be dangerous. We have already witnessed one accident there and would hate to see any more. Cars move on Birch at too high a rate of speed around that corner. When I heard that the alternative to roundabouts was a four lane Birch Street with traffic lights, I understood better the benefits. I also learned how this design stops left-hand turns and how the roundabouts work instead. I am encouraged that this is a good solution for the traffic problems on Birch Street 1) Thanks for listening! I see comments from the first meeting drawn up on the current plans! 2) Adding the 3rd roundabout looks like a great idea from a safety standpoint for cars and pedestrians! It acts as a natural slow down for cars coming around the curve by the church! Like the roundabout concept. Please consider the 3rd one at Old Birch. Possibly on at Blackduck also sooner rather than later! Please put the roundabout in at Old Birch & Birch Street. We live on Pheasant Run south. It can be very dangerous pulling out onto Birch! Lighting at Old Birch Street would be great. Hard for friends to see the light when driving to our home. Also a trail to connect us to the north side of Birch would be great. Thank you! Yes roundabout and yes definitely need path to Old Birch and roundabout to Old Birch. Old Birch is sooo dangerous and needs a roundabout. Do it now with this project it will be cheaper now. Approve of all plans including 3rd roundabout. Overall understand problems and solution - consider instead of 2 roundabout, do just one at West Shadow and create a drive out the east side of the school to West Shadow. This would help keep traffic flowing better. Also - consider deleting the outside curbs so as to allow for better chemical filtration. Stop creating all of these mini toxi waste sites aka ponding. These will eventually come back to haunt us all!! All of Birch needs to be addressed. Way too many cars and people pass on shoulder all the time. Have you considered a center opposing left turn lane? Again, PLEASE look at Birch all the way to Centerville Rd. I don't think the video of simulated traffic flow is realistic. Traffic will be slowed much more than depicted. Making a right to make a left (up to 1/2 mile out and 1/2 mile back) is environmentally irresponsible. Fuel is wasted and put into the air. I would like to see a roundabout at Birch and Ware Rd Continue the project through to the third roundabout - with center medians and road repair from that roundabout through the entire project. Eliminate the roundabout at Tomahawk Trail and change the access to Rice Lake Elementary to on in and out access at the W Shadow Lake roundabout. Map Comments Keep Hokah Full Access! Have on-going community meetings or open houses throughout the planning and construction project. Bring enough comment cards to accommodate the anticipated crowd. Look at reconstruction (roundabout??) at OLD Birch Street to accommodate the traffic from the ever-growing Saddle Club Development. Don't need two roundabouts. Have Rive Lake Elementary use their driveway to go out on West Shadow Lake Drive and eliminate the roundabout at Tomahawk. Provide more distance from traffic to trail. Would like a meeting where we sit in chairs and can ask you questions Please!! Crosswalks (arrow pointing at Tomahawk roundabout). Continue walking path east to Old Birch. Sidewalk or trail connecting east to Old Birch. WS – 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Re: Water Treatment Facility Feasibility Study Background At the February 3, 2020 City Council work session staff discussed the need to prepare a Water Treatment Plant feasibility study to evaluate future water treatment options. Staff has worked with WSB and Associates to identify the necessary scope of the study. WSB has submitted a proposal to complete the study for $39,886. The study components include: 1) Evaluation of Alternative Water Supply Options to address short to mid-term needs. 2) Analyze Source Water 3) Evaluate Water Treatment Options 4) Review Potential Plant Site 5) Prepare Centralized Water Treatment Plan Preliminary Drawings 6) Evaluate future system needs and phasing 7) Study Neighborhood Impacts 8) Determine Estimated Costs WSB is proposing to complete the Study by June 1, 2020. Architectural renderings are not included in this phase of the proposal but can be provided for an additional fee. No public outreach is included at this time. Staff would anticipate that both architectural renderings and a public information meeting would be part of a future project development phase. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting City Council direction to place consideration of the WSB proposal on the March 9, 2020 agenda. Attachments 1. WSB Water Treatment Facility Feasibility Study proposal 178 E 9TH STREET | SUITE 200 | SAINT PAUL, MN | 55101 | 651.286.8450 | WSBENG.COM February 25, 2020 Mr. Rick DeGardner Public Services Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Proposal for Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study City of Lino Lakes, MN Dear Mr. DeGardner: We appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter proposal to the City of Lino Lakes to complete the Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study. The Minnesota Department of Health recently tested the City’s manganese levels in each of the City’s wells as part of the EPA Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 4 (UCMR4). The water quality testing data from MDH indicates that five of the City’s six wells exceed the maximum recommended manganese level for infants (100 ppb), and three of the wells exceeds the maximum recommend manganese level for adults and children (300 ppb). Therefore, the design and construction of a water treatment plant should be studied to treat the high levels of manganese that exist in the City’s drinking water in addition to treating other contaminants such as iron and ammonia. Alternative water supply options will also be evaluated as part of this study. I. SCOPE OF WORK 1. Alternative Water Supply Options In lieu of constructing a water treatment plant(s) to treat the City’s existing wells, alternative water supply options will also be evaluated. These options include: A. Drilling new wells B. Purchasing treated water from another community or water utility 2. Analyze Source Water All existing water quality data for the City’s existing wells will be reviewed with respect to primary and secondary drinking water standards as well as contaminants and emerging contaminants. We recommend completing additional testing for any key water quality parameters (ex. ammonia, total organic carbon, emerging contaminants, etc.) that possibly have not been tested to date by the City. Our team will then develop a comprehensive treatment plan that addresses all identified contaminants, ensures regulatory compliance, and produces high quality water for the City’s customers. WSB will also look ahead and evaluate the water quality parameters that will likely need to be evaluated for both conventional and biological filtration for the water treatment pilot testing to be completed in the next phase of the project. It is assumed for this study that the City will pay for all water quality testing. Mr. Rick DeGardner February 25, 2020 Page 2 3. Water Treatment Options Upon completion of the source water analysis, we will explore available water treatment options and the recommending preferred processes for treating known and emerging contaminants that will potentially need to be treated over the anticipated life of the water treatment plant(s). The report will examine available treatment process options for identified contaminants potentially needing treatment, recommend a preferred treatment process for each identified contaminant, identify required space needs for preferred treatment processes, provide recommendation as to the required size and preferred location for the facility, and provide cost estimates for constructing and operating the facility. We will study both conventional and biological filtration and present their benefits. The iron, manganese, and ammonia in the City’s water could be treated without chlorine and potassium permanganate with biological filtration. Biological filtration is commonly practiced in the United States and Europe and is endorsed by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) as an efficient and effective method for treating these (and other) contaminants. The benefits of biological filtration include higher filtration rates, longer filter runs (reduces backwash supply and wastewater volumes), savings in chemical costs, and reduction in disinfection byproducts. The design of a conventional gravity filtration process with detention and aeration can easily be modified to accommodate biological filtration after the successful completion of a biological filtration study as required by MDH. WSB will coordinate and attend tours of existing water treatment facilities that utilize each of the treatment methods being evaluated so that City staff have a clear understanding of the treatment technologies and options that are available for the water treatment plant. The analysis will include, but not be limited to, initial construction costs, long term operational costs, the ability of each system to effectively and efficiently remove iron, manganese, ammonia, and other contaminants from the water supply, the discharge of the waste product, and the ability of the plant to be expanded or be modified in the future. This will be a comprehensive review and recommendation on the “best” plant to meet the current and future needs of the City. 4. Review Existing Site A potential site for the proposed water treatment plant has been identified at the southwest intersection of Birch Street and 12th Avenue South. The WSB team will visit the proposed water treatment plant site and review the existing wetlands in the area. We will also review the as-built drawings, easements, and existing infrastructure to determine if the site is feasible for further consideration for the water treatment plant. Potential contaminants and other barriers that may restrict or affect the layout of the plant at the site will be evaluated up front during this analysis. Other factors such as ease of chemical deliveries, access for maintenance trucks, security, stormwater retention, proximity to water and sanitary sewer utilities, proximity to three phase-480 volt electrical power, proximity to existing and future wells, and the potential for the City to acquire the property will be evaluated during the preliminary design phase. 5. Centralized Water Treatment Plant Preliminary Drawings We will prepare one preliminary water treatment plant floor plan drawing and one preliminary conceptual site plan drawing for a gravity filtration plant constructed at the southwest intersection of Birch Street and 12th Avenue South. The floor plan drawing will show the various recommended rooms and dimensions for the plant. The conceptual site plan will also show space for a future water treatment plant expansion. Mr. Rick DeGardner February 25, 2020 Page 3 6. Water Distribution System Modeling and Watermain Phasing Plan Preliminary water distribution system modeling has indicated that a centralized water treatment plant could initially treat Wells 1, 3, 5, and 6, and without upsizing the existing 16-inch watermain on Birch Street. The City’s maximum day water demands will eventually exceed the hydraulic capacity of the existing 16-inch watermain on Birch Street. If Wells 2 and 4 are left untreated and used only as peaking wells on maximum day demands, the existing 16-inch watermain should have adequate hydraulic capacity to convey treated water from a centralized water treatment plant for the next 10 to 15 years based on the water demand projections in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. At that time, a parallel 16-inch watermain will need to be constructed along Birch Street and extended westward and eastward in phases as the capacity of the water treatment plant is increased and possibly expanded in the future with new wells pumping to the plant. Constructing a future plant expansion and a parallel 16-inch watermain in phases along Birch Street will be evaluated as part of this study. The raw watermain costs to be constructed from the City’s existing wells to the centralized water treatment plant will also be figured-in to the estimated costs. 7. Study Neighborhood Impacts The preliminary design report will explore potential impacts of the water treatment facility on neighboring properties due to noise, odors, operating hours, traffic, and other identified sources of impact and recommend a process for mitigating any identified impacts during the final design process. Neighborhood meetings are not anticipated for this study phase and not included in this proposal. 8. Determine Estimated Costs The preliminary design report will include estimated construction and operating costs for the groundwater treatment facility over the anticipated life of the facility. Estimated costs will assume industry standard costs for a gravity filtration water treatment plant. In addition, life cycle costs will be prepared for each alternative to provide a complete capital-life cycle cost analysis over a 20 to 30-year planning period. The report will explore future budget impacts based on estimated construction and operating costs and will explore and recommend “order of magnitude” water rate revisions needed to offset future budget impacts to fund the water treatment plant. This analysis does not replace a water rate study that should also be completed under a separate project. 9. Report Preparation The findings, estimated costs, and recommendations from the study will be summarized in a report along with report figures and presented to the City Council. 10. Meetings We will coordinate, prepare handouts, and attend up to four (4) meetings with City staff and three (3) City Council meetings to discuss the report. Mr. Rick DeGardner February 25, 2020 Page 4 II. SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED FEES A. Project Schedule We have estimated the time for the project to begin immediately after City authorization. The proposed schedule includes the following milestone dates: Task Completion Date City Council Authorization to Proceed March 9, 2020 Complete Feasibility Study May 15, 2020 Present Feasibility Study to City Council June 1, 2020 B. Estimated Fees Compensation for tasks shall be on an hourly basis, based on the actual hours worked for personnel assigned to the project. We propose to perform these services for an hourly, not-to-exceed fee of $39,886. A spreadsheet showing the estimated hours for each task is attached to this proposal. Architectural renderings are not included in this phase of the project but can be provided for an additional fee of $1,800 per rendering if requested by the City. Geotechnical services are also not included in this phase of the project. We will rely on previous soil borings to study the existing soil conditions at the proposed site. We will invoice the City on the basis of actual hours spent at current billing rates. Additional services requested by the City will be invoiced on the basis of actual hours spent at current billing rates plus the actual cost of reimbursable expenses. All services will be invoiced monthly. Our billing rates will be adjusted on an annual basis. A detailed list of project tasks is defined and shown on the attached task hour budget worksheet. Tasks not shown are considered outside of the scope of services. This letter represents our understanding of the Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study. If you are in agreement with the scope of services and proposed fee, please sign in the appropriate space below and return one copy to us. If you have any questions about this proposal, please feel free to call me at (612) 209-0140. Sincerely, WSB Greg F. Johnson, PE Director of Water/Wastewater Cc: Diane Hankee, PE, WSB ACCEPTED BY: City of Lino Lakes Name Wetland Scientist Task Description TBD 1.1 2 1 8 11 $1,506.00 1.2 1 2 3 $432.00 1.3 8 8 2 18 $2,746.00 1.4 4 1 4 9 $1,410.00 1.5 12 1 4 40 8 20 85 $11,498.00 1.6 4 1 16 21 $2,850.00 1.7 1 1 3 5 $714.00 1.8 8 1 8 17 $2,658.00 1.9 18 2 40 8 68 $9,332.00 1.10 Meetings 21 21 2 44 $6,740.00 Total Estimated Hours and Fees 79 8 114 40 8 20 2 10 281 Average Hourly Billing Rate $192 $162 $120 $150 $119 $80 $125 $94 TOTAL PROJECT COST $39,886.00 Total Hours Project Manager Jon ChristensenGreg Johnson Greg Glunz Report preparation Alternative water supply options Eva Kelly Process Drafting Technician Diane Hankee Estimate of Hours and Fees City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study Estimated Hours AdminProject Engineer Landscape Designer Landscape Architect Cost Study neighborhood impacts Determine estimated costs Karla Pederson City Engineer Shaunna Berg Analyze source water Water treatment options and plant tours Review of existing site Centralized WTP preliminary drawings Water distribution system modeling and watermain phasing 1 WS – #3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: Katie Larsen Re: Concept Plan Review for 87 Lilac Street BACKGROUND Staff is requesting Council input regarding the proposed Concept Plan for 87 Lilac Street. The applicant, Bonfe Builders, submitted a land use application for Concept Plan Review. The proposed development is a 4 lot residential subdivision of a 1.62 acre parcel located at 87 Lilac Street. The property owners are Lyndal and Sally Nelson. Due to the potential need for multiple variances and easement vacation, the applicant has submitted a concept plan. This will give staff, Boards and Council to offer comments on the proposal prior to incurring costs of submitting a full preliminary plat application. This staff report is based on the following information:  Concept Plan for Bonfe Builders prepared by EG Rud & Sons, Inc. dated January 10, 2020  Soil Map from the Natural Resources Conservation Service received on January 16, 2020 An executive summary of this staff report and future land use applications can be found at the end of this report. ANALYSIS Existing Site Conditions Per the Concept Plan, the 1.62 acre site contains one (1) single family house with attached garage on the south end of the property and a detached accessory structure. The property is sparsely wooded with grassy yard area and tillable garden. The existing house is served by private well and septic system. Municipal utilities are located along Mustang Lane and four (4) services are stubbed to the site. The parcel was platted as Lot 12, Block 2, Sunset Oaks in 1977. A large “Ponding” area is dedicated on the plat over a portion of the subject site. 2 General Site Plan The concept plan proposes four (4) residential lots with individual storm ponds. Lot sizes range from 17,590 sf to 17,734 sf and lot widths range from 125 ft to 150 ft. Land Use and Density At the time of this staff report, the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan is under review by the Met Council and has not been adopted by the City Council; therefore, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is in effect. Per the 2030 Future Land Use Map, the site is guided Low Density Residential and requires development at 1.6 to 3.9 units per net acre. Gross Area (acres) 1.62 Wetlands & Water Bodies 0.00 Public Parks & Open Space 0.00 Arterial ROW 0.00 Other (Utility Transmission Easement) 0.00 Other (Wetland Buffer Area) 0.00 Net Area (acres) 1.62 # of Units 4 Gross Density (units/acre) 2.47 Net Density (units/acre) 2.47 The proposed net density is 2.47 units per acre and is consistent with low density residential land uses. Rezoning The property is currently zoned R, Rural and would be rezoned to R-1, Single Family Residential which is consistent with adjacent sewered parcels in the neighborhood. 3 Zoning and Land Use Current Zoning R, Rural Current Land Use Rural Residential Future Land Use (Both 2030 & 2040) Low Density Residential Utility Staging Area 1A (2008-2015) Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North R-1, Single Family Single Family Residential Low Density Residential South R, Rural Rural Residential Low Density Residential East R-1, Single Family Single Family Residential Low Density Residential West R, Rural Rural Residential Low Density Residential Zoning Requirements The property will be rezoned from R, Rural to R-1, Single Family Residential. R-1 Requirements 87 Lilac St Min. Lot Size 10,800 sf Ave. 17,660 sf Min. Lot Width -Interior Lot 80 ft 150 ft -Corner Lot 100 ft 117 ft Min. Lot Depth 135 ft 1171 ft Double Frontage Lots 145 ft NA Building Setback -From Streets --Local Street 30 ft NA --Collector (Mustang Ln & Lilac St) 40 ft 301 ft --Corner lot 40 ft 301 ft 4 -Rear --Principal 30 ft 30 ft --Accessory 5 ft 5 ft -Side --Principal 10 ft 10 ft --Accessory 5 ft 5 ft --Corner lot 30 ft 30 ft Buffer 15’ if side or rear lot abuts collector or arterial street Required along Mustang Lane 1Variance required As proposed on the concept plan, Lots 1, 2 and 3 would need variances for lot depth and street setback. As discussed later in this report, road right-of-way dedication and street and utility improvements are required between Lot 1 and 2 that extends west from Mustang Court. Those lots will then front off of the new road and lot depth and setbacks can be met, eliminating the need for variances. Lot 3 will still require the variances. It should be noted the lot area of Lot 3 is 17,639 sf and exceeds the required 10,800 sf minimum. It should be noted the existing house does not currently meet west side lot line setback and the existing detached accessory structure does not meet east street lot line setback. Variances should be considered after the fact. In 2000, City Council approved a 3.5 ft variance allowing an addition to the attached garage to be setback 26.5 ft from Mustang Lane which was classified as a local road at the time. Building Type and Construction Each new single family house shall be compliant with Section 1007.043(2)(a), General Building Provisions and Section 1007.090(4), Building Requirements regarding floor area, garage and design and construction standards. Subdivision Ordinance Blocks and Lots The concept plan depicts 4 lots for the purpose of constructing 3 new houses and the existing house. Streets and Alleys 5 Per the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans, both Lilac Street and Mustang Lane are classified as minor collector streets. Section 302.03 of City Code Chapter 300: Public Property and Improvements requires 80 feet of road right-of-way for collector streets. The existing platted road right-of-way per the Sunset Oaks plat is 66 feet. Therefore, the subdivision of 87 Lilac Street would require an additional 7 feet of road right-of-way dedicated on the plat. Staff suggests possibly amending the City Code regarding required road right-of-way widths and setbacks for arterial, collector and local streets. This would apply to not only 87 Lilac Street but all future subdivisions. A variance could also be considered. Section 1001.100 of City Code Chapter 1001: Subdivisions requires streets provide for future connections to adjoining unsubdivided tracts. Road right-of-way shall be dedicated extending west across from Mustang Court and paved road improvements installed. The front lot lines and driveways for Lot 1 and Lot 2 will then come off of the new street. This should eliminate the need for lot depth and setback variances for these two (2) lots. Ideally, the driveway of the existing house would be relocated to access off of Mustang Lane. Lilac Street is a collector road that carries higher volumes of traffic than Mustang Lane. Easements The Sunset Oaks plat has a 160 foot x 190 foot ponding easement dedicated on the plat which encumbers the subject site at 87 Lilac Street. The applicant proposes vacating this easement. An extensive stormwater drainage study will be required to determine the purpose of the easement and what impacts vacating the easement may have on adjacent properties. Standard drainage and utility easements at least 10 feet wide shall be provided along all lot lines. Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control The concept plan depicts 3 linear stormwater ponds located between the lots. The soils map indicates Lino loamy fine sand and Zimmerman fine sand. The Hydrologic Soil Group is Type A. These are typically good soils for infiltration. The Sunset Oaks plat has a 160 foot x 190 foot ponding easement dedicated on the plat which encumbers the subject site at 87 Lilac Street. A 15” storm sewer pipe installed in 1998 extends from the easement area and drains east and north to a storm pond north of Pony Court. The applicant proposes vacating this easement. An extensive stormwater drainage study will be required to determine the purpose of the easement and what impacts vacating the easement may have on adjacent properties. 6 The site is subject to RCWD stormwater and erosion control regulations. A stormwater management plan and erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with City Ordinance Chapter 1011 shall be required. Utilities Public water, sanitary and storm sewer utilities are required to serve the development. Standard utility trunk, availability and Bisel amendment fees apply. Sanitary Sewer The parcel is in Sanitary Sewer District 2 and Utility Staging Area 1A (2008-2015). A 15” sanitary sewer main installed in 1998 along Mustang Lane services the site. Four (4) services were stubbed to the property. The sanitary sewer system has capacity for four (4) more residential units. Sanitary sewer main shall be installed within the required road right-of-way to the west property line to serve future development. The existing house located at 87 Lilac Street shall hook up to municipal sanitary sewer. Watermain A 12” watermain installed in 1998 along Mustang Lane services the site. Four (4) services were stubbed to the property. The water supply system has capacity for four (4) more residential units. Watermain shall be installed within the required road right-of-way to the west property line to serve future development. The existing house located at 87 Lilac Street shall hook up to municipal sanitary sewer. Public Land Dedication Park land was dedicated and fees were paid to the City for the original development of Sunset Oaks. Therefore, public land dedication requirements have been satisfied for the existing lot, 87 Lilac Street. Three (3) residential units of cash in lieu of parkland dedication will be required for the 3 new lots being created. 87 Lilac Street 3 lots x $3,150 = $9,450 Behm’s Park is located north of the subject site. Public trail exists along the north side of Lilac Street and within Behm’s Park. A trail could be installed along 87 Lilac Street to provide a connection between Lilac Street and the park; however, park dedication fees would not cover the cost. It is recommended that park dedication fees be collected for future park and/or trail improvements. Required Screening, Landscaping and Buffer Yards 7 Section 1007.043(17) of the City Code Chapter 1007: Zoning requires landscape and buffer screens between residential uses and collector streets. Buffer screens would be required along Mustang Lane. If the existing driveway is relocated to Mustang Lane, a buffer screen should be considered along Lilac Street. Open area landscape standard and boulevard tree requirements may apply depending on final subdivision design. Comprehensive Plan The proposed 4 lot residential subdivision is generally consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in regards to resource management, land use, housing, transportation, water supply and sanitary sewer. Wetlands There are no wetlands indicated on site. Floodplain There is no FEMA floodplain on site. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following is a summary of the staff report:  Rezone property from R, Rural to R-1, Single Family Residential  Variances Required o Lot depth for Lot 3  135 feet required  117 feet proposed o Road right-of-way width (Mustang Lane)  80 feet required  66 proposed o Street Setback (Mustang Lane)  40 feet required  30 feet proposed o Lot Line Setbacks for Existing House  Seven (7) feet of additional road right-of-way are required along Mustang Court unless an amendment is made to the city code or a variance is granted  Road right-of-way dedication and street and utility improvements are required between Lot 1 and 2 that extends west from Mustang Court.  Lots 1 and 2 shall front and have driveway access from the new road.  If possible, the driveway of the existing house should be relocated to Mustang Lane. 8  An extensive stormwater drainage study will be required to determine the purpose of the ponding easement and what impacts vacating the easement may have on adjacent properties.  A stormwater management plan and erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with City Ordinance Chapter 1011 shall be required.  The 3 new houses and existing house shall hook up to municipal watermain and sanitary sewer.  Standard utility trunk, availability and Bisel amendment fees apply.  Park dedication fee of $9,450 for 3 new lots is required.  Landscape and buffer screens are required along Mustang Lane.  See WSB City Engineer memo for additional comments. Future land use applications may include:  Rezoning  Variances  Preliminary Plat  Drainage & Utility Easement Vacation  Final Plat PLANNING & ZONING BOARD The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed the concept plan on February 12, 2020. The Board agreed the road and public utilities should be extended to the property line at this time. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would then front the new road. Mr. Laden suggested a 30 foot street setback for Lot 3 may be acceptable since older lots along Lilac Street are at 30 feet. Mr. Root supported a possible amendment to City ordinance regarding road right-of-way and setbacks for certain collector and arterial roads. Mr. Joe Bonfe, applicant, requested the road and public utilities not be required due to cost. He suggested possibly dedicating an outlot to City for future road right-of-way. He stated his son was possibly going to move into the existing house at 87 Lilac Street and didn’t see any issue with relocating the driveway to Mustang Lane. REQUESTED COUNCIL DIRECTION Staff is requesting Council input regarding the proposed Concept Plan for 87 Lilac Street. A concept plan does not require formal Council approval or denial via resolution. This is only an informal review so the applicant can be advised of staff, Board and Council comments. The City’s review and comments on the concept plan’s relation to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations does not grant any rights to the applicant to develop the property as depicted by the concept plan. 9 ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. WSB City Engineer memo dated February 5, 2020 4. Concept Plan for Bonfe Builders prepared by EG Rud & Sons dated January 10, 2020 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet IJ53 §¨¦I-35W LLAAKKEEDDRRAPO LLO DRAPO LLO DRPONY CTPONY CT SS TT AA LL LL IIOO NN LLNN BBEEHHMMLL NN LOIS LNLOIS LNMUSTANG CTMUSTANG CT PALOMI NO LNPALOMI NO LN4TH AVE4TH AVEJEANNE DRJEANNE DRMARSHAN LN MARSHAN LN MORGAN LN MORGAN LN LILAC STLILAC ST BR A D L E Y STBRADLEY ST CONNIE LNCONNIE LN VILLAGE DRVILLAGE DRCOUNTRY LNCOUNTRY LNMARCIA LNMARCIA LN C AR L S TCARL S T MUSTANG LN MUSTANG LN 77TH ST77TH STCCEENNTTUURRYYTTRRLL PATTI DRPATTI DRNOTTINGHAM LNNOTTINGHAM LNTH O M A S S TTHOMAS S T MEADOW VIEW TRLMEADOW VIEW TRLLEONARD AVELEONARD AVESUNSET AVESUNSET AVESUNSET AVE NESUNSET AVE NEUNNAMED Site Location Map µ 87 Lilac Street 0 200 400100 Feet 76127612 74744646 106106 101101 3131 101101 76577657 76517651 113113107107 7373 76587658 1717 76017601 76257625 75997599 11211287875959 100100 100100 4545 76997699 118118 101101 119119 75987598 114114 125125 76137613 106106 115115 76727672 122122 76077607 129129 124124 LI L AC S TLILAC S T MUSTANG LNMUSTANG LNLEONARD AVELEONARD AVEJEANNE DRJEANNE DRPONY CTPONY CT QUARTER HORSE CTQUARTER HORSE CTMUSTANG CTMUSTANG CT Aerial Map87 Lilac Street µ 178 E 9TH STREET | SUITE 200 | SAINT PAUL, MN | 55101 | 651.286.8450 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum To: Katie Larsen, City Planner, City of Lino Lakes From: Diane Hankee, City Engineer, City of Lino Lakes Date: February 5, 2020 Re: 87 Lilac Street Subdivision Concept Plan Enclosed are our engineering review comments for the Concept Plan at 87 Lilac Street in Lino Lakes, MN, prepared by EG Rud & Sons, Inc. dated January 10, 2020. The applicant is proposing 4 single family lots (1 existing) on a 1.62 acre site along Mustang Lane and Lilac Street. Engineering • Grading Grading will be reviewed with a future submittal. • Stormwater Management The City’s surface water management requirements shall be met. There is an existing ponding area on the site that has not been accommodated through the proposed side yard swales. There is an existing 15-inch concrete storm sewer outlet pipe that conveys water via a piped system to the Century Farms ponding system. The applicant will be required to complete a drainage study that addressed the existing pond and conveyance. Currently they are proposing a new home in an existing ponding area. The applicant shall anticipate a larger centralized area for ponding that perpetuates the adjacent property’s drainage. This will likely lead to the need for revised easements at 73 Lilac Street. • Water Supply There is an existing 12-inch watermain located within Mustang Lane. There are (4) existing 1-inch service stubs to the property. The existing water system is designed with the capacity to serve this parcel and, to the west, the Sunset Oaks area. 1. The applicant shall extend mainline watermain to the western boundary of their lot to serve properties to the west as outlined in the comprehensive plan. • Sanitary Sewer There is an existing 15 inch sanitary sewer main in Mustang Lane. There are (4) existing 4-inch service stubs to the property. The existing sanitary sewer system is designed with the capacity to serve this parcel and, to the west, the Sunset Oaks area. Ms. Katie Larsen 02/05/2020 Page 2 87 Lilac Street Concept Plan Engineering Review 1. The applicant shall extend mainline sanitary sewer at maximum depth to the western boundary of their lot to serve properties to the west as outlined in the comprehensive plan. • Transportation Lilac Street and Mustang Lane are identified as minor collectors. Lilac Street has an existing 120 foot right of way and Mustang Lane has an existing 66 foot right of way. Current City ordinance would require an additional 7 feet of right of way be dedicated along Mustang Lane. Staff is reviewing the required road right of way widths for collector roadways which could lead to the existing right of ways remaining. 1. The proposed development shall provide roadway access to the westerly Sunset Oaks development area for future access and roadway network connectivity. 2. The applicant shall relocate the existing house driveway from Lilac Street to Mustang Lane. 3. The development should accommodate a future trail along Mustang Lane. • Wetlands and Mitigation Plan There are no known wetlands on the proposed development site. • Floodplain There is no floodplain on the proposed development site. • Drainage and Utility Easements There is an existing ponding easement located on both the 73 & 87 Lilac Street properties. Surface water conveyance shall be maintained and existing/ future drainage easements are anticipated. See stormwater management section for additional information.  Development Agreement A development agreement will be required with the final plat.  Grading Agreement A grading agreement is not applicable at this time. • Stormwater Maintenance Agreement It is anticipated that the stormwater maintenance will be covered by the City’s programmatic agreement with RCWD. • Permits Required Permits will be identified with a preliminary plat submittal. If you or the applicant has any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diane Hankee at (651) 982-2430 or dhankee@linolakes.us. WS – #4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 4 Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: Katie Larsen, City Planner Re: Ordinance Amendment for Site Plan and Building Modifications for 617 Apollo Drive Background Staff will be presenting the attached March 11, 2020 Planning & Zoning staff report to the Council. The applicant, Sergei Nazarenko, submitted a Land Use Application for an Ordinance Amendment for site plan and building modifications at 617 Apollo Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct a restaurant with rooftop dining in the existing building. Eagle Liquors currently occupies the north portion of the retail building. The 1.02 acre site is legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Lino Lakes Market Place. Per the Marketplace Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Design Guidelines Ordinance No. 03-05, substantial departures from the approved plans require an amendment to the ordinance. Requested Council Direction None. The project will be formally presented to the Council for action on March 23, 2020. Staff wanted to provide opportunity for Council review and comment at tonight’s work session. Attachments 1. March 11, 2020 Planning & Zoning Staff Report 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P&Z MEETING DATE: March 11, 2020 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment for Site Plan and Building Modifications for 617 Apollo Drive CASE NUMBER: PD2019-003 SP2019-004 APPLICANT: Sergei Nazarenko 14891 95th Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55056 OWNER: Same REVIEW DEADLINE: Complete Application Date: February 6, 2020 60-Day Review Deadline: April 6, 2020 120-Day Review Deadline: June 5, 2020 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: March 11, 2020 City Council Work Session: March 2, 2020 Tentative City Council Meeting: March 23, 2020 BACKGROUND The applicant, Sergei Nazarenko, submitted a Land Use Application for an Ordinance Amendment for site plan and building modifications at 617 Apollo Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct a restaurant with rooftop dining in the existing building. Eagle Liquors currently occupies the north portion of the retail building. The 1.02 acre site is legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Lino Lakes Market Place. Per the Marketplace Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Design Guidelines Ordinance No. 03-05, substantial departures from the approved plans require an amendment to the ordinance. The Land Use Application is for the following: 2  Ordinance Amendment to Ordinance No. 03-05  Site and Building Plan Review This staff report is based on the followings plan sets:  Architectural Plan Set prepared by Jamb Architects dated December 12, 2020  Color Rendering Elevations prepared by Jamb Architects dated December 12, 2020  Applicant Narrative prepared by Jamb Architects dated February 3, 2020 ANALYSIS History Lino Lakes Marketplace is a master planned shopping/retail center approved in 2001. The development includes Target and Kohl’s, the four Apollo Drive retail buildings as well as those commercial buildings along Lake Drive. Ordinance No. 16-01 and amended by Ordinance No. 03-05 regulates site plan and design guidelines for the development. The design guidelines detail requirements for building composition, materials, lighting, signage, landscaping and building elevations. Per the Marketplace Site Plan, the subject site is the Retail B building. The existing building located at 617 Apollo Drive received administrative site and building plan approval in 2016 and was constructed in 2017. The multi-tenant building is 6,058 sf. Eagle Liquors currently occupies the north portion of the building. Per the Marketplace Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Design Guidelines Ordinance No. 03-05, substantial departures from the approved plans require an amendment to the ordinance. Zoning and Land Use The subject site is zoned GB, General Business with a PDO, Planned Development Overlay as established by Ordinance No. 16-01 and amended by Ordinance No. 03-05 and Ordinance No. 04-05. Current Zoning GB, General Business w/ PDO Current Land Use COM-Commercial Future Land Use per CP Commercial Utility Staging Area 1A=2008-2015 3 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North GB-General Business Commercial Commercial East GB-General Business Commercial Commercial South GB-General Business Commercial Commercial West GB-General Business Commercial Commercial Site and Building Plan Review A full site and building plan review was completed in 2016. The building complies with site plan, stormwater management, public utilities and landscaping requirements. The proposed amendment relates to an increase in building height, exterior staircase structure and both ground and rooftop mechanical equipment screening. Site Plan The existing site plan meets the performance standards of the zoning ordinance and the Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Design Guidelines. Staff Comments: 1. Sheet A1.1, Site Plan a. The sidewalk and striped pedestrian crossing across Marketplace Drive as required with construction of the original building shall be completed. b. Landing pad for middle door shall be marked. c. The middle rear door may need to be wider for emergency exit requirements. d. Concrete sidewalk shall be extended from the landing of the exterior staircase to the existing sidewalk. e. Should a fence be installed south of the hood exhaust to provide additional screening? f. Should the fence along the trash enclosure drive be continuous? Grading Plan and Stormwater Management No stormwater management changes are required for the building modifications. The existing site BMPs consist of an infiltration area to the west and an existing infiltration pond to the north for treatment, volume control and rate control. Public Utilities 4 No changes to the public utilities are required. The site is served by an 8” watermain and 8” sanitary sewer line located along Market Place Drive. A 6” watermain line serves the building. These utilities can accommodate the demands of the retail building and proposed restaurant. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Twenty-two (22) deciduous trees and thirty-five (35) shrubs are planted on site which is consistent with the Marketplace Master Landscape Plan. Additional shrubs are proposed along the screen fencing. Architectural Plans and Exterior Building Materials The existing exterior materials consist of CMU, brick, EFIS, glass, metal flashing and an awning. The building façade has recognizable elements of a base, middle and top, with various building materials and complementary colors. Materials and colors are compliant with the Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Design Guidelines. The existing building height is 16’0-16’8” to the rooftop, 18’8” to the parapet and 22’4” to the cornice. The proposed restaurant includes ground mounted mechanical equipment with 6 ft cedar, stained fence screening and exterior stair structure. The rooftop includes dining/bar areas, restrooms, stone fire pits, elevator shaft, metal guardrails and mechanical equipment with 6 ft cedar, stained fence screening. Exterior materials include glass, stucco and metal parapet cap flashing to match existing. These materials are compliant with the Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Design Guidelines. The proposed building height is 17’6” to the rooftop, 29’6” to bar and restroom parapet and 33’2” to elevator shaft parapet. These improvements increase the height of the building in some areas by 11 feet. West (Rear) Elevation Ground mounted mechanical equipment is proposed along the west (rear) elevation of the building. Equipment consists of cooler freezer condensers, makeup air, dishwasher exhaust and hood exhaust. The equipment is shown on the plan sheets as dashed lines behind the screen fences. Per Sheet A1.1, Site Plan, the applicant proposes to install four (4) sections of a 6 ft high stained cedar screen fence adjacent to the rear sidewalk and trash enclosure driveway to screen the equipment. Shrubs are also proposed along the fence. The plan sheet notes that gaps between the fence boards may occur when not using tongue and groove system. The 6 ft tall fence does not completely screen the 9 ft tall exhaust unit. Staff Comments 5 1. Screen fencing may not block egress paths. 2. Sheet A6.1 under Exterior Elevation Keynote the last #23 shall be revised to #25. 3. Is the proposed 6 ft high stained cedar fence (non-tongue and groove) acceptable? 4. The screen fence shall be high enough to screen the exhaust unit. 5. Should fencing be installed south of the hood exhaust to provide additional screening? 6. Restroom exhaust location and details shall be shown. 7. Dishwasher exhaust location shall be clearly shown. Is it above or into the trash enclosure? 8. Details are required for proposed rooftop fence screening. 9. Is red an acceptable color for the rooftop safety railings? East (Front) Elevation There are no proposed changes to the east (front) elevation of the building. North (Side) Elevation A metal exterior stair structure is proposed to provide to emergency exit from the rooftop. The staircase will egress onto a concrete sidewalk. Per the color rendering, the staircase will be painted red. It is assumed the red matches the existing exterior light fixtures on the building. Staff Comments 1. Is red an acceptable color for the stair structure? 2. Stairway lights and details are required. South (Side) Elevation There are no proposed changes to the south (side) elevation of the building. Staff Comments 1. Sheet A6.0, Existing Exterior Elevations does not accurately show the existing metal overhead door that replaced the glass windows. Are the overhead doors being replaced with glass windows? Parking During the 2016 site plan review and approval, the applicant expressed an interest regarding a restaurant as a possible second tenant. Per the Marketplace Master Site Plan, the subject site was designed for retail only. Thirty (30) parking stalls were required and constructed for this retail parcel. A restaurant would require additional parking spaces. Per the approved 2001 Marketplace Site Plan, parking requirements are as follows: 6  Retail = (Floor Area/1,000) * 5 spaces  Restaurant = ((Dining Area/1,000) * 10 spaces) + 1 spaces per employee Per City Ordinance No. 09-18, parking requirements for outdoor dining are as follows:  Outdoor Dining = For seating area > 500 sf: 1 parking space per 100 sf outdoor dining area The following chart shows parking calculations based on 10 restaurant employees: 617 Apollo Drive Use Floor Area (sf) # Stalls Required # Stalls Provided1 Eagle Liquors Retail 2,165 11 Restaurant Restaurant 2,172 32 Rooftop Dining Restaurant 3,298 28 Subtotal 4,337 71 75 130 parking stalls currently exist on site. 45 parking stalls are provided through a Commercial Lease Agreement with Discount Tires. As noted, the applicant obtained a Commercial Lease Agreement with Discount Tires to lease 45 parking stalls through March 2058. Per City Zoning Ordinance Section 1007.044(9), Control of Off-Site Parking Facilities is allowed with a recorded long term lease agreement. (9) Control of Off-Site Parking Facilities. When required, accessory off-street parking facilities are provided elsewhere than on the lot in which the principal use served is located, they shall be in the same ownership or control either by deed or long term lease, as the property occupied by such principal use, and the owner of the principal use shall file a recordable document with the City requiring the owner and his or her heirs and assigns to maintain the required number of off- street spaces during the existence of said principal use. Parking requirements are met. It should be noted that City approval of these parking requirements does not supersede any private agreements related to the overall Marketplace development. Signage All signage shall comply with by the Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Design Guidelines. A separate Sign Permit Application is required for all permanent and temporary signs. 7 Comprehensive Plan Resource Management System The Resource Management System Plan goal of preserving surface water quality is supported by the implementation of stormwater management BMP infiltration basins. Land Use Plan The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site for commercial use. The existing retail business and proposed restaurant is consistent with the designated land use. Housing Plan The goals and policies of Housing Plan are not negatively impacted by existing retail business and proposed restaurant. Economic Development A goal of the Economic Development Plan is to promote Lino Lakes’ location within the metropolitan region as an advantage in doing business. The existing retail business and proposed restaurant support this goal. 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 existing retail business and proposed restaurant are accessed via two main driveways off of Market Place Drive and there are no required improvements to these driveways. Market Place Drive is directly accessed either from Apollo Drive or CSAH 23/Lake Drive, an “A” minor reliever road that has capacity for the commercial building. Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Plan The subject site is served by an 8” sanitary sewer line and an 8” watermain located along Market Place Drive. The public utilities can accommodate the demands of the existing retail business and proposed restaurant. Community Facilities Plan The goals and policies of Community Facilities Plan are not negatively impacted by existing retail business and proposed restaurant. 8 Findings of Fact-Ordinance Amendment Per City Zoning Ordinance Section 1007.015(5), the Planning and Zoning Board shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: (a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The existing retail business and proposed restaurant are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan in regards to resource management, land use, housing, economic development, transportation, sanitary sewer and water supply plan and community facilities. (b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The existing retail business and proposed restaurant are compatible with present and future land uses. (c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. The existing retail business and proposed restaurant conforms with all performance standards with minor revisions required as noted. (d) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City’s service capacity. The existing retail business and proposed restaurant can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City’s service capacity. (e) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The traffic generated by the existing retail business and proposed restaurant are within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. Wetlands There are no wetlands located on site. Floodplain The site is not within a floodplain. 9 Stormwater Maintenance Agreement A Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities was recorded on January 6, 2017 and includes both the existing retail business and proposed restaurant. Site Improvement Performance Agreement A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is required. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the following input from the Planning & Zoning Board: 1. Should a fence be installed south of the hood exhaust to provide additional screening? 2. Should the fence along the trash enclosure drive be continuous? 3. Is the proposed 6 ft high stained cedar fence (non-tongue and groove) acceptable? a. For both ground mounted and rooftop screening? 4. Is red an acceptable color for the rooftop metal safety guardrails? 5. Is red an acceptable color for the stair structure? Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment and site and building plan review for 617 Apollo Drive with the following conditions and items being addressed: 1. Screen fencing may not block egress paths. 2. Details are required for proposed rooftop fence screening. 3. Details are required for the rooftop metal safety guardrails. 4. Details for stairway lights are required. 5. Sheet T1.1, Title Page: a. Revise title from Eagle Liquors to 617 Apollo Drive. b. Revise parking calculations. 6. Sheet A1.1, Site Plan: a. The sidewalk and striped pedestrian crossing across Marketplace Drive as required with construction of the original building shall be completed. b. The landing pad for middle door shall be marked. c. The middle door may need to be wider for emergency exit requirements. d. A concrete sidewalk shall be extended from the landing of the exterior staircase to the existing sidewalk. 7. Sheet A6.0, Existing Exterior Elevations: a. The plan sheet does not accurately show the existing metal overhead door that replaced the glass windows. i. Are the overhead doors being replaced with glass windows? 8. Sheet A6.1, Exterior Elevations: a. Under Exterior Elevation Keynote the last #23 shall be revised to #25. b. The fence shall be high enough to screen the exhaust unit. a. Restroom exhaust location and details shall be shown. 10 b. Dishwasher exhaust location shall be clearly shown. i. Is it above or into the trash enclosure? ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. 2001 Marketplace Master Site Plan 4. 617 Apollo Drive Site Plan, Floor Plans and Building Elevations 5. Color Rendering 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet §¨¦I-35W LAKE DRLAKE DRAPO LLO DRAPO LLO DREAGLE CTEAGLE CTMMAARRIILLYYNN DD RR OAK LNOAK LNCARL STCARL ST 4TH AVE4TH AVECCOOUUNNTTRRYYLLNNBARBARA LNBARBARA LN LILAC STLILAC ST OOAAKKCCTTVILLAGE DRVILLAGE DRLOIS LNLOIS LNMARSHAN LN MARSHAN LN KNOLL DRKNOLL DRNOTTINGHAM LNNOTTINGHAM LN77TH ST77TH ST TT OO WW NN CC EENNTTEERRPPKKWWYYCCAARROOLLEEDDRRA P O L L O D R A P O L L O D R GEORGEWATCH LAKE100-yr 886.1 Site Location Map µ 617 Apollo Drive 617 Apollo D rive February 21, 2020 1 in = 100 ft ± Ma p P owered By DataLink WS – 5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 5 Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator Re: Creation of JPA between Current Metro I-Net Members Background The Metro I-Net consortium currently has 35 member agencies who receive full-time IT services and nine associate members who receive limited IT services. Metro I-Net’s entire operation is under the control of the City of Roseville. Metro I-Net employees are employed by Roseville and come under its personnel policy and liability insurance. Metro I-Net’s $3.5 million budget is part of Roseville’s budget. It has become increasingly apparent that the current arrangement is not sustainable. Roseville City Manager Pat Trudgeon pointed out several reasons in his February 13, 2020 memo to members. • Metro I-Net has grown considerably since its creation; • It’s a challenge for the City of Roseville to take on additional employees, space, and liability; • Recruiting and retaining employees is challenging as Roseville’s compensation plan lags behind the market; • The Roseville City Council could decide to no longer participate in the consortium; • Giving members more say in governance, policies, and costs removes uncertainty about the future of Metro I-Net. For these reasons, a sub-group of six members met several times to lay out a basic framework for a joint powers agreement. The law firm, Kennedy & Graven, helped draft an agreement. The highlights of the JPA are summarized in Trudgeon’s memo. The group is now seeking commitments from members who want to enter into a joint powers agreement. The JPA would become effective January 1, 2021. The annual cost of overhead for operating the JPA is estimated at an additional $175,000, which represents a five percent increase for each member. Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking a commitment from the City Council to join other Metro I-Net agencies to enter into a joint powers agreement, subject to final review and approval of JPA. Attachments Roseville City Manager Pat Trudgeon’s February 13, 2020 Memo 2020 Budget Summaries Metro I-Net Program Description Draft of Joint Powers Agreement WS – 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 6 Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Utility Connection Fees Background Council members Ruhland and Stoesz requested a comparison of the City’s trunk utility fees with those charged by neighboring cities. A concern was expressed that the fee’s charged may be a deterrent to economic development. The City of Lino Lakes established trunk utility fees in 1988 to fund sanitary sewer and water system trunk improvements. Sanitary sewer trunk improvements include: lift stations, force mains, oversized sewer mains, and highway crossing casing pipes. Water system trunk improvements include: wells, pump houses, storage tanks, oversized water mains, treatment and highway crossing casing pipes. The utility fees are charged to new users. This method of financing trunk system improvements is a common practice for cities. In 2016 the City Council initiated a Connection Fee Study to evaluate the current fee structure and to minimize impacts to the end user, specifically when changing use. The fee structure was modified into two components, a trunk fee and an availability charge. The trunk fee is collected at the time of development. The study resulted in a total fee reduction of $707 per unit. The current fees for 2020 are: Trunk SAC/WAC Total/Unit Water 2,306 1,451 3,757 Sewer 1,606 1,502 3,108 A single dwelling unit is equivalent to one unit. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional uses are based on a residential equivalency unit (REU) determined by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). Staff has prepared a comparative table showing similar fees charged by other suburban communities. Fees vary by community in both amount and method. It should be noted that our fees are based on the estimated costs of developing our trunk utility system. Requested Council Direction None required. Attachments 1. 2016 Utility Connection Fee Study 2. 2020 Trunk Fee Survey JUSTIFICATION REPORT UTILITY CONNECTION FEES ANOKA COUNTY | LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA September 11, 2017 Prepared for: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-26 Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 JUSTIFICATION REPORT UTILITY CONNECTION FEES WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-26 FOR THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA September 11, 2017 Prepared By: 477 Temperance Street | St. Paul, MN 55101 | (651) 286-8450 Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com September 11, 2017 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The enclosed justification report presents the proposed connection fee structure and proposed utility connection fee methodology for both the sanitary sewer and water distribution systems. We would be happy to discuss this report with you at your convenience. Please contact me at (763) 287-8319 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jay Kennedy, PE Erin Heydinger Vice President Project Engineer Enclosure cc: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes Diane Hankee, WSB & Associates, Inc. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. James W. Kennedy, PE Date: September 11, 2017 Lic. No. 24490 Prepared By: Erin Heydinger, EIT Date: September 11, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 TITLE SHEET LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CERTIFICATION SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................1 2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 2.1 Existing System ..........................................................................................................2 3. CONNECTION FEES ........................................................................................................3 3.1 Trunk Fee ...................................................................................................................3 3.2 Calculation of Trunk Units .........................................................................................4 3.2.1 New Developments ............................................................................................4 3.2.2 Unserviced, Developed Properties................................................................4 3.2.3 Redeveloped Properties ................................................................................5 3.3 Sewer/Water Availability Charge ..............................................................................5 3.4 Calculation of SAC/WAC units .................................................................................5 3.4.1 New Developments ............................................................................................5 3.4.2 Unserviced, Developed Properties ....................................................................6 3.4.3 Redeveloped Properties ................................................................................6 4. FEE CALCULATIONS ......................................................................................................8 4.1 2030 Unit Projections .................................................................................................8 4.2 Trunk Fee ...................................................................................................................8 4.3 Sewer/Water Availability Charge ..............................................................................9 4.4. Nonresidential Fee Determination .............................................................................9 5. EXAMPLES ......................................................................................................................10 5.1 Low Density Residential ..........................................................................................10 5.2 Medium Density Residential ....................................................................................10 5.3 New Commercial – Example One ............................................................................10 5.4 New Commercial – Example Two ...........................................................................11 5.5 Commercial Use Change ..........................................................................................11 6. RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................12 Appendix A Figures Appendix B Opinion of Probable Cost for the Trunk Sanitary Sewer System Appendix C Opinion of Probable Cost for the Trunk Water Distribution System Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Lino Lakes’ current connection fee ordinance was passed in 2008, where the Sewer Access Charge (SAC) and Water Access Charge (WAC) are based on estimated utility usage and are collected at the time of development, connection, or building permit. The City’s current SAC and WAC fees are $3,073 and $4,069, respectively, or $7,142 total. The City Council authorized a study be conducted to evaluate the current water and sewer connection fee structure and recommend changes. Based on the City’s system costs and trunk facility needs, the justification report recommends a revised fee structure whereby the existing fees are broken into two categories: • Trunk Water and Sewer fees due at the time of platting or development, and • Water Access and Sewer Access charges due at the time of connection to the system The trunk sewer and water fees are derived from the costs associated with constructing the trunk systems needed to support the anticipated growth through 2030. Trunk facilities include trunk mains (over 8-inch diameter), as well as designated lift stations, wells, and water towers that are required to accommodate the anticipated growth. The total costs to build the 2030 trunk sanitary sewer and 2030 trunk water systems are approximately $12,400,000 and $18,704,600 respectively. The total costs to build the systems are divided by the projected number of residential equivalent units to be developed to obtain a uniform trunk fee per unit. The availability charges are derived from the value of the existing respective sewer and water systems. The present-day value of the existing sanitary sewer and water systems are approximately $23,064,159 and $22,271,449, respectively. The recommended sanitary sewer and water utility connection fees per unit are as follows: Water Trunk Fee: $2,162 per unit Water Availability Charge (WAC): $1,360 per unit Water Total: $3,522 Existing WAC Fee: $3,073 Sewer Trunk Fee: $1,505 per unit Sewer Access Charge (SAC): $1,408 per unit Sewer Total: $2,913 Existing SAC Fee: $4,069 Grand Total: $6,435 Existing Fee Total: $7,142 Difference: -$707 The difference between the existing and proposed fee marginal; the recommended changes will primarily change the way in which the fees are charged, rather than the total dollar amount. It is recommended that the fees be reevaluated every five years. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 2 2. BACKGROUND On February 12, 2016, the Lino Lakes City Council authorized the preparation of a report to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the City’s current utility connection fee structure. 2.1 Existing System The City currently collects SAC and WAC fees to finance improvements to the utility systems. The 2017 connection fees are $4,069 per SAC unit for water, and $3,073 per SAC unit for sewer. Connection fees are collected at the time of development or building permit, typically in the following instances: • New Residential Development • New Commercial/Industrial • Expanded Commercial/Industrial • Properties served by private wells/septic systems • Redeveloped property, determined based on the increase in SAC units related to the new use if applicable The vast majority of connection fees are derived from new development projects of varying land uses. The other circumstances listed above are less common, but do occur. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 3 3. CONNECTION FEES 3.1 Trunk Fee The City’s sewer and water trunk fees are based on the costs associated with constructing the trunk systems needed to support the anticipated growth through 2030. The additional trunk sanitary sewer and water system infrastructure is based on the Land Use Plan included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The timing of future trunk sanitary sewer and water system improvements will be influenced by several parameters including development in specific areas, failing on-site septic systems, regulatory requirements, availability of funds, etc. As a result, it is difficult to accurately predict the timing of future improvements, especially those which may occur far into the future. Therefore, the Capital Improvement Plan outlined in the Comprehensive Plan is intended to serve as a guide only for future fiscal planning and should be reviewed on a regular basis as more current planning and cost data becomes available. The trunk sanitary sewer and water system fees will be applied as a uniform trunk fee per total projected 2030 units. The value used for projected 2030 units was the average of the projections based on land use and predicted water usage. Trunk facilities include sewer and water pipe oversizing and sewer overdepth, as well as the designated municipal wells, water towers, and lift stations. The designated future trunk facilities are shown on the comprehensive sanitary sewer and water system maps contained in Appendix A. The following items are general policy guidelines to be considered when reviewing and/or revising the City’s sanitary sewer fee structure: Overdepth and Oversizing The cost of additional depth for sanitary sewer only shall be defined by differences in cost for the depth required to serve the property within the development and the depth required for trunk facilities. No watermain overdepth will be paid for with trunk fees. Trunk oversizing is defined as the differential of pipe costs between the required oversized pipe and the minimum pipe size required to serve property within a development. Pipe oversizing is generally considered as pipe sizes that are larger than 8 inches in diameter. Bid pricing shall not be the sole determinate in defining a developer credit. The City shall determine if a credit will be given for a project. Sanitary Lift Stations, Water Storage, and Water Supply Trunk lift stations will be defined as those included as part of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan as designated on the comprehensive plan sanitary sewer system figure in Appendix A. The cost of trunk lift stations will be financed by the City. Additional lift stations may be required to serve developments and lift stations that do not fit the definition for a trunk lift station will be constructed and financed privately as needed to serve individual developments. All lift stations will be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 4 Trunk storage and supply facilities are defined as the City supply wells and water storage facilities that serve the City as a whole as designated on the comprehensive plan water system figure in Appendix A. These improvements will be constructed and financed by the City. All storage and supply systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. No private wells and water storage will be paid for with trunk fees. 3.2 Calculation of Trunk Units 3.2.1 New Developments Residential Residential fees will be applied on a per unit basis at the time of plat, regardless of residence type. One unit will be assigned to each new residence, regardless of density. High wastewater generators and water users will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Non-Residential Non-residential fees, such as commercial, industrial, or institutional land uses, will be applied based on the assumed number of units per acre for each respective land use category as designated in Appendix C. In the case of mixed use developments, the trunk fee will be applied based on the sum of all respective land uses within the development at the time of plat. High wastewater generators and water users will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the time of plat and will have higher fees applied if deemed necessary by the City Council. 3.2.2 Unserviced, Developed Properties There are a number of existing developed areas that do not receive utility service within the City limits. The trunk systems have been designed to accommodate all existing developed unserviced properties within the City, but it is not the policy of the City to force individual property owners to connect to City services immediately. Lino Lakes ordinance 401.02 states that any building shall connect to City water when its present on-site water system fails, and connection to the sanitary sewer shall be required within seven years from the date of connection to the water system or sewer system availability. Therefore, properties may not connect to municipal utilities for ten or more years after those utilities become available. If an individual property owner or group of neighboring property owners wish to connect to City services where it is not yet available, the City will review whether or not it is an economically viable alternative to provide services to the area at the time of the request for connection. Residential Properties Existing developed unserviced residential properties will be treated as new development and be required to pay the uniform trunk fees per residential unit at the time of connection. Each residential property will be charged per unit regardless of the number of acres for the respective property. In developed, unserviced areas where individual sewage treatment systems are in place, those units will be charged the trunk fee at the time of connection. Non-Residential Properties Existing unserviced commercial/industrial or other non-residential properties wishing to connect to municipal utilities will be treated as new development. Each newly connected property will Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 5 be required to pay all trunk fees according to the assumed number of units per acre outlined in the appendices of this report at the time of connection. In the case of mixed use developments, the trunk fee will be assessed based on the sum of all respective land uses within the development. High wastewater generators and water users will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the time of connection. 3.2.3 Redeveloped Properties In instances where existing developed areas already serviced with City utilities wish to redevelop within the City limits, it will be up to the City to evaluate whether the trunk systems can accommodate the redeveloped sewer flows and water demand. If additional trunk facilities are required to provide the added service to the redeveloped area, the City will review whether or not it is an economically viable alternative to provide additional services to the area during the redevelopment approval process. Residential Properties In cases where new residential lots are created from the subdivision of a currently serviced property, the new lots created will be assessed a trunk fee at the time of subdivision approval. Each additional lot will be charged per unit regardless of the number of acres for the respective property. Non-Residential Properties Existing serviced commercial/industrial or other non-residential properties wishing to expand will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the City. If the existing sewer and water service is sufficient to serve the redeveloped property, no trunk fee will be assessed to the redeveloped property. If the existing sewer and water system must be expanded and/or upgraded to serve the redeveloped property, the cost of such upgrades will be borne by the property owner. 3.3 Sewer/Water Availability Charge The City’s sewer and water availability charge (SAC/WAC) are based on the value of the existing sewer and water systems. Values of each system were taken from the depreciation schedules supplied from the Finance Department which are calculated on an annual basis. The SAC/WAC charges will be applied as a uniform fee per total future 2030 units. All availability charges are to be collected at the time of connection when a building permit is requested. 3.4 Calculation of SAC/WAC units 3.4.1 New Developments Residential Developments Because the number of residential units is known at the time of platting, the number of units assigned will be based on the number of homes. Each residential connection to the City’s sewer or water systems will be weighted the same regardless of land use density. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 6 Commercial Developments The non-residential SAC/WAC charges will be determined based on the actual number of SAC units calculated by MCES during the building permit process for each connection to the sanitary sewer and water system. In the case of mixed use developments, the SAC/WAC charges will be assessed based on the sum of all respective land uses within the development at the time of connection. High wastewater generators and water users will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the time of connection and will have higher fees applied if deemed necessary by the City Council. 3.4.2 Unserviced, Developed Properties There are a number of existing developed areas that do not receive utility service within the City limits. As stated previously, it is not the policy of the City to force individual property owners to connect to City services immediately upon availability; however, if an individual property owner or group of neighboring property owners wish to connect to City services where it is not yet available, the City will review whether or not it is an economically viable alternative to provide services to the area at the time of the request for connection. Residential Properties Existing unserviced residential properties will be required to pay the SAC/WAC charges per residential unit at the time of connection. Each residential property will be charged per unit regardless of the number of acres for the respective property. In developed, unserviced areas where individual sewage treatment systems are in place, those properties will be charged a SAC/WAC charge per unit at the time of connection. Non-Residential Properties Existing unserviced commercial/industrial or other non-residential properties wishing to connect to municipal utilities will be treated as new development. Each newly connected property will be required to pay all SAC/WAC charges according to the actual number of SAC units as calculated by MCES during the building permit process. The charges will be collected at the time of connection. High wastewater generators and water users will be evaluated on a case-by- case basis at the time of connection. 3.4.3 Redeveloped Properties As stated in the Trunk Fee section, in instances where existing developed areas already serviced with City utilities wish to redevelop within the City limits, it will be up to the City to evaluate whether the sewer and water systems can accommodate the redeveloped sewer flows and water demand. For redevelopment, WAC/SAC fees are based on the difference in the current number of units versus the new number of units. Additional fees will be charged if infrastructure improvements are required as a result of the redevelopment. Residential Properties In cases where new residential lots are created from the subdivision of a currently serviced property, the new lots created will be assessed SAC/WAC charges at the time of utility connection. Each additional lot will be charged per SAC unit where one residential connection equals one SAC unit regardless of the number of acres for the respective property. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 7 Non-Residential Properties Existing serviced commercial/industrial or other non-residential properties wishing to expand will have both a SAC and WAC charge applied at the time a building permit is obtained. Each redeveloped property will be required to pay all SAC/WAC charges according to the differential between the existing number of SAC units and the redeveloped number of SAC units as calculated by MCES during the building permit process. If a redeveloped property has a lower number of SAC units, a refund will not be issued. High wastewater generators and water users will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the time of connection. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 8 4. FEE CALCULATIONS 4.1 2030 Unit Projections The 2030 units are based on the average of the projected units based on land use and the projected residential equivalents based on approximate future water use. Currently within the City of Lino Lakes, there are approximately 6,828 developable acres proposed to be developed by the year 2030 as identified in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Of that amount, 5,174 are residential acres; 1,090 are commercial or industrial acres; and 564 are mixed-use acres. The total number of units projected is the assumed number of SAC units per acre for each land use designation, multiplied by the remaining acres to be developed by 2030, resulting in approximately 12,790 equivalent units developing by the year 2030. The assumed density for each land use category is included in Appendix C. The projected units based on water usage is a residential equivalent unit volume determined by dividing average annual water usage by the number of gallons residential users demand on average. The projected 2030 water usage was divided by the residential equivalent volume to determine the additional residential equivalents by 2030, resulting in approximately 6,537 additional residential equivalents developing by 2030. The units used in this report were determined by the average of the two methodologies, resulting in an assumed additional 9,663 units to connect to the City’s water and sewer system by 2030. As development proceeds, this number should be tracked and updated to adjust fees every five years, with adjustments made incrementally to address inflation. 4.2 Trunk Fee Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for both the sanitary sewer and water supply systems were developed based on the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The CIPs were based on building the trunk facilities to accommodate the 2030 estimated growth. The trunk sanitary sewer CIP includes sanitary sewer pipe upgrades, new main installations, and designated lift station improvements within the 2030 Urban Service Area. The trunk sanitary sewer improvement projects and associated costs included in the trunk fee calculation are detailed in Appendix B. The trunk water system CIP includes water main upgrades, new main installations, and designated water supply wells and storage tanks within the 2030 Urban Service Area. Additionally, it was assumed that the Trunk Fees would cover the cost of half of the water treatment plant planned for construction. Because the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was written in 2009, those projects already constructed were removed, and five percent was added to the estimated costs to address inflation. The trunk water system improvement projects and associated costs included in the trunk fee calculation are detailed in Appendix B. The total costs to construct the 2030 trunk sanitary sewer and 2030 trunk water systems are estimated at $12,400,000 and $10,864,350, respectively. The total costs to construct the systems were divided by the total number of 2030 units remaining to be developed to obtain a uniform trunk fee per SAC unit. The calculated trunk sewer fee is $1,505 and the calculated trunk water fee is $2,162. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 9 The current trunk fee calculation only accounts for growth within the 2030 Urban Service Area. To serve areas of the City that are currently outside of the City’s 2030 MUSA, the trunk sewer collection and water distribution systems will need to be extended. Trunk facilities will include the construction of additional trunk mains, lift stations, and water supply and storage. Piping, lift station, supply, and storage requirements will be dependent on the expected population and land use of the areas. Costs to construct the trunk facilities outside of the 2030 MUSA will be evaluated when service is extended. It is recommended that this study be updated every five years, with incremental increases annually based on inflation. 4.3 Sewer/Water Availability Charge The SAC/WAC charges were based on the 2016 value of the existing sanitary sewer and water systems. Values of each system were taken from the depreciation schedules supplied from the Finance Department which are calculated on an annual basis. The 2016 value of the existing sanitary sewer and water systems are $23,064,159 and $22,271,449, respectively. The total 2016 values of the sewer and water systems were divided by the total estimated 2030 units to obtain a uniform SAC/WAC charge per unit. The calculated SAC charge per SAC unit is approximately $1,408 and the calculated WAC charge per SAC unit is approximately $1,360. 4.4. Nonresidential Fee Determination The fee charged to non-residential developments is based on acreage and SAC determination. At the time of plat, an estimate of 2.92 units per acre is assigned to the development. This number is based on the assumption that an average commercial or industrial building will use 800 gallons per acre per day. Metropolitan Council guidance recommends an assumption of 274 gallons per day per residential unit. Therefore, a residential equivalence of 800 gallons per day, divided by 274 gallons per per unit, results in the assigned value of 2.92 units per acre for non-residential development for the determination of the Trunk Fee. At the time of connection, non-residential developments are charged the SAC and WAC fee based on actual usage type. The fees assigned are determined based on the Metropolitan Council’s SAC Procedural Manual, which provides estimates for a wide variety of commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Depending on the ultimate use, the proposed fees can be either lower or higher than the existing fees. Overall, commercial fees will be lower than existing when high-use commercial development goes into a small parcel or when the assumed usage based on density is close to the actual usage; fees will be higher when a low-volume user develops a large parcel. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 10 5. EXAMPLES 5.1 Low Density Residential For an unserviced low density residential development, the fees would be calculated as shown below. This example assumes that 2.16 acres are planned for development into six residential units. Because the residential units are known, acreage is not considered. Utility Units Fee Per Unit Total Sewer Trunk Fee 6 $1,505 $9,030 Water Trunk Fee 6 $2,162 $12,972 Sewer Availability Charge 6 $1,408 $8,448 Water Availability Charge 6 $1,360 $8,160 Total $38,610 Existing Fee Structure $42,852 Difference -$4,242 5.2 Medium Density Residential This example outlines the fees assigned to a new, medium density residential development. Similar to the low-density residential example, the number of units is used to calculate the fee. Utility Units Fee Per Unit Total Sewer Trunk Fee 78 $1,505 $117,390 Water Trunk Fee 78 $2,162 $168,636 Sewer Availability Charge 78 $1,408 $109,824 Water Availability Charge 78 $1,360 $106,080 Total $510,930 Existing Fee Structure $557,076 Difference -$46,146 5.3 New Commercial – Example One This example demonstrates the calculations to determine the fees charged to a new commercial development 28 acres in size. The acreage is used to determine the Trunk Fees at the time of platting, based on an assumed unit density of 2.92 units per acre . The SAC units, determined at the time of connection, is used to calculate the Availability Charges. Utility Units Fee Per Unit Total Sewer Trunk Fee 82 $1,505 $123,410 Water Trunk Fee 82 $2,162 $177,284 Sewer Availability Charge 65 $1,408 $91,520 Water Availability Charge 65 $1,360 $88,400 Total $480,614 Existing Fee Structure $464,230 Difference +$16,384 Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 11 5.4 New Commercial – Example Two This example outlines the calculations to determine the fees charged to new development 15 acres in size. In contrast to the previous example, the number of units estimated during preliminary plat is lower than the actual SAC units calculated by usage prior to connection to the system. This example is in place to demonstrate that depending on the ultimate use, the proposed fees can be either lower or higher than the existing fees. Overall, commercial fees will be lower than existing when high-use commercial development goes into a small parcel or when the assumed usage based on density is close to the actual usage; fees will be high when a low- volume user develops a large parcel. Utility Units Fee Per Unit Total Sewer Trunk Fee 44 $1,505 $66,220 Water Trunk Fee 44 $2,162 $95,128 Sewer Availability Charge 51 $1,408 $71,808 Water Availability Charge 51 $1,360 $69,360 Total $302,516 Existing Fee Structure $364,242 Difference -$61,726 5.5 Commercial Use Change This example demonstrates the calculations to determine the fees charged to a commercial use change. The only charge assessed is the Availability Charge based on the increase in usage. In this example, the SAC units increase from three units to six units. The trunk fee is not charged because the water distribution and sewage collection systems are already in place. Utility Increase in Units Fee Per Unit Total Sewer Availability Charge 3 $1,408 $4,224 Water Availability Charge 3 $1,360 $4,080 Total $8,304 Existing Fee Structure $21,426 Difference -$13,122 In this example, infrastructure has already been extended to the property. Therefore, the new user pays for the value received from the system, but is not expected to pay for infrastructure expansion, which is paid for by new users. If the commercial use change requires infrastructure upgrades, the City will work with the property owner on a case-by-case basis to determine an appropriate Trunk Fee. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 Page 12 6. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended to update the way in which utility fees are charged as outlined within this report. The recommended fees are summarized below. Utility Trunk Fee per Unit SAC/WAC Charge per Unit Total Utility Fee per Unit Sanitary Sewer System $1,505 $1,408 $2,842 Water Distribution System $2,162 $1,360 $3,522 The proposed fees provide a funding source for the construction of improvements to serve the anticipated growth outlined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 APPENDIX A Figures 7-6 8-39 Figure 8-12: Future Water System Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 APPENDIX B Water and Sewer Capital Improvements Plan City of Lino Lakes Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems 2030 Capital Improvement Plan Adapted from 2009 Comprehensive Plan Item No.Description Cost 1 Lake Drive Trunk Watermain Strengthening (Phase 2)$346,500 2 Construction of Storage Tank and Well No. 7 $3,144,750 3 Complete Raw Watermains from Multiple Wells $1,653,750 4 Redundant 16" Watermain to Replace North Loop $2,100,000 5 Construction of Water Treatment Plant*$7,840,250 6 Complete Raw Watermain from Additional Wells $1,575,000 7 Lake Drive Trunk Watermain Strengthening (Phase 3)$658,350 8 Improve Distribution Watermain - Southwest Corner $1,386,000 $18,704,600 *50% of the Water Treatment Plant capital to come from utility connection fees Item No.Description Cost 1 Upgrade Lift Station No. 7 $73,500 2 Upgrade Lift Station No. 8 $73,500 3 Gravity Sewer, 77th Street/Country Lane $367,500 4 Gravity Sewer, Lift Station & Forcemain, Area 1G $1,050,000 5 Gravity Sewer, Lake Drive Norht of Main Street $1,260,000 6 Upgrade Lift Station No. 10 $73,500 7 Northeast Area Trunk Sewer, Stage 2 $367,500 8 Lift Station & Forcemain, Area 3D $252,000 9 Gravity Sewers, North of Century Farms, Stage 2 $1,050,000 10 West Side Relief Sewer $3,360,000 11 Replace Lift Station No. 4 & Forcemain $840,000 12 Upgrade Lift Station No. L53 & Forcemain $210,000 13 Lift Station & Forcemain, Area 3B West of 20th Avenue $367,500 14 Lift Station & Forcemain, Area 4A $1,260,000 15 Lift Station & Forcemain, Ash Street/Area 1E $735,000 16 Lift Station & Forcemain, Pine Street/Sunset Avenue $1,207,500 18 Lift Station & Forcemain, Rondeau Lake Road/Main Street $472,500 $13,020,000 GRAND TOTAL GRAND TOTAL Justification Report Utility Connection Fees City of Lino Lakes, MN WSB Project No. 2988-26 APPENDIX C Densities Assigned by Land-Use Type City of Lino Lakes Water Utility Connection Fee Study Land-Use Densities Land Use Units Per Acre per Acre Commercial 2.92 Industrial 2.92 Low Density Residential 2.75 Manufactured Home Park 4.95 Medium Density Residential 4.95 High Density Residential 8 Mixed Use 4.95 Note: Residential units per acre are the average of the low and high value provided in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan The densities shown in the table above were used to estimate the number of new units and residential equivalent units that will be developed over the lifetime of this analysis. This number was used to calculate the trunk fee. Trunk Utility Survey (February 2020) Municipality Fee Type Trunk Area Charge Notes: Water $2,306/unit Sewer $1,606/unit Water $4,585/acre Sewer $3,150/acre Water Sewer Water $6,500/acre Sewer $1,075/acre Water Sewer SAC fees low Lift Station Charges also Water $1,800/unit for residential Sewer 1 1/2 % Admin, With Building Permit Water Sewr Water $2,591 residential Sewer Water $7,640/acre Sewer $4,530/acre Water $2392/unit Trunk charged at time of subd. Sewer $691/unit Trunk charged at time of subd. Water $2,624/acre Sewer $3,523/acre Water $7,005 - S13,770 per acre Sewer $4320 - $4,535/acre Water Sewer Water $3,483.2/acre Sewer $5,224.8/acre Water $3,178/acre Sewer $2,021/acre Water $5,774.70/acre additional $967/unit WTP charge Sewer $2,149.70/unit upto 5 Trunk charges differ depending upon # of units Water Sewer Water includes $1,450 for water filtration Sewer Water Sewer Water $6,766 per acre Sewer $3,743 per acre SAC/WAC $4,150/metro SAC $1,310/metro SAC $900 $1,200 $5,582/unit $1,611/unit $1,451/SAC unit $1,502/SAC unit Ramsey $1,850/unit $2,300/unitCenterville Circle Pines White Bear Lake na na $2,444/acre $1,352/acre $670/unit $670/unit $3250 unit $1500/unit na $119.4/SAC unit $3,068/acre $3,610/unit $550 $550 Woodbury Oakdale Eden Prairie Cottage Grove Eagan Maple Grove Prior Lake Chanhassen Chaska Lino Lakes Andover Water Sewer Forest Lake Champlin $3,300 and increases $100 per year until $3,500 MCES Fees (no additional) Rosemount $3,600/unit $3,600/unit $2,640/unit $2,200/unit Different costs depending on district $0 Hugo Blaine Anoka $5,332/unit $452/unit $2,485/unit $2,000/unit $1,100/unit $4,546/acre $10,364/acre $1,678/acre $4,885/acre High due to Water Treatment Plant $4,400/unit WS – Item 7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 7 Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues Re: Annual Advisory Board Appointments Background Openings for the City’s advisory boards were advertised and applications have been received. Attached is an outline of the applicants for each of the boards or committee. - Environmental Board – 3 seats, 2 applicants - Planning Board – 3 seats, 6 applicants - EDAC – 3 seats, 3 applicants - Park Board 4 seats, 4 applicants Requested Council Direction 1. Establish a date to interview applicants if so desired 2. Appoint incumbents to new term and interview the new candidates Attachments Advisory Board Applicant List WS – Item 7 Attachment 2020 Advisory Board Applicants Environmental Board 1. Shawn Holmes (Incumbent) 2. Alexander Schwartz (Incumbent) 3. No Applicant Planning & Zoning 1. Perry Laden (Incumbent) 2. Andrew Cravero (New) 3. Kavwimba (Kav) Mdumuka (New) 4. Jeff Reinert (New) 5. Robert Sibell (New) 6. Nate Vojtech (New) Park Board 1. Andrew Levi (Incumbent) 2. John Nordlund (Incumbent) 3. Abby Haworth (Incumbent) 4. Andrea Schmidt (Incumbent) EDAC 1. Nathan Vojtech (Incumbent) 2. Patrick Kohler (Incumbent) 3. Chad Wagner (Incumbent) Environmental Board – 3 seats, 2 applicants Planning &Zoning – 3 seats, 6 applicants Park Board – 4 Seats, 4 applicants EDAC – 3 seats, 3 applicants WS – Item 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 8 Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: John Swenson, Public Safety Director Re: Ambulance Service - Update Background Staff continues to work on ensuring that ambulance services in Lino Lakes are provided at a high level after the June 1, 2020 ambulance service transition. As part of that process we have provide information to Council at several meetings on this issue. Attached to this staff report are staff reports from December 2, 2019 and December 9, 2019 along with Council Resolution 19-176. Since those staff reports were written staff has attended Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board (EMSRB) Board Meeting on January 16, 2020 and EMSRB Executive Board Meeting on December 19, 2019 and February 20, 2020. The EMSRB continues to work on determining whether the change in ambulance services in our Primary Service Area (PSA) will go through the change of ownership process as outlined in MN 144E.11 or a change of name process as outlined in the same statute. Staff has learned that the entire City of Lino Lakes is covered by what the EMSRB refers to as “PSA overlap”. This means that when the PSA maps were created two ambulance providers own a PSA that covers our community. We know that MHealth Fairview (formally Fairview) as well as Allina Ambulance own a PSA that includes Lino Lakes. This has occurred in other areas of the state and when there is ambulance PSA overlap the local jurisdiction has the ability to choose between the ambulance providers that own the PSAs covering their community. Staff continues to meet with both MHealth Fairview and Allina to gain the needed information on their respective ambulance services, medical dispatching capabilities, medical direction, and available EMS training for our staff. Staff hopes to have all of the information to make an informed recommendation to Council this spring prior to the June 1, 2020 transition. Attachments Staff Report from December 9, 2019 with Council Resolution 19-176 Staff Report from December 2, 2019 WS – Item 9 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 9 Date: March 2, 2020 To: City Council From: John Swenson, Public Safety Director Re: Purchase of Use of Force Training Simulator Background Members of the Public Safety Department conducted extensive research on a use of force training simulator to determine if these types of systems could improve the training provided to our staff. Our use of force instructors examined multiple systems and conducted two site visits to learn more about the various systems available. The recommendation from staff is the VirTra V-100 LE. This system would allow our instructors to conducted scenario based training with the resources currently available to all Lino Lakes police officers, as well as create scenarios based on video footage of actual calls that have occurred in Lino Lakes. Attached to this staff report is a proposal prepared by the Use of Force Instructors and an estimate from VirTra. Staff is recommending the purchase of this system as quoted with the use of Federal Forfeiture Funds. Use of forfeiture funds for this purchase is a permissible use of forfeiture funds as outlined in the Guide to Equitable Sharing (July, 2018). The total for this purchase is $48,284.85. The Federal Narcotics Forfeiture Fund (Justice & Treasury) balance is currently $100,549.97 (2.20.2020). Staff is seeking Council direction prior to making this purchase. Attachments Use of Force Training Simulator Proposal