HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/22 EB Packet
CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING Wednesday, October 05, 2022
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 31st, 2022
5. OPEN MIKE
6. ACTION ITEMS
A. Robinson Sod Farm Environmental Assessment Work Sheet, Record of Decision, Michael Grochala 7. UPDATES
A. General Updates
B. Recycling Update 8. ADJOURN
Environmental Board
August 31, 2022
Page 1
DRAFT MINUTES
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chair Sullivan called the Lino Lakes Environmental Board meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
August 31, 2022. Chair Sullivan acknowledged the technical difficulty with the
television monitors and that the Power Point presentation will not be seen.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Sullivan approved the agenda as presented.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Schwartz made a MOTION to approve the July 27, 2022 meeting minutes. Motion
was supported by Ms. McNulty. Motion carried 7 – 0.
V. OPEN MIKE
Chair Sullivan declared Open Mike at 6:34 p.m.
There was no one present for Open Mike.
Open Mike was closed at 6:34 p.m.
VI. ACTION ITEMS
A. 601 Apollo Drive Retail Site Plan Review
Mr. Nelson, Environmental Coordinator, presented the staff report.
DATE: August 31, 2022
TIME STARTED: 6:32 P.M.
TIME ENDED: 07:11 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Sullivan, Jonathan Parsons, Ella McNulty,
Cassie Cavegn, Alex Schwartz, Shawn Holmes,
Lindsay Buchmeier,
STAFF PRESENT: Andy Nelson, Tori Philippi, Julie Whitney
Environmental Board
August 31, 2022
Page 2
DRAFT MINUTES
Land use application was received on a site plan review for a commercial development
that will be located at 601 Apollo Drive. This is at the NE corner of Lake Drive and
Apollo Drive. The parcel is zoned as General Business and guided for commercial
land use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This proposed project is going to include a
4,200 square foot dental clinic, a 2,240 square foot coffee shop with a drive thru, and
also a drive thru ATM. The site will have 43 parking stalls and a trash and recycling
enclosure. Land cover at this site historically was oak openings and barrens. MLCCS
data indicates other exposed transitional land with zero to 10 percent pervious cover,
oak forest dry sub type and medium grass altered non-native dominated grass land.
What’s on the site today is mowed weedy vegetation and sandy soil.
Mr. Nelson stated this site ultimately drains to George Watch Lake and that is an
impaired water impaired for nutrients. There were no other rare, unique, or significant
resources identified on the site or in the vicinity. Soil on the site is all Zimmerman
fine sand. It has low runoff potential and high infiltration rate even when wet and it is
excessively drained.
Mr. Nelson reviewed existing and proposed conditions for storm water management.
Most storm water currently infiltrates into the sand soil, with the run off heading east
through the storm water system and ultimately to George Watch Lake. Under the
proposed conditions that parcel will be divided into three drainage areas. Each one
will be treated by porous pavement BMP’s (best management practices) before
entering the storm water system. Mr. Nelson stated the parking stalls will be porous
pavement.
Mr. Schwartz asked if the porous pavement counted as pervious surface for the storm
water calculations.
Mr. Nelson stated that he believed the porous pavement areas would be calculated as
pervious surface and briefly explained the pervious pavement BMPs.
Chair Sullivan stated that that this was exciting and a first in the City. Mr. Nelson
stated it was unique because many of the projects the Board had looked at recently
were in areas where infiltration of storm water wasn’t an option. In this case,
infiltration is an option, so the pervious pavement BMPs might be a good choice.
Chair Sullivan mentioned concerns that grass and weeds may grow up through the
pervious pavement.
Mr. Nelson went on to cover the storm water pollution prevention plan. Due to the
drainage to George Watch Lake, stabilization must occur within 7 days after
construction activity ceases.
Ms. Buchmeier asked for confirmation that the erosion control and the stabilization
timeline were the only requirements related to drainage to the impaired water.
Mr. Nelson confirmed that was correct.
Environmental Board
August 31, 2022
Page 3
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Nelson went on to say the site does not fall into a drinking water supply
management area and is not in a flood management zone. It’s not in the AUAR
environmental review boundary. It’s not in shore land district, there are no wetlands
indicated on the site, and this site is not in the Greenway system.
Mr. Nelson stated for trails there are already sidewalks constructed on the south and
east perimeters of the site. On the 2040 comprehensive plan there is a proposed
pedestrian trail on the west perimeter and a proposed bike lane on Lake Drive. Both of
these things may be included with future reconstruction of Lake Drive and will not be
installed at this time. There is a 15 foot easement already in place to accommodate
these future improvements.
Mr. Nelson then covered the landscaping of the property stating there is already a
master landscaping plan in place that was approved in 2001 that covers the entire
marketplace retail area including Target, Kohl’s and the retail areas. The current
landscape submittal is measured against the master landscaping plan rather than
current ordinance. He then highlighted some differences between the current submittal
and the master landscaping plan, noting that the current submittal was an improvement
on the 2001 plan in terms of additional plants, increased diversity, and replacing ash
trees with a different species.
Mr. Schwartz asked if the plantings along Lake Drive are within that 15 ft. easement.
Mr. Nelson said he would need to look at the map closer.
Mr. Schwartz voiced concern that those plants would have to be removed to
implement the future bike trail. Mr. Nelson said that this concern could be added to
the Board comments.
Chair Sullivan asked how current ordinance requirements differ from the requirements
that the 2001 master landscaping plan was held to.
Mr. Nelson responded that the current ordinance is more stringent than what was in
place for the 2001 master plan submittal, but noted that the current plan included
calculations related to current ordinance, and that it would probably meet current
ordinance as well as adhering to the 2001 plan.
Mr. Nelson continued the current landscaping plan and stated there will be 24
deciduous trees, 32 coniferous trees, 173 shrubs, 46 perennials and 100 ornamental
grasses. Any areas not covered by landscaping will be sodded for permanent
stabilization.
Chair Sullivan asked if there would be a sprinkler system and Mr. Nelson stated that
there would be.
Chair Sullivan asked what kind of grass would be put in and Mr. Nelson stated sod,
turf grass.
Environmental Board
August 31, 2022
Page 4
DRAFT MINUTES
Chair Sullivan made a recommendation that the project use ground cover that requires
less water such as fescue.
Mr. Nelson responded that a ground cover that required less water could be added to
the Board recommendations.
Mr. Sullivan asked if we had anything other than bluegrass in the other commercial
areas.
Mr. Nelson stated it is the applicant’s discretion as long as they meet the
requirements, noting that they meet the requirements with sod, which has been used
more in the prominent sites for aesthetic reasons.
Mr. Nelson noted that the lighting plan seems to meet requirements but added that the
City Planner reviews lighting.
Mr. Schwartz asked if the city provides or can provide information on drought
tolerant grass for all new developments. Mr. Nelson said he would look into it.
Mr. Parsons asked if there was additional maintenance associated with the pervious
pavement being used and is it part of their storm water or general cleaning
requirements for the area.
Mr. Nelson stated it will be part of the storm water declaration and they would have a
maintenance agreement.
Chair Sullivan asked if Mr. Nelson could get a sample of the pervious pavement. Mr.
Nelson said he would check in to it.
Ms. Buchmeier then asked if the pervious pavement areas had different maintenance
needs in winter, such as additional salt due to plows being less effective.
Mr. Nelson stated he did not have the answer to that but the engineering department
brought up the same question and would be looking into it. He said he believed the
plowing would be the same but whether the salt degrades the material over time is an
important consideration.
Mr. Schwartz stated Century College on the east side of the campus used this type of
pavement on their east side parking lots in around 2007 or 2008 and it would be
interesting to see how it has held up.
Mr. Sullivan asked if there were any recommendations from the board in addition to
the staff recommendation. Mr. Schwartz’s recommends that plants be moved from the
easement area so that they aren’t impacted by future construction of a trail, and Chair
Sullivan’s request that the developer use a less water intensive type of sod.
Environmental Board
August 31, 2022
Page 5
DRAFT MINUTES
Chair Sullivan requested a MOTION to approve. Ms. Holmes motioned to approve
the site plan review along with the additional recommendations. It received a second
by Mr. Schwartz. Motion carried 7-0.
VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
VIII. UPDATES
A. General Updates
Mr. Nelson stated that there are no general updates.
B. Recycling Updates
Ms. Philippi provided an update that there was no recycle Saturday due to Blue
Heron Days.
For Blue Heron Days parade clean up there were 5 volunteers. One Anoka County
Recycling ambassador and four Forest Lake National Honor Society students.
After the release of the fall newsletter we gained 13 new participants for our
organics program bringing the total to 464 participants.
This month’s Solid Waste Abatement Advisory team meeting we took a tour of
Bicycle Glass in Fridley. Bicycle Glass is a lighting company committed to quality,
sustainability, and affordability. All lighting is made with 100% pre and post-
consumer recycled glass that is locally sourced from the community.
Chair Sullivan asked for questions from the board and Ms. Holmes asked if the
approval was received for the Marshan organic recycling enclosure.
Mr. Nelson stated we do have a grant application in with the county and we have
preliminary approval and expect to have approval by September 20, 2022. We have
to verify that the concrete and fence company can still fit the project in this fall.
Chair Sullivan asked if we were having any trouble with contamination at the sites.
He stated in the past they did at Marshan. Ms. Philippi stated there was not.
Ms. Buchmeier asked about the smart irrigation and wanted to know how many have
been sold and if sales are put on hold in the winter.
Mr. Nelson stated we have approximately 40 left and we have a grant to get another
160 to 180 controllers. We do have a timeline when we have to have them sold by.
We will do one more advertising campaign before residents are no longer irrigating
for the year. They will not be sold over winter because there is a requirement that
they need to be installed during a certain time frame to get the cheaper price.
Environmental Board
August 31, 2022
Page 6
DRAFT MINUTES
Ms. Buchmeier asked if there were resources from consumers that have already
installed the device. Mr. Nelson stated we only have the flyer that is sent with the
device. Mr. Nelson stated he has received word of mouth feedback and it was all
positive. They did do an outreach table with the U of M and provided information
on the program there along with the smart watering and turf grass alternatives
messaging brought by Mrs. Kim Sullivan with the University of Minnesota. Chair
Sullivan asked if anyone signed up that day and Mr. Nelson stated one.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sullivan made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Motion was
supported by Ms. Holmes and second motion by Mr. Parsons Motion carried 7 – 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie Whitney – Community Development Administrative Assistant
1
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala MEETING DATE: October 5, 2022
REQUEST: Robinson Sod Farm Environmental Assessment Worksheet Record of Decision
APPLICANT: Integrate Properties, LLC BACKGROUND: The Robinson Sod Farm Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was approved for distribution by the City Council on August 8, 2022. The document was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on Tuesday,
August 16, 2022. Notice was also provided to properties within 600 feet of the proposed project. The thirty day comment period closed on September 15, 2022. The City received a number of written comments from agencies and citizens. The City must respond to every substantive comment. Substantive comments are comments that address the accuracy and completeness of
the materials contained in the EAW, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced, and the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed project. The City’s response to substantive comments received during the comment period are included
in the attached draft Record of Decision document.
The EAW is not meant to approve or disapprove a project, but is simply a source of information to guide other approvals and permitting decisions. Minnesota Rule 4410.177, Subpart 2 requires the City to make either a negative declaration or a positive declaration on the need for an EIS. The City shall base its decision regarding the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the EAW process and the comments received on the EAW. In doing so, the City must prepare a
record of decision that includes the information supporting the decision.
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 7 lists four criteria that shall be considered in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Those criteria are:
A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
2
B. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors:
whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative
potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from
the project;
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively
mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.
Section 5. Findings of Fact of the attached response document provides the City’s findings of fact and addresses each of the above referenced criteria. Section 6. Record of Decision concludes that an EIS is not required.
Representatives from the project proposer and WSB & Associates, the City Engineer, will be present at the meeting to address any questions from the board. Staff is requesting the board review and comment on the response document. Any comments received from the board will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City determines that information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for,
or significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, but could be reasonably obtained, the RGU shall either:
A. make a positive declaration and include within the scope of the EIS appropriate studies to obtain the lacking information; or
B. postpone the decision on the need for an EIS, for not more than 30 days or such other period of time as agreed upon by the RGU and proposer, in order to obtain the lacking information. If the RGU postpones the decision, it shall provide written notice of its action, including a brief description of the lacking information, within five days to the project proposer, the EQB staff, and any
person who submitted substantive comments on the EAW. Staff is of the opinion that no additional information is required and that any potential impacts and mitigation will be addressed through the city and other public regulatory permitting processes.
3
Based on the information contained in the EAW, comment letters, and Findings of Fact, staff is
recommending adoption of the Record of Decision and making a “Negative Declaration” on the need for an EIS. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Record of Decision.
0
October 2022
Robinson Sod Farm
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF
DECISION
Responsible Government Unit (RGU)
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55104
linolakes.us
CITY: LINO LAKES
COUNTY: ANOKA
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... i
Tables .................................................................................................................... iii
Appendices ............................................................................................................ iii
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
2. EAW NOTIFICATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND COMMENT PERIOD.......................... 1
3. COMMENTS RECEIVED ..................................................................................... 1
4. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ............................................................................... 2
4.1 COMMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ................................................................. 2
4.1.1 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – September 9, 2022 ......... 2
4.1.2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) – September 13, 2022 .................... 3
4.1.3 Metropolitan Council – September 13, 2022 .......................................................... 5
4.1.4 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – September 15, 2022 ................... 6
4.2 COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC ..................................................................... 10
4.2.1 Nicki Roland Ecker – August 25, 2022 ................................................................... 10
4.2.2 Anna Jungbauer – August 25, 2022 ....................................................................... 10
4.2.3 Morgan C – August 25, 2022 .................................................................................. 11
4.2.4 Justin Carver – August 26, 2022 ............................................................................. 11
4.2.5 Mike Trudeau – August 30, 2022 ........................................................................... 11
4.2.6 Mara Lipinski – September 5, 2022 ....................................................................... 11
4.2.7 Greg and Sarah Austin – September 10, 2022 ...................................................... 12
4.2.8 Carl Street Residents – September 12, 2022 ......................................................... 13
4.2.9 Ann Rudie – September 12, 2022 .......................................................................... 18
4.2.10 Doug and Cindy Hansen – September 12, 2022 .................................................... 18
4.2.11 Steven Anderson – September 12, 2022 ............................................................... 19
4.2.12 Scott Zbikowski – September 13, 2022 ................................................................. 20
4.2.13 Lisa and Ernst Olsen – September 14, 2022 .......................................................... 21
4.2.14 Kevin and Tammy Dunrud – September 14, 2022 ................................................ 21
ii
4.2.15 Reilly Anderson – September 15, 2022 ................................................................. 22
5. FINDINGS OF FACT .......................................................................................... 23
5.1 Project description ......................................................................................................... 23
5.1.1 Proposed Project ..................................................................................................... 23
5.1.2 Site Description and Existing Conditions ................................................................ 24
5.1.3 Decision Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects ................ 24
A. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects .......................................... 24
B. Cumulative Potential Effects ...................................................................................... 27
C. Extent to Which Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation ............................ 28
D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled ............. 29
6. RECORD OF DECISION ..................................................................................... 30
iii
Tables
Table 4 (in EAW). Required Permits and Approvals for the Proposed Project ...... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
Appendices
Appendix A. Agency and Public Comments Submitted to the City of Lino Lakes
Appendix B. City of Lino Lakes Resolution Finding of No Need for EIS
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Robinson project is a proposed low, medium, and high density residential development on
an existing 158-acre agricultural area in the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota that is
located to the southeast of Sunset Avenue and 125th Ave NE (Main Street, CSAH 14). Two site
plan alternatives have been developed for the project which include the PUD Concept Plan
expected to consist of 557 dwelling units and the Yield Plan that is expected to consist of 707
dwelling units. These plans include single family detached homes, townhomes, and multi-family
units. The project will include new roads, stormwater features, and the installation of municipal
sewer and water systems.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Rules
Part 4410.4430, Subp. 19. Residential Development. The EAW and the respective comments
have been reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 to determine if the project
has potential for significant environmental effects. This document includes responses to
comments received by the City of Lino Lakes, the Findings of Fact supporting the decision, and
the Record of Decision indicating an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary for
this project.
2. EAW NOTIFICATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND COMMENT
PERIOD
In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the EAW was completed and distributed to
persons and agencies on the office of Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list. The
notification was published in the EQB Monitor on August 16, 2022, initiating the 30-day public
comment period. A public notice and press release was submitted to the Quad newspaper, the
local newspaper. The comment period ended on September 15, 2022.
3. COMMENTS RECEIVED
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:
The City received comment letters from four government agencies. These include:
• Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – September 9, 2022
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) – September 13, 2022
• Metropolitan Council – September 13, 2022
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – September 15, 2022
None of the comments recommended the preparation of an EIS.
2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
In addition to the government agencies, the City received 15 emails from the public. These
include:
• Nicki Roland Ecker – August 25, 2022
• Anna Jungbauer – August 25, 2022
• Morgan C – August 25, 2022
• Justin Carver – August 26, 2022
• Mike Trudeau – August 30, 2022
• Mara Lipinski – September 5, 2022
• Greg and Sarah Austin – September 10, 2022
• Carl Street Residents – September 12, 2022
• Ann Rudie – September 12, 2022
• Doug and Cindy Hansen – September 12, 2022
• Steven Anderson – September 12, 2022
• Scott Zbikowski – September 13, 2022
• Lisa and Ernst Olsen – September 14, 2022
• Kevin and Tammy Dunrud – September 14, 2022
• Reilly Anderson – September 15, 2022
4. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This document responds to comments individually. It includes summaries of comments
followed by responses. The complete comment letters and emails are included in Appendix A.
Responses to comments are generally confined to substantive issues that “address the accuracy
and completeness of the material contained in the EAW, potential impacts that may warrant
further investigation before the project is commenced, and the need for an EIS on the proposed
project.” (MN Rules 4410.1600). Some of the comments included general remarks or
recommendations. Such comments are noted for the record and further detail of the
statements or recommendations is included in Appendix A.
4.1 COMMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
4.1.1 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – September 9, 2022
Comment: The Minnesota SHPO concludes that there are no properties listed in the National or
State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological resources located
in the area that will be affected by this project.
Response: This comment has been noted for the record. The SHPO was contacted as
part of the EAW process and their response is included in Appendix E of the EAW.
3
4.1.2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) – September 13, 2022
Permits and Approvals (Item 8)
Comment: In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the Project should include the MPCA as a
regulator of all surface waters as defined by Minn. Stat. § 115.01, subd. 22 Waters of the state.
Even though there may be surface waters that are determined to be US Army Corps of
Engineers non-jurisdictional or exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act, all surface waters
are regulated by the MPCA, and any surface water impact needs to be described in the
application and may require mitigation.
The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is limited to assuring that a discharge
from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements. In
addition, the applicant must also submit to the MPCA the Antidegradation Assessment in
accordance with water quality standards Minn. R. 7050.0265 and should review the
Antidegradation requirements in 7050.0285.
The 401 Water Quality Certification becomes an enforceable component of the associated
federal license or permit, issued under either Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is
limited to assuring that a discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply
with water quality requirements. For further information about the 401 Water Quality
Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-2825 or william.wilde@state.mn.us.
Response: As noted in the permit table of the EAW (Table 5) all necessary permits,
including the Section 401 Certification, will be received prior to development of this
project.
Water Resources (Item 11)
Stormwater
Comment:
• The EAW states the proposed 158-acre residential development is in a 100-year floodplain.
The EAW indicates that soil remediation for the construction will be required due to
predominately hydric soils on the site and stormwater ponds will be constructed in lieu of
infiltrating stormwater to meet volume reduction requirements.
• The EAW should consider climate risks associated with increased rainfall regarding the
proposed development that could result in the potential for increased flood risk. Filling of
wetlands at the site and adding large areas of impervious surfaces is likely to alter the
natural hydrology and increase this risk. Efforts to reduce stormwater volume and provide
more climate resiliency should be considered. The Project proposer is strongly encouraged
to utilize Low Impact Development strategies such as reducing impervious surfaces through
use of narrower streets and sidewalks, stormwater reuse and green infrastructure practices
4
to promote retention of stormwater on the site while also providing other environmental
benefits.
Response: Low Impact Development strategies will be used to the extent practicable.
The PUD process allows for flexibility in pavement widths and requires higher levels of
open space than conventional development. A stormwater reuse system for irrigation
will be evaluated as part of the development review process and used where possible.
• During construction, the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State
Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW Permit) requires
preservation of the existing 50 feet of natural buffer to wetlands on the site. If the existing
buffer must be encroached to complete the construction, then redundant (double) down
gradient sediment controls must be utilized to protect the wetlands. Questions regarding
Construction Stormwater Permit requirements should be directed to Roberta Getman at
507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us.
Response: The project proposer will be designing the stormwater basins and on-site
floodplain mitigation in accordance with the City and Rice Creek Watershed District
requirements to account for flood risk on site. The development will obtain an
NPDES/SDS CSW permit and follow the wetland buffer requirements around preserved
wetlands on site.
Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes (Item 12)
Comment: Please be aware that farmsteads have the potential for releases or threatened
releases of agricultural chemicals. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is the
regulatory agency charged with managing the response and cleanup of fertilizers and
pesticides. Information regarding the MDA is available on the website at:
https://www.mda.state.mn.us/pesticide-fertilizer/spills-cleanup. For questions regarding
agricultural chemicals, please contact Cathy Villas-Horns with the MDA at 651-201-6697. For
questions regarding waste pesticide containers, please contact Jane Boerboom with the MDA at
651-201-6540.
Response: As part of the EAW process, the MDA’s What’s In My Neighborhood was
reviewed as part of Item 12 – Contaminated/Hazardous Materials and did not indicate
that there are any known and potential sources of agriculture chemical soil and ground
water contamination on site. Additionally, a Phase I Environmental Assessment was
completed as part of the developer’s due diligence of the site.
Other Potential Environmental Effects (Item 20)
Comment: Please note that chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and
groundwater around the state. Chloride can come from both de-icing salt and water softener
salt. For the proposed Project, the MPCA recommends smart salting practices for de-icing
streets and driveways during the winter weather months and water softening best practices be
5
used year-round. Additional resources are available at: https:// www.pca.state.mn.us/business-
with-us/statewide-chloride-resources.
Response: The City of Lino Lakes will use smart salting practices on the roadways
throughout the development. Residents will be encouraged to implement smart salting
practices on their driveways and use best salt management practices with their water
softeners should they have one in their home. The project proposer can include the
factsheet on Residential water softening for homeowners in the proposed development
that is available on the MPCA’s statewide chloride resources website located here:
Microsoft Word - UMNResidentialBMPs_Final.docx. The City provides education
resources related to chloride use on its website and newsletter.
4.1.3 Metropolitan Council – September 13, 2022
Item 6 – Project Description - Forecasts
Comment: Met Council indicates either of the two scenarios presented in the EAW could yield
development beyond previous expectations and that allocation of the forecast to sub city zones
can be revised as needed. Met Council indicates that should the subject development proceed,
several hundreds of excess households would result. City staff can request a Transportation
Analysis Zone allocation adjustment by contacting Council Research staff.
Response: Both of the two scenarios presented are consistent with the City’s 2040 Land
Use Plan and Utility Staging Plan and the projected number of households for the area.
The City of Lino Lakes staff will request a Transportation Analysis Zone allocation
adjustment from Met Council if this is necessary.
Item 6 – Project Description - Housing
Comment: Met Council states that any changes to guiding land use, including changes to
percent residential and minimum allowable density, may create inconsistency with regional
housing policy and impact the City’s ability to participate in Livable Communities Act Programs.
Response: No change to the guiding land use is proposed. The proposed development
density and land use is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and consistent
with the Metropolitan Council’s guidance for “emerging suburban edge communities”.
The proposed development will provide “Lifecycle” housing choices consistent with the
City’s housing goals.
Item 9 – Land Use – Regional Parks and Trails
Comment: A planned unit of the Regional Park System – the Central Anoka County Regional
trail – is immediately adjacent to the Project Site. Council encourages Integrate Properties, LLC
and the City of Lino Lakes to coordinate with Anoka County prior to and during any future
construction activities to ensure there are no permanent impacts to the planned regional trail
as a result of either of the two site plan alternatives.
6
Response: The project proposer and the City of Lino Lakes will coordinate with Anoka
County to ensure that the Central Anoka County Regional Trail is provided for with the
development. The City anticipates construction of the trail along Main Street, from
Sunset Avenue to the eastern project limits, concurrent with the proposed
development.
Item 11i – Water Resources - Groundwater
Comment: The Project Site is located in the North and East Groundwater Management Area
(https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gwmp/area-ne.html) designated by the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources. Given the range of water supply challenges (quantity and quality) that
exist in this part of the metro, the Council encourages the City to collaborate with state
partners and/or neighboring communities when expanding or developing new water supplies in
this area.
Response: The City will collaborate with state partners and/or neighboring communities
when expanding new water supplies in the area. The City participates as a member on
the North and East Groundwater Management Area task force
Item 11bii – Water Resources - Stormwater
Comment: This appears to be a difficult site for intensive development due to a predominance
of hydric soils, high water table, wetlands, presence of county and private ditches, and location
in the 100-year flood plain. Many of the soil associations listed for the site have severe
limitations for dwellings with basements and roadways. The EAW states that the project will
result in 50-60 acres of impervious surface and runoff will be treated with stormwater basins.
Taken together, these conditions indicate that the site is a poor candidate for the proposed
development. If the proposer is determined to pursue this project, they should work closely
with the City and Rice Creek Watershed District to address all these concerns before
proceeding.
Response: The project proposer has been working closely with the City of Lino Lakes
and Rice Creek Watershed District to address the environmental concerns of the site
including the high-water table, wetlands, county and private ditches, and the 100-year
floodplain. The project proposer will be subject to the regulations regarding these
environmental issues and will need to obtain the appropriate permit approval prior to
development of the site.
4.1.4 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – September 15, 2022
Page 6, Permits and Approvals
Comment: Please include a DNR Permit to Take in the list of required permits and approvals.
Protected state-listed species have been identified in the project vicinity. The need for a Permit
to Take will be determined as the proposer works through the rare plant survey process.
7
Response: This has been added to the required permits and approvals table found in
Section 5. Findings of Fact, C. Extent to Which Environmental Effect Area Subject to
Mitigation.
Page 12, Wastewater
Comment. The proposed plan to add 557 and even up to 707 residential units would
presumably add a comparable number of residential water softeners due to the water hardness
levels of the City of Lino Lakes municipal water supply. Many Minnesota municipalities are
wrestling with high chloride levels in their wastewater (See this recent study (link in letter in
Appendix A) on sources of chloride in Minnesota). Chloride is one of the components of salt,
which is used in forms such as sodium chloride (table salt), calcium chloride and magnesium
chloride (road salts). Sodium chloride is commonly used in home water softeners and by water
treatment plants to treat “hard” water. Minnesota generally has groundwater with high levels
of calcium and magnesium that must be removed through softening in order to improve taste
and prevent lime scale buildup in appliances, pipes and water fixtures. The majority of home
water softeners use sodium chloride (NaCl) in a softening process that replaces calcium and
magnesium ions with sodium, while the chloride ions are discharged in the wastewater and
eventually end up in the environment.
Each community needs to determine which tool is appropriate for their situation. This factsheet
(link in letter in Appendix A) suggests ways for homeowners to optimize their water softener
salt use, while this link (link in letter in Appendix A) provides resources for cities and examples
of how other communities in Minnesota are addressing their high chloride levels. We suggest
that as this development moves forward, the City of Lino Lakes consider what strategies can be
used to minimize chloride use.
Response: The City of Lino Lakes recognizes the importance of reducing chloride use. The
City of Lino Lakes will encourage residents to implement best management practices with
their water softeners. The project proposer can include the factsheet on Residential water
softening for homeowners in the proposed development that is available on the MPCA’s
statewide chloride resources website located here: Microsoft Word -
UMNResidentialBMPs_Final.docx. The City provides education resources related to
chloride use on its website and newsletter.
Page 13, Post-Construction Runoff
Comment. Blanding’s turtles, a protected state-listed threatened species, have been
documented within the Project Site. Stormwater features may be colonized by Blanding’s
turtles in the area, therefore we recommend incorporating measures to avoid impacting this
species into stormwater management. In years when the stormwater features will be dredged
to remove excess sediment, please draw down water levels by September 15th in order to
allow turtles to find overwintering habitat elsewhere.
8
Response: The avoidance measures outlined in the NHIS letter that is included in
Appendix C of the EAW will be forwarded to the project proposer and incorporated into
construction notes to avoid any potential impacts to the Blanding’s turtle.
Page 13, Post-Construction Runoff
Comment. We recommend that BWSR-approved, weed-free, native seed mixes be used to the
greatest degree possible in stormwater features in order to provide pollinator habitat.
Response: The proposed stormwater features on site will utilize BWSR approved, weed-
free, native seed mixes.
Page 13, Post-Construction Runoff
Comment. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road
salt used in the Project Site. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break
down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to
aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the
Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a
variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers.
More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff
who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private
companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their
organizations.
We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the Statewide
Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here
are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride
use (link in letter in Appendix A).
Response: The City of Lino Lakes will use smart salting practices on the roadways
throughout the development. The City annually provides educational resources for
residents on its website and in City newsletters.
Page 20, Rare Features
Comment. This section of the EAW lists the rare species identified in the DNR Natural Heritage
Review, but does not include or discuss DNR requirements regarding these species. The
statement that, “There are no state listed species within the project site” is incorrect. The
Natural Heritage Review letter has concerns about two state-listed species that may occur
within the site. The lack of known occurrences within the project boundary does not mean that
these species do not use the area. Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute
(Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated Rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800
to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the take of threatened or endangered species without a
permit.
9
• Swamp Blackberry (Rubus semisetosus), a state-listed endangered species, has been
documented in the vicinity of the project. A qualified surveyor needs to conduct a
botanical survey if any shrub removal is associated with the proposed project. Surveys
must be conducted by a DNR approved surveyor (see attached list) and follow the
standards contained in the Rare Species Survey Process and Rare Plant Guidance.
Project planning should take into account that any botanical survey needs to be
conducted during the appropriate time of the year, which may be limited. Please consult
with the NH Review Team (Reports.NHIS@state.mn.us) regarding this process.
• Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been
documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. As such, the following avoidance
measures are required:
o Avoid wetland impacts during hibernation season, between October 15th and
April 15th, unless the area is unsuitable for hibernation.
o The use of erosion control blanket shall be limited to ‘bio-netting’ or ‘natural-
netting’ types, and specifically not products containing plastic mesh netting or
other plastic components.
Also, be aware that hydro-mulch products may contain small synthetic
(plastic) fibers to aid in their matrix strength. These loose fibers could
potentially re-suspend and make their way into Public Waters. As such,
please review mulch products and not allow any materials with synthetic
(plastic) fiber additives in areas that drain to Public Waters.
o Areas where there will be construction should be checked for turtles before the
use of heavy equipment or any ground disturbance.
o The Blanding’s turtle flyer must be given to all contractors working in the area.
o Monitor for turtles during construction and report any sightings to the DNR
Nongame Specialist, Erica Hoaglund (Erica.Hoaglund@state.mn.us).
o If turtles are in imminent danger they must be moved by hand out of harm’s
way, otherwise, they are to be left undisturbed.
• If the above avoidance measures are not possible, please contact Samantha Bump
(Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us) as further action may be needed.
• For additional information, see the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet, which describes the
habitat use and life history of this species. The fact sheet also provides two lists of
recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. Please refer to
both lists of recommendations and apply those that are relevant to your project. For
further assistance regarding the Blanding’s turtle, please contact the DNR Regional
Nongame Specialist, Erica Hoaglund.
Response: The NHIS letter from the DNR is included in Appendix C of the EAW and states
the information stated above about the Swamp Blackberry and Blanding’s turtles. The
need for a botanical survey of Swamp Blackberry will be evaluated if shrub removal is
necessary for the project and the avoidance measures will be required, forwarded to the
project proposer and incorporated into construction notes to avoid any potential impacts
10
to the Blanding’s turtle. The permit for the take of endangered or threatened species has
been added to the required permits and approvals table as shown below in the 5. Findings
of Fact, Part C.
Page 25, Dust and Odors
Comment. If water for dust control is taken from a lake, river, or stream in volumes that exceed
10,000 gallons per day, or one million gallons per year, then a DNR Water Appropriations
Permit will be required.
Response: The water appropriations permit is called out in the Required Permits and
Approvals of the Proposed Project (Table 5) table for construction dewatering. This
comment will be forwarded onto the project proposer should water from a lake, river, or
stream be used for dust control.
4.2 COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC
4.2.1 Nicki Roland Ecker – August 25, 2022
Comment: Nicki states that she wants to know the best way to stay informed on the
development. Nicki states that this development would be a devasting addition to the already
under-supported schools and infrastructure.
Response: The City of Lino Lakes meets with the school districts annually to discuss
potential development proposals so the school districts can plan accordingly. The
project is also spread across two different school districts.
4.2.2 Anna Jungbauer – August 25, 2022
Comment: Anna states that she is curious how to find out how the proposed development will
impact all the city resources including roads, schools, and public safety resources. She is
concerned that this massive development will impact residents currenting living in the area
with issues such as school levy money and increased property taxes.
Response: The City of Lino Lakes (Katie Larsen) followed up with Anna in an email on
8/25/2022 and let her know where to stay informed about the development as well as
the next steps the developer may take after Council reviews the EAW in October.
The impact to the existing roadways this development connects to has been extensively
studied with the Traffic Study located in Appendix F of the EAW and has been reviewed
by the City. Traffic impacts will be analyzed during the City re zoning and preliminary
plat review process. Any traffic mitigation identified in the review will be implemented
with project construction. This will include both vehicular and pedestrian
improvements.
Regarding schools and school levy money, the City of Lino Lakes meets with the school
districts annually to discuss potential development proposals so the school districts can
plan accordingly. The project is also spread across two different school districts.
11
Additionally, the county assesses property taxes on a regular basis and there is no
evidence that this proposed development will impact property taxes.
4.2.3 Morgan C – August 25, 2022
Comment: Morgan expressed concern about adding 707 units to the sod field when there are
two new developments located near the elementary school and across from the sod field.
Morgan is concerned that this will cause overcrowding and poses the question if there has been
any thought that this could cause an increase to classroom sizes at the elementary school.
Additionally, she states that the only way she would support this if there are less units
proposed and a pool added that Morgan’s HOA could have access to.
Response: The City of Lino Lakes meets with the school districts annually to discuss
potential development proposals so the school districts can plan accordingly. The
project is also spread across two different school districts.
4.2.4 Justin Carver – August 26, 2022
Comment: Justin states in an email that he has many questions and concerns with the
development and wants to discuss this with Katie Larsen on the phone.
Response: The City of Lino Lakes (Katie Larsen) followed up with Justin in an email on
8/29/2022 and let him know where to stay informed about the development as well as
the next steps the developer may take after Council reviews the EAW in October.
4.2.5 Mike Trudeau – August 30, 2022
Comment: Mike wants to know where the single family and townhome/higher density units will
be proposed for the development as he is concerned about townhome/higher density units
impacting his property value. Mike lives along Robinson Drive that borders the proposed
development to the south.
Response: Katie Larsen addressed Mr. Trudeau’s concerns in an email exchange
between August 29th and August 30th. Katie states that per the EAW, Figure 2. PUD
Concept Plan shows a 557 unit development with single family homes behind Robinson
Drive. Figure 3. Yield Plan shows a 707 unit development with single family homes and
townhomes behind Robinson Drive. There are no apartments proposed behind
Robinson Drive. Additionally, she says that as the project moves forward, the developer
will submit a PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat that will better define the
project. Public hearings will be held and notices will be sent again to property owners in
the area for additional comments.
4.2.6 Mara Lipinski – September 5, 2022
Comment: Mara has concern that such a large development is not wise to construct since the
City of Lino Lakes has a difficult time keeping up with maintaining the current small
developments in the area. Specifically, Mara is concerned that the City of Lino Lakes does not
12
mow the boulevard as often as they should, they do not maintain all trails, they don’t replace
dead trees, and they rarely snow blow in the winter.
Response: The City makes every effort to maintain infrastructure and open areas.
Unimproved park areas and trails, such as those along Robinson Drive, are maintained
on a limited basis during both summer and winter. Development of the Robinson sod
farm will lead to completion of the Century Farm North Park and trail system. Increased
maintenance of these areas will result from those improvements.
4.2.7 Greg and Sarah Austin – September 10, 2022
Comment: The Austin’s explained in their letter that they have concerns regarding the
proposed development. These include:
• There is concern that adding this development into a drainage system that already has a
problem will only amplify the drainage issues. Specifically, the Austin’s are concerned
that the project could conceivably change the flood status of the area and threaten
existing homes, buildings, and properties in the area.
• The Austin’s state that the sod farm and the surrounding wetlands and ditches are
major nesting/rearing grounds for many species of migratory and local waterfowl,
songbirds, deer, and predators from raptors to coyotes. They argue that the threat to
their local treasures, the Rice Creek and lakes would be threatened by increased
herbicide, pesticide, and salt runoff from the new development. They strongly
recommend that the sod farm become an extension of the Carlos Avery wildlife area, or
some other special green space or park, which are lacking and being diminished in
Anoka County
• There is concern about the amount of traffic added to Century Trail, Robinson Trail, and
Sunset Road. The added traffic to these roads is a safety concern as this development
has the potential to turn these streets into high-speed thoroughfares and become
dangerous to bicycles and pedestrians.
Response:
• The public drainage system and most of the private drainage system on site will remain
the same. The proposed development is required to meet the stormwater runoff quality
and quantity requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and
the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge and State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS).
Therefore, the stormwater basins on site will be designed to meet these requirements.
Additionally, since the site falls within the 100 year floodplain, the development is
required to follow the City and Rice Creek Watershed District floodplain mitigation
requirements and implement on-site floodplain mitigation. These requirements will aide
in controlling drainage on site to avoid impacts to the surrounding area.
• The current conditions of the site include the use of agriculture fertilizers, a
monoculture of sod grass, and a private and public drainage system. The proposed
13
development is expected to add open water features that currently do not exist on site
and to plant native vegetation throughout the site. The open water areas can provide fly
over habitat for migratory and local waterfowl and the native vegetation can provide
additional wildlife habitat that currently does not exist. Thus, there is not expected to be
a significant impact to wildlife species with this development. The City will require
protective buffers adjacent to all water features.
• A Traffic Impact Study located in Appendix F of the report extensively modeled the
impact of the proposed development on the surrounding roadways. and found that the
proposed development is expected to have limited impact on the study area traffic
operations with no significant side-street delay or queuing issues. Traffic impacts will be
further analyzed during the City rezoning and preliminary plat review process. Any
traffic mitigation identified in the review will be implemented with project construction.
This will include both vehicular and pedestrian improvements.
4.2.8 Carl Street Residents – September 12, 2022
Comment 1. During the morning traffic rush there may be over 1,000 vehicles using the Carl
Street and 4th Avenue intersection, per the EAW projections. Did the traffic study take into
consideration the potential intersection density at 4th Avenue and Carl Street?
Response:
• Under forecast Year 2040 build conditions, daily traffic volumes along Carl Street are
projected as follows (See Figures 11-14 in the Traffic Study in Appendix F of the EAW):
• Approximately 180 daily vehicles with no proposed development connection to Carl
Street
• Approximately 1,480 daily vehicles with a proposed development connection to Carl
Street under the PUD Concept Plan
o Peak hour traffic volumes along Carl Street are expected to be significantly lower
than this anticipated daily traffic volume
• Approximately 1,780 daily vehicles with a proposed development connection to Carl
Street under the Yield Plan
o Peak hour traffic volumes along Carl Street are expected to be significantly lower
than this anticipated daily traffic volume (see example below)
Peak Hour Example: Under forecast Year 2040 build conditions, the Yield Plan peak hour
traffic volumes along Carl Street are projected as follows (See Figure 14 in the Traffic
Study in Appendix F of the EAW):
• Slightly more than 150 vehicles are projected along Carl Street during the AM peak hour
• Slightly more than 180 vehicles are projected along Carl Street during the PM peak hour
Yes, the Traffic Impact Study in Appendix F accounts for projected traffic density with
respect to intersection capacity. Under all forecast year 2025 and year 2040 build
models, the 4th Avenue/Carl Street intersection is expected to function with minimal
14
delay (Level of Service A) (See Tables 8-15 in the Traffic Study in Appendix F of the
EAW). Level of Service A is in compliance with industry standard practice for acceptable
traffic mobility performance.
Comment 2. Was a comprehensive traffic impact study conducted to evaluate the potential
traffic backup on Carl Street during the busy morning and evening hours?
Response: Yes, the Traffic Impact Study in Appendix F of the EAW accounts for
projected vehicle queuing during the AM & PM peak hours. Under all forecast year 2025
and year 2040 build models, the industry standard 95th percentile queue (length of
queue with only a five percent probability of being exceeded) on the Carl Street
approach to 4th Avenue is expected to be less than 55 feet (the equivalent of 2-3
vehicles). (See the 95th percentile queues in the tables of Appendix A in the Traffic
Impact Study located in Appendix F of the EAW).
Comment 3. Do the Anoka County traffic projections and studies align with those from Alliant
Engineering?
Response: Annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes forecast in the Anoka County
Year 2040 Transportation Plan Update are comparable to daily volumes forecast under
Year 2040 Build Conditions in the Traffic Impact Study.
Comment 4. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering take into consideration the current
aquifer depletion issue taking place on the Lino Lakes border in Blaine?
Response: The drawdown issue referred to is related to new high production municipal
wells located in the City of Blaine and is most pronounced during the relatively
infrequent condition that multiple wells are pumping simultaneously during maximum
day water demand. The Robinson development area will be served by Lino Lakes
municipal water system which draws water from a different aquifer on the south side of
Lino Lakes. The deep irrigation well that currently serves to irrigate the sod farm will be
removed with the project.
Comment 5. Does the City of Lino Lakes plan to warrant the costs of the wells for current
property owners near the potential project?
Response: No. The City does not anticipate any impacts to offsite wells.
Comment 6. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering investigate the possibility for
flooding due to the high-water table and the redistribution of water?
Response: Alliant Engineering has prepared the required floodplain calculations and
models for the proposed floodplain mitigation on site per Rice Creek Watershed
requirements and submitted this to Rice Creek Watershed District for review and
approval. Additionally, Alliant has prepared the required stormwater calculations for the
site per Rice Creek Watershed District regulations. This has been sent to Rice Creek
Watershed District for review and approval. All stormwater and floodplain calculations
15
and design will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, consistent with
City requirements, as part of the rezoning and preliminary plat review.
Comment 7. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering initiate a study to determine if
“Quiet Enjoyment of Life” would be impacted or violated by the proposed street connection?
Response: No. There is no established City requirement or standard related to “Quiet
Enjoyment of Life”. The proposed development is subject to to existing City Code
requirements. The residential use of the site will be required to adhere to the city’s
noise ordinances. After construction, noise levels are expected to be at or near existing
levels.
Comment 8. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering consult Anoka County to
determine property value losses if the cul-de-sac is removed?
Response: A property value study is not part of the environmental assessment review.
Comment 9. Does Anoka County plan to reassess property value losses and adjust home values
and taxes accordingly if Carl Street is connected.
Response: Anoka County assesses property on a regular basis, regardless of
development. There is no information that suggests a loss in property value.
Comment 10. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering consult with Rice Creek
Watershed District on the disruption to the waterways, ditches, and wetlands within the impact
area?
Response: Yes, the developer has hired a consultant to conduct the wetland delineation
and wetland impact permit application of the site per the Wetland Conservation Act,
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulations. Rice Creek Watershed District is the
Local Government Unit that administers the Wetland Conservation Act and has been
working closely with the consultant on reviewing any waterway, ditch, and wetland
impacts from the proposed development. The wetland delineation report and permit
application will need to be formally reviewed and approved by Rice Creek Watershed
District, the Board of Soil and Water Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
any other regulatory authority on the Technical Evaluation Panel.
Comment 11. Many pedestrians, dog walkers, and bicyclists use the path at the end of the cul-
de-sac because they feel safe on Carl Street. Children cannot bike or walk on Lilac or 4th St
because they both are busy with traffic speeds far over the posted limits. Has this been taken
into consideration and are the proposed traffic areas in compliance with the Local Road
Research Board (LRRB)?
Response: Any proposed improvements to Carl Street would include off-street
pedestrian facilities. This would be evaluated as part of future land use approvals. The
Local Road Research Board does not establish transportation engineering standards.
Comment 12. How will the ACD-10-22 main trunk and BR2 be preserved and protected?
16
Response: The ACD-10-22 main trunk and BR2 will be protected with a minimum 20’
easement that extends out from the top of the ditch bank. Additional buffer and
easement width will be evaluated as part of the rezoning and preliminary plat review.
Comment 13. How will the vegetation and water conservation be enhanced in the disturbed
waterways in the project boundaries?
Response: The private ditches within the Project Site will have a minimum 10’ vegetated
no mow buffer around them and the public drainage ditches on site will have a
mimimum 20’ easement around them to protect them. A series of stormwater basins
are proposed on site that are subject to stormwater requirements from the City of Lino
Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge and
State Disposal System to pre-treat water running off from the surrounding development
before it is discharged into any receiving waters. This will improve the water quality of
the ditches since they currently receive direct runoff from the sod farm without any pre-
treatment.
Comment 14. Where in the EAW report can we find information from the MN Dept of
Agriculture, the Dept of Hydrogeology or Climatology regarding the sequela of years of
accumulation of fertilizers and pesticides from the sod farm land upon our disturbed soil,
ground water, and well water?
Response: The EAW’s purpose is to focus on the environmental impacts of the proposed
development. The existing condition of the property as a sod farm is in compliance with
the MN Department of Agriculture guidelines and regulations. The MN Department of
Agriculture would be the regulatory agency to contact for this information.
Comment 15. In 1977 the Carl Street residents were assured there would be no Carl St
connection and the cul-de-sac would remain. In 1986, 2006, and now, despite the developer’s
original concept plan where Carl Street is not mentioned as a variable, would you please clarify
as to why Carl Street is repeatedly targeted for change, negatively affecting our property
values, safety, well-being, wildlife, creek, and vegetation?
Response: The Carl Street connection will be a policy decision from the City Council
based on sound engineering judgment. The Carl Street connection has been identified as
a through connection in several planning documents (2040 Comprehensive Plan Future
Roadway System Figure 6-13, Lino Lakes 2030 Transportation Comprehensive Plan
Future Roadway System Figure 6-12, 2001 Lino Lakes Transportation Plan) and right of
way was platted from 4th Avenue to Sunset Avenue originally in 1977.
Comment 16. The trajectory of land development leads to increased noise, cutting down of
trees, causing damage and instability to wildlife, clean water, vegetation, pollinator insects, soil
and other ecosystems. Will this result in the formation of “heat islands” caused by those losses
and the absorption of more heat by impervious pavement including sidewalks, parking areas
and adverse effects on our climate, air and water quality?
17
Response: The current conditions of the Robinson Sod Farm include an existing sod farm
agriculture area that consists of a monoculture of sod farm grass and a minimal amount
of trees. Additionally, the site is currently not subject to pre-treating water through
stormwater basins before the water enters the private and public drainage ditches on
site. The proposed residential development will add impervious pavement areas;
however, the development will be subject to the local, state, and federal water quality
regulations. Among these will be to include stormwater basins to pre-treat water before
it enters into any receiving waters on site thus improving water quality leaving the site,
including floodplain mitigation on site, and adding landscaping including native
vegetation and landscape trees to off-set the potential formation of a “heat island.”
In addition the City requires placement of boulevard trees to off-set heat island effects.
The City also requires tree and shrubs to be planted within all open space areas.
Comment 17. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering consult with the FAA regarding
traffic proximity to the Lino Air Park airstrip?
Response: No, and there is no requirement for that.
Comment 18. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering conduct a traffic analysis
relevant to headlight penetration onto the Lino Air Park airstrip as this can cause temporary
flash blindness? This will be a safety hazard to pilots.
Response: This is not evaluated as part of the environmental process. The city does not
anticipate that traffic generated by the project would create any safety hazards to the
private air strip . Residential development currently abuts the airpark.
Comment 19. Has the risk of increased traffic on Carl Street in proximity to the Lino Air Park
been considered secondary to vehicle drivers being distracted while watching airplanes take off
and land, thus not watching our children playing or residents walking or biking down Carl
Street?
Response: This is not evaluated as part of the environmental process. Traffic is
evaluated as part of the land use approvals and uses sound engineering judgment to
make decisions.
Comment 20. How was a 2-day traffic study on Carl Street “valid” both in methodology and
analysis assuring “statistical significance levels?”
Response: The traffic data collection time periods and dates are in compliance with
industry standard best practices for traffic impact studies.
Comment 21. When is the Planning & Zoning commission conducting a hearing and vote on
changing the Robinson property zoning from agricultural to residential?
Response: The meeting will be scheduled upon the receipt of a complete land use
application, which has not yet been received.
18
4.2.9 Ann Rudie – September 12, 2022
Comment. Ann lives in the Century Farm neighborhood and has concerns about the safety of
young children in the neighborhood with Robinson becoming a thru street to the new
development. She states that she is opposed to the project because of the traffic volume
increase here. She has proposed three questions about the development:
• What has the city done to study the impact of this increase in traffic?
• How will the city address the ongoing water quality problem with a project of this size and
will new residents be made aware of the manganese issues?
• Is there a demonstrated need for more housing?
Response:
• As part of the EAW, a Traffic Impact Study was conducted to assess the increase in
traffic in the area and is included in Appendix F of the EAW. This study was reviewed
and approved by the City of Lino Lakes before it was distributed in the EAW.
• The City will continue to work on seeking solutions for the high manganese levels in
the drinking water and educating the public through the online “Public Water
Advisory” section of the City’s website about any updates to the current water quality
situation. The City is currently preparing plans and specifications for construction of a
water treatment plant that will resolve the manganese issue.
• Property owners have a right to development their property in accordance with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances. The City of Lino Lake’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan provides projections for the future land use of the City and has
split the site into four planned land uses. These include Low Density Residential for the
west and south portions of the project and then a mix of Medium Density Residential,
High Density Residential, and Planned Residential/Commercial for the central and
northern parts of the project. This is based on the future projected population growth
of the City and the City’s goals to provide more mixed use housing.
4.2.10 Doug and Cindy Hansen – September 12, 2022
Comment. The Hansen’s live along Carl Street and have proposed the following concerns about
the development. These include:
• The Robinson Sod Farm development will add to the already stressed municipal sewer and
water systems. They are concerned that a negative water management outcome could
occur as a result of rapid development in the City.
o The Hansen’s would like assurance from the City of Lino Lakes and Council to have a
prudent approach including an aggressive water management plan that can handle
this addition.
• This resident states they were told by the City Engineer of Lino Lakes that when they
purchased their property back in 2013, there was no intention of connecting any future
residential developments from the sod farm to Carl Street.
19
o Carl Street has also been used as a main walking and bike path since it is not a main
thoroughfare and the traffic is limited. Additionally, there is a nature path used daily
by Carl Street residents and residents from the surrounding developments. The
residents are concerned that a street connection from the Robinson Sod Farm to
Carl Street will destroy the nature path and traffic will endanger the humans and
wildlife that utilize this area for recreation and habitat.
Response:
• The City of Lino Lakes requires that developers adhere to the local, state, and
federal regulations related to water management. The project developer will need
to obtain the necessary permits and approvals from these regulatory authorities
prior to development of the site.
• The Carl Street connection will be a policy decision from the City Council based on
sound engineering judgment. The Carl Street connection has been identified as a
through connection in several planning documents (2040 Comprehensive Plan
Future Roadway System Figure 6-13, Lino Lakes 2030 Transportation
Comprehensive Plan Future Roadway System Figure 6-12, 2001 Lino Lakes
Transportation Plan) and right of way was platted from 4th Avenue to Sunset
Avenue originally in 1977.
4.2.11 Steven Anderson – September 12, 2022
Comment. Steven states that he has concerns about the proposed development. These
concerns include:
• The proposed housing development will negatively impact local residents and their
properties due to the drainage restructuring required for this housing proposal with
buildings, paved streets, driveways, and patios. Without the water retention of the sod farm
and increase runoff and potential for flooding, the project could conceivably change the
flood status of the area, and threaten existing homes, buildings, and properties.
• Strongly recommends that the sod farm become an extension of the Carlos Avery Wildlife
area, or some other special green space or park because the proposed development will
likely cause irreparable damage to wildlife in the area due to increase herbicide, pesticide,
and salt runoff from the new development.
• There is a current traffic problem that will evolve from the proposed project.
Response:
• The public drainage system and most of the private drainage system on site will remain
the same. The proposed development is required to meet the stormwater runoff quality
and quantity requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and
the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge and State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS).
Therefore, the stormwater basins on site will be designed to meet these requirements.
Additionally, since the site falls within the 100 year floodplain, the development is
20
required to follow the Rice Creek Watershed District floodplain mitigation requirements
and implement on-site floodplain mitigation. These requirements will aide in controlling
drainage on site to avoid impacts to the surrounding area.
• The current conditions of the site include the use of agriculture fertilizers, a
monoculture of sod grass, and a private and public drainage system. The proposed
development is expected to add open water features that currently do not exist on site
and to plant native vegetation throughout the site. The open water areas can provide fly
over habitat for migratory and local waterfowl and the native vegetation can provide
additional wildlife habitat that currently does not exist. Thus, there is not expected to be
a significant impact to wildlife species with this development.
• A Traffic Impact Study located in Appendix F of the report extensively modeled the
impact of the proposed development on the surrounding roadways and found that the
proposed development is expected to have limited impact on the study area traffic
operations with no significant side-street delay or queuing issues. Traffic impacts will be
further analyzed during the City rezoning and preliminary plat review process. Any
traffic mitigation identified in the review will be implemented with project construction.
This will include both vehicular and pedestrian improvements.
4.2.12 Scott Zbikowski – September 13, 2022
Comment. Scott lives a half a block south of the proposed development and states that he has
three main concerns:
• The impact of the deletion or natural drainage/absorption into the soil since the proposed
development has a relatively low elevation with poor drainage. There is great concern
about the stress to drainage ditch ACD 10-22-32 since it was not designed for high density
housing. The square feet of housing, driveways, streets, and sidewalks greatly effects the
natural absorption of natural rainfall
• The additional traffic impact this development will have on the surrounding streets. There is
concern about the traffic volume onto Sunset Road and 4th Street from the development as
both roads are two lanes with no sidewalks. There is a concern about safety unless these
roads and those they connect to are improved prior to the development of the proposed
development.
• There is a safety concern that a Carl Street connection would impact the airpark by adding
traffic to this area.
Response:
• The public drainage system and most of the private drainage system on site will remain
the same. The proposed development is required to meet the stormwater runoff quality
and quantity requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and
the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge and State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS).
Therefore, the stormwater basins on site will be designed to meet these requirements.
Additionally, since the site falls within the 100 year floodplain, the development is
21
required to follow the Rice Creek Watershed District floodplain mitigation requirements
and implement on-site floodplain mitigation. These requirements will aide in controlling
drainage on site to avoid impacts to the surrounding area.
• A Traffic Impact Study located in Appendix F of the report extensively modeled the
impact of the proposed development on the surrounding roadways and found that the
proposed development is expected to have limited impact on the study area traffic
operations with no significant side-street delay or queuing issues. Traffic impacts will be
further analyzed during the City rezoning and preliminary plat review process. Any
traffic mitigation identified in the review will be implemented with project construction.
This will include both vehicular and pedestrian improvements.
• The city does not anticipate that traffic generated by the project would create any
safety hazards to the private air strip and any potential changes would be evaluated as
part of future land use approval reviews.
4.2.13 Lisa and Ernst Olsen – September 14, 2022
Comment. Lisa and Ernst provided an email and comments throughout the EAW document.
There main concerns are that extending to Carl Street will destroy their existing neighborhood
by adding addition traffic to their road and threatening the safety of pedestrians and wildlife.
Additionally, they are concerned that their wells and mound system will be destroyed by the
proposed development.
• Response: The Carl Street connection will be a policy decision from the City Council
based on sound engineering judgment. The Carl Street connection has been identified as
a through connection in several planning documents (2040 Comprehensive Plan Future
Roadway System Figure 6-13, Lino Lakes 2030 Transportation Comprehensive Plan
Future Roadway System Figure 6-12, 2001 Lino Lakes Transportation Plan) and right of
way was platted from 4th Avenue to Sunset Avenue originally in 1977. The City does not
anticipate any impacts to the surrounding resident’s wells and mound system.
4.2.14 Kevin and Tammy Dunrud – September 14, 2022
Comment. Kevin and Tammy state in their letter that they are concerned about the following
items:
• Concerned that the alteration to 100 plus year drainage complexes in the area will
negatively impact the established 100 year floodplain. Currently, the sod farm and
surrounding drainage ditches can handle the water drainage and runoff, but with this huge
development and the potential rise in the water table, will this continue to be true?
• Concerned that their wood foundation home will incur water damage. Has the City of Lino
Lakes or Alliant Engineering contacted the Corps of Engineers or the appropriate governing
body to determine how the established 100 year floodplain will be impacted by massive
water redistribution?
22
Response:
• The public drainage system and most of the private drainage system on site will remain
the same. The proposed development is required to meet the stormwater runoff quality
and quantity requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and
the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge and State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS).
Therefore, the stormwater basins on site will be designed to meet these requirements.
Additionally, since the site falls within the 100 year floodplain, the development is
required to follow the Rice Creek Watershed District floodplain mitigation requirements
and implement on-site floodplain mitigation. These requirements will aide in controlling
drainage on site to avoid impacts to the surrounding area.
• Alliant Engineering has prepared the required floodplain calculations and models for the
proposed floodplain mitigation on site per Rice Creek Watershed requirements and
submitted this to Rice Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Additionally,
Alliant has prepared the required stormwater calculations for the site per Rice Creek
Watershed District regulations. This has been sent to Rice Creek Watershed District for
review and approval. All stormwater and floodplain calculations and design will be
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, consistent with City requirements,
as part of the rezoning and preliminary plat review.
4.2.15 Reilly Anderson – September 15, 2022
Comment. Reilly states that he has concern and is opposed to the proposed development.
These concerns include:
• The proposed housing development threatens to further fragment the habitats of birds and
other wildlife within Anoka County and will add new stressors to the local environment.
• As summer weather becomes increasingly extreme and unpredictable, newly constructed
impervious surfaces will further stress the local aging drainage systems, threatening the
homes and properties of existing area residents with flooding, many of which were built
many years ago.
• There is concern that the proposed new roads and feeder routes will be ineffective in
mitigating the existing traffic issues in the area. The addition of the proposed high density
housing will add a critical amount of new motor traffic that will exceed the local
infrastructure’s ability to provide safe streets.
Response:
• The current conditions of the site include the use of agriculture fertilizers, a
monoculture of sod grass, and a private and public drainage system. The proposed
development is expected to add open water features that currently do not exist on site
and to plant native vegetation throughout the site. The open water areas can provide fly
over habitat for migratory and local waterfowl and the native vegetation can provide
23
additional wildlife habitat that currently does not exist. Thus, there is not expected to be
a significant impact to wildlife species with this development.
• The public drainage system and most of the private drainage system on site will remain
the same. The proposed development is required to meet the stormwater runoff quality
and quantity requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and
the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge and State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS).
Therefore, the stormwater basins on site will be designed to meet these requirements.
Additionally, since the site falls within the 100 year floodplain, the development is
required to follow the Rice Creek Watershed District floodplain mitigation requirements
and implement on-site floodplain mitigation. These requirements will aide in controlling
drainage on site to avoid impacts to the surrounding area.
• A Traffic Impact Study located in Appendix F of the report extensively modeled the
impact of the proposed development on the surrounding roadways and found that the
proposed development is expected to have limited impact on the study area traffic
operations with no significant side-street delay or queuing issues. Traffic impacts will be
further analyzed during the City rezoning and preliminary plat review process. Any
traffic mitigation identified in the review will be implemented with project construction.
This will include both vehicular and pedestrian improvements.
5. FINDINGS OF FACT
5.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
5.1.1 Proposed Project
The Robinson project is a proposed low, medium, and high density residential development on
an existing 158-acre agricultural area in the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota. Two
site plan alternatives have been developed for the project:
• PUD Concept Plan – The PUD concept plan is expected to consist of 557 dwelling units of
the following types:
o 242 single family detached homes
o 315 townhomes
• Yield Plan – The yield plan, considered close to the maximum density allowed under future
year 2040 land use plans, is expected to consist of 707 dwelling units of the following types:
o 263 single family detached homes
o 164 townhomes
o 280 multi-family units
24
The project is located to the southeast of Sunset Avenue and 125th Ave NE (Main Street, CSAH
14). The project will include new roads, stormwater features, and the installation of municipal
sewer and water systems.
5.1.2 Site Description and Existing Conditions
The existing conditions present on site include sod farm agriculture that consists of a series of
public and private drainage ways. The site has been used for agriculture production for
decades. The majority of the site occurs in predominately hydric soil.
5.1.3 Decision Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 7 lists four criteria that shall be considered in deciding
whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Those criteria and the
City’s findings are presented below.
A. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp (A) indicates the first factor that the City must consider is the
“type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.” The City’s findings are set forth
below.
1. Cover Types
The project will convert an approximately 158-acre site consisting predominately of sod
farm agriculture land to low, medium, and high density residential development,
stormwater infrastructure, lawn/landscaping, and an internal roadway network.
2. Shorelands and Floodplains
The majority of the site falls within the 100 year FEMA floodplain area and Rice Creek
Watershed District floodplain area. The project is not within or adjacent to a wild and
scenic river, critical area, agricultural preserve, or shoreland overlay district. The
development is required to follow the Rice Creek Watershed District floodplain
mitigation requirements and implement on-site floodplain mitigation.
3. Land Use
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and the City of Lino Lake’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan shows the planned land use
for the Project Site to be a mix of low, medium, and high residential density.
4. Geology and Soils
The grading operations will disturb approximately 158 acres and require an estimated
600,000 cubic yards of grading on-site. Grading activities will construct new roads,
building residential pads, and stormwater features.
5. Water Quality
Compliance with stormwater requirements will minimize and mitigate potential adverse
effects on receiving waters. Project construction will add impervious surface to the site
25
which consists of streets, residential homes, and driveways. Stormwater rate and
volume controls will limit increases in runoff volume and associated pollutant transport.
Stormwater basins are expected to mitigate potential adverse effects on water quality.
6. Wetlands and Surface Waters
The wetland delineation survey was conducted in the summer of 2022 and delineated
wetlands and public and private drainage ways on site. The wetland delineation report is
currently under review with the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) which consists of Rice
Creek Watershed District, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Anoka County
Conservation District, and the Army Corps of Engineers. If any of these delineated
features is impacted on site, the project proponent will need to obtain a Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act permit, and
Section 401 Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification.
7. Wastewater
The project is expected to produce normal domestic wastewater that will be typical of
residential developments and will be designed within the limitations of the existing
sanitary sewer system.
8. Hazardous Materials
Review of the MPCA and MDA’s “What’s in my Neighborhood” (WIMN) interactive
website identified 1 inactive brownfield on the Project Site and one petroleum tank
release immediately to the north of the site.
A Phase I and Phase II Site Assessment was conducted to analyze contamination on site
and the MPCA has reviewed the site. The MPCA has issued a no action letter stating that
the extent and magnitude of the release has been defined and does not pose a risk to
human health or the environment.
In addition to these two areas, there are 10 sites within 0.5 miles of the proposed
Project Site as shown in the MPCA’s database. The MPCA’s website indicates that these
sites have been properly investigated and managed. Therefore, these sites are not
expected to adversely impact the Project Site.
Prior to the demolition of the existing farmstead buildings, an asbestos and regulated
materials (ARM) assessment will be completed and the MPCA will be notified if asbestos
containing material (ACM) are identified during the ARM assessment.
9. Ecological Resources
The project is expected to convert approximately 158-acres of agriculture into a
residential development. The project may disperse less mobile wildlife species during
the construction of the residential development, however, changes in wildlife
abundance are not expected to be regionally significant. If a threatened and endangered
26
species survey is necessary for the project, it will be completed prior to construction to
ensure no species are impacted. As part of the development protective buffers will be
created along waterways and open space will be reestablished with native vegetation
and trees, creating addition ecological benefits.
10. Historic Resources
A search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory
did not identify archaeological sites or historic structures known to exist in the project
vicinity. Additionally, the State Historic Preservations Office confirmed no resources
present on the site.
11. Visual Resources
There are no scenic views or vistas on or adjacent to the Project Site. Substantial effects
on visual resources are not anticipated in conjunction with the project development.
12. Noise
Local noise levels are expected to increase temporarily during project construction and
will impact the nearest sensitive noise receptors including the single family residential
homes that border the site to the south.
Construction noise can be mitigated by restricting construction work to daytime hours.
Contractors will be required to minimize noise impacts by maintaining equipment
properly, including noise controls as specified by manufactures. The project will adhere
to the City of Lino Lake’s noise rules and standards that indicates noise should occur
within specified levels depending on land use and time of day.
After construction, noise levels are expected to be at or near existing levels. Noise
associated with the project will be related to residential vehicle noise. A combination of
berms, landscaping, and fencing will be used to provide noise mitigation for the adjacent
residential developments. Similar to construction noise, the residential use of the
property will adhere to the City’s noise rules and standards. A noise study will be prepared
detailing noise mitigation for the site and submitted with the preliminary plat submittal
for the development.
13. Transportation
A Traffic Study was completed in 2022 to analyze the PUD Concept Plan and Yield Plan.
Generally, the proposed development is expected to have minimal impact on study area
traffic operations. Thus, no geometric or traffic control improvements are required from
an operations perspective. Traffic impacts will be further analyzed during the City
rezoning and preliminary plat review process. Any traffic mitigation identified in the
review will be implemented with project construction. This will include both vehicular
and pedestrian improvements.
27
Operations analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates the quality of
traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A
through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation with vehicles experiencing
minimal delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a
breakdown of traffic flow. For through/stop intersections, a key measure of operational
effectiveness is side-street LOS. The second component of the traffic operations analysis
is a study of vehicular queuing, or the lineup of vehicles waiting to pass through an
intersection.
Based on the traffic analysis for the site, each study intersection currently operates at
overall LOS B during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, no significant
side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or in traffic simulations.
While roadway improvements are not required from a traffic operations or regional
transportation system perspective, recommendations have been provided to improve
the flow of traffic throughout the development and onto the main connecting streets.
B. Cumulative Potential Effects
Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, Subp. 7 (B) indicates that the second factor the City must consider
is whether the proposed project has potentially significant cumulative effects. This includes
“whether the cumulative potential effect is significant, whether the contribution from the
project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative
potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures
specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the project
proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” The City’s findings are described
below.
The potential cumulative effects on public infrastructure would include impacts to the
municipal water supply systems, sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment systems,
stormwater management, and traffic and transportation. The City of Lino Lakes has planned for
the growth and increased capacity to address these cumulative impacts as outlined in their
2040 Comprehensive Plan. Thus the cumulative effects on public infrastructure is not expected
to be significant.
Cumulative impacts on natural resources include the loss of agricultural land, loss of wetlands,
floodplain alteration, and loss of habitat for wildlife that uses the existing sod farm. Surface
water runoff from the site will be discharged prior to discharge into any receiving waters.
Additionally, the site is subject to floodplain mitigation requirements due to the alteration of
the 100 year floodplain. Stormwater regulations, floodplain mitigation on site, and water
quality BMPs are expected to minimize cumulative impacts of post-development runoff on
receiving waters.
28
C. Extent to Which Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation
Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, Subp 7 (C) indicates that a third factor the City must consider is the
“extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory
authority.” The City’s findings are described in Table 1 below.
Environmental effects on water quality, wetlands, and traffic are subject to additional approvals
and/or mitigation through requirements of local, state, and federal regulations, ordinances,
management plans, and permitting processes. Potential environmental effects associated with
this project will be mitigated in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The following
permits and approvals are required for the project addressed under the EAW.
Table 4 (in EAW). Required Permits and Approvals for the Proposed Project
Unit of Government Types of Application Status
Federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit To be submitted
State
Minnesota Department of
Health (MDH) Watermain Extension Permit To be submitted
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MN DNR)
Water Appropriation Permit (Construction
Dewatering) To be submitted
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) To be submitted, if
necessary
Permit for the Take of Endangered or
Threatened Species If needed
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS)
General Permit
To be submitted
Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be submitted
Section 401 Water Quality Certification or
Waiver To be submitted
10-day Demolition Notification If needed
Local
Rice Creek Watershed District
Wetland Conservation Act Delineation
Boundary Concurrence To be submitted
Wetland Impact and Replacement Plan To be submitted
Stormwater Management Plan To be submitted
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan To be submitted
Floodplain Alteration Permit To be submitted
Public Drainage System Permit To be submitted
29
Unit of Government Types of Application Status
Federal
Anoka County Access Permit(s) To be submitted
Right-of-Way Permit To be submitted
City of Lino Lakes Rezoning and Preliminary Plat To be submitted
Final Plat Approval To be submitted
Municipal Water Connection Permit To be submitted
Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be submitted
Grading Permit To be submitted
Building Permit To be submitted
D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp 7 (D) indicates the final factor the City must consider is the
“extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other
EISs.” The City’s findings are set forth below.
1. The proposed project design, plans, EAW, related studies, and mitigation measures
apply knowledge, approaches, standards, and best management practices gained from
previous experience and projects that have, in general, successfully mitigated potential
offsite environmental effects.
2. The EAW, in conjunction with this document, contains or references the known studies
that provide information or guidance regarding environmental effects that can be
anticipated and controlled.
3. Other project studies under environmental reviews in Minnesota have included studies
and mitigation measures comparable to those included in this EAW.
4. There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant
environmental effects that cannot be addressed by the project design, assessment,
permitting, and development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional
and local plans.
5. The environmental effects of this development can be anticipated and controlled by the
permit application and review processes of the City, Watershed District, and others.
6. The City of Lino Lakes finds that the environmental effects of the project can be
adequately anticipated and controlled given the results of the environmental review and
permitting process.
30
6. RECORD OF DECISION
Based on the EAW, the response to comments, and the Findings of Fact, the City of Lino Lakes,
the RGU for this environmental review, concludes the following:
1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700 (2015);
2. The EAW satisfactorily addressed the issues for which existing information could have
been reasonably obtained;
3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, the project does not
have the potential for significant environmental effects;
4. The City makes a “Negative Declaration,” and
5. An EIS is not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Wozniak South Residential Development
PAGE 13
Appendix A
AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287
mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER
September 9, 2022
Katie Larsen, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
RE: EAW – Robinson Sod Farm
T31 R22 S7, Lino Lakes, Anoka County
SHPO Number: 2022-2393
Dear Katie Larsen:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for
the above-referenced project.
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the
National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological resources
located in the area that will be affected by this project.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial
assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need
to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by
our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal
agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106.
Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Program Specialist, at
kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project.
Sincerely,
Sarah J. Beimers
Environmental Review Program Manager
September 13, 2022
Katie Larsen
City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Re: Robinson Sod Farm Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Katie Larsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Robinson Sod Farm project (Project) located in Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota. The
Project consists of a new residential development. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the
following comments for your consideration.
Permits and Approvals (Item 8)
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the Project should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface
waters as defined by Minn. Stat. § 115.01, subd. 22 Waters of the state. Even though there may be
surface waters that are determined to be US Army Corps of Engineers non-jurisdictional or exempt from
the Wetland Conservation Act, all surface waters are regulated by the MPCA, and any surface water
impact needs to be described in the application and may require mitigation.
The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is limited to assuring that a discharge from a
federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements. In addition, the
applicant must also submit to the MPCA the Antidegradation Assessment in accordance with water
quality standards Minn. R. 7050.0265 and should review the Antidegradation requirements in
7050.0285.
The 401 Water Quality Certification becomes an enforceable component of the associated federal
license or permit, issued under either Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act. The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is limited to assuring that a
discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements.
For further information about the 401 Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at
651-757-2825 or william.wilde@state.mn.us.
Water Resources (Item 11)
Stormwater
• The EAW states the proposed 158-acre residential development is in a 100-year floodplain. The EAW
indicates that soil remediation for the construction will be required due to predominately hydric
soils on the site and stormwater ponds will be constructed in lieu of infiltrating stormwater to meet
volume reduction requirements.
Katie Larsen
Page 2
September 13, 2022
• The EAW should consider climate risks associated with increased rainfall regarding the proposed
development that could result in the potential for increased flood risk. Filling of wetlands at the site
and adding large areas of impervious surfaces is likely to alter the natural hydrology and increase
this risk. Efforts to reduce stormwater volume and provide more climate resiliency should be
considered. The Project proposer is strongly encouraged to utilize Low Impact Development
strategies such as reducing impervious surfaces through use of narrower streets and sidewalks,
stormwater reuse and green infrastructure practices to promote retention of stormwater on the site
while also providing other environmental benefits.
• During construction, the MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal
System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW Permit) requires preservation of the
existing 50 feet of natural buffer to wetlands on the site. If the existing buffer must be encroached
to complete the construction, then redundant (double) down gradient sediment controls must be
utilized to protect the wetlands. Questions regarding Construction Stormwater Permit requirements
should be directed to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us.
Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes (Item 12)
Please be aware that farmsteads have the potential for releases or threatened releases of agricultural
chemicals. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is the regulatory agency charged with
managing the response and cleanup of fertilizers and pesticides. Information regarding the MDA is
available on the website at: https://www.mda.state.mn.us/pesticide-fertilizer/spills-cleanup. For
questions regarding agricultural chemicals, please contact Cathy Villas-Horns with the MDA at
651-201-6697. For questions regarding waste pesticide containers, please contact Jane Boerboom with
the MDA at 651-201-6540.
Other Potential Environmental Effects (Item 20)
Please note that chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state.
Chloride can come from both de-icing salt and water softener salt. For the proposed Project, the MPCA
recommends smart salting practices for de-icing streets and driveways during the winter weather
months and water softening best practices be used year-round. Additional resources are available at:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/statewide-chloride-resources.
Katie Larsen
Page 3
September 13, 2022
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please provide your specific responses to our
comments and notice of decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware
that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the
purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the
Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If
you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at
Karen.kromar@state.mn.us or by telephone at 651-757-2508.
Sincerely,
Karen Kromar
This document has been electronically signed.
Karen Kromar
Planner Principal
Environmental Review Unit
Resource Management and Assistance Division
KK:rs
cc: Dan Card, MPCA, St. Paul
Roberta Getman, MPCA, Rochester
Bill Wilde, MPCA, St. Paul
Cathy Villas-Horns, MDA, St. Paul
Jane Boerboom, MDA, St. Paul
Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services) 390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904 metrocouncil.org
An Equal Opportunity Employer
September 13, 2022
Katie Larsen, City Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014
RE: City of Lino Lakes – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Robinson Sod Farm Metropolitan Council Review No. 22797-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 11
Dear Katie Larsen:
The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the Robinson Sod Farm project in the City of Lino Lakes on August 9, 2022. The proposed development consists of 158 acres with a mix of low, medium, and
high density residential development located southeast of Sunset Avenue and 125th Avenue NE (CSAH 14). The EAW addresses two potential site plans for the project: the PUD Concept Plan and the Yield Plan. The PUD Concept Plan is expected to consist of 557 units with 242 single family lots and 315
townhomes and the Yield Plan is expected to consist of 707 units with 263 single family lots, 164 townhomes, and 280 multi-family units.
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes.
We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Item 6 – Project Description – Forecasts (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322) Either of the two scenarios presented could yield development beyond previous expectations. The communitywide forecast for Lino Lakes continues to offer growing room. However, the allocation of the forecast to sub city zones can be revised as needed.
The EAW site is the northern half of Transportation Analysis Zone #182. At this time, the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan expects TAZ #182 to gain +340 households and +853 population during 2020-2040. Should the subject development proceed, several hundreds of excess
households would result. City staff can request a TAZ allocation adjustment by contacting Council Research staff.
Item 6 – Project Description – Housing (Hilary Lovelace, 651-602-1555) Council staff note that any changes to guiding land use, including changes to percent residential and minimum allowable density, may create inconsistency with regional housing policy and impact the City’s ability to participate in Livable Communities Act Programs. Please contact Council staff with any questions.
Page - 2 | September 13, 2022 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Item 9 – Land Use – Regional Parks and Trails (Colin Kelly, 651-602-1361) A planned unit of the Regional Parks System – the Central Anoka County Regional Trail – is immediately adjacent to the project site. Council staff encourages Integrate Properties, LLC and the City of Lino Lakes to coordinate with Anoka County prior to and during any future construction activities to ensure there are no permanent impacts to the planned regional trail as a result of either of the two site plan alternatives discussed.
Item 11aii – Water Resources – Groundwater (Lanya Ross, 651-602-1803) The project site is located in the North and East Groundwater Management Area (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gwmp/area-ne.html) designated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Given the range of water supply challenges (quantity and quality) that exist in
this part of the metro, the Council encourages the City to collaborate with state partners and/or neighboring communities when expanding or developing new water supplies in this area.
Item 11bii – Water Resources – Stormwater (Joe Mulcahy, 651-602-1104) This appears to be a difficult site for intensive development due to a predominance of hydric soils, high water table, wetlands, presence of county and private ditches, and location in the 100-year
flood plain. Many of the soil associations listed for the site have severe limitations for dwellings with basements and roadways. The EAW states that the project will result in 50-60 acres of impervious surface and runoff will be treated with stormwater basins. Taken together, these conditions indicate that the site is a poor candidate for the proposed development. If the proposer is determined to pursue this project, they should work closely with the City and Rice Creek Watershed District to address all these concerns before proceeding. This concludes the Council’s review of the EAW. The Council will not take formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Katelyn Champoux, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1831 or via email at katelyn.champoux@metc.state.mn.us. As always, you can also contact your Sector Representative, Patrick Boylan, at 651-602-1438 or via email at patrick.boylan@metc.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager Local Planning Assistance
CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Susan Vento, Metropolitan Council District 11
Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative Katelyn Champoux, Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Lino Lakes\Letters\Lino Lakes 2022 Robinson Sod Farm EAW 22797-1.docx
1
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
September 15, 2022
Katie Larsen, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Dear Katie Larsen,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Robinson Sod Farm Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) in Anoka County. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration:
1. Page 6, Permits and Approvals. Please include a DNR Permit to Take in the list of required
permits and approvals. Protected state-listed species have been identified in the project
vicinity. The need for a Permit to Take will be determined as the proposer works through the
rare plant survey process.
2. Page 12, Wastewater. The proposed plan to add 557 and even up to 707 residential units
would presumably add a comparable number of residential water softeners due to the water
hardness levels of the City of Lino Lakes municipal water supply. Many Minnesota
municipalities are wrestling with high chloride levels in their wastewater (See this recent study
on sources of chloride in Minnesota). Chloride is one of the components of salt, which is used in
forms such as sodium chloride (table salt), calcium chloride and magnesium chloride (road
salts). Sodium chloride is commonly used in home water softeners and by water treatment
plants to treat “hard” water. Minnesota generally has groundwater with high levels of calcium
and magnesium that must be removed through softening in order to improve taste and prevent
lime scale buildup in appliances, pipes and water fixtures. The majority of home water
softeners use sodium chloride (NaCl) in a softening process that replaces calcium and
magnesium ions with sodium, while the chloride ions are discharged in the wastewater and
eventually end up in the environment.
Each community needs to determine which tool is appropriate for their situation. This factsheet
suggests ways for homeowners to optimize their water softener salt use, while this link
provides resources for cities and examples of how other communities in Minnesota are
addressing their high chloride levels. We suggest that as this development moves forward, the
City of Lino Lakes consider what strategies can be used to minimize chloride use.
2
3. Page 13, Post-Construction Runoff. Blanding’s turtles, a protected state-listed threatened
species, have been documented within the project area. Stormwater features may be colonized
by Blanding’s turtles in the area, therefore we recommend incorporating measures to avoid
impacting this species into stormwater management. In years when the stormwater features
will be dredged to remove excess sediment, please draw down water levels by September 15th
in order to allow turtles to find overwintering habitat elsewhere.
4. Page 13, Post-Construction Runoff. We recommend that BWSR-approved, weed-free, native
seed mixes be used to the greatest degree possible in stormwater features in order to provide
pollinator habitat.
5. Page 13, Post-Construction Runoff. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also
increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and
streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially
reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business
and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk
applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this
website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both
from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce
salt use and save money for their organizations.
We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the Statewide
Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here
are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride
use.
6. Page 20, Rare Features. This section of the EAW lists the rare species identified in the DNR
Natural Heritage Review, but does not include or discuss DNR requirements regarding these
species. The statement that, “There are no state listed species within the project site” is
incorrect. The Natural Heritage Review letter has concerns about two state-listed species that
may occur within the site. The lack of known occurrences within the project boundary does not
mean that these species do not use the area. Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute
(Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated Rules (Minnesota Rules, part 6212.1800
to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the take of threatened or endangered species without a
permit.
Swamp Blackberry (Rubus semisetosus), a state-listed endangered species, has been
documented in the vicinity of the project. A qualified surveyor needs to conduct a
botanical survey if any shrub removal is associated with the proposed project. Surveys
must be conducted by a DNR approved surveyor (see attached list) and follow the standards
contained in the Rare Species Survey Process and Rare Plant Guidance. Project planning
should take into account that any botanical survey needs to be conducted during the
appropriate time of the year, which may be limited. Please consult with the NH Review
Team (Reports.NHIS@state.mn.us) regarding this process.
3
Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been
documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. As such, the following avoidance
measures are required:
o Avoid wetland impacts during hibernation season, between October 15th and April
15th, unless the area is unsuitable for hibernation.
o The use of erosion control blanket shall be limited to ‘bio-netting’ or ‘natural-
netting’ types, and specifically not products containing plastic mesh netting or other
plastic components.
Also, be aware that hydro-mulch products may contain small synthetic
(plastic) fibers to aid in their matrix strength. These loose fibers could
potentially re-suspend and make their way into Public Waters. As such,
please review mulch products and not allow any materials with synthetic
(plastic) fiber additives in areas that drain to Public Waters.
o Areas where there will be construction should be checked for turtles before the use
of heavy equipment or any ground disturbance.
o The Blanding’s turtle flyer must be given to all contractors working in the area.
o Monitor for turtles during construction and report any sightings to the DNR
Nongame Specialist, Erica Hoaglund (Erica.Hoaglund@state.mn.us).
o If turtles are in imminent danger they must be moved by hand out of harm’s way,
otherwise, they are to be left undisturbed.
If the above avoidance measures are not possible, please contact Samantha Bump
(Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us) as further action may be needed.
For additional information, see the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet, which describes the habitat
use and life history of this species. The fact sheet also provides two lists of
recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. Please refer to
both lists of recommendations and apply those that are relevant to your project. For
further assistance regarding the Blanding’s turtle, please contact the DNR Regional
Nongame Specialist, Erica Hoaglund.
For additional information, see the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet, which describes the habitat use
and life history of this species. The fact sheet also provides two lists of recommendations for
avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. Please refer to both lists of
recommendations for your project.
7. Page 25, Dust and Odors. If water for dust control is taken from a lake, river, or stream in
volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one million gallons per year, then a DNR Water
Appropriations Permit will be required.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
4
Melissa Collins
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us
CC: Ian Peterson, Integrate Properties
Equal Opportunity Employer
From:Katie Larsen
To:Nicki Roland Ecker
Subject:RE: Main/Sunset Development
Attachments:image002.jpg
Hi Nicki,
Thank you for your comments. You can learn more about the proposed Robinson Sod Farm
development by reviewing the Environment Assessment Worksheet on the City’s website at
https://linolakes.us/459/Public-Review-Documents. After Council review of the EAW in October, the
developer may proceed forward with preliminary plat and development plans. Formal public
hearings will be held during the preliminary plat process. I don’t have a schedule for that yet as it
will depend on when the developer submits their application.
Thank you,
Katie A. Larsen, AICP
City Planner
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Direct 651-982-2426 Fax 651-982-2499
klarsen@linolakes.us
logo transparent copy
From: Nicki Roland Ecker <nicole.r.roland@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Subject: Main/Sunset Development
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Katie, how are you?
I saw this article and am wondering how to stay informed about it? This would be a devastating
addition to our already under-supported schools and infrastructures. We already have too fast much
traffic (ie Birch. Main Main Street), a hodge podge high school building and large class sizes.
We don’t want to be the next Woodbury.
The houses in Northpoint (houses stacked on top of another), overcrowded CVE are exactly what we
don’t want. We want land, green space and to be away from the crowded cities we moved away
from.
https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2022/08/24/integrate-homes-lino-lakes-eden-
prairie.html
Thanks for your insight & consideration in keeping Lino Lakes a desirable community for those who
already live here.
Nicki
From:Katie Larsen
To:Anna J
Subject:RE: Robinson Development
Attachments:image003.jpg
Hi Anna,
Thank you for your comments. You can learn more about the proposed Robinson Sod Farm
development by reviewing the Environment Assessment Worksheet on the City’s website at
https://linolakes.us/459/Public-Review-Documents. After Council review of the EAW in October, the
developer may proceed forward with preliminary plat and development plans. Formal public
hearings will be held during the preliminary plat process. I don’t have a schedule for that yet as it
will depend on when the developer submits their application.
Thank you,
Katie A. Larsen, AICP
City Planner
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Direct 651-982-2426 Fax 651-982-2499
klarsen@linolakes.us
logo transparent copy
From: Anna J <atjungbauer@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Subject: Robinson Development
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Katie,
I am a Lino Lakes citizen and just read in the business journal about the Robinson development. I am
curious how to find out how this will impact all of our city resources adding that many homes and
people.
Roads, schools, public safety resources etc.
Can you point me in the right direction to learn more? I hit a pay wall in the article but if I read it
right there is still opportunities for this to go to public hearing and city council must approve it.
Myself and some neighbors are concerned with these massive developments being put in, without
the builders being on the hook for the schools for the families their developments bring and the
current citizens will only have to then battle over school levy $ and increased property taxes.
Thanks,
Anna
From:Katie Larsen
To:Justin Carver
Subject:RE: Robinson Sod Farm (EAW)
Attachments:image003.jpg
Morning Justin,
You can learn more about the proposed Robinson Sod Farm development by reviewing the
Environment Assessment Worksheet on the City’s website at https://linolakes.us/459/Public-Review-
Documents. After Council review of the EAW in October, the developer may proceed forward with
preliminary plat and development plans. Formal public hearings will be held during the preliminary
plat process. I don’t have a schedule for that yet as it will depend on when the developer submits
their application.
If you have additional questions, certainly feel free to give me a call.
Thank you,
Katie A. Larsen, AICP
City Planner
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Direct 651-982-2426 Fax 651-982-2499
klarsen@linolakes.us
logo transparent copy
From: Justin Carver <justcarve20@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 9:09 PM
To: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Subject: Robinson Sod Farm (EAW)
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hello Katie,
My friends that live down the street from me have showed me the letter they received from The City
of Lino Lakes referencing the potential new build of 707 units on the Robinson Sod Farm. I did not
receive such notice.
My address is 65 Century Trail.
I have many questions and concerns with what I've read in this letter.
Can you please call me to discuss when you're available.
Justin Carver
651-307-8183
Thank you!
From:Morgan C.
To:Katie Larsen
Cc:Nick Lahood
Subject:Robison Sod Farm
Date:Thursday, August 25, 2022 6:45:36 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Katie,
I live over on Stallion Lane. I think adding 707 units to that sod field is just outrageous when there was just 2 new
developments placed by the elementary and just across the sod field. This will cause overcrowding, and has therebeen any thought that this could cause an increase into classroom sizes at the elementary school?
The only way I would support this is if there is less units placed and a pool is added which our HOA could haveaccess to.
Thanks,Morgan and Nicholas LaHood165 Stallion LaneLino Lakes, MN 55014Sent from my iPhone
From:Mike Trudeau
To:Katie Larsen
Subject:RE: Robinson Sod farm development question
Date:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:27:10 PM
Attachments:image001.gif
image002.jpg
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Thanks Katie – that is very helpful! does not look like townhomes going in behind me, but perhaps I
am reading it wrong. With increased traffic perhaps they will need another exit to the north onto
main. Otherwise Robinson Drive will become a mini-highway!
Thanks for your direction – appreciate it! MT
Michael G Trudeau, CFP®, FIC
Wealth Advisor
Northstar Advisor Group
Edgewater Team
CA License: 4150818
6776 Lake Dr Ste 160
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
O 1-651-288-7580
C 1-651-402-9578
F 1-651-288-7599
Book a meeting with Michael G Trudeau
Zoom
From: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 9:20 AM
To: Mike Trudeau <Mike.Trudeau@Thrivent.com>
Subject: RE: Robinson Sod farm development question
Morning Mike,
The letter referenced the City website. https://linolakes.us/459/Public-Review-Documents. It’s a 438
page documents but don’t be intimidated! About 400 pages are the appendices. See page 37 and
38 for the maps.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks,
Katie A. Larsen, AICP
City Planner
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Direct 651-982-2426 Fax 651-982-2499
klarsen@linolakes.us
logo transparent copy
From: Mike Trudeau <Mike.Trudeau@Thrivent.com>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Subject: RE: Robinson Sod farm development question
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Thank you Katie for your insight!
Can you point me to where I can find the PDFs for the EAW/PUD? I would love to see the figures you
are referencing below.
Thanks again! Mike
Michael G Trudeau, CFP®, FIC
Wealth Advisor
Northstar Advisor Group
Edgewater Team
CA License: 4150818
6776 Lake Dr Ste 160
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
O 1-651-288-7580
C 1-651-402-9578
F 1-651-288-7599
Book a meeting with Michael G Trudeau
Zoom
From: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 2:36 PM
To: Mike Trudeau <Mike.Trudeau@Thrivent.com>
Subject: RE: Robinson Sod farm development question
Hi Mike,
Per the EAW, Figure 2. PUD Concept Plan shows a 557 unit development with single family homes
behind your Robinson Drive single family homes. Figure 3. Yield Plan shows a 707 unit development
with single family homes and townhomes behind Robinson Drive. There are no apartments
proposed behind Robinson Drive. Take a look at the EAW concepts and you’ll get an idea as to what
is being contemplated. As the project moves forward, the developer will submit a PUD Development
Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat that will better define the project. Public hearings will be held and
notices will be sent again to property owners in the area for additional comments.
Certainly let me know if you have any more questions. Your new building seems to be coming along
nicely and is looking good!
Thanks,
Katie A. Larsen, AICP
City Planner
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Direct 651-982-2426 Fax 651-982-2499
klarsen@linolakes.us
logo transparent copy
From: Mike Trudeau <Mike.Trudeau@Thrivent.com>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:40 PM
To: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Cc: Mike Trudeau <Mike.Trudeau@Thrivent.com>
Subject: Robinson Sod farm development question
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Katie,
Thank you for your help with our project off Hodgson. I know it was a lot to develop such a small
parcel, but appreciate your work on it. The building is coming along nicely!
So, I guess I can’t be one to complain about a development…right?
I live at 87 Robinson Dr., and got the recent letter RE development of 707 units on the Robinson sod
farms (right behind my house).
My question is – will the plans be to include single family housing on the west side of the property,
and put the town homes/higher density units on the east side? This would align with having single
family abut to single family. Which would likely not harm my property value. However, if an
apartment went in behind my home, I would think that would very much hurt my value. Can you
give me any insight as to where in the parcel would be anticipated locations of single
family/townhomes/apartments?
We built in 2017 knowing this eventually would happen…but there was great concern when we got
the letter, to think that an apartment could be behind us vs more nice single family homes. I would
strongly encourage the city to put the single family units abutting to the single family that is
currently there, and keep the higher density stuff over where the current town homes are, if that is
possible.
Let me know what you think, thanks so much! Mike Trudeau
Michael G Trudeau, CFP®, FIC
Wealth Advisor
Northstar Advisor Group
Edgewater Team
CA License: 4150818
6776 Lake Dr Ste 160
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
O 1-651-288-7580
C 1-651-402-9578
F 1-651-288-7599
Book a meeting with Michael G Trudeau
Zoom
Please do not use email to request, authorize, or affect the purchase or sale of any security or insurance product or service,
to send fund transfer instructions, or to effect any other transactions, as we are not authorized to accept these requests in an
electronic format. Any such requests, orders, or instructions that you send will not be accepted and will not be processed. If
you need immediate assistance with your brokerage account, please call 800-THRIVENT, and say "Securities Brokerage
Services."
Thrivent is the marketing name for Thrivent Financial for Lutherans. Insurance products issued by Thrivent. Not available in
all states. Securities and investment advisory services offered through Thrivent Investment Management Inc., a registered
investment adviser, member FINRA and SIPC, and a subsidiary of Thrivent. Licensed agent/producer of Thrivent. Registered
representative of Thrivent Investment Management Inc. Advisory services available through investment adviser
representatives only. Thrivent.com/disclosures.
Thrivent Investment Management Inc. outgoing and incoming email is electronically archived and recorded and is subject to
review, monitoring and/or disclosure to someone other than the recipient.
ThriventDisclaimer1299457
1
Keara Fehr
From:Mara Lipinski <megror04@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 5, 2022 7:07 PM
To:Katie Larsen
Subject:Robinson Sod Farm
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hello Katie,
I have a few comments regarding the potential development of the Robinson Sod Farm. I don't think it would be wise to
create such a large development when the city of Lino Lakes has a hard time keeping up with maintaining the current
small development. In fact, the city has point blank told us that they have so many trails to maintain that they forget
about ours. They don't mow the boulevard as often as they should (subsection 904 states this should be less than 8
inches), they have trail over hang that isn't cut back, they don't replace dead trees (which we were informed this
summer is the city's job), and they rarely snow blow in the winter (subsection 907.03, public nuisances affecting peace
and safety-snow must be removed 12 hours after snowfall has stopped, the city has never done this). The pictures below
are only a sampling and does not include all.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Thank you,
Current resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:Cindy Hansen
To:Katie Larsen
Subject:Robinson Sod Farm EAW
Date:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 2:40:02 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Doug and Cindy Hansen
296 Carl Street
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
September 12, 2022
Katie Larsen
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Dear Ms. Larsen,
Please accept this as public comment in response to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
the proposed Robinson Sod Farm development.
In review, the proposal is for approximately 700 municipal sewer and water systems in this
development. In Lino Lakes, we already are prohibited from watering 6:00 am to 6:00 pm - 365 days
a year and even tighter restrictions are in place from May through September. Just recently, the DNR
gave notice to the City requesting that Lino Lakes implement a total irrigation ban. Due to high levels
of manganese found in its wells, Lino Lakes was forced to shut one down and operate two wells at a
lower pumping rate to service our city. With the Robinson Sod Farm development, over 700 units
will be added to this already stressed system.
We would like assurance that the City of Lino Lakes and Council have a prudent approach including
an aggressive water management plan that can handle this addition. We were shocked to discover
that Lino Lakes, as a city of this size, is just in the preliminary phase of a water treatment plant.
The City of Blaine is experiencing the results of rapid development, dealing with well interference
and may incurred the cost of replacing well pumps and/or drilling new wells in Blaine and Ham Lake
for private well owners. We would hate to see the same outcome for the Lino Lakes taxpayers.
Another Environmental Impact that must be considered is the nature path that is used daily not only
by Carl Street residents but, also residents from surrounding developments. Carl Street has been a
main walking and bike path for decades for people of all ages along with their pets. It is a safe zone
since it is not a main thoroughfare and traffic is limited. The alternative is Lilac Street which does not
have a continuous sidewalk or a bike path. Children have to ride their bikes with traffic - which is
posted at 50 mph - to cross from one development to another.
With the Robinson development, there is the proposed access to Carl Street and in one plan the
distruction of two well established cul-de-sacs on Carl Street and making it a main thoroughfare. In
developments where the City of Lino Lakes has planned for a road to be continued, they have posted
signs to indicate their intent. This has not been the case on the two Carl Street cul-de-sacs. The only
posted signage was put up only a few years ago with concerns of pet waste and prohibiting
motorized vehicles.
People are not the only ones using the Carl Street walking path. Two sets of Sandhill Cranes literally
walk side by side down the middle of Carl Street and continue on the path while a pair of Bald Eagles
watch from our Cottonwood tree. Endangered Monarch butterflies, bees, and hummingbirds have
been thriving in my gardens and down the path as they have pollinated this area spreading
milkweed, bee balm and their other favorites. Hawks circle above hunting the inhabitants of the area
between the two cul-de-sacs and overflow pond. The five deer that surrounded our car on Christmas
Eve surprised us all!
The residents of Carl Street are aware of these activities and drive accordingly and very cautiously. If
Carl Street is connected with the Robinson development or is forced to have two cul-de-sacs
removed and the street connected, this path will be destroyed and traffic, including heavy trucks,
will be going 50 mph endangering all living things. It has been proven that even if posted 30 mph,
vehicles will be going closer to 50 mph as in the other cases in Lino Lakes. If the City forces the
connection of the Robinson development with Carl Street, we can only pray that a child riding a bike
or a vehicle driver will not be distracted or looking at a plane instead of watching where they are
going and there is a fatality.
It is our understanding that there was only a 2 day study of Carl Street. This neighborhood has data
for for over 30 years. As Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes are aware, this is a designated Air
Park.
This is a serious safety and environmental concern. If Carl Street access is granted, it will have a
detrimental impact on the existing surrounding residential developments. As it is now, it is a nature
walk. Three neighbors each mow three different areas including the path and the North side of Carl
Street. We planted 5- 5 foot pine trees on the south side of the path to add to the aesthetics of this
nature walkway 9 years ago. Prior to purchasing our property in 2013, the City Engineer told us that
the City of Lino Lakes had no intentions of connecting any future residential development from the
sod farm to Carl Street. He said that the intent was to come out directly to 4th as the 2010 posted
plan showed.
We continue to maintain this path without any reimbursement from the City of Lino Lakes or Anoka
County. We do it for our community. We do it for those who also live outside of our Carl Street
development to enjoy as they use this walking path daily. This is an “Environmental Impact” that is
immeasurable and will be taken away from all if Carl Street is used as any type of access for the
Robinson Sod Farm development.
Acknowledgement of receiving this email would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Doug and Cindy Hansen
September 12, 2022
Katie Larsen, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Dear Ms. Larsen,
Below please see our questions in response to the Robinson Sod Farm Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) dated August 23, 2022.
1. During the morning traffic rush there may be over 1,000 vehicles using the Carl Street and 4th
Avenue intersection, per the EAW projections. Did the traffic study take into consideration the
potential intersection density at 4th Avenue and Carl Street?
2. Was a comprehensive traffic impact study conducted to evaluate the potential traffic backup on
Carl Street during the busy morning and evening hours?
3. Do the Anoka County traffic projections and studies align with those from Alliant Engineering?
4. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering take into consideration the current aquifer
depletion issue taking place on the Lino Lakes border in Blaine?
5. Does the City of Lino Lakes plan to warrant the costs of the wells for current property owners
near the potential project?
6. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering investigate the possibility for flooding due to the
high-water table and the redistribution of water?
7. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering initiate a study to determine if “Quiet Enjoyment
of Life” would be impacted or violated by the proposed street connection?
8. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering consult Anoka County to determine property
value losses if the cul-de-sac is removed?
9. Does Anoka County plan to reassess property value losses and adjust home values and taxes
accordingly if Carl Street is connected.
10. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering consult with Rice Creek Watershed District on
the disruption to the waterways, ditches, and wetlands within the impact area?
11. Many pedestrians, dog walkers, and bicyclists use the path at the end of the cul-de-sac because
they feel safe on Carl Street. Children cannot bike or walk on Lilac or 4th St because they both
are busy with traffic speeds far over the posted limits. Has this been taken into consideration
and are the proposed traffic areas in compliance with the Local Road Research Board (LRRB)?
12. How will the ACD-10-22 main trunk and BR2 be preserved and protected?
13. How will the vegetation and water conservation be enhanced in the disturbed waterways in the
project boundaries?
14. Where in the EAW report can we find information from the MN Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of
Hydrogeology or Climatology regarding the sequela of years of accumulation of fertilizers and
pesticides from the sod farm land upon our disturbed soil, ground water, and well water?
15. In 1977 the Carl Street residents were assured there would be no Carl St connection and the cul-
de-sac would remain. In 1986, 2006, and now, despite the developer’s original concept plan
where Carl Street is not mentioned as a variable, would you please clarify as to why Carl Street is
repeatedly targeted for change, negatively affecting our property values, safety, well-being,
wildlife, creek, and vegetation ?
16. The trajectory of land development leads to increased noise, cutting down of trees, causing
damage and instability to wildlife, clean water, vegetation, pollinator insects, soil and other
ecosystems. Will this result in the formation of “heat islands” caused by those losses and the
absorption of more heat by impervious pavement including sidewalks, parking areas and
adverse effects on our climate, air and water quality?
17. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering consult with the FAA regarding traffic proximity
to the Lino Air Park airstrip?
18. Did the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering conduct a traffic analysis relevant to headlight
penetration onto the Lino Air Park airstrip as this can cause temporary flash blindness? This will
be a safety hazard to pilots.
19. Has the risk of increased traffic on Carl Street in proximity to the Lino Air Park been considered
secondary to vehicle drivers being distracted while watching airplanes take off and land, thus
not watching our children playing or residents walking or biking down Carl Street?
20. How was a 2-day traffic study on Carl Street “valid” both in methodology and analysis assuring
“statistical significance levels?”
21. When is the Planning & Zoning commission conducting a hearing and vote on changing the
Robinson property zoning from agricultural to residential?
Please acknowledge that this letter is received in its entirety and entered into the record. Please
provide a timeline in which we can expect a response to our questions.
Regards,
Carl Street Families, Lino Lakes residents
From:Katie Larsen
To:Keara Fehr; Alison Harwood
Subject:FW: Robinson Sod Farm project
Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 4:25:12 PM
From: Ann Rudie <lukerudie@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 4:03 PM
To: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Subject: Robinson Sod Farm project
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
I live in the Century Farm development and have concerns about the safety of the young children in
my neighborhood with Robinson becoming a thru street to the new development.
The quiet surroundings and variety of wildlife make this a great place to live. This will certainly
change with this massive project.
What has the city done to study the impact of this increase in traffic?
How will the city address the ongoing water quality problem with a project of this size and will new
residents be made aware of the manganese issue?
Lexington Cove, Nature's Refuge, Oakwood Ponds and the townhomes near the Kwik Trip on
Lexington south of County 14 are all new. Is there a demonstrated need for more housing? I'm
opposed to this project because of the traffic volume increase.
Ann Rudie
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Cindy Hansen
To:Katie Larsen
Subject:Robinson Sod Farm EAW
Date:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 2:40:02 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Doug and Cindy Hansen
296 Carl Street
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
September 12, 2022
Katie Larsen
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Dear Ms. Larsen,
Please accept this as public comment in response to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
the proposed Robinson Sod Farm development.
In review, the proposal is for approximately 700 municipal sewer and water systems in this
development. In Lino Lakes, we already are prohibited from watering 6:00 am to 6:00 pm - 365 days
a year and even tighter restrictions are in place from May through September. Just recently, the DNR
gave notice to the City requesting that Lino Lakes implement a total irrigation ban. Due to high levels
of manganese found in its wells, Lino Lakes was forced to shut one down and operate two wells at a
lower pumping rate to service our city. With the Robinson Sod Farm development, over 700 units
will be added to this already stressed system.
We would like assurance that the City of Lino Lakes and Council have a prudent approach including
an aggressive water management plan that can handle this addition. We were shocked to discover
that Lino Lakes, as a city of this size, is just in the preliminary phase of a water treatment plant.
The City of Blaine is experiencing the results of rapid development, dealing with well interference
and may incurred the cost of replacing well pumps and/or drilling new wells in Blaine and Ham Lake
for private well owners. We would hate to see the same outcome for the Lino Lakes taxpayers.
Another Environmental Impact that must be considered is the nature path that is used daily not only
by Carl Street residents but, also residents from surrounding developments. Carl Street has been a
main walking and bike path for decades for people of all ages along with their pets. It is a safe zone
since it is not a main thoroughfare and traffic is limited. The alternative is Lilac Street which does not
have a continuous sidewalk or a bike path. Children have to ride their bikes with traffic - which is
posted at 50 mph - to cross from one development to another.
With the Robinson development, there is the proposed access to Carl Street and in one plan the
distruction of two well established cul-de-sacs on Carl Street and making it a main thoroughfare. In
developments where the City of Lino Lakes has planned for a road to be continued, they have posted
signs to indicate their intent. This has not been the case on the two Carl Street cul-de-sacs. The only
posted signage was put up only a few years ago with concerns of pet waste and prohibiting
motorized vehicles.
People are not the only ones using the Carl Street walking path. Two sets of Sandhill Cranes literally
walk side by side down the middle of Carl Street and continue on the path while a pair of Bald Eagles
watch from our Cottonwood tree. Endangered Monarch butterflies, bees, and hummingbirds have
been thriving in my gardens and down the path as they have pollinated this area spreading
milkweed, bee balm and their other favorites. Hawks circle above hunting the inhabitants of the area
between the two cul-de-sacs and overflow pond. The five deer that surrounded our car on Christmas
Eve surprised us all!
The residents of Carl Street are aware of these activities and drive accordingly and very cautiously. If
Carl Street is connected with the Robinson development or is forced to have two cul-de-sacs
removed and the street connected, this path will be destroyed and traffic, including heavy trucks,
will be going 50 mph endangering all living things. It has been proven that even if posted 30 mph,
vehicles will be going closer to 50 mph as in the other cases in Lino Lakes. If the City forces the
connection of the Robinson development with Carl Street, we can only pray that a child riding a bike
or a vehicle driver will not be distracted or looking at a plane instead of watching where they are
going and there is a fatality.
It is our understanding that there was only a 2 day study of Carl Street. This neighborhood has data
for for over 30 years. As Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes are aware, this is a designated Air
Park.
This is a serious safety and environmental concern. If Carl Street access is granted, it will have a
detrimental impact on the existing surrounding residential developments. As it is now, it is a nature
walk. Three neighbors each mow three different areas including the path and the North side of Carl
Street. We planted 5- 5 foot pine trees on the south side of the path to add to the aesthetics of this
nature walkway 9 years ago. Prior to purchasing our property in 2013, the City Engineer told us that
the City of Lino Lakes had no intentions of connecting any future residential development from the
sod farm to Carl Street. He said that the intent was to come out directly to 4th as the 2010 posted
plan showed.
We continue to maintain this path without any reimbursement from the City of Lino Lakes or Anoka
County. We do it for our community. We do it for those who also live outside of our Carl Street
development to enjoy as they use this walking path daily. This is an “Environmental Impact” that is
immeasurable and will be taken away from all if Carl Street is used as any type of access for the
Robinson Sod Farm development.
Acknowledgement of receiving this email would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Doug and Cindy Hansen
September 12, 2022
Steven L Anderson
7795 Clydesdale Circle
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Re: Robinson Sod Farm EAW
To Whom It May Concern;
As a local resident who has witnessed the consequences of the overstressed drainage system in the area (flooded yards and buildings, neighbor conflicts, expensive private drainage systems, etc) I can attest to the fragility of this area in regards to development. The Carlos Avery and its fragile and complex water system is close by, and our local ditch system was designed many years ago to allow development on a limited scale. The drainage restructuring required for this housing proposal with many buildings, paved streets, driveways, patios, etc will negatively impact local residents and their properties. Without the water retention of the sod farm and the increased runoff and potential for flooding, the project could conceivably change the flood status of the area, and threaten existing homes, buildings and properties that were built decades ago.
My second objection, but by no means the lesser, is the environmental impact. The sod farm and the surrounding wetlands and ditches are major nesting/rearing grounds for many species of migratory and local waterfowl, songbirds, deer and predators from raptors to coyotes. The area has been a resting spot for migrating trumpeter and tundra swans, terns, bitterns and more. The Audubon Society’s IBA (Important Bird Area) map of Carlos Avery includes the sod farm and the entire Rice Creek Chain of Lakes as one of the most important bird sanctuaries in the midwest. I also argue that our local treasures, Rice Creek and the chain of lakes would be irreparably damaged by the increased herbicide, pesticide, and salt runoff from the new development. Not only the quality of life of animals, but of the existing human residents will be compromised. I strongly recommend that the sod farm become an extension of the Carlos Avery, or some other special green space or park, which are sorely lacking and being diminished at a rapid pace in Anoka county.
Lastly there is the traffic problem that has developed in recent years, and the one that will evolve from the proposed project; from quiet neighborhoods our community streets have been turned into high-speed thoroughfares too dangerous to allow bicycles and pedestrians. Other than condemning property, removing sidewalks and widening these streets, there is no remedy with the existing situation: never mind with hundreds more housing units on the way.
After careful thought and discussion, I remain deeply opposed to the proposed housing development on the sod farm. Please consider utilizing this property as an investment in our future, and keep it a community green space for all of us.
Thank you,
Steven L Anderson
Scott Zbikowski
7765 Clydesdale Circle
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Re: Robinson Sod Farm EAW
To Whom It May Concern;
I am located approximately one half block south of the proposed Robinson Sod Farm
Development. I have three main concerns over the proposed development as follows:
1. The impact of the deletion of natural drainage/absorption into the soil. Being that the
proposed development has a relatively low elevation with poor drainage. There is great
concern that drainage ditch ACD 10-22-32 will be greatly stressed. The Anoka County Rice
Creek Water Shed area, ditch ACD 10-22-32, including the proposed Robinson Sod Farm
Development is over 100 years old. It was not designed for high density housing. The square
feet of housing, driveways, streets and sidewalks greatly effects the natural absorption of
natural rainfall.
2. Additional traffic impact. The addition of 707 housing units using two automobiles per
household making only one trip per day adds a minimum of 2,828 (2 vehicles x 707 x out going
trip x incoming trip) vehicle movements per day onto our existing roadway system. Departing
to the north onto County Road 14 (Main Street) is a two lane road with no sidewalks.
Assuming that the majority of the traffic will be heading south each day from the development
toward the cities, the main roads to be used to exit the area will be County Rd 53, (Sunset
Road), or 4th Street. Both roads are two lane roads with no sidewalks. This is a great safety
concern for our area. Departing south (on the west side of development) on County Road 53
routes all the traffic through the already busy single lane rounabout to 109th to Lexington to
35W. South (on the east side) routes the traffic onto 4th street to CR 153 (Lilac St) to Apollo
Drive to Lake Drive to 35W. Three of these roads are 2 lane with no sidewalks. This is a
terrible safety concern unless all above roads are to be improved prior to the proposed
Robinson Sod Farm Development.
3. I am a member of the Lino Lakes Airpark Association located approximately 1 block to the
south of the proposed development. The airpark has been here since the 1950’s. It was
improved in the late 70’s and again improved in 2005/2006. It is an active runway in what was
and is in a rural area. Carl Street and ditch ACD 10-22-32 has served as a low density boundary
on the north side of our airpark. There must be no access from the development onto Carl
Street. Carl Street has two dead ends and must remain that way to minimize traffic next to the
airpark. No connection to Carl Street and no connection of east to west dead ends of Carl
Street. This is a must for safety concerns of our airpark.
Please take into consideration the above drainage and safety concerns of the existing area.
Thank you,
Scott Zbikowski
From:Katie Larsen
To:Keara Fehr; Alison Harwood
Cc:Michael Grochala
Subject:FW: EAW Sod Farm
Date:Wednesday, September 14, 2022 4:53:39 PM
Attachments:Final-EAW_Robinson-Sod-Farm_892022.pdf
From: Lisa Olsen <olsenlisa@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 4:48 PM
To: Katie Larsen <KLarsen@linolakes.us>
Subject: EAW Sod Farm
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Dear Katie,
I’ve made some comments on the EAW that I am attaching. Also, I wanted you to please add Ernie
and Lisa Olsen to the signatures that were sent previously by the residents of Carl Street. We were a
little late in responding to them so our names didn’t get added to the list.
We feel strongly that extending Carl Street will absolutely destroy our existing neighborhood and
does not seem like a responsible thing for the city to do to the residents currently living here. We
currently get about 2 or 3 cars a day on our end of Carl Street – imagine going to 2500 trips per day.
This road means a lot to the people living here as well as residents on the other side of 4th Avenue
who walk here daily with their children and pets. Also, there’s an abundance of wildlife that crosses
the road. Please don’t destroy our neighborhood.
We are also concerned about our wells and mound system being destroyed. This is a mostly retired
neighborhood and we can’t afford the cost if our wells and mounds are ruined. Please take extra
caution in this.
Again, please don’t extend Carl Street.
Respectfully,
Lisa and Ernest Olsen
306 Carl Street
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 2
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (Check One)
Required Discretionary ☐EIS Scoping ☐Citizen petition ☒Mandatory EAW ☐RGU discretion
☐Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
4410.4300 Subp 19. Residential Development
5. Project Location
County: Anoka
City/Township: Lino Lakes
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section,
Township, Range):
NE ¼ and NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 7, Township 31, Range 22;
NW ¼ and SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 7, Township 31, Range 22
Watershed (81 major watershed
scale): Mississippi River – Twin Cities
GPS Coordinates: Approximately 45⁰ 11’ 39.82”N, 93⁰ 07’ 57.33”W
Property ID: 07-31-22-22-0001, 07-31-22-21-0001, 07-31-22-12-0001,
07-31-22-13-0001, 07-31-22-22-0002
6. Project Description
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words).
The Robinson project is a proposed low, medium, and high density residential development on an
existing 158-acre agricultural area in the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota. Two site plan
alternatives have been developed for the project:
• PUD Concept Plan – The PUD concept plan is expected to consist of 557 dwelling units of the
following types:
o 242 single family detached homes
o 315 townhomes
• Yield Plan – The yield plan, considered close to the maximum density allowed under future
year 2040 land use plans, is expected to consist of 707 dwelling units of the following types:
o 263 single family detached homes
o 164 townhomes
o 280 multi-family units
See Appendix A, Figures 2 and 3 for the PUD concept plan and yield plan.
12
3
45
Summary of Comments on Title
Page: 5
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 3 Author: Subject: Highlight Date: Indeterminate Number: 4 Author: Date: Indeterminate
This many multi-family units will make this area into
a high crime zone. Please don't do this! Number: 5 Author: Date: Indeterminate
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 3
The project is located to the southeast of Sunset Avenue and 125th Ave NE (Main Street, CSAH 14).
The project will include new roads, stormwater features, and the installation of municipal sewer and
water systems (Appendix A, Figure 1).
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of
the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes,
3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of
construction activities.
The proposed project includes the construction of a new single-family and multi-family residential
housing development. This includes a range in units from the PUD concept plan of 557 units to the
Yield plan of 707 units which are made up of single-family lots (55’, 65’, and 75’ wide), row
townhomes, rowhomes, and structured multi-family housing that will be associated with public
access roads and private driveways. The proposed unit count on the site falls within the density range
for the property provided in the City of Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The project site is comprised of five parcels which are summarized below (Table 1).
Table 1. Parcels within the Project Site for Residential Development
Parcel ID Parcel Size (Acres) Current Use Project Details
07-31-22-22-0001 37.51 Agriculture No existing infrastructure
07-31-22-21-0001 39.84 Agriculture No existing infrastructure
07-31-22-12-0001 39.79 Agriculture Existing farmstead to be removed
07-31-22-13-0001 39.91 Agriculture No existing infrastructure
07-31-22-22-0002 1.44 Residential Existing residence to remain
Roadway access into the development will occur through Main Street and Sunset Ave as dictated by
Anoka County. Other roadway access points have been provided to the property through the Century
Farm development to the south at Cardinal Way, Robinson Drive, Century Trail, and Carl Street.
Additionally, a pedestrian trail has been stubbed to the property from Century Farm Addition to the
south, just west of the Cardinal Way Street connection to encourage recreational use.
The development will create substantial stormwater basin areas that will be an amenity to the
various housing types proposed within the project. The main Anoka County ditch system (ACD-10-22-
23 Main Trunk and Br2) will be preserved and protected while the newly created stormwater basins
will provide for stormwater management goals and infrastructure improvements.
The entire site will be mass graded in one phase to allow for the creation of the stormwater basins.
Development of the neighborhood clusters with utilities and streets will be completed in multiple
phases based on market demand. The developer will be responsible for site grading, utilities, sanitary
sewer, water supply, roadway infrastructure, stormwater, and erosion control. Management of the
site will fall to the individual owners and homeowner’s association once construction is completed on
site.
Please don't make Carl Street into an access point. This will absolutely destroy our neighborhood. This is currently
a rural road.
1
23
4
Page: 6
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Please don't make
Number: 3 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Carl Street into an access point. This will absolutely destroy our neighborhood. This is currently
a rural road. Number: 4 Author: Date: Indeterminate
This is going to destroy the water table and impact our well and mound systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 4
Mass grading is anticipated to begin winter 2023 with the first phase of utilities and streets
completed by July 2023. Home construction is anticipated to begin July 2023 with a full build out of
the community taking place over four to five years depending on market conditions.
c. Project magnitude:
Table 2a. Project Magnitude Data – PUD Concept Plan (557 Units)
Total Project Acreage 158 acres
Linear project length 16,000 linear feet public roadway
6,800 linear feet private roadway
Number and type of residential units:
PUD Concept Plan
45 75-feet wide Single Family Lots
117 65-feet wide Single Family Lots
80 55-feet wide Single Family Lots
191 Row Townhomes
124 Back-to-back & Row Townhomes
557 total residential units
Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A
Industrial building area (in square feet) N/A
Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A
Other uses – specify (in square feet) Stormwater ponds: 840,708
Lake: 270,072
Structure height(s) Back-to-back townhomes will be three stories tall
(2 stories above a garage). Row townhomes will
be two or three stories tall. Structured multi
family housing will be two stories tall. Single
Family Homes will be one or two stories tall.
Table 3b. Project Magnitude Data – Yield Plan (707 Units)
Total Project Acreage 158 acres
Linear project length 13,600 linear feet public roadway
14,700 linear feet private roadway
Number and type of residential units:
Yield Plan
148 80-feet wide Single Family Lots
386 Row Townhomes
172 Back-to-back & Row Townhomes
1 Existing Home on New Lot
707 total residential units
Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A
Industrial building area (in square feet) N/A
Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A
Other uses – specify (in square feet) Stormwater ponds: 932,184
Structure height(s) Back-to-back townhomes will be three stories tall
(2 stories above a garage). Row townhomes will
be two or three stories tall. Structured multi
family housing will be two stories tall. Single
Family Homes will be one or two stories tall.
3 story structures are going to make our one or one
and a half story homes look bad.
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
910 11
12
Page: 7
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 3 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 4 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 5 Author: Date: Indeterminate
3 story structures are going to make our one or one
and a half story homes look bad. Number: 6 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 7 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 8 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 9 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 10 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Multi-family not mentioned above in type of
residential units. Townhomes are bad enough;
don't add multi-family housing to this
neighborhood. Number: 11 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 12 Author: Date: Indeterminate
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 5
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need
for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The purpose of the proposed project is to develop a residential neighborhood in the City of Lino
Lakes. Based on the City of Lino Lakes’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City has designated this area of
the community for future residential growth to meet the projected housing demands of current and
future residents. It is the intent of the developer to create a low density, medium, and high
residential neighborhood that contributes to the city’s housing goals and objectives.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely
to happen? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
There are no future stages of this development that are planned or likely to occur.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
The project is not a subsequent stage of an earlier project.
7. Cover Types
Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:
Table 4. Land Cover of the Project Site Before and After (Yield Plan) the Proposed Development
Land Cover Type Before (acres) After (acres) – Yield Plan
Cropland 130 0
Residential 0 74
Grassland 1 0
Stormwater basin 0 21
Wooded/forested 0 0
Wetlands1 16 8
Lawn/Landscaping2 2 34
Facility Operation 3 0
Road Right-of-Way 6 20
Public Trail 0 1
TOTAL 158 158
1 Wetlands are calculated from the National Wetland Inventory (NWI). A wetland delineation has not been conducted on site yet. The mapped
NWI features overlap with the private and public drainage features present on site.
2 The lawn/landscaping acreage after development does not reflect the lawn associated with each residential home. This is included in the
residential cover type
See Appendix A, Figures 4 and 5 for a graphic representation of this data.
Wildlife preserve should be considered
1 2
3 4 5
6
789 10
Page: 8
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 3 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 4 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 5 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 6 Author: Subject: Highlight Date: Indeterminate Number: 7 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 8 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 9 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 10 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Wildlife preserve should be considered
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 7
9. Land Use
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails,
prime or unique farmlands.
The existing land use on site is sod farm agriculture. Anoka County Ditch 10-22-32’s main trunk
and branch 2 run through the site. The site is surrounded by agriculture, rural residential, single-
family residential, multi-family residential, and undeveloped land.
The closest parks to the project include:
• Parks less than 1 mile from the project site include:
o Century Farm North Park (undeveloped): 500 feet to the south
o Behm’s Park: 2000 feet to the south
o Highland Meadows Park: 0.5 mile to the east
• Parks within approximately 1 mile of the project include:
o Blaine’s Lochness Park: southwest
o Blaine Wetland Sanctuary: southwest
o Lino Park: east
o Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve: southeast
o Blaine Lexington Athletic Complex: southwest
There is a city trail that stubs into the south end of the property.
The majority of the site is not considered prime farmland or soils of statewide importance based
on the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey. Further discussion about soils within the project site is
provided in Item 10.
ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other
applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or
federal agency.
The site is split up into four planned land uses based on the City of Lino Lake’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan. The planned land use for the west and south ends of the site is Low Density
Residential (1.6 – 3.0 units per acre). The planned land use for the central and northern end of the
project is a mix of Medium Density Residential (4.0 – 6.0 units per acre), High Density Residential
(6.0 – 8.0 units per acre), and Planned Residential / Commercial (8.0 – 10.0 units per acre) with
opportunities for neighborhood scale retail, service, and office uses (Appendix A, Figure 6; City of
Lino Lakes, 2020).
The site is required to meet the requirements of the surface water management plans of the City
of Lino Lakes, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the MPCA NPDES General Permit. Stormwater
basins are incorporated throughout the development.
what assurance do we have that our wells and mound systems won't be affected?
Will this be developed?12
3
Page: 10
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Will this be developed? Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 3 Author: Date: Indeterminate
what assurance do we have that our wells and mound systems won't be affected?
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 11
The National Hydrography Map (NHD) identifies ditches throughout the property that correspond
with the NWI riverine features identified on site and the Anoka County ditch.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Impaired Waters Map does not identify any
impaired waterways or basins within the project site and within 1 mile of the project site.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a
MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including
unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain
the methodology used to determine this.
Groundwater levels vary across the site. In the soil boring testing locations, groundwater ranged
from approximately 5 to 10 feet below the soil surface. However, it should be noted that the
observation periods for the borings were relatively short, and project planning can expect
groundwater levels to fluctuate based on seasonal and annual factors such as flooding, irrigation,
precipitation, freeze/thaw, and surface drainage modifications.
Based on the MN DNR Minnesota Spring Inventory, there are no springs or seeps located within
the project site.
The project site is not located within a MDH wellhead protection area. The project site is within
0.5 mile of the Minnesota correctional facility – Lino Lakes drinking water supply management
area (DWSMA) and within approximately 1.5 mile of the City of Blaine’s (East) DWSMA.
There are two wells located on site. Their unique well numbers are 231862 and 444819
(Appendix A, Figure 11; Appendix B). See Table 6 below for more information on the wells. On
site wells will be sealed in accordance with MDH requirements.
Table 7. Water Wells Located Within the Project Site
Well No. Surface
Elevation (ft) Use Depth (ft) Cased Depth (ft)
Depth to
Static Water
Level (ft)
Aquifer Within Project
Site?
231862 900 N/A 720 196 N/A Multiple Yes
444819 899 Domestic 200 185 45 Jordan Yes
* Data was taken from the MDH’s Well Index (https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/)
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the
effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all
sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste
loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater
infrastructure.
1
2
Page: 14
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Nearby wells on Carl Street are not mentioned, but are
definitely present and in jeopardy.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 15
Lino Lakes residential water demand from 2016 to 2020 was 65 gallons per person per day of
water. Based on a three person household, it is estimated that the PUD Concept Plan will use
approximately 108,615 gallons per day of water and the Yield Plan will use approximately 137,865
gallons per day of water.
Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects of groundwater consumption
include many approaches that will result in a reduction of overall water demand. These include
utilization of smart irrigation technology, water conservation, water use efficiency improvements,
limitations on irrigation, stormwater reuse for irrigation, low water use landscaping, and use of
low flow fixtures.
iv. Surface Waters
1) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as
draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and
indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the
anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed.
Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or
mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory
wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major
watershed, and identify those probable locations.
An on-site field wetland delineation has not been completed at this time, but will occur
during the summer of 2022.
Any wetlands identified within the project site are regulated at the state level by the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) which is administered by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR). Rice Creek Watershed District is the WCA Local Government Unit (LGU)
where the project site is located. At the federal level, wetlands are regulated under Section
401/404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) that is administered by the MPCA (Section
401 Certification) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 Permit). There are no
MN DNR public waters, public water wetlands, or public watercourses within the project.
Thus, an MN DNR public waters permit will not be necessary for this project site.
Potential Impacts to Wetlands on Site
Based on the potential PUD and yield concept plans, it is possible that permanent wetland fill
could occur on site. The permanent wetland fill could potentially be eight acres in size;
however, this estimate is only based on desktop mapping from the Minnesota National
Wetland Inventory and is subject to change based on the wetland delineation that is still in
progress and needs to be approved. Based on the results of the field wetland delineation, the
concept plan may need to be altered to avoid and minimize wetland impact where feasible.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) will likely be obtained, if necessary, from the
Army Corps of Engineers once the delineation is finalized and impacts are known on site.
The sod farm currently has a lot of wildlife and migratory bird population. This needs to be
considered.
1
Page: 18
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate
The sod farm currently has a lot of wildlife and migratory bird population. This needs to be
considered.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 18
An asbestos and regulated materials (ARM) assessment will be completed prior to the demolition of
the farmstead and an a 10-day demolition notification will be made to the MPCA/MDH if asbestos
containing material (ACM) is identified during the ARM assessment. If ACM and/or other regulated
solid waste is identified during the ARM assessment requiring removal, generated solid waste will be
disposed of at an MPCA permitted landfill.
In addition to the brownfield and tank release identified, there are 10 sites within 0.5 miles of the
proposed project site as shown in the MPCA's database (Appendix A, Figure 12; Table 7). Six are
construction stormwater permits associated with residential development or drainage improvement,
and four are associated with petroleum tanks, hazardous waste, and underground tanks. Information
on the MPCA’s website indicates that these sites have been properly investigated and managed.
Therefore, these sites are not expected to adversely affect the project site.
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) What’s in My Neighborhood database indicates
that there are no sites within 0.5 miles of the project site.
Table 8. What’s in My Neighborhood Sites within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site
Site ID Type Name Status Within Project Site
107252
Aboveground tanks,
underground tanks,
brownfields*
Robinson Landscaping Active, Inactive* Yes
226150 Construction stormwater Century Farm North 7th Active No, within 0.5 miles
157490 Construction stormwater Morell Borrow Pit Active No, within 0.5 miles
212682 Construction stormwater Century Farm North 6th Addition Active No, within 0.5 miles
141380 Construction stormwater Anoka County Ditch 10-22-32
Maintenance 3 Inactive No, within 0.5 miles
191075 Petroleum remediation,
leak site Caroll Busch Residence Inactive No, within 0.5 miles
107177 Underground tanks Goldade Richard J Inactive No, within 0.5 miles
21238
Hazardous waste
generator, minimal
quantity, petroleum
remediation*, leak site*
A & L Sod Inc Active, Inactive* No, within 0.5 miles
224787 Construction stormwater Level Street NE Improvement
project Inactive No, within 0.5 miles
228696 Construction stormwater CSAH 14 from Lexington to Opal
Street Active No, within 0.5 miles
139362 Hazardous waste Blaine House Demo Inactive No, within 0.5 miles
Source: MPCA’s “What’s in My Neighborhood” Database
https://pca-gis02.pca.state.mn.us/wimn2/index.html
1
2
3
Page: 21
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 2 Author: Subject: Highlight Date: Indeterminate Number: 3 Author: Date: Indeterminate
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 20
c. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal.
Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal.
Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of
hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
During construction, the project will follow the NPDES permit requirements and city ordinances to
avoid and minimize effects from the storage of hazardous waste. Generation of small quantities of
household hazardous waste will occur when residents are living on the property. Anoka County
provides free recycling and disposal of hazardous wastes at the Household Hazardous Waste Facility
located in the nearby city of Blaine.
13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive
Ecological Resources (Rare Features)
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
The habitats and vegetation present on site primarily consist of agriculture. Parcel 1 of the project
site also consists of landscaped lawn and mature deciduous trees around the existing residential
property.
Based on desktop analysis, there are private and public ditches that run throughout the property.
Additionally, there are potentially farmed wetland features present on site. Therefore, there is
potential habitat available for fish species on the project site.
Due to the disturbed nature of the project site, common wildlife species adapted to agriculture and
suburban environments, such as white-tailed deer, songbirds, and small mammals (squirrels, rabbits,
raccoons), are likely to occur within the project site.
b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native
plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other
sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement
number (LA-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB _____________) from which the data were
obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or
species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
State
The MN DNR NHIS database was queried (License agreement # 181676) to determine whether known
locations of rare plant, animal species, or other significant natural features are known to occur within
an approximate one-mile radius of the project site. A MN DNR NHIS concurrence request letter was
sent to the MN DNR to concur with the findings of the NHIS database query. The MN DNR issued
their NHIS review letter in May 2022 and their findings are described in Appendix C.
The NHIS review identified eight vegetation species and one reptile species occurring within one mile
of the site. There are no state listed species within the project site. These species include:
coyote, moles, fox, blue heron, sandhill crane, beaver,
woodchucks, turkey, skunk, eagles, turkey vulturesmuskrats, turtles, falcon, owls, crows, garter snake,
1
2
Page: 23
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate
coyote, moles, fox, blue heron, sandhill crane, beaver,
woodchucks, turkey, skunk, eagles, turkey vultures Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate
muskrats, turtles, falcon, owls, crows, garter snake,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 24
15. Visual
a. Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the
project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
The existing views from the site include agriculture, residential development, wetlands, open field,
and forested areas.
This project will not create any unusual visual impacts. The visual effect will transition views from
predominately open flat agriculture land to single family homes and townhomes, public access roads,
and stormwater basins. The project will not include intense lighting that will cause glare and the
residential developments will not produce vapor plumes. The outdoor lighting along the streets will
be strategically placed to benefit the residents as they navigate the development and will not direct
any light towards sensitive areas.
Landscape plantings will be included in the development per the City of Lino Lakes landscape
ordinance. This will include tree and shrubs plantings along portions of the site’s perimeter. The
landscape plantings will help soften the visual transition between the open space and residential
developments adjacent to the site.
16. Air
a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions
from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria
pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors,
human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the
project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment
and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary
source emissions.
The proposed residential subdivision will generate small sources of stationary source emissions
through home heating and cooling through natural gas and electricity. This will result in direct and
indirect sources of stationary greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) at a small quantity. Emissions are
expected to be similar to those of the single-family and multi-family residential units adjacent to the
site.
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is currently working on a pilot program to
understand how to integrate GHG quantification and assessment into the Environmental Review
documents. However, the requirements and methods are not required for the document yet. Thus,
the GHG for this document will be qualitative.
The primary GHG’s are carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N20), methane (CH4), sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), and two classes of compounds called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG and has the largest effect on the climate. Emissions are
reported as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) tons and are stated in terms that reflect their global
warming potential (GWP) (MPCA, 2021).
The visual effects from Carl Street will transition from seeing wildlife and
having a rural atmosphere to 3 story high buildings, totally devastating the
view
1
Page: 27
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate
The visual effects from Carl Street will transition from seeing wildlife and having a rural atmosphere to 3 story high buildings, totally devastating the view
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 26
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project
construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing
noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards,
and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
The existing noise levels and sources in the area are those typical of residential development and
agriculture farming. The nearest noise receptors to the site are single family residential homes and a
sod farm. The nearest noise receptors will experience noise levels during construction that are
elevated in comparison to existing noise levels. Grading and excavation activities on site will require
heavy construction equipment.
Noise levels will temporarily increase during construction of the site then return to existing levels
during operation consistent with the zoned residential purpose of the property. Noise levels on site
will vary depending on where construction is occurring on site, time of operation, and distance
between receptors and construction equipment.
Construction noise can be mitigated by restricting construction work to daytime hours. Contractors
will be required to minimize noise impacts by maintaining equipment properly, including noise
controls as specified by manufactures. The project will adhere to the City of Lino Lake’s noise rules
and standards that indicates noise should occur within specified levels depending on land use and
time of day.
After construction, noise levels are expected to be at or near existing levels. Noise associated with
the project will be related to residential vehicle noise. A combination of berms, landscaping, and
fencing will be used to provide noise mitigation for the adjacent residential developments. Similar to
construction noise, the residential use of the property will adhere to the City’s noise rules and
standards. A noise study will be prepared detailing noise mitigation for the site and submitted with
the preliminary plat submittal for the development.
18. Transportation
a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated
maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation
rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation
modes.
Alliant completed a Traffic Impact Study for the residential development (See Appendix F). The Traffic
Study analyzes the traffic impacts of the proposed development by estimating trips generated by the
project and evaluating the potential need for transportation or roadway improvements for the
development.
1) The majority of the proposed development site is currently undeveloped agricultural land with
no parking spaces, though one business is present with a limited supply of parking. The proposed
development will consist of approximately 707 residential dwelling units (149 single-family
If Carl Street is extended, noise and traffic levels will be untolerable for current Carl Street residents.1
2
3
Page: 29
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate
If Carl Street is extended, noise and traffic levels will be untolerable for current Carl Street residents. Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 3 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Traffic noise will be terrible if you extend
access to Carl Street.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 27
detached homes and 558 townhomes). Assuming two parking spaces per dwelling unit, the
proposed additional parking supply is approximately 1,400 spaces, primarily in the form of
attached garages.
2) The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 5,656 daily vehicle trips
when fully constructed and occupied.
3) The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 476 vehicle trips during the
daily peak hour when fully constructed and occupied. The daily peak hour is the p.m. peak hour,
which is expected to occur at some point within the 4:00-6:00 p.m. timeframe.
4) The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to
estimate the trip generation potential for the proposed development.
5) Currently, the project area is not served by scheduled transit routes. Metro Mobility and
Transit Link are shared-ride, curb-to-curb minibus or van services which do serve the project
area. Weekday express bus service to downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota
campus currently originates from the 95th Avenue park-and-ride along I-35W in nearby Blaine.
Weekday express bus service is also available to downtown Saint Paul and currently originates
from the County Road 14 park-and-ride in eastern Lino Lakes. While these transit services will be
available to future residents of the proposed development, they are not expected to have a
significant impact on vehicular ingress and egress at the development site.
Connections to sidewalks and trails are available through the adjacent Century Farm North
residential neighborhood. Continued growth of the residential sidewalk and trail network will also
occur within the proposed development. Trails will be extended through the west and southeast
portions of the proposed development as well as along Robinson Drive and Century Trail. A
future trail is planned along Main Street.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements
necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the
peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact
study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the
Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance.
The anticipated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development exceeds 250 peak hour
trips and 2,500 daily trips. Therefore, a traffic impact study was prepared for the proposed
development.
• The Robinson Property residential development is proposed to be constructed on approximately
157 acres of agricultural land located in the southeast quadrant of the Main Street/Sunset
Avenue intersection in Lino Lakes, MN. The traffic impacts of proposed development trips on
surrounding study intersections were analyzed for year 2025 and year 2040 conditions. The
following conclusions are offered for consideration:
• Results of the existing traffic operations analysis indicate that all study intersections
currently operate at overall LOS A during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In
addition, no side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic
simulations.
Carl Street currently gets only about 10 vehicle trips per day -
this new level would be intolerable.
1
2
3
4
5
Page: 30
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Carl Street currently gets only about 10 vehicle trips per day -
this new level would be intolerable. Number: 3 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 4 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 5 Author: Date: Indeterminate
Please don't include access to Carl Street - it will DESTROY our rural
neighborhood. It's impossible to comprehend going from 3 cars a day to 2500 a day.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET // Robinson Sod Farm
PAGE 28
• Results of the year 2025 and year 2040 no build traffic operations analysis indicate that
all study intersections are expected to operate at overall LOS A during the weekday a.m.
and p.m. peak hours. In addition, no side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in
traffic simulations.
• Results of the year 2025 and year 2040 build traffic operations analysis indicate that all
study intersections are expected to operate at overall LOS B or better during the
weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, no side-street delay or queuing issues
were observed in traffic simulations.
• The proposed development is expected to have limited impact on study area traffic
operations or the regional transportation system. Therefore, no geometric or traffic
control improvements are required from an operations perspective.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
While roadway improvements are not required from a traffic operations or regional
transportation system perspective, the following recommendations should be considered:
• Dedicated eastbound right-turn and westbound left-turn lanes are proposed at the Main
Street/North Access (Century Trail) intersection. A dedicated northbound right-turn lane
is proposed at the Sunset Avenue/West Access intersection. A dedicated southbound
left-turn lane is proposed at the Sunset Avenue/Robinson Drive intersection. While these
turn lanes are not required from an operations perspective, they would be expected to
provide a safety benefit in minimizing the potential for rear-end crashes.
• Caution should be exercised when placing development signing and/or landscaping near
proposed site accesses so as to not create a new sight obstruction.
• Turning movements should be reviewed to ensure design vehicles such as school buses
and garbage trucks have adequate accommodations to negotiate internal proposed
development roadways.
• Establish appropriate traffic control at proposed development internal roadway
intersections consistent with local jurisdiction policies to minimize driver confusion and
the potential for conflicts.
See Appendix F for the Traffic Study.
There will be a huge impact to Carl Street residents if Carl Street is made accessible. It is currently a dead-end road.
What measures will be taken for Carl Street?
1
2
3
Page: 31
Number: 1 Author: Date: Indeterminate Number: 2 Author: Date: Indeterminate
There will be a huge impact to Carl Street residents if Carl Street is made accessible. It is currently a dead-end road. Number: 3 Author: Date: Indeterminate
What measures will be taken for Carl Street?
September 14, 2022
Katie Larsen, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182
Dear Ms. Larsen,
We understand there has been an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) submitted for the
Robinson Sod Farm dated August 23, 2022. We are writing to express major concerns about this
environmental proposal from a personal property perspective. Our house located at 314 Carl Street is
directly across from the proposed development. In 2003, when the previous owners began building the
house, they installed a wood foundation which was approved by the Lino Lakes inspector. With a wood
foundation, you must be diligent to keep it dry and since 2003, there have been absolutely no issues
with the foundation in terms of moisture. Before we purchased the home in 2020, we hired a structural
engineer to go over the foundation with a fine tooth comb. He found NO issues which are documented
in our survey results, but he could not stress enough the importance of keeping water away from our
foundation.
Upon the review of the EAW and our wood foundation, we are bringing forth the following concerns:
We are concerned that the alteration of 100 plus year drainage complexes in the area will
negatively impact the established 100 year floodplain. In other words, right now, the sod farm
and surrounding drainage ditches can handle the water drainage and runoff, but with this huge
development and the potential rise in the water table, will that continue to be true?
We are concerned that our wood foundation home will incur water damage which would be
detrimental. We understand this has already happened to homes in Blaine with the new
development off of Lexington and 109th. There are also other homes with wood foundations
nearby. Along with moisture in the home comes potential health risks associated with black
mold. I am currently a cancer patient and I do not need any additional potential health risks in
my life. Has the City of Lino Lakes or Alliant Engineering contacted the Corp of Engineers or the
appropriate governing body to determine how the established 100 year floodplain will be
impacted by massive water redistribution?
Please acknowledge that this letter is received in its entirety and entered into the record. Please
provide a timeline in which we can expect a response to our questions.
Regards,
Kevin and Tammy Dunrud
314 Carl Street
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
September 15, 2022
Reilly S Anderson 7795 Clydesdale Circle Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Robinson Sod Farm Development To Whom It May Concern; I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the proposed Robinson Sod Farm Development. As a local resident, I cherish the green spaces and wildlife the local area has to offer. I frequently see migratory waterfowl, turtles, and predatory birds that use the sod farm as a habitat corridor and nesting area. In fact, the sod farm is included in the Audobon Society’s Important Bird Map, and currently acts as additional sanctuary for wildlife outside of Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area. Going forward with
the proposed housing development threatens to further fragment the habitats of birds and other wildlife within Anoka county, and will add new stressors to the local environment. As summer weather becomes increasingly extreme and unpredictable, newly constructed impervious surfaces will further stress the
local aging drainage systems, threatening the homes and properties of existing area residents with flooding, many of which were built many years ago.
Furthermore, the already out-of-control issue of high volume, high speed local traffic raises major concerns as to how traffic will be managed in the area. This relatively quiet part of Lino Lakes is already turning into a more hazardous and congested area, with commuters racing through the neighborhoods. The proposed new roads and feeder routes will be ineffective in mitigating this problem. In recent years, the neighborhood has become dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians- a simple trip to the mailbox is treacherous. The addition of this proposed high density housing will add a critical amount of new motor traffic that will exceed the local infrastructure’s ability to provide safe streets. After review of the EAW and careful discussion with others in the neighborhood, I am opposed to the proposed development and believe that preserving the farm is in the best interest of the city, its residents and the local environment. Please consider the needs of current residents near the Robinson Sod Farm and oppose this development which will serve to benefit big money investors and realtors, instead of our families and environment.
Sincerely, Reilly Anderson
32
Appendix B
CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION
FINDING OF NO NEED FOR EIS