HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-2018 Council Meeting PacketEXPANDED AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, January 8, 2018
***********
6:30 p.m.
(Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16)
City Council: Mayor Reinert, Councilmembers Maher, Manthey, Rafferty and Stoesz
City Administrator: Jeff Karlson
SPECIAL COUNCIL SESSION, 5:30 P.M.
Interview Advisory Board Applicants – Council Work Room
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.
Oath of Office – Mayor Reinert; Council Members Rafferty and Stoesz
Roll Call - Council Members Rafferty, Stoesz, Manthey, Maher, and Mayor Reinert
were present
Pledge of Allegiance
Open Mike / Public Comment - none
Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items
The agenda was approved as presented
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) January 8, 2018 (Check No. 107318 through 107488) in the
amount of $645,059.75.
B) Consider approval of Dec. 4, 2017 Work Session Minutes
C) Consider approval of Dec. 11, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider Approval of Application for an Exempt Raffle Event at Lino Lakes
Elementary School
E) Consider Approval of Application for an Exempt Raffle Event for Aquanis
Roman Catholic Home Education Services to Conduct Excluded Bingo event.
F) Consider Approval of December 11, 2017 Closed Council Minutes
Action Taken: Motion by Stoesz, seconded by Rafferty, to approve
Consent Agenda Items 1A, 1D and 1E as presented was adopted.
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve
Consent Agenda Items 1B, 1C and 1F as presented, was adopted; Council
Member Stoesz abstained from voting
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) No report
Council Agenda -2- January 8, 2018
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Approval of 2018 Annual Appointments, Jeff Karlson
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Maher, to approve the
appointments as presented, was adopted; Council Member Stoesz
abstained
B) Personnel Issue, Jeff Karlson
Action Taken: Motion by Manthey, seconded by Maher, to approve
the elimination of one Recreation Supervisor position as recommended,
was adopted
C) Consider Appointment of Recycling Intern, Jeff Karlson
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Stoesz, to approve the
appointment of Sayard Schultz as recommended, was adopted
D) Consider Pay Increase for PT Scanner Operator, Jeff Karlson
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Manthey, to approve
the pay adjustment as recommended, was adopted
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A) Public Hearing: Consider Ordinance No. 01-18, Vacating Drainage and Utility
Easement Lot 1, Block 1 of Pine Glen, Diane Hankee
Action Taken: Motion by Maher, seconded by Manthey, to approve the
1st Reading of Ordinance No. 01-08 as presented, was adopted
B) Consider Resolution 18-01, Approving Utility Fee Refund for Lot 1, Block 1,
Chavez Preserve, Diane Hankee
Action Taken: Motion by Manthey, seconded by Maher, to approve
Resolution 18-01 as presented, was adopted
C) Consider Resolution 18-02, Approving Draft Local Water Management Plan
and Authorizing Submittal to Water Management Organizations for review,
Diane Hankee & Katy Thompson
Action Taken: Motion by Rafferty, seconded by Manthey, to approve
Resolution No. 18-02 as presented, was adopted
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
Council Agenda -3- January 8, 2018
January 8, 2017 through January 22, 2018
Monday, January 8 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board
Monday, January 15 CITY HALL CLOSED Martin Luther King
Monday, January 22 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
Monday, January 22 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting
Updated 1/5/2018
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, January 8, 2018
***********
6:30 p.m.
(Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16)
City Council: Mayor Reinert, Councilmembers Maher, Manthey, Rafferty and Stoesz
City Administrator: Jeff Karlson
SPECIAL COUNCIL SESSION, 5:30 P.M.
Interview Advisory Board Applicants – Council Work Room
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.
Oath of Office – Mayor Reinert; Council Members Rafferty and Stoesz
Call to Order and Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Open Mike / Public Comment
Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) January 8, 2018 (Check No. 107318 through 107488) in the
amount of $645,059.75.
B) Consider approval of Dec. 4, 2017 Work Session Minutes
C) Consider approval of Dec. 11, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider Approval of Application for an Exempt Raffle Event at Lino Lakes
Elementary School
E) Consider Approval of Application for an Exempt Raffle Event for Aquanis
Roman Catholic Home Education Services to Conduct Excluded Bingo event.
F) Consider Approval of December 11, 2017 Closed Council Minutes
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) No report
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Approval of 2018 Annual Appointments, Jeff Karlson
B) Personnel Issue, Jeff Karlson
C) Consider Appointment of Recycling Intern, Jeff Karlson
D) Consider Pay Increase for PT Scanner Operator, Jeff Karlson
Council Agenda -2- January 8, 2018
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
A) Public Hearing: Consider Ordinance No. 01-18, Vacating Drainage and Utility
Easement Lot 1, Block 1 of Pine Glen, Diane Hankee
B) Consider Resolution 18-01, Approving Utility Fee Refund for Lot 1, Block 1,
Chavez Preserve, Diane Hankee
C) Consider Resolution 18-02, Approving Draft Local Water Management Plan
and Authorizing Submittal to Water Management Organizations for review,
Diane Hankee & Katy Thompson
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
January 8, 2017 through January 22, 2018
Monday, January 8 6:30 pm, Community Room Park Board
Monday, January 15 CITY HALL CLOSED Martin Luther King
Monday, January 22 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
Monday, January 22 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
DATE : December 4 , 2017 4
TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5
TIME ENDED : 10:40 p.m. 6
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, 7
Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 8
MEMBERS ABSENT : None 9
10
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Safety Director John 11
Swenson; Community Development Director Grochala; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; 12
Public Services Director DeGardner; City Planner Katie Larsen; City Clerk Julie Bartell. 13
14
1. Watermark Architectural Design Standards – City Planner Larsen provided an 15
overview of the discussions that have brought the council to this point of considering 16
design standards for this proposed development. Based on the Lennar submittal, there 17
are over forty types of homes which have been reviewed by staff. 18
19
- Single Family Homes - what meets the city standards and review of what doesn’t meet 20
those standards; staff is trying to avoid too much garage out front; recommendation is six 21
foot porch & six foot garage extended as maximum. 22
23
Council Member Maher suggested that the six foot porch is almost too small to use. 24
Mayor Reinert said it’s a city standard so maybe that’s no longer appropriate; the standard 25
for the lot size is smaller also so that may be impacting the shrinking of the homes. Ms. 26
Larsen noted that if the garage doesn’t protrude at all, then a porch wouldn’t be required. 27
Council Member Rafferty asked if the homes will generally be without steps. Joe 28
Jablonski, Lennar Homes representative, noted that the one shown is an empty nester 29
model so steps are left out; others will have steps according to grading plans. 30
31
- Townhomes - review of types, all on 32 foot wide lots, 1700 – 1900 square feet. 32
Review of elevations shown, indicating exterior materials. Council Member Rafferty 33
recalled there is a couple of feet relief between units in the rear and he wonders if 34
something alike could be done in the front. Mr. Jablonski pointed out the vertical trim 35
used to separate homes; their buildings are generally not protruded. He added that these 36
units actually back up to Interstate 35 and others to a parking garage. 37
38
Ms. Larsen reviewed how the townhome element proposal meets the city’s requirements. 39
The flexibility is being requested in garage sizing and exterior material. She reviewed 40
the garage sizes proposed and staff’s analysis of what is provided in the townhomes over 41
city requirements. Council Member Rafferty argued that the smaller garage make 42
one stall unusable. Mayor Reinert asked staff to provide the council with a list of all the 43
areas that are shrinking with this proposal. Mr. Jablonski, regarding the garage, 44
remarked that Lennar builds this type of garage throughout the metro area and they are 45
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
2
used. Council Member Manthey suggested that if these models didn’t work then they 46
wouldn’t sell; the developer is bringing forward what they sell under their business 47
model. Council Member Maher agreed; the products are the developer’s trade and if 48
they aren’t right for the city, that’s the council’s decision; it’s not to tell a developer what 49
product to offer. Council Member Kusterman asked if other cities have pushed back on 50
any of these products and, if so, what was the response. Mr. Jablonski remarked that 51
normally cities would talk about exteriors only. 52
53
Ms. Larsen reviewed the request of the developer to use vinyl siding as opposed to the 54
city’s requirements approved by resolution. 55
56
Mayor Reinert asked that all the concessions be listed and sent to the city council 57
members. 58
59
Ms. Larsen noted that the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the amendments 60
proposed to architectural design standards and recommended approval. 61
62
On the discussion of porches, Mr. Jablonski explained that he doesn’t believe they have 63
any models that would meet the city required eight foot depth. Ms. Larsen added that 64
the Woods Edge townhomes have 6 foot porch depth. 65
66
Council Member Manthey said he wants to have an understanding of the where the 67
concessions (models/plans not usuable under city requirements) leave the development. 68
Mr. Jablonski responded said Lennar is attempting to meet requirements while still 69
avoiding the monotony of too few models; he feels they can do it at this point. 70
71
Mr. Jablonski noted items that exceed the Mattamy plans, such as the percentage of 72
garages with windows. There are things that will be better. Mayor Reinert asked that 73
the list of those items be provided to the council as well. 74
75
2. Comprehensive Plan Update – Parks - Community Development Director Grochala 76
and Candace Amberg of WSB & Associates reported. Ms. Amberg explained that the 77
comp plan section dealing with parks will be increased by the addition of the separate 78
document, Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways and Trail System Plan that was 79
updated in 2004, while at the same time excluding what they feel is no longer needed. 80
The council viewed a map of Parks, Trails and the Greenway system. She explained the 81
titling of neighborhood parks, community parks, and the regional park. Each park is 82
noted on the map and the service area for that park indicated. The trail system (existing 83
and proposed) was noted and reviewed on a map. They are interconnecting. Wetland 84
banking areas are also noted. Implementation and priorities are highlighted. Most of the 85
park system was developed many years ago and parks do have a life. They were 86
originally funded with park dedication funds. The city has done an amazing job of 87
preserving the natural environment. The recreation complex concept is also seen as a 88
way to improve park options. 89
90
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
3
Mayor Reinert asked that the council be provided with the items that have been removed 91
from the plans. He also noted the Parks and Trails Management Plan idea that he 92
introduced and asked how that infiltrates into these plans. Mr. Grochala said Public 93
Services Director DeGardner is working with Ms. Amberg to incorporate that concept. 94
He explained the master planning that proceeds planning and identifies needs and costs. 95
That information provides for funding discussion and other planning activities. It all gets 96
wrapped into the capital improvement plan. Mayor Reinert noted that the Plan he 97
mentioned looks ahead in that fashion and he’d like to understand how this complements 98
that planning Mr. Grochala said that plan is well underway already and this information 99
will be filtered in as is appropriate. Finance Director Cotton added that the council will 100
see funding plans ahead as part of the budget discussion later this evening. Council 101
Member Manthey questioned if repair costs should be included in planning for future 102
development. 103
104
4. Body Worn Cameras – Public Safety Director Swenson reviewed the process the city 105
has followed in accordance with state requirements. Questions they have received were 106
reviewed as well as the department’s response (all included in the staff report). A public 107
hearing is a requirement and is scheduled for council consideration of approving purchase 108
of the cameras. Data storage will be a cost involved and will be handled in conjunction 109
with Metro INet but he anticipates costs to go down as more departments move to this 110
technology. He is also proposing some upgrades to squad equipment that will insure 111
proper coordination with the cameras. He reviewed the costs included in the staff report. 112
113
Mayor Reinert remarked that the process will provide good protection for the police. 114
Council Member Manthey concurred and asked if the other agencies in the county are 115
using the recommended product? Director Swenson said there isn’t a lot of experience 116
but he noted those cities that have moved on the equipment (various). 117
118
Council Member Kusterman clarified that this is not a leasing arrangement but a 119
purchase. How long are they to last? Director Swenson said the manufacturer gives four 120
to five years but they are hopeful to get more longevity. 121
122
5. Textile Recycling/Reuse – Environmental Coordinator Asleson reviewed the staff 123
report outlining the proposed program. Questions were asked about the length of the 124
contract and why the program would be successful with other programs (i.e. ARC) 125
availabl. Council Member Maher said she is supportive because she sees what could be 126
accomplished. 127
128
Mayor Reinert asked, if this request is brought forward to the council for approval, it 129
should clearly include language allowing the city to opt out of the contract. 130
131
6. Emerald Ash Borer Update – Environmental Coordinator Asleson noted that the ash 132
borer has been identified within Lino Lakes (Target parking lot). As a result the 133
Environmental Board and Park Board held a meeting to discuss. He can report that it 134
seems as if the city has been preparing properly and is in a good place. The city did 135
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
4
begin treating trees last year (about 86 done last year). He spoke on another state’s 136
experience with ash tree mortality under this bug. Minnesota has a better curve due to 137
preparation and good sanitation. The city is managing the public trees, communication 138
efforts are underway with the residents on the situation, training will be offered to people 139
answering the phones, etc. 140
141
Mayor Reinert said the plans are sound and he applauds staff for staying on top of it. 142
143
7. West Shadow/LaMotte Street Reconstruction Update - City Engineer Hankee 144
reviewed her written report. She updated the council on the neighborhood meetings that 145
were held. 146
147
LaMotte – about four property owners attended. A survey will be sent out seeking 148
resident interest. 149
150
West Shadow Lake – a very good showing of those residents. It is her understanding that 151
they are interested in sewer and water utility extension. 152
153
The council, on December 11th, will see a request for approval of the amended feasibility 154
study along with project costs and an assessment roll. The assessments would be per 155
unit and limited to properties with homes today. The council will also have a request to 156
set a public hearing date for each of the neighborhoods (LaMotte based on survey results). 157
158
Ms. Hankee reviewed the presentations from the neighborhood meeting. For LaMotte, 159
the plans indicate matching existing width of the roadway, including surface water quality 160
basins, a channel outlot on LaMotte Drive restoration, on LaMotte Circle clean storm 161
sewer system and address rear yard drain issue that has been lingering. Because Rice 162
Creek recently changed their rules, storm water management isn’t required without an 163
increase in impervious surface; the storm water improvements provided will be as good 164
stewardship and to prolong life of the roadway. 165
166
Ms. Hankee reviewed the presentation on West Shadow Lake. The roadway design 167
includes a memo to staff on the roadway width pluses and minuses. They are looking at 168
a 24 or 26 foot wide road on the south section (past culvert section and into the woods) 169
and then wider further down to accommodate parking at the request of residents. Curb 170
and gutter is going to be recommended as needed for drainage and for connections for 171
aesthetics and drainage operation. Council Member Rafferty asked if there is a 172
difference in curb planned for the different projects. Ms. Hankee suggested they are 173
alike – the renderings are just different. Drainage will be accommodated differently in 174
different areas – storm basins, using existing drainage in County Lakes Park that needs to 175
be opened (including tree work), pervious pavement for filtration, vegetative channeling 176
(existing easement) outlet to lake, replacement lake culverts, adding system of pipes and 177
catch basins. 178
179
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
5
The actions to be requested are acceptance of amended feasibility report, setting public 180
hearing dates, beginning of 60 day waiting period under city charter. 181
182
Council Member Rafferty asked about Chapter 429 process. Ms. Hankee explained that 183
process: feasibility, public hearing, no waiting period. 184
185
Council Member Maher asked what data is indicating that the West Shadow Lake 186
residents want water (which may be a change from the past). Ms. Hankee said that is the 187
purpose of the public hearing. The two projects themselves are not apples to apples. 188
Council Member Maher said she’s hearing about storm water management but not 189
necessarily about flood plain; Ms. Hankee responded that it is part of design planning. 190
Council Member Maher noted that ditches are under discussion and Ms. Hankee 191
concurred. Ms. Maher asked when the watershed report is submitted and Ms. Hankee 192
said January. Council Member Maher said there are some unknowns then as far as what 193
the watershed will say about those ditches; Ms. Hankee said based on experience and 194
knowledge, staff can anticipate somewhat and doesn’t expect significant change 195
recommendations. Council Member Maher asked if a permit is required related to flood 196
plain and Ms. Hankee concurred, noting that the Army Corps of Engineer permit can take 197
up to about four months. 198
199
Mike Trehus. 675 Shadow Court, said at the neighborhood meeting staff told residents 200
that the ditches will be protected wetlands. They couldn’t be filled. His radar went up 201
based on environmental information – ditches are alongside a road and they will be wet. 202
If the ditches were dug in an existing wetland they would require special consideration, 203
but not if they are not in wetland. He has spoken with Anoka County on that information. 204
The Minnesota Bureau of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) does have a grant 205
program and if it’s a scenario of a wetland, they will just take care of it. Mr. Grochala 206
remarked that BOWSR gets involved if there are safety issues being addressed. Mr. 207
Trehus suggested that is the case. Ms. Hankee added that the city is proposing that the 208
ditches be incidental wetlands but at this point she doesn’t know if that will be accepted. 209
210
Mr. Trehus suggested that the report hasn’t been submitted but staff is moving ahead with 211
an assumption. If the ditches are protected, how could they be regraded them. Ms. 212
Hankee said the actual proposal is to regrade the ditches. Mr. Trehus asked why not 213
refill them; doesn’t staff have to work with the other agencies and then report back about 214
what will be allowed? Ms. Hankee said staff understands what the neighborhood wants 215
and is working to that; some of the concerns she feels are premature. Mayor Reinert 216
said he hears that from staff. Community Development Director Grochala spoke to the 217
need to balance flow and control volumes since there are different flows on each side of 218
the road. Mayor Reinert asked how far away the process remains from those answers – 219
Ms. Hankee said January. 220
221
Mr. Trehus said staff is going to try and fill ditches and keep both sides of the roadway 222
looking the same and Plan B would be other options mentioned. Ms. Hankee said to 223
accommodate the water management, there will no doubt have to be something on the 224
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
6
west side. Mr. Trehus said the water can’t be moved from one side to the other but he 225
wonders where that regulation exists. Ms. Hankee said there are resource of concern 226
considerations– you cannot shift drainage areas. Mr. Grochala further explained the 227
process. Mr. Trehus suggested that the city shouldn’t proceed now with predetermined 228
ideas about the project when there is still time to get answers through the report process. 229
Mayor Reinert suggested that, based on what staff knows now on the stormwater 230
management situation, the full desire of the residents will not be able to be met. He 231
confirmed that in January staff will be 60-70% sure of where this needs to go; between 232
now and January, Mr. Trehus was directed to work with staff on any questions. Mr. 233
Trehus explained his concerns, including past allowance to people to fill their ditches and 234
punishment now for those who didn’t. Mayor Reinert asked why the west and not east? 235
Ms. Hankee explained that it gets back to the inability to move water to a different place. 236
237
8. Zoning Interpretation - City Planner Larsen reviewed the written staff report. She 238
explained the situation at hand that involves a home that burned down. The council is 239
being asked how that language impacts a current situation. Mayor Reinert asked if it’s 240
the same owner from the date of the regulation and staff said no. Staff clarified that sale 241
of the house wouldn’t have changed the allowance – it burned down. 242
243
The council concurred that the split should be allowed. The Planning and Zoning Board 244
made that same recommendation. 245
246
9. 49/J Update – Morris Property NW Quadrant – Community Development Director 247
Grochala brought up a map for review. The site in question was reviewed (17 acres), and 248
it is zoned General Business. He discussed how the property has been guided. Council 249
Member Manthey asked about the zoning across the highway – it is mixed use, the whole 250
area. What they are proposing is single level townhomes, senior living and a market rate 251
apartment structure. The plans are very conceptual. Generically it would meet density 252
requirements. It does make a connection to the south as is called for by the city. He 253
discussed utility plans for the area which will have a lot to do with a project moving 254
forward. He discussed traffic implications and needs. The mayor recalled discussions 255
about height in the past so Director Grochala explained the preliminary height 256
implications. 257
258
The report was informational for the council and additional information wouldn’t be seen 259
by the council until at least March 2018. 260
261
10. Advisory Board Appointments – Administrator Karlson reviewed the written report 262
indicating the board opening and corresponding applicants. There’s been a good 263
response to advertising the openings. He is requesting direction on how the council 264
would like to move on the process. 265
266
With so many applicants, the mayor suggests the council may want to meet them all. 267
Director Grochala asked that the Planning and Zoning Board applicants be interviewed 268
first. 269
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
7
270
11. Code of Conduct Policy Update – Administrator Karlson recalled that the 271
document was discussed and recommended for review at a recent council meeting. 272
273
The council reviewed the document. 274
275
Council Member Kusterman offered a recommendation on work sessions and that would 276
be a time limit. Limiting the work sessions to three hours is recommended as well as 277
trying to set times for agenda items. Mayor Reinert suggested that’s a good idea used as 278
an outline only because sometimes the council needs to handle important business. 279
Mayor Reinert said taking a break at three hours to refresh is also an option. Council 280
Member Kusterman said at two hours, you could take stock and plan for the evening. 281
282
Council Member Manthey said he likes the idea of taking stock after two hours. 283
284
Mayor Reinert suggested it’s time to deal with the question of social media; would that 285
belong under advocacy? When posting, members should keep in mind that they are a 286
council member. Perhaps the city should look at what other groups like the council have 287
done. 288
289
Council Member Kusterman mentioned respect for staff time as an area that needs 290
attention. He isn’t certain that council members go through the administrator as this 291
code calls for. Staff has work to do and too often they are besieged with questions that 292
take them away from their work. “Staff will estimate the time commitment required to a 293
council member’s question, and if deemed appropriate, report to the rest of the council on 294
that commitment” 295
296
(The council recessed for a short break.) 297
298
Administrator Karlson noted a recent situation where he was put in a difficult position 299
relative to seeking a legal opinion. Council Member Manthey suggested looking at other 300
policies. Mr. Karlson said he thinks the language is fine but needs to be confirmed. 301
Mayor Reinert said other people besides him asked about the situation; Brian Bourassa 302
was mentioned. Council Member Manthey said it’s a problem for someone representing 303
the city to have influence in that type of situation. 304
305
Council Member Kusterman suggested that the use of the public newsletter violated four 306
areas of the code. Mayor Reinert said that is opinion. Council Member Kusterman 307
suggested that it’s probably a campaign finance violation. He also noted language that 308
he felt was abusive to staff. Council Member Kusterman remarked that the newsletter is 309
supposed to speak for the group and not one member’s opinion. 310
311
Council Member Manthey said he was also offended by use of the newsletter. He’d like 312
to see concerns discussed in this situation. He’d like to see that language updated. Can 313
the council discuss individual items in the policy in order to improve it? Can “use of 314
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
8
public resources” as it shows up in the policy be addressed, so going forward there can be 315
a better understanding. 316
317
Council Member Rafferty suggested getting back to the basics of the concerns. 318
- Newsletter concerns; 319
- Making an opinion clear as what it is; 320
- Use of social media (does it come across positive for the entire council); opinion 321
based things clear again. 322
323
Mayor Reinert pledged to do a better job. 324
325
Administrator Karlson, given what he’s heard, said he recommends looking at examples 326
and using League of Minnesota Cities resources to bring back some update 327
recommendations in January. 328
329
12. Legal Spending Limits for City Staff – Administrator Karlson said the question did 330
come up the same night as the previous question. He mentioned the budget for these 331
services. He feels that trust is needed as staff has to make a decision about when a legal 332
opinion is needed. He is conservative and he feels trust is merited. 333
334
13. Replacement of Council iPads/Tablets – Mayor Reinert suggested waiting until 335
January for the discussion, after the new council member is on board. 336
337
14. Election Polling Places – City Clerk Bartell reported that the city must designate 338
polling places for the coming year prior to the end of this year. A resolution that 339
maintains the current locations will be on council agenda. She reviewed additional 340
information in the staff report that was intended to update the council on the possibility of 341
future precinct/polling place changes. 342
343
15. 2018 Budget - Finance Director Cotton recalled previous discussions of the 2018 344
budget that have brought a proposed budget forward to this point. She also mentioned 345
consideration of the 2017 budget and a proposed surplus (mostly revenue based). She 346
noted the possibility of designating some of that surplus to an air conditioning unit for the 347
city hall complex. She noted that the Public Services Director, Mr. DeGardner, would be 348
speaking on parks. 349
350
Mayor Reinert noted the recent loss of the tennis courts in one area of the city and the 351
lack of replacement of those facilities. His opinion is that some surplus funding could be 352
allocated for some replacement use in that area, perhaps decided by the residents. Those 353
residents feel that they’ve lost something and he’d like to advocate for something there. 354
355
Council Member Rafferty said he spoke with some people who felt the courts could have 356
been redone. It was a safety situation that required the removal and he understands that. 357
358
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
9
Director DeGardner remarked that ultimately it’s up to the council on how funds are 359
earmarked. 360
361
Director DeGardner then reviewed his report, including an inventory of park facilities 362
with assumptions on the life of equipment at those locations and estimated replacement 363
costs. This is really a first look at the system and what could be done. 364
365
Council Member Manthey said he appreciates having all the information for use as the 366
council considers questions about these facilities. 367
368
Director DeGardner then reviewed the sheet indicating cost estimates based on the future 369
master plan. 370
371
Director DeGardner then reviewed the third list of possible future park developments that 372
are not a part of the master plan. 373
374
Director DeGardner then reviewed a trail projects sheet. They are components that are 375
being followed with estimated costs. 376
377
The next sheet reviewed is seen as a tool to put all the information into perspective to 378
give the council an idea of an annual investment requirement, based on a timeline out to 379
2045. It does give a sense of the magnitude of the work. 380
381
Mr. DeGardner’s final information presented was on the $30,000 that has traditionally 382
been budgeted for trails. 383
384
Mayor Reinert suggested that he was looking for something with a little more consistency 385
in cost. He doesn’t like the heavy front end and lighter back end. Ms. Cotton said it’s 386
heavy on the front end due to the assumptions on life. 387
388
Mayor Reinert suggested that it looks as if the city could dedicate $300,000 for next year. 389
He would support the recommendation. 390
391
Council Member Rafferty asked about a culvert at Clearwater Creek; is that because the 392
trail is always underwater? Mr. DeGardner concurred. He concurs with the $300,000 393
range to get things going and he wonders about adding more even if it’s borrowed. He 394
touched on the recreation complex land. Mr. DeGardner suggested that this time of a 395
budget surplus is something that may not occur again. Council Member Rafferty asked 396
about putting some surplus funds into roads as well. Director Cotton warned that the 397
surplus may still be impacted by future needs. Council Member Rafferty asked if 398
$50,000 to roads is unrealistic. Director Grochala said there will be a surplus update in 399
January. 400
401
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
10
Council Member Manthey said he’d like to wait and see with more data. But he’d love 402
to see the tangible impact on the community that parks and trails can bring. It’s good to 403
not let assets fall apart. 404
405
Mayor Reinert noted the levy of 42.3. The 42.756 that went out in the Truth in Taxation 406
statements is a change based on a change in valuation. 407
408
Council Member Kusterman suggested using more funds to a need that’s there at a time 409
when funds are available. Mayor Reinert noted that the city was forced into a position of 410
austerity by the loss of value during a difficult period. Council Member Kusterman 411
suggested dedicating $500,000. Council Member Manthey clarified that if the funds are 412
dedicated, what specifically would they be spent on. Mayor Reinert said the funding 413
keeps up with the schedule presented; he wouldn’t support going higher than presented. 414
There is $400,000 put aside if more is needed and could be used with a future decision. 415
The funding would be used for maintenance of current facilities. Council Member 416
Manthey said he’d like to see trail projects done. Mayor Reinert asked that the council 417
look at the situation in January, with up to date surplus information, and with a dedication 418
to trails 419
420
Council Member Rafferty asked that the council make a direction this evening. Mayor 421
Reinert said how about the $300,000 discussed and $100,000 for trails. Council Member 422
Rafferty said he’s more in line with the $500,000 mentioned; it could be a rare 423
opportunity. Director Grochala warned the council again about the expenses that exist in 424
the area of building permit revenues; many inspections related to the revenue remain 425
outstanding. 426
427
Council Member Maher said she’d love to put as much as possible into the goals but she 428
understands the need for caution. She’d like to do $500,000 but sees the $400,000 may 429
be more appropriate at this time. 430
431
The council concurred that the figure is $400,000 but that doesn’t include the $30,000 432
that is already budgeted for trails. Ms. Cotton explained that the funds will be held in a 433
management fund and the Park Board will make recommendations that come back to the 434
council. 435
436
Council Member Kusterman said he feels $500,000 is reasonable with a unique funding 437
opportunity such as this. 438
439
Council Member Rafferty concurred with Council Member Kusterman. He’d like to see 440
the positive move forward. That would be $500,000 total. 441
442
Council Member Manthey said he concurs; that would be $400,000 plus the $100,000. 443
444
Council Member Maher said she’d join with the group and support. 445
446
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 4, 2017
DRAFT
11
Council Member Rafferty asked about investigation vehicles. Director Swenson 447
explained that there is one vehicle in the capital vehicle replacement plan that would be 448
discussed next year. There is one vehicle that will be discussed based on condition 449
(Toyota Corolla). Council Member Rafferty asked Director DeGardner about a vehicle 450
that is currently being used by Brian Finke. Director Swenson explained that when the 451
temporary inspector came on the vehicle that is used as spare was put into rotation for use 452
by that new inspector. Council Member Rafferty suggested not buying the truck right 453
now and that the 60,000 mile truck be used instead. The city doesn’t have the kind of 454
money it takes to have spare vehicles. 455
456
Council Member Maher noted, regarding building inspections, that she’s heard from 457
people that inspectors are missing things that need to be redone by contractors. She 458
noted Birch Court and 6495 Deerwood. She was on the phone with someone who was 459
basically getting a driveby inspection and that is not acceptable. Community 460
Development Director Grochala pledged to investigate. 461
462
16. Council Updates on Board/Commissions 463
464
17. Monthly Progress Report – no changes noted by City Administrator. 465
466
18. Review Regular Agenda – the agenda was reviewed and there were no changes. 467
468
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. 469
470
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 471
January 8, 2018. 472
473
474
475
476
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 477
478
COUNCIL MINUTES December 11, 2017
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
4
DATE : December 11, 2017 5
TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 6
TIME ENDED : 8:30 p.m. 7
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, Maher, 8
Manthey, and Mayor Reinert 9
MEMBERS ABSENT : 10
11
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael 12
Grochala; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; Public Services 13
Director Rick DeGardner; City Planner Katie Larsen; City Engineer Diane Hankee; and City Clerk 14
Julie Bartell 15
16
PUBLIC COMMENT 17
18
Mike Stanecki, 6977 Glenview Lane, expressed concern about his taxation notice. The percentage 19
presented is higher than he heard announced for the city. He also noted a concern about snow 20
plowing on Glenview. 21
22
Mayor Reinert remarked that Mr. Stanecki’s concern may be a result of increased value on his 23
property and he explained that the city has authority to change the valuation of property within the 24
city if it is found to be wrong; those values are originally set by the county assessor.. He’s 25
experienced that action during his time on the council. 26
27
Finance Director Cotton explained that the Truth in Taxation hearing this evening will shed light on 28
the city’s budget and that information should be helpful to Mr. Stanecki. Also she is willing to meet 29
with Mr. Stanecki personally to go over his statement. 30
31
Mayor Reinert asked Administrator Karlson to follow up on the plowing concern. 32
33
SETTING THE AGENDA 34
35
The agenda was approved as presented. 36
37
CONSENT AGENDA 38
39
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1A through 1J, except Item 1C. 40
Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 41
42
Council Member Manthey moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 1C as presented. Council 43
Member Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. Council Member Rafferty 44
abstained. 45
COUNCIL MINUTES December 11, 2017
DRAFT
2
46
ITEM ACTION 47
48
Consideration of Expenditures: 49
50
December 11, 2017 (Check No. 107261 – 51
107317, $223,152.79) Approved 52
53
Consider approval of November 7, 2017 Work Session 54
Minutes Approved 55
56
Consider approval of November 27, 2017 Work Session 57
Minutes Council Member Rafferty absent Approved 58
59
Consider approval of November 27, 2017 Council 60
Meeting Minutes Approved 61
62
Consider Resolution No. 17-139, Authorizing Termination 63
of Deferred Assessment on PIN #24-31-22-11-0008, 64
Outlot A Main Street Shoppes Approved 65
66
Consider Resolution No. 17-147, Establishing Polling 67
Places for 2018 Election Approved 68
69
Consider Resolution No. 17-148, Extension of Time for 70
Recording the Final Plat of Houle Addition Approved 71
72
Consider approval of November 13, 2017 Council 73
Meeting Minutes 74
(Referred back for correction on November 27, 2017) Approved 75
76
Consider Resolution No. 17-153, Approving a New 77
Tobacco License for Holiday Stationstore Approved 78
79
Consider Resolution No. 17-154, Approving Transfers 80
for Partial Installment Payment on Interfund Loan for 81
Recreation Complex Land Approved 82
83
FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 84
85
2A) Public Hearing – 2017/18 Property Tax Levy and 2018 Budget – Finance Director Cotton 86
reviewed the budget proposed using a short presentation. She noted that the council is requested to 87
conduct a public hearing, receive questions and approve the 2018 budget. Her presentation included 88
information on the following: 89
COUNCIL MINUTES December 11, 2017
DRAFT
3
- City’s tax levy proposed; 90
- Change in city’s tax levy 91
- Change in the city’s tax rates; 92
- Property tax distribution; 93
- Property tax computation; 94
- Review of city’s proposed operating budget (General Fund budget); 95
- Proposed revenues to the budget; 96
- Proposed expenditures; 97
- Water and sewer fund budgets. 98
Mayor Reinert opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, the public 99
hearing was closed. 100
i) Consider Resolution No. 17-141, Adopting the Final 2017 Tax Levy, Collectible in 2018 101
Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 17-141 as presented. Council Member 102
Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 103
ii) Consider Resolution No. 17-142, Adopting the Final 2018 General Fund Operating 104
Budget 105
106
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-142, as presented. Council Member 107
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 108
iii) Consider Resolution No. 17-143, Adopting the 2018 Water and Sewer Operating 109
Budgets 110
Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-143 as presented. Council Member 111
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 112
iv) Consider Resolution No. 17-144, Adopting the 2018 Recreation Fund Budget 113
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolutions No. 17-144 as presented. Council Member 114
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 115
2B) Consider Resolution No. 17-145, Amending the 2017 General Operating Budget – Finance 116
Director Cotton reported that staff has reviewed the 2017 budget to date and is presenting an action to 117
amend that budget based on review. 118
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-145 as presented. Council Member 119
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 120
2C) Consider Resolution No. 17-146, Committing Specific Revenue Sources in Special 121
Revenue Funds – Finance Director Cotton explained that the resolution commits resources to certain 122
funds as called for by government accounting standards. 123
Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-146 as presented. Council Member 124
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 125
126
COUNCIL MINUTES December 11, 2017
DRAFT
4
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 127
128
3A) Therapeutic Massage Regulations: i) Consider 2nd Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 129
No. 06-17, Adding Chapter 616 to the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances, relating to Therapeutic 130
Massage Licensing – City Clerk Bartell requested city council consideration of the adoption of this 131
ordinance that will add therapeutic massage regulations to the city code. The regulations include an 132
application process and conditions for licensing. 133
Council Member Rafferty moved to waive the full reading of Ordinance No. 06-17. Council Member 134
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 135
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve the 2nd Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 06-17 as 136
presented. Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried; Yeas, 5; Nays none. 137
ii) Consider Resolution No. 17-152, Approving Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 138
06-17 139
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-152 as presented. Council Member 140
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 141
3B) Consider Appointment of Community Development Intern – Human Resources Manager 142
Bartholomew reviewed staff’s recommendation to hire Kathy Laur. 143
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the appointment of Kathy Laur as recommended. 144
Council Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 145
146
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 147
4A) Public Hearing – Body Worn Camera Policy – Public Safety Director Swenson requested 148
that the council conduct a public hearing as required by statute. Comments are to be received on the 149
draft policy. This policy has been developed with extensive work by staff and the council has had the 150
opportunity for review also. Mr. Swenson noted that the department received two email comments: 151
questioning use of a camera at schools, on metadata that is collected, and audits by supervisors and 152
the ability to put a camera on a police canine. They have answered all questions received. This 153
public hearing is the final step in implementing the use of cameras. 154
Mayor Reinert opened the public hearing. 155
There being no one present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. 156
Mayor Reinert remarked that this is a great opportunity for police officers to have information 157
available to show how everything happened. 158
159
Council Member Manthey thanked Public Safety Director Swenson for utilizing forfeiture funds to 160
purchase this equipment. 161
There was no action on this item. 162
4B) Consider Hire of Paid On-Call Firefighter – Public Safety Director Swenson noted that 163
staff is seeking approval to hire a paid on-call firefighter. He explained the process that brings 164
forward this good candidate and also how her training will proceed. 165
COUNCIL MINUTES December 11, 2017
DRAFT
5
Council Member Maher moved to approve the hiring of Krista Marshik as recommended. Council 166
Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 167
168
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 169
170
5A) Consider Resolution No. 17-140, Approving Sprint Spectrum L.P. Lease Agreement – 171
Water Tower #1 – Public Services Director DeGarder reviewed his written report. Staff is 172
recommending execution of a lease agreement as outlined. 173
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-140 as presented. Council Member 174
Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 175
176
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 177
6A Consider Resolution No. 17-133 Approving Watermark PUD Development Stage Plan 178
Amendment #2-Architectural Design Standards – City Planner Larsen reviewed a PowerPoint 179
presentation outlining the following: 180
- Development Stage Plan Amendment proposed; 181
- Regulations impacting development proposal; 182
- Review of single family homes proposed (lot, floor area and garage size noted); each could 183
have different elevations, etc. 184
- Comparison with previously proposed Mattamy Homes proposal; 185
- Review of different house collections that would be offered in this project; 186
- Areas that meet city regulations; 187
- Areas of flexibility requested by developer (PUD) in porch size and garage protrusion; 188
- A two foot recess on additional stalls (4 feet required); Renderings of different styes reviewed; 189
- Request to utilize vinyl siding; 190
- What Watermark project was bringing to city; 191
- Planning and Zoning Board approval. 192
Council Member Rafferty noted a reputable builder that utilizes a plywood foundation. He confirmed 193
that this project would not be utilizing that. 194
Council Member Kusterman asked about the possibility of enlarging the garage by modifying inside 195
space; Ms. Larsen said that would be allowed. 196
Council Member Maher explained that her only issue is garage width; she’s not seeing the storage she 197
thinks is needed. 198
The representative present from Lennar builders explained that townhome projects are predesigned and 199
not open to modification. He pointed out that Lennar has experience selling these units and they 200
recognize that it’s a lifestyle choice. They do not get complaints about garage sizes. 201
COUNCIL MINUTES December 11, 2017
DRAFT
6
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-133 as presented. Council Member 202
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Mayor Reinert voted no. 203
6B West Shadow Lake Area and LaMotte Area Street and Utilities: i. Consider Resolution No. 204
17-149 Accepting Report on Improvements (Amending May 8, 2017 Feasibility Report); 205
ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-150 Order Public Hearing on Improvements, West Shadow Lake 206
Area Utilities; 207
iii.Consider Resolution No. 17-151 Order Public Hearing on Improvements, LaMotte Area Utilities 208
City Engineer Hankee reviewed the three actions before the council. She presented information on: 209
- Amended feasibility report to include municipal utilities; 210
- West Shadow Lake area proposed utility improvements; 211
- Proposed utility lines (on a map); 212
- West Shadow Lake Area Utility Cost; 213
- West Shadow Lake Area Assessment Analysis; 214
- Other costs (sanitary sewer and water system) 215
- Total per unit with fees is about $22,000; 216
- West Shadow Lake Area Project Schedule; 217
- LaMotte Area Proposed Utility Improvements; 218
- LaMotte Area Utility Costs; 219
- LaMotte Area Assessment Analysis; 220
- LaMotte Area Survey Results (survey indicates majority not interested in water improvement); 221
- LaMotte Area Schedule. 222
Mayor Reinert remarked that he thinks it would be appropriate to hold hearings on both projects to give 223
residents maximum opportunity to interact. 224
Council Member Maher asked about the City Charter implications. Community Development Director 225
Grochala explained that adding utilities triggers the petition period but there would not be a referendum 226
because there are no general fund dollars. Council Member Maher asked how staff is determining that 227
residents in the West Shadow Lake project area want utilities. Ms. Hankee recalled past feasibility 228
studies when that was indicated. Mr Grochala noted residents have been inquiring for some time 229
about the improvements. Council Member Maher also asked about the number of lots indicated and 230
future buildable units. Staff explained that they may have assumed more lot splits in the past. Council 231
Member Maher noted that Page 224 of the staff report references a water line from Birch to Sandpiper 232
and Ms. Hankee explained how they a proposing to get bids on an alternative loop. Council Member 233
Maher asked about well sealing that may be necessary and Ms. Hankee replied that staff will provide 234
the necessary information to property owners. It was clarified that separation of 50 feet is required 235
between sewer and water systems. 236
Council Member Rafferty asked about survey data (LaMotte) and heard about response deadline and 237
how staff reached out. They did receive more than half of the surveys back. Council Member Rafferty 238
volunteered to go door to door in order to get one hundred percent on the survey. Community 239
COUNCIL MINUTES December 11, 2017
DRAFT
7
Development Director Grochala remarked that if the council decides to go ahead with the hearing on 240
improvements, the survey really becomes a mute point. 241
Mike Trehus, 675 Shadow Court, impacted homeowner. Mr. Trehus noted first that work on culverts 242
is proposed to begin at the end of 2018 and work on street in 2019 so there should be another year for 243
planning? Ms. Hankee said there is permitting required (four to six months – first itteration) so no 244
there is not much time. When Mr. Trehus asked additional questions about the schedule and how 245
much additional time is there for planning to provide for a more open and transparent process. Ms. 246
Hankee said as long as the council decides, adding that the condition of the road has to be 247
consideration. Mr. Trehus recalled information he has submitted regarding the protection of wetlands 248
in certain right of ways; he’d like to see more information submitted to the watershed district in order 249
to answer questions about deliniation of wetland. 250
Mayor Reinert asked if the report submitted is in its final form? Staff said yes. Mr. Grochala added a 251
response regarding the status of wetland deliniation. What the council is being asked tonight is to 252
concur with the design costs proposed for utility improvements. Ms. Hankee explained that the 253
project schedule is much slower than is typical and that’s because of the public process involved. She 254
is willing to meet with Mr. Trehus. 255
The council and Mr. Trehus discussed the petition process, the schedule and charter requirements. Mr. 256
Trehus noted that it’s unfair that there was a survey done for the LaMotte project but not for West 257
Shadow Lake. Mayor Reinert directed staff to do a survey; the city wants to do everything possible to 258
hear from the residents and see what the majority wants to do. He supports having a complete process. 259
Mr. Trehus said he sees things in the report now that are just appearing, which he reviewed. Mayor 260
Reinert explained that this is a point of receiving information and the council is just accepting that 261
information tonight. 262
Mayor Reinert ended discussion. Council Member Maher said she doesn’t like seeing a constituent 263
leaving in anger. 264
Council Member Manthey asked if a hearing process will include notes on who is attending; Mr. 265
Grochala said it’s whomever comes to the microphone. 266
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-149 as presented. Council Member 267
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 268
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-150 as presented. Council Member 269
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 270
Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 17-151 as presented. Council Member 271
Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 272
273
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 274
275
There was no Unfinished Business. 276
277
NEW BUSINESS 278
279
There was no New Business. 280
COUNCIL MINUTES December 11, 2017
DRAFT
8
281
COMMUNITY EVENTS 282
283
BREAKFAST WITH SANTA will be held at Lino Lakes Senior Center on Saturday, December 16 284
from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. For more information call 651-982-2445. 285
286
MONTHLY RECYCLE DAY will be held at Lino Park (7850 Lake Drive) on Saturday, December 16 287
from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. See city website for a list of accepted items. 288
289
TOYS FOR JOY/CHRISTMAS COMMITTEE DROP OFF is located at Lino Lakes City Hall. 290
Collection of toys and food for the upcoming holiday will serve folks right here in our community. 291
For more information, please contact Lisa at 651-982-2424. 292
293
4-H DANCE PARTY WITH A PURPOSE will be held at St. Joseph of the Lake Church on Friday, 294
January 5 from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Call Christy Joyer for more information at 612-750-0252. 295
296
COMMUNITY CALENDAR 297
298
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 299
December 11, 2016 through December 26, 2017 300
Wednesday, December 13 6:00 pm, Planning & Zoning Council Chambers 301
Friday December 22 City Hall Closed Holiday 302
Monday, December 25 City Hall Closed Holiday 303
Tuesday, December 26 6:30 pm, Council Meeting Council Chambers 304
305
ADJOURN 306
307
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. 308
309
These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, January 8, 2018. 310
311
312
313
314
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 315
316
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: Consider Approving Application for an Exempt Raffle Event
for Lino Lakes Elementary School PTO
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
BACKGROUND
The Lino Lakes Elementary School Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) has applied for
permission to conduct a raffle at their school carnival event. The event is scheduled for
April 7, 2018. Non-profit organizations are allowed, under the State Gambling Statutes, to
conduct exempt gambling (raffle) with a state issued permit if they conduct lawful
gambling on five or fewer days and remain under a cap for prizes awarded. Lino Lakes
Elementary PTO has submitted the information necessary to determine that their event is
exempt.
The Public Safety Department has conducted a background investigation for CEO, Maria
Masten. The background information is on file in the city clerk’s office as well as the
application and certificate of non-profit status from the Internal Revenue Service.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the issuance of Exempt Raffle Event for Lino Lakes Elementary School.
AGENDA ITEM 1E
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy Clerk
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: Approve Application for Aquinas Roman Catholic Home
Education Services to Conduct Excluded Bingo Event
VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority (3/5 Vote Required)
INTRODUCTION
The City has received an application from the Aquinas Roman Catholic Home Education
Services (ARCHES) organization to conduct an excluded bingo event at St. Joseph’s
Church, 171 Elm Street, Lino Lakes on January February 10, 2018.
BACKGROUND
Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 349.166, excluded bingo may be conducted by an
organization that conducts four or fewer bingo occasions in a calendar year, or in
connection with a county fair, the state fair, or a civic celebration if it is not conducted for
more than 12 consecutive days. The Aquinas Roman Catholic Home Education Services
organization meets this requirement. The organization also meets the requirements of the
Lino Lakes City Code since the physical site where the organization regularly conducts
its activities is located within the city (St. Joseph’s Church).
City policy requires a background investigation on the applicant (James Kostick) which
staff has submitted to the Public Safety Department. The approval of this event is
contingent upon the background investigation of the applicant.
The Application and a certificate of non-profit status from the Internal Revenue Service
are on file in the city clerk’s office.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the application for the Aquinas Roman Catholic Home Education Services
(ARCHES) to conduct an Excluded Bingo Event.
CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION December 11, 2017
DRAFT
1
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 2
MINUTES 3
CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION 4
5
DATE : December 11, 2017 6
TIME STARTED : 8:52 p.m. 7
TIME ENDED : 9:50 p.m. 8
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members Rafferty, Manthey, 9
Maher, Kusterman and Mayor Reinert 10
MEMBERS ABSENT : none 11
12
Staff present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Human Resources Manager Kariss 13
Bartholomew 14
15
Mayor Reinert called the meeting to order at 8:52 p.m. in the Council Work Room at 16
Lino Lakes City Hall. Before the meeting was closed, Mayor Reinert read a statement on 17
the purpose of the meeting. The meeting was closed as a session of the city council 18
pursuant to the Open Meeting Law for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. 19
20
The meeting was not recorded as the city’s recorder was not available. 21
22
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. 23
24
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 25
January 8, 2018. 26
27
28
29
30
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 31
32
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: Annual Appointments
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Below is a list of annual appointments the City Council considers every year.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve 2018 appointments as listed below.
2017 2018
1. Acting Mayor Rob Rafferty Rob Rafferty
2. Legal Newspaper Quad Community Press Quad Community Press
3. Legal Services
Barna, Guzy & Steffen
Kennedy & Graven
Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney
Geck, Duea & Olson
Barna, Guzy & Steffen
Kennedy & Graven
Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney
Geck, Duea & Olson
4. Labor Services
Barna, Guzy & Steffen
Riley, Dettman & Kelsy
Springsted, Inc.
Barna, Guzy & Steffen
Riley, Dettman & Kelsy
Springsted, Inc.
5. Fiscal Agent Springsted, Inc. Springsted, Inc.
6. Assessor Anoka County Anoka County
7. North Metro
Telecommunications
Committee
Melissa Maher Dale Stoesz
Melissa Maher (Alternate)
8. Vadnais Lake Watershed
District
Rob Rafferty
Rob Rafferty
9. County Corrections
Program
John Swenson
John Swenson
10. Joint Law Enforcement
Council
Michael Manthey
John Swenson
Michael Manthey
John Swenson
11. Anoka County Fire
Protection Council
Jeff Reinert, Bill Kusterman
John Swenson
Jeff Reinert, Michael
Manthey (Alternate)
John Swenson
12. City Depositories
First Resource Bank
LMC 4M Fund
Wells Fargo Securities
Wells Fargo Advisors
US Bank
RBC Capital Markets
Morgan Stanley
F&M Bank
Others as needed
First Resource Bank
LMC 4M Fund
Wells Fargo Securities
Wells Fargo Advisors
US Bank
RBC Capital Markets
Morgan Stanley
F&M Bank
Others as needed
13. City Treasurer Sarah Cotton Sarah Cotton
14. City Engineer WSB & Associates WSB & Associates
15. Data Practices Officer Julie Bartell Julie Bartell
16. City Auditor Tautges, Redpath Tautges, Redpath
17. Twin Cities Gateway Jeff Karlson Jeff Karlson
18. Anoka Co./Blaine Airport
Advisory Commission Dean Quimby Dean Quimby
19. Hearing Officer
John Swenson
Rick DeGardner (alternate)
John Swenson
Rick DeGardner (alternate)
20. Local Board of Appeal &
Equalization Training
Bill Kusterman Melissa Maher
21. Secretarial Services TimeSaver, Inc. TimeSaver, Inc.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: Elimination of Recreation Supervisor Position
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is being asked to approve staff’s recommendation to eliminate one of the two
Recreation Supervisor positions.
BACKGROUND
As the Council is aware, the Centennial School District increased the City’s rental charges for
use of its facilities and has duplicated several youth programs through its Community
Education Program that the City offered for many years. As a result, the City had to reassess
its program offerings in the Recreation Division. After reviewing several options, staff
concluded that the Recreation Division should no longer continue to staff two full-time
recreation supervisors. Therefore, staff is recommending the elimination of Ali Lukin’s
position of recreation supervisor.
Ms. Lukin was hired in February 2015. Based on her length of employment, staff is
recommending four weeks’ severance. Ms. Lukin was notified on January 3 that I would be
recommending the elimination of her position. She was placed on administrative leave pending
Council action.
Attached is the list of programs and services that will continue to be offered in 2018. The
programs listed in red font will no longer be offered.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the elimination of one recreation supervisor position.
ATTACHMENTS
2018 Recreation Division Programs and Services
Public Services Director’s July 5, 2017 Memo
Meetings Timeline with School District
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Karissa Bartholomew, Human Resources Manager
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: Appointment of Recycling Intern
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The Council is being asked to approve the appointment of Sayard Schultz for the Recycling
Intern position in the Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND
Previous Recycling Intern Madeline Pelon resigned and the City re-advertised for the position.
A conditional job offer was made to Sayard Schultz. This is a budgeted temporary position.
Schultz will be working 29 hours a week at an hourly rate of $12.00. The position is funded
through the Anoka County SCORE Grant Program.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the appointment of Sayard Schultz as Recycling Intern.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Karissa Bartholomew, Human Resources Manager
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: Pay Increase for PT Scanner Operator
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The Council is being asked to approve a pay increase for part-time scanner operator Rusty Ray.
BACKGROUND
Rusty Ray started July 12, 2017. He will be PERA eligible upon his six month anniversary and
required to make contributions. All temporary employees working beyond six months have
received a pay increase to offset the required PERA contribution.
Staff is requesting that Rusty Ray’s pay be increased a dollar to $12.50. This has been budgeted
for 2018.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the pay increase for part-time scanner operator Rusty Ray.
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No.
01-18, Vacating Drainage & Utility Easements, Lot 1, Block 1,
Pine Glen
VOTE REQUIRED: 4/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council consideration of Ordinance No. 01-18, Vacating Drainage &
Utility Easements, Lot 1, Block 1, Pine Glen.
BACKGROUND
The owners, Scott and Shelly Carlson, of All Seasons Rental located at 7932 Lake Drive are
proposing to expand their existing business. They have purchased 7928 Lake Drive a vacant
1.3 commercial parcel to the south (Lot 1, Block 1, Pine Glen) with the intent to final plat their
parcels.
The development is a combination of 3 parcels. The existing north parcel is unplatted and has a
metes and bounds legal description. The vacant south parcel is platted and legally described as
Lot 1, Block 1, Pine Glen. The third parcel is a remnant parcel along Lake Drive. The parcels
will be combined via plat to provide clear title and dedicate required easements. The name of
the plat is SS Properties Addition.
ANALYSIS
The SS Properties Addition final platting process requires that existing drainage and utility
easements be vacated on Lot 1, Block 1, Pine Glen. The vacation includes the standard
property line easement, a drainage and utility easement over an existing stormwater retention
pond on the east side. These existing easements will be vacated as detailed in the enclosed
drainage and utility easement vacation sketch.
New easements will be included with the SS Properties Addition final plat to cover the entire
site and expanded stormwater facilities. The existing retention pond will be expanded and
included in a new drainage and utility easement. An Ordinance is required to vacate the
easement and the City Council is to hold public hearings for the vacation.
2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 01-18 Vacating Drainage
& Utility Easements, Lot 1, Block 1, Pine Glen.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 01-18
2. Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Sketch
1
1st Reading: 1/8/2018 Publication:
2nd Reading: Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 01-18
ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
(Lot 1, Block 1, Pine Glen)
The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains:
Section 1: Findings of Fact
1. The City Council of Lino Lakes has determined to vacate the drainage and utility
easements, as created and dedicated over, under, and across Lot 1, Block 1, in the
plat of Pine Glen, Anoka County, Minnesota; and
2. A public hearing was held on January 8, 2018 before the City Council in the City
Hall Council Chambers after due published and posted notice had been given and
reasonable attempts were made to give personal notice to all affected property
owners, and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and
3. It appears to be in the best interest of the City to vacate such drainage and utility
easements; and
4. Four-fifths of all members of the City Council concur with this ordinance.
Section 2: Easement Vacated
Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Description:
All of the drainage and utility easements of Lot 1, Block 1, PINE GLEN, Anoka
County, Minnesota, as dedicated in the plat thereof.
Attached hereto Exhibit A
Section 3: Effect
This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication
according to the Lino Lakes City Charter and upon the easement vacation of Lot 1 Block
1 of Pine Glen recording with Anoka County, Minnesota.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 8th day of January, 2018.
2
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was introduced by Council
Member_____________and was duly seconded by Council Member ___________ and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
____________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 18-01 Approving Utility Fee Refund,
Lot 1, Block 1, Chavez Preserve
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council approval of Resolution No. 18-01, Approving Utility Fee
Refund, Lot 1, Block 1, Chavez Preserve.
BACKGROUND
The Chavez Preserve is a six unit development that was approved by the City Council on July
10, 2018 via Resolution No. 17-62. As part of the development requirements, the developer is
to pay City Sewer Availability (SAC) and Water Availability (WAC) fees. The SAC and WAC
fees are then registered with Anoka County as assessments, in this case, on November 30th
2017 .The assessments are paid in full when the builder closes on the house and makes the
connection to the municipal utility system. These assessments have been paid.
There was an existing house on the site that was removed as part of the development. It was
recently brought to the City’s attention that the house was connected to municipal utilities and
that the SAC and WAC fees were previously paid.
Staff reviewed the case and confirmed that one unit of SAC and WAC fees were previously
paid in 2002. It is recommended that the developer be credited for one unit of SAC and WAC
fees. The credit due is $16,188.77.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of 1. Resolution No. 18-01 Approving Utility Fee Refund, Lot
1, Block 1, Chavez Preserve.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 18-01 Approving Utility Fee Refund, Lot 1, Block 1, Chavez Preserve
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 18-01
RESOLUTION APPROVING UTILITY FEE REFUND FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1,
CHAVEZ PRESERVE
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final plat for Chavez Preserve with Resolution No.
17-61 and the Development Agreement with Resolution 17-62 on July 10, 2017; and
WHEREAS, as part of the development requirements, the developer paid City Sewer
Availability (SAC) and Water Availability (WAC) fees. The SAC and WAC fees were registered
with Anoka County as assessments on November 30, 2017. The assessments were paid in full on
December 6, 2017.
WHEREAS, on unit of SAC and WAC fees were previously paid in 2002. Thus, the developer
is being credited for one unit of SAC and WAC fees. The credit due is $16,188.77
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
hereby approves the utility fee refund of $16,188.77 to Royal Oaks Realty, Inc.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 8th day of January, 2018.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
_______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
_______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 18-02, Authorizing Distribution of
Local Water Management Plan
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council authorization to distribute the draft Local Surface Water
Management Plan for review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
BACKGROUND
The City of Lino Lakes is required to prepare a Local Water Management Plan that must, at a minimum,
meet the requirements for local plans in the Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235, Minnesota Rules
8410 and be in conformance with Watershed District, Management Organization, and Metropolitan
Council plans. The City’s last plan was adopted in 2015. Since this time both the Rice Creek
Watershed District (RCWD) and the Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization (VLAWMO)
have updated their watershed management plans. As such the City is required to update its existing
plan. The update is also a requirement as part of the Metropolitan Council’s review of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council authorized preparation of the Local Water Management Plan as part of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan update in April of 2017. City staff has substantially completed the report and it
requesting authorization to distribute the plan for review. A summary of the plan is attached to this
report along with the full plan and appendices.
The Local Water Management Plan will be sent to RCWD, VLAWMO, Metropolitan Council, and
Anoka County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 18-02
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 18-02
2. Summary of LSMP
3. Draft LSMP
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 18-02
RESOLUTION APPROVING DRAFT AND AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF
LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR REVIEW
WHEREAS, WSB and Associates, has prepared the City’s Local Water Management Plan in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes
that the draft plan is hereby approved and city staff is authorized to distribute such plan to all
required agencies for review and comment.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 8th day of January, 2018.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
_______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
_______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan Summary
January 2, 2018
1 | P a g e
Background
The City of Lino Lakes continues to actively manage and protect its water resources through it’s existing 2015
Surface Water Management Plan. This Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) update is required by Minnesota
Statute 103B to:
1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems;
3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management;
5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
6. Promote groundwater recharge;
7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
8. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water.
Existing Water Resources
The City of Lino Lakes existing water resources include fifteen lakes, nine within the Chain of Lakes Regional Park,
three creeks, and a network of public and private ditches and municipal storm sewer. Of the lakes and creeks, nearly
all are impaired for excess nutrients, mercury, dissolved oxygen, or bacteria (Figure 7-2).
Future Conditions
In addition to water quality concerns, the City of Lino Lakes is expected to experience more frequent flooding in the
future with future development and increased runoff rates. The Rice Creek Watershed District has modeled the
future flood impacts on Lino Lakes, which will include increased overtopping of small ditches and culverts, as well as
increasing the demand on existing stormwater and ditch infrastructure (Figure 7-3).
Major Issues within Lino Lakes
The primary issues facing the City of Lino Lake, in general, are:
1. Challenges in meeting stormwater volume reduction goals due to poor soils in the southeast corner of the
City
2. Water quality and flood control issues in the Chain of Lakes
3. Antiquated public ditch systems do not have the capacity for future development and stormwater runoff
4. Complicated stormwater and groundwater regulations difficult to navigate for residents, businesses,
landowners, and City staff
5. Funding and staffing resources necessary to address the goals of the LWMP
Specific issues found during the LWMP update process are shown in Figure 7-9.
City of Lino Lakes Water Resources Goals
1. Use the natural characteristics of the City’s watersheds in combination with development standards and
projects, to reduce present and future runoff rates and volumes.
2. Protect and improve water quality and the scenic and ecologic values of City lakes, wetlands and other
aquatic assets.
3. Initiate and continue collaborations to address, restore, and preserve the water quality of the region’s lakes,
wetlands and other aquatic assets.
Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan Summary
January 2, 2018
2 | P a g e
4. Maintain and enhance, where possible, the functions and services of existing wetlands and associated
habitats with the City.
5. Provide adequate storage and conveyance of runoff to protect the public safety and minimize property
damage.
6. Ensure the management and operation of drainage systems and use of waterways in a manner which
recognizes the origin of the system (e.g., constructed vs. natural), the interconnectedness of resources, and
present and future conveyance needs, while considering legally established rights.
7. Incorporate ground water considerations into the decision-making process through recognizing the
interconnectedness of surface water and groundwater supply and groundwater-dependent natural
resources.
8. Identify, protect and preserve the desirable natural areas and ecological and aquatic resources of the
community.
9. Ensure that well-planned, quality residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development
accommodates the City’s projected growth needs and occurs in a manner that also conserves and
enhances the City’s natural resources and amenities.
10. Capitalize on opportunities to enhance water quality, reduce runoff volume and flood damage, and enhance
ecological resources by using open space and greenways.
11. Prevent erosion and minimize the conveyance of sediment into surface water systems through enforcement
of the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
12. Address regulatory requirements of local, state and federal programs through updated ordinances,
permitting, and ongoing reporting.
13. Maintain the function and effectiveness of stormwater management structures through inspection,
monitoring and maintenance.
14. Inform and educate the public concerning urban stormwater management and the problems pollutants
cause if allowed to enter our water resources.
15. Offer programs, educational opportunities and information that facilitate an understanding of water resource
issues in the City of Lino lakes.
16. Ensure that the costs of the surface water system are equitably distributed and sufficiently funded to cover
the liabilities.
Major Implementation Activities
· Complete the remaining Subwatershed Resource Management Unit (RMU) Plans and implement
recommendations including:
- Water quality improvements in the LaMotte and West Shadow Lake neighborhoods help improve
water quality in Centerville and Reshanau Lakes.
- Review and address floodplain areas with inadequate freeboard during flood events
- The City will consider joining the Community Rating System to better manage floodplain
development and allow residents to receive a discount on flood insurance
- Work with MnDOT to evaluate wildlife crossings in future projects near Lake Amelia
- Evaluate the potential to implement volume reduction practices in stormwater-sensitive wetlands
near Baldwin and Sherman Lakes
- Continue to incorporate neighborhood stormwater planning and education into street reconstruction
programs. For 2018, both the West Shadow Lake and LaMotte neighborhoods have engaged in
several outreach meetings to provide input used in the preliminary stormwater management
designs.
· Continue to work with RCWD and VLAWMO to establish wetland banks and approaches to maintain or
restore existing wetland functions
· Continue to work with RCWD and VLAWMO to address flooding and flow constraints in the existing system,
including:
Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan Summary
January 2, 2018
3 | P a g e
- The implementation of a multi-functional greenway corridor in Northeast Lino Lakes to address the
existing and future flooding concerns with Anoka County Ditches 55 and 72, including modifying
existing ordinances to ensure implementation of all water quality, flood control, and natural
resources components during development through the Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan
· Evaluation of streambank erosion along ACD 10-22-32 and Clearwater Creek
· Implement the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan and Water Conservation Management Plans
· Incorporate pollinator habitat in future city projects
· Educate residents and local businesses on smart irrigation and alternative landscaping options to reduce
water use
Continuing Activities
· Establish and adopt Better Site Design (BSD) strategies for new development and provide guidance for
staff, City Boards, and City Council
· Protect high priority wetlands and high-quality habitats from stormwater runoff
· The City of Lino Lakes will continue to address the Total Maximum Daily Loads to address nutrient, mercury
and bacteria impairments in its surface waters.
· The City of Lino Lakes will continue to work with regulating agencies to monitor, inspect and maintain the
existing stormwater infrastructure, best management practices, and additional requirements as specified in
the City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
· The City of Lino Lakes will review its existing policies, regulations, and ordinances to ensure the applicable
ordinances and requirements are in line with the City’s needs and desires, as well as with all applicable
higher regulations, including:
- Better Side Design standards,
- Maximum impervious percentage limits, and
- Road design standards.
· The City will also continue its efforts to obtain grant funding for future water quality, flood control, invasive
species and groundwater protection projects.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 1
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Contents
Chapter 7 – Local Water Management Plan .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Local water management plan purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Local water management responsibilities and related agreements ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Background ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Implementation Section ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Local Water Management Responsibilities and Related Agreements ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Amendments to the Local Water Management Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Climate and Precipitation ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Topography, Soils and Geology .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Resource Management Units ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Surface Water Resources ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Water Quality Data and Impairments ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
2.6 Stormwater Management System .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Groundwater Resources .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.6 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.7 Fish and Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
2.8 Regulated Pollutant Sources ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
2.9 Proposed Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
3. ASSESSMENT OF WATER RESOURCE-RELATED PROBLEMS AND ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
3.1 Issues .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Goals and Policies .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
4. GOALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31
5. LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
5.1 Implementation Activities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
5.2 Implementation Costs ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 2
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
6. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
7. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A – Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38
Appendix B – RMU Issues and Strategies .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix C – City of Lino Lakes Ordinances ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix D – City of Lino Lakes Stormwater Infrastructure and Best Management Practices ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 41
Appendix E – Issues, Goals, Policies and Implementation ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 3
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
List of Tables
Table 2-1. 1981-2010 Climatic Data for Lino Lakes, MN
Table 2-2. NOAA Atlas 14 Design Storm Events
Table 2-3. Named Lakes Summary
Table 2-4. Summary of Flooding Concerns by Resource Management Unit
Table 2-5. Benchmark Intercommunity Flow Rates
Table 2-6. Lino Lakes Public Supply Wells
Table 2-7. Documented Rare Species in Lino Lakes
Table 2-8. Number of Potential Environmental Hazard Sites in the City of Lino Lakes
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location Map
Figure 2. Hydrologic Soil Group
Figure 3. Surficial Geology
Figure 4. Bedrock Geology
Figure 5. Resource Management Units
Figure 6. Surface Water Resources Inventory
Figure 7. Impaired Waters
Figure 8. Stormwater Infrastructure
Figure 9. Groundwater Inventory
Figure 10. Surface Water and Groundwater Interaction
Figure 11. Existing Land Use
Figure 12. Shoreland Management
Figure 13. Floodplain
Figure 14. Potential Environmental Hazards
Figure 15. Full Build Out Land Use
Figure 16. 2040 Land Use
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 4
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Chapter 7 – Local Water Management Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Local water management plan purpose
The City of Lino Lakes’ Local Water Management Plan (plan, City plan, local plan) is a local management plan that meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Minnesota Rules 8410, the Rice Creek Watershed District
Watershed Management Plan (dated January 2010, as amended November 9, 2016), and Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization Watershed Management Plan (dated October 26, 2016), and Minnesota Statute 103B.201
states that the purposes of the water management programs are to:
Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems;
Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality;
Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management;
Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
Promote groundwater recharge;
Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater.
The Lino Lakes’ Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) addresses these purposes. The LWMP was adopted by City Council in 2018 and is incorporated by reference as an element of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Local water management responsibilities and related agreements
The City of Lino Lakes has not entered into any water management related agreements with its neighboring cities, the County, Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization
(VLAWMO), or the State of Minnesota, other than on a project-specific agreement for BMP’s constructed to meet water quality requirements. The City of Lino Lakes is responsible for construction, maintenance, and operation of
the City's stormwater management systems (i.e., ponds, pipes, channels).
Background
The City of Lino Lakes (population 20,216) is located in Anoka County in the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area, approximately 20 miles north of downtown Saint Paul. The City covers approximately 33 square miles. Lino
Lakes is nestled between the Cities of Blaine and Circle Pines to the west, Columbus to the north, Hugo to the east, and Shoreview and North Oaks to the south. The City of Centerville is located near the center of Lino Lakes.
Lino Lakes is within two watershed agencies: Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization (VLAWMO). RCWD is a watershed district and has the authority to regulate
development impacts on water resources; VLAWMO is not a permitting agency, but does provide guidance on the implementation of best management practices within its jurisdiction. This plan addresses the rules and regulations
put forth by the Rice Creek Watershed District and Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization.
Surface water in Lino Lakes general drains to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes which includes: Baldwin Lake, Rice Lake, Reshanau Lake, Marshan Lake, George Watch Lake, Centerville Lake, Peltier Lake, and Rondeau Lake, as well as
Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek (Jurisdictional Ditch 2) and Clearwater Creek (Jurisdictional Ditch 3).
A large portion of the city remains undeveloped. Although the community has been identified as Suburban Leading Edge, it still retains its rural and agricultural roots. Section 2.6 of this plan discusses land use in Lino Lakes.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 5
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Summary of Implementation Section
The need to address water quality within the city is partially illustrated in the map showing the various impaired lakes (Appendix A, Figure 7) which has regulatory implications that are still being developed, the City’s stormwater
infrastructure (Appendix A, Figure 8), the underlying soils and geology (Appendix A, Figures 2 and 3), the groundwater resources (Appendix A, Figure 11) and the existing floodplain (Appendix A, Figure 10). The following is
a generalized list of the key implementation strategies, policies and/or actions proposed in the LWMP to address the City of Lino Lakes’ water resources issues:
Implement Greenway System Plan through development of Subwatershed Management Plans for each RMU. The Plan will establish:
o A clear vision of the multi-functional greenway corridor for City Staff and developers and will be used as a tool early in the land development process.
o Create a wetland bank to provide replacement opportunities for development or roadway projects.
o Utilize the runoff volume credit and banking system, in collaboration with RCWD.
Implement the design guidelines of Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) with future development in the Peltier Lake Subwatershed
Implement water quality improvements via the Subwatershed Plans for each RMU specific to the waterbodies of the area and upcoming regulations (ex. impairments, TMDLs).
Review existing watershed models and work with the RCWD and VLAWMO to address flow constraints in the system.
Work with RCWD on the ditch abandonment process for public subsurface (drain tile) systems and explore partial abandonment for surface (ditch) systems, in cases where the public drainage system requires redesign to
implement the Multi-Functional Greenway Corridor.
Continue to manage the City’s wetlands and natural resources by:
o Implementing City-wide Wetland Bank Plan, in cooperation with RCWD and VLAWMO
o Continuing to participate in pre-permit application meetings with the RCWD and Army Corps of Engineers that support the collaborative permitting process implemented through RCWD Rule and the Corps’
Programmatic General Permit that implements the Special Area Management Plan.
o Continuing to manage and protect heron rookery, tamarack swamps, and other important plant and animal communities.
Review existing City policies, regulations, ordinances and plans, including:
o Continue to implement and enforce the City's Stormwater Pollution Protection Program (SWPPP) as part of the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.
o Implement the Wellhead Protection Plan to protect the groundwater source from contamination.
o Continue to implement the City’s Water Conservation Management Plan
o Evaluate the need to modify existing ordinances to ensure implementation of all components of the multi-functional greenway corridor
o Review existing impervious percentage and land use requirements
o Establish and adopt Better Site Design (BSD) standards for new and re-development that:
Provide guidance for staff, City Boards, and City Council
Protect high priority wetlands, their biological condition, and their function as high quality habitat;
Enhance groundwater hydrology and protect groundwater-dependent natural resources;
Provide natural flood reduction;
Integrate water quality improvement components in the landscape; and
Implement the Resource Management System Plan
o Evaluate revisions to Road Design Standards including:
Reducing minimum pavement widths;
Ribbon curbs and curb cuts, with roadside swales, infiltration, and biofiltration; and
Use of pervious pavements
Continue public outreach, education and dissemination of information, including:
o Work with private landowners to retrofit/implement multi-functional greenway corridors, for those parcels that are not part of a Master Plan or are already developed.
o Partner with RCWD, VLAWMO and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) to establish program to educate residents on the means to identify and eradicate invasive species.
o Participate with other public agencies and organizations on education and outreach efforts.
o Develop, distribute and present public with information regarding the importance of shoreland buffers.
Evaluate financing options to implement activities and policies in LWMP, such as:
o Pursue funding through Federal and State grant opportunities
o Pursue grants through the RCWD’s Urban Stormwater Remediation Program to assist in the funding of projects that will reduce the impact of existing development on local water resources.
o Pursue funding support from VLAWMO for projects in the Amelia Lake and Wilkinson Lake watersheds.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 6
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
o Review and evaluate funding sources for surface water management including ad valorem taxes, development charges, grants and user fees.
o Update and continue to implement Trunk Surface Water Management Fee System.
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Lino Lakes (population 20,216) is located in Anoka County in the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area, approximately 20 miles north of downtown Saint Paul (Appendix A, Figure 1). The City covers
approximately 33 square miles. Lino Lakes is nestled between the Cities of Blaine and Circle Pines to the west, Columbus to the north, Hugo to the east, and Shoreview and North Oaks to the south. The City of Centerville is
located near the center of Lino Lakes.
Lino Lakes is within two watershed agencies: Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization (VLAWMO). RCWD is a watershed district and has the authority to regulate
development impacts on water resources; VLAWMO is not a permitting agency, but does provide guidance on the implementation of best management practices within its jurisdiction. This plan addresses the rules and regulations
put forth by the Rice Creek Watershed District and Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization.
Surface water in Lino Lakes general drains to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes which includes: Baldwin Lake, Rice Lake, Reshanau Lake, Marshan Lake, George Watch Lake, Centerville Lake, Peltier Lake, and Rondeau Lake, as well as
Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek (Jurisdictional Ditch 2) and Clearwater Creek (Jurisdictional Ditch 3).
This Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) builds off three previous plans, completed in 1994, 2005, and 2015.
1.1 Purpose
The City of Lino Lake’s Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) is a local management plan that meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Minnesota Rules 8410, the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)
Watershed Management Plan (adopted January 4, 2010 and amended November 9, 2016), and the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO) 2017-2026 Comprehensive Water Plan (adopted October 26,
2016).
Minnesota Statute 103B.201 states that the purposes of the local water management programs are to:
Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems;
Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality;
Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management;
Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
Promote groundwater recharge;
Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater.
The Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan addresses these purposes.
1.2 Local Water Management Responsibilities and Related Agreements
The City of Lino Lakes has not entered into any water resource management related agreements with its neighboring cities, Anoka County, Rice Creek Watershed District, Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization, or
the State of Minnesota. The City of Lino Lakes is responsible for construction, maintenance, and other projects in or along the City's stormwater management systems (i.e., ponds, pipes, channels) that are not considered part of the
watershed district’s public drainage system.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 7
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
1.3 Amendments to the Local Water Management Plan
The City of Lino Lakes intends that this Plan extend through 2021. The City may need to revise this Plan prior to the next update for it to remain a useful long-term planning tool. Plan amendments will be needed if significant
changes are required involving goals, policies, administrative procedures, funding or the capital improvement program, or if problems arise that are not addressed in the Plan. This Plan will remain in full effect through 2021 unless an
updated plan is approved prior to that date.
Technical information (i.e. from City-led studies and monitoring and new data from City partners) will require frequent updating. The City intends to post this updated information on the City website. Technical information that
results in new action items will be incorporated into City operations through implementation of the City’s programs, projects and watershed management strategies as appropriate. Generally, these technical updates and studies are
considered part of the normal City operations consistent with the intent of this Plan and will not trigger a Plan amendment. However, when the new technical information or study findings result in a significant policy change, or the
District intends to initiate a program or construct a capital improvement not sufficiently identified in the Plan, a plan amendment will be required.
All major amendments to the Plan that deviate from the existing Plan scope and direction will be submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization for review and
approval. The review process is 60 days unless the City agrees to an extension of the review period. The Plan amendment may also be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for a 45-day review to be incorporated into the review of
the RCWD and VLAWMO.
1.4 Roles and Responsibilities
Federal
Coordination with federal agencies on water issues for the City of Lino Lakes often is with the Army Corps of Engineers, and sometimes also with the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Geological Survey, the
United States Department of Agriculture, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Army Corps of Engineers regulate activities in navigable waters and wetlands. Therefore, coordination is required for activities that have the potential to affect wetland and lake systems in the City of Lino Lakes. The Army Corps
of Engineers issues permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and allow for approval of permitting and replacement plans that meet the requirements of Section 404 on a regional basis. Lino Lakes has and approved Special
Area Management (SAMP) with the Army Corps of Engineers. The SAMP is implemented through a Programmatic General Permit (PGP) that includes special wetland regulatory conditions for the City of Lino Lakes. In summary,
the PGP provides mitigation flexibility for impacts that are consistent with the SAMP.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated many of its responsibilities within Minnesota to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency including the administration and enforcement of National Pollutant Discharge
and Elimination (NPDES) permits and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) collect data on stream flow, groundwater levels, and other information which is useful to the City in evaluating its resources. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
oversees the National Resource Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency who provide technical services, conservation programs and funding to agricultural producers. In addition, the soils and technical data collected by
the NRCS is information used by the City. The Fish and Wildlife Service works to conserve and improve fish and wildlife and their habitat. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), among other activities,
collect weather and climate data.
State
On a state level, regulatory coordination related to water and natural resources includes addressing impaired waters, managing storm sewer systems and construction sites, managing shorelines, and a number of other areas. Agencies
the City may coordinate with include the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Minnesota Department of Health.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) oversees the programs addressing municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), construction site stormwater, industrial stormwater, impaired lakes and streams, feedlots, soil and
groundwater contamination, and wastewater treatment. A number of these programs affect the City of Lino Lakes. The two main areas requiring coordination are the MS4 program and addressing impaired waters.
The City’s stormwater system is designated as a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) by the MPCA. The City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) was developed to address the requirements for MS4s. A
permit re-issuance was approved in May 2013 and went into effect August 1, 2013. The reissued permit will require changes to the City’s SWPPP.
A number of Total Maximum Daily Load studies (TMDLs) are in process and others have been completed. These studies establish daily load limits for certain compounds that were found to contribute to the impairment. The City of
Lino Lakes will likely have a wasteload allocation that establishes the maximum allowed discharge of the regulated pollutant for each TMDL.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 8
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) will document progress towards achieving the load reductions needed to meet the TMDL allocations for impaired water bodies within its jurisdiction. The City of Lino Lakes will provide
information on a routine basis to the RCWD regarding new projects and programs that lead to load reductions needed to meet a TMDL.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) leads programs that regulate shoreline and floodplain development, groundwater use, and conducts various efforts to support water-based recreation and quality fisheries. The City has a
shoreline and floodplain ordinance that is in compliance with the DNR’s standards.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) manages the state’s transportation system including a number of highways in the City of Lino Lakes. Coordination with MnDOT is needed when an activity may impact a
state highway or its right of way. The Minnesota Department of Health works to address a number of health issues, but the primary area of coordination for the City is with the protection of drinking water resources including
wellhead protection and drinking water treatment.
Regional
Regulatory coordination on a regional level involves coordination with the Metropolitan Council and with watershed management organizations, particularly the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed
Management Organization.
The City addresses the water-related concerns of the Metropolitan Council primarily through the City’s Comprehensive Plan and this Plan. The Comprehensive Plan frames how the city will address issues such as housing and
transportation along with water concerns noted by the Metropolitan Council.
The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) implements and enforces a set of rules related to stormwater and natural resource management. In addition, the RCWD is the WCA Local Government Unit (LGU) for a number of
jurisdictions including Lino Lakes. The City works with the RCWD to protect and manage the wetland and water resources of the City.
The Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO) also works to protect and improve water resources. VLAWMO is also the WCA LGU for a number of jurisdictions including those portions of Lino Lakes
within their jurisdictional boundary.
City Administration of Surface Water Management Plan
The implementation of this Plan will be coordinated by staff with input from the Environmental Board. The staff will coordinate within the various departments as needed to ensure implementation of this plan over the next ten
years. After this Plan is approved by the watershed organizations, the City of Lino Lakes will adopt and implement the Plan within 120 days and will update and approve its ordinances and official controls to be consistent with this
Plan within 180 days.
2. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
2.1 Climate and Precipitation
The climate within the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan area is described as a humid continental climate with moderate precipitation, wide daily temperature variations, warm humid summers and cold winters. The total average
annual precipitation in this area from 1981 to 2010 (the most recent year the data was available) is approximately 30.81 inches, of which approximately 40% occurs in the months of June, July and August (MnDNR 2017). The annual
snowfall is about 37.3 inches (MRCC 2017) and is roughly equivalent to 2.9 inches of water. Additional climatological information for the area can be obtained from the Minnesota State Climatology Office at
http://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/index.htm.
Table 2-0-1. 1981-2010 Climatic Data for Lino Lakes, MN
1981-2010 Monthly Normal Precipitation - Lino Lakes, MN
Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
30.81 0.86 0.76 1.74 2.68 3.57 4.32 4.02 4 3.33 2.69 1.7 1.14
1981-2010 Monthly Normal Snowfall - Vadnais Lake NCDC Station
Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
37.9 9.5 5.7 7.6 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 5.4 8.5
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 9
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
1981-2010 Monthly Normal Temperature – Vadnais Lake NCDC Station
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 25.8 31 42.8 58.4 71 80 84.6 82 72.9 59.3 42.3 28.7
Min 7.1 11.6 23.7 37.6 50 59.4 64.1 61.8 52.8 40.8 27 12.8
Mean 16.5 21.3 33.3 48 60.5 69.7 74.4 71.9 62.9 50.1 34.7 20.7
Precipitation is often defined in terms of recurrence intervals, or the probability of a certain rainfall occurring during a given year. For example, a rainfall event of 6.13 inches has a 2% probability of occurring in any given year, which
is also expressed as once in every 50 years, the 9.81 rainfall event has a probability of 0.2% and is expressed as once every 500 years. The following table presents the probability of typical design rainfall events within the City of Lino
Lakes, including the 100-year 10-day snowmelt event.
Table 2-0-2. NOAA Atlas 14 Design Storm Events (Sanja et al, 2013).
Recurrence Interval
[years] 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 100 200 500 1,000
Probability 100% 50% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1%
Duration 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 10-day 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour
Rainfall Amount [in] 2.43 2.80 3.50 4.17 5.22 6.13 7.12 9.86 8.22 9.81 11.10
2.2 Topography, Soils and Geology
Topography
The topography of Lino Lakes is generally rolling, with the highest ground in the southeast corner of the City and the lowest around Baldwin Lake. The majority of Lino Lakes is dominated by the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes,
interspersed with lakes, wetlands, streams and various judicial and county ditches.
Soils
Soils in Lino Lakes consist of Zimmerman fine sands, Rifle muck, and Isanti soil complexes (Soil Survey Staff 2017). In the northwest, the soils are predominately well-draining, on top of the Anoka Sand Plan, while on the
southeast, the soils are poorly draining and result in a higher runoff potential compared to the northwest. The hydrologic soils group, a measure of the infiltration and runoff potential of the surface soils, is provided in Appendix A,
Figure 2.
Geology
The surficial geology of eastern Lino Lakes are primarily glacial ice deposits of loamy tills with peat and muck around the Chain of Lakes and in isolated pockets (Appendix A, Figure 3). The loamy till is from the New Ulm
formation and is chiefly loam texture with unsorted sediment. Peat and muck was deposited in the quaternary era and is composed of partially decomposed organic matter deposited in marshes. Peat and muck also includes fine
grained organic matter laid down in ponded water and marl (Setterholm 2013). The western area of Lino Lakes is primarily lake deposits from the Late Wisconsin Pleistocene (Meyer 1993).
Bedrock geology consists of sandstones (Appendix A, Figure 4). St. Peter Sandstone and the Prairie du Chien Group from the Ordovician and Lower Ordovician periods comprise the southeast corner of Lino Lakes. The
northwest corner is made up of the Jordan Sandstone, the Tunnel City Group, and St. Lawrence Formation. Buried stream channels that are incised into several rock formations are a primary influence on the distribution of bedrock
geologic units, including under the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes (Berg, 2016).
2.3 Resource Management Units
The 2008 Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan identifies fifteen Resource Management Units (RMUs) or district hydrologic areas within the City (Appendix A, Figure 5). The purpose is to provide drainage-area specific
management recommendations that address the unique conditions of the area. These RMUs are used in the development of goals and policies for the City’s surface water resources in Sections 3 and 4 and existing inventories for
each are provided in Appendix B.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 10
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Amelia Lake
Amelia Lake is located in the boundaries of the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization and
outflows to the south. Amelia has a surface area of 195 acres and a maximum depth of 4 feet.
Table 2-0-3. Amelia Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02001400
Watershed District3 Vadnais Lake WMO
Watershed Area3 754 ac
Surface Area3 195 ac
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth3 4 ft
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 908.26
Lowest Recorded1 900.98
Highest Known1 911.9
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 -
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 910.2
Impaired Water6 No
Impairment6 -
TMDL6 -
Lake Summary Sources:
1 Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Lake Finder
2 Rice Creek Watershed District
3 Vadnais Lakes Area Watershed Management Organization
4 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
5 FEMA Anoka County Flood Insurance Study, 2015
6 MPCA Impaired Waters List, 2012
Bald Eagle Lake
Bald Eagle Lake has a surface area of 1,071 acres, a watershed area of 10,835 acres, and a maximum depth of 36
feet. Only a small portion of Bald Eagle Lake is located within the City of Lino Lakes municipal boundary. Bald
Eagle is a deep lake and is managed to support aquatic life and recreational uses such as boating and swimming.
Bald Eagle was listed as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2002.
Table 2-0-4. Bald Eagle Lake Summary
DNR ID1 62000200
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 10,835 acres
Surface Area1 1,071 acres
Category4 Lake
Maximum Depth1 36 ft
Uses:4 1C, 2Bd, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1 X
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1 X [Walleye]
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1 X [Mercury]
Drinking Water Supply4 X [reserve]
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 911.18
Lowest Recorded1 906.2
Highest Known1 912.89
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 912.5
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 912.5
Impaired Water6 Y - 1998
Impairment6 Mercury in fish tissue
TMDL6 Y - 2008
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 11
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Baldwin Lake
Baldwin Lake has a surface area of 220 acres, a watershed area of 81,485 acres, and a maximum depth of 4.5
feet. Baldwin is a shallow lake and is managed to support aquatic life and enhance passive recreational uses.
Baldwin was listed as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2010.
Table 2-0-5. Baldwin Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02001300
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 612 acres
Surface Area1 215 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth1 4.5 ft
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 883.25
Lowest Recorded1 877.73
Highest Known1 885.2
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 887
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 887
Impaired Water6 Y - 2010
Impairment6 Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
TMDL6 Y - 2008
Cedar Lake
Cedar Lake is a small lake located east of Reshanau Lake. Lake surface area, watershed area, and maximum
depth are unknown. Cedar is not listed as an impaired water body.
Table 2-0-6. Cedar Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02001200
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 662 acres
Surface Area1 208 acres
Category4 -
Maximum Depth1 -
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 893.06
Lowest Recorded1 892.87
Highest Known1 892.87
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 894.4
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 -
Impaired Water6 No
Impairment6 -
TMDL6 -
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 12
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Centerville Lake
Centerville Lake has a surface area of 495 acres, a watershed area of 799 acres, and a maximum depth of 19 feet.
Centerville is a deep lake and is managed to support aquatic life and recreational uses such as boating and
swimming. Centerville was listed as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2002.
Table 2-0-7. Centerville Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02000600
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 866 acres
Surface Area1 424 acres
Category4 Lake
Maximum Depth1 19 ft
Uses:4 1C, 2Bd, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1 X
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1 X [Walleye]
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1 X [Mercury]
Drinking Water Supply4 X [reserve]
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 885.15
Lowest Recorded1 883.27
Highest Known1 886.5
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 887.9
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 887.9
Impaired Water6 Y - 2002
Impairment6 Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
TMDL6 Y - 2005
Clearwater Creek
Only a small portion of the Clearwater Creek watershed is located in Lino Lakes. It’s beneficial uses include
supporting the propagation and maintenance of a healthy indigenous fish communities, associated aquatic life,
and their habitats. Clearwater Creek is also suitable for boating and other forms of aquatic recreation.
Clearwater Creek was listed as an impaired water body in 2006 for low levels of dissolved oxygen affecting
aquatic life. A TMDL was established in 2015 to address these impairments.
George Watch Lake
George Watch Lake has a surface area of 528 acres, a watershed area of 69,639 acres, and a maximum depth of
5 feet. George Watch is a shallow lake and is managed to support aquatic life and enhance passive recreational
uses. George Watch was listed as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2002.
Table 2-0-8. George Watch Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02000500
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 2,824 acres
Surface Area1 979 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth1 5 ft
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 -
Lowest Recorded1 -
Highest Known1 -
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 887.0
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 Zone A
Impaired Water6 Y - 2002
Impairment6 Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
TMDL6 Y - 2008
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 13
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Hardwood Creek
Only a small portion of the Hardwood Creek watershed is located in Lino Lakes. It’s beneficial uses include
supporting the propagation and maintenance of a healthy fish communities, associated aquatic life, and their
habitats. Hardwood Creek is also suitable for boating and other forms of aquatic recreation. Hardwood Creek
is not listed as an impaired waterbody.
Marshan Lake
Marshan Lake has a surface area of 299 acres and a maximum depth of 3.5 feet. Marshan is a shallow lake and is
managed to support aquatic life and enhance passive recreational uses. Marshan was listed as impaired for
nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2002.
Table 2-0-9. Marshan Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02000700
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 4,956 acres
Surface Area1 299 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth1 3.5 ft
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 883.45
Lowest Recorded1 878.68
Highest Known1 882.56
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 887
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 887
Impaired Water6 Y - 2002
Impairment6 Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
TMDL6 Y - 2008
Otter Lake
Otter Lake has a surface area of 229 acres, a watershed area of 1,512 acres, and a maximum depth of 21 feet.
Otter is a deep lake and is managed to support aquatic life and recreational uses such as boating and swimming.
Otter is not listed as an impaired water body
Table 2-0-10. Otter Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02000300
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 1,512 acres
Surface Area1 229 acres
Category4 Lake
Maximum Depth1 21 ft
Uses:4 1C, 2Bd, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1 X
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1 X
Drinking Water Supply4 X [reserve]
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 911.7
Lowest Recorded1 906.2
Highest Known1 912.92
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 912.7
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 912.7
Impaired Water6 Y - 2010
Impairment6 Mercury in fish tissue
TMDL6 Y - 2008
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 14
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Peltier Lake
Peltier Lake has a surface area of 552 acres, a watershed area of 33,595 acres, and a maximum depth of 16 feet.
Peltier is classified as a deep lake and is managed to support aquatic life and enhance passive recreational uses.
Peltier was listed as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2002.
Table 2-0-11. Peltier Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02000400
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 33,595 acres
Surface Area1 552 acres
Category4 Lake
Maximum Depth1 16 ft
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1 X
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1 X [walleye]
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1 X
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 884.85
Lowest Recorded1 876.98
Highest Known1 886.63
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 887.7
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 887.7
Impaired Water6 Y - 1998
Y - 2002
Impairment6 Mercury in fish tissue
Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
TMDL6 Y - 2008
Y - 2005
Reshanau Lake
Reshanau Lake has a surface area of 375 acres, a watershed area of 913 acres, and a maximum depth of 10 feet.
Reshanau is a shallow lake and is managed to support aquatic life and enhance passive recreational uses.
Reshanau was listed as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2006.
Table 2-0-12. Reshanau Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02000900
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 913 acres
Surface Area1 375 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth1 10 ft
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1 X
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 883.65
Lowest Recorded1 879.36
Highest Known1 885.5
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 887
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 887
Impaired Water6 Y - 2006
Impairment6 Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
TMDL6 Y - 2008
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 15
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Rice Lake
Rice Lake has a surface area of 560 acres, a watershed area of 2,229 acres, and a maximum depth of 4.75 feet.
Rice is a shallow lake and is managed to support aquatic life and enhance passive recreational uses. Rice was
listed as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2010.
Table 2-0-13. Rice Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02000800
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 2,229 acres
Surface Area1 560 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth1 4.75 ft
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1 X
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 883.25
Lowest Recorded1 878.35
Highest Known1 885.2
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 887
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 887
Impaired Water6 Y - 2010
Impairment6 Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
TMDL6 Y - 2008
Rondeau Lake
Rondeau Lake has a surface area of 546 acres, a watershed area of 1,533 acres, and a maximum depth of 12 feet.
Rondeau is classified as a shallow lake and is managed to support aquatic life and enhance passive recreational
uses. Rondeau is not listed as an impaired water body.
Table 2-0-14. Rondeau Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02001500
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 1,533 acres
Surface Area1 546 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth1 12 ft
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 -
Lowest Recorded1 884.63
Highest Known1 887.35
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 887.6
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 887.6
Impaired Water6 No
Impairment6 -
TMDL6 -
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 16
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Sherman Lake
Sherman Lake has a surface area of 44 acres, a watershed area of 680 acres, and an unknown maximum depth.
Sherman is not listed as an impaired water body.
Table 2-0-15. Sherman Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02001100
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 680 acres
Surface Area1 44 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth1 -
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 -
Lowest Recorded1 -
Highest Known1 -
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 886.9
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 Zone A
Impaired Water6 No
Impairment6 -
TMDL6 -
Upper Rice Creek
Only a small portion of the Rice Creek watershed is located in Lino Lakes. It’s beneficial uses include drinking
water supply, supporting the propagation and maintenance of a healthy indigenous fish communities, associated
aquatic life, and their habitats. Rice Creek is also suitable for boating and other forms of aquatic recreation.
Rice Creek was listed as an impaired water body in 2004 for low levels of dissolved oxygen affecting aquatic life.
A TMDL was established in 2012 to address these impairments.
Wards Lake
Wards Lake has a surface area of 163 acres and a watershed area of 1,663 acres. Maximum depth is unknown.
Wards is not listed as an impaired water body.
Table 2-0-16. Wards Lake Summary
DNR ID1 02001000
Watershed District2 Rice Creek WD
Watershed Area2 1,663 acres
Surface Area1 163 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth1 -
Uses:4 2B, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 883.86
Lowest Recorded1 881.14
Highest Known1 885.3
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 886.9
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 Zone A
Impaired Water6 No
Impairment6 -
TMDL6 -
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 17
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Wilkinson Lake
Wilkinson Lakes is a 94 acre water body with a maximum depth of 4.5 foot. The lake is located at the south end
of the City and was listed as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2010. At its ordinary
high water level, it extends into the City of Lino Lakes.
Table 2-0-17. Wilkinson Lake Summary
DNR ID1 62004300
Watershed District3 Vadnais Lake WMO
Watershed Area3 1,108 acres
Surface Area3 94 acres
Category4 Shallow Lake
Maximum Depth3 4.5 ft
Uses:4 1C, 2Bd, 3C
Aquatic Recreation4 X
Water Access1
Aquatic Life4 X
Fish Stocking1
Aquatic Consumption Advisory1
Drinking Water Supply4 X
Industrial Supply4 X
Agriculture Irrigation4 X
Lifestock and Wildlife4 X
Aesthetic Enjoyment4 X
Ordinary High Water Level1 895.36
Lowest Recorded1 893.53
Highest Known1 893.53
RCWD Regulatory Floodplain2 -
FEMA Base Flood Elevation5 -
Impaired Water6 Y - 2010
Impairment6 Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
TMDL6 Y - 2013
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 18
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
2.4 Surface Water Resources
Lakes, wetlands, judicial and county ditches dominate the landscape of the City of Lino Lakes, open water makes up 14% of the City’s land, prominently represented by the Chain of Lakes. The surface water resources are shown in
Appendix A, Figure 6. These natural features play an extensive role in the way the community has developed and will develop in the future. Two watershed districts cover the City of Lino Lakes; Rice Creek Watershed District,
which covers most of Lino Lakes, and Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization in the southeast corner.
Public Waters
The City contains all or part of fifteen lakes. Of the City’s lakes, nine of them (Baldwin, Centerville, George Watch, Marshan, Peltier, Reshanau, Rice, Sherman, and Ward) are located within or abutting the Chain of Lakes Regional
Park. The City lakes generally fall into three shoreland management categories: Natural Environment, Recreational and General Development. The Natural Environment lakes are primarily located in the Chain of Lakes area and
include Peltier, George Watch, Marshan, Rice, Ward, Sherman, Cedar, Amelia, Rondeau and Wilkinson. Recreational lakes include Otter, Centerville, Reshanau, and Baldwin. Bald Eagle Lake is a General Development Lake. They are
used for a variety of aquatic recreational uses such as swimming, boating, fishing and water skiing. Centerville, Bald Eagle, Peltier and Reshanau Lakes are considered game fishing lakes. The details of each lake are presented in
Section 2.3 and Appendix B.
Creeks
The City’s river and stream resources are characterized by three major stream systems: Rice Creek, and two of its tributaries, Hardwood Creek and Clearwater Creek. A network of ditches and storm sewer drain to these streams; the
ditch and storm sewer system is discussed in Section 2.4. Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek and Clearwater Creek join at Peltier Lake with a combined drainage area of 70 square miles (44,800 acres). Hardwood Creek, with a total
drainage area of 28 square miles, originates in Washington County’s Rice Lake at a normal lake elevation of 920 feet and flows to Peltier Lake at an approximate elevation of 884 feet. Clearwater Creek originates in White Bear Lake
and flows into Bald Eagle Lake, which has a normal elevation of about 884 feet. From there, it proceeds to Centerville Lake and then to Peltier Lake.
Two creek reaches are listed in the 2014 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 303(d) list of impaired waters. The reach of Clearwater Creek between Bald Eagle Lake and Peltier Lake was listed in 2002 for fish bioassessments, and in
2006 for aquatic macroinvertebrate assessments. A TMDL for these assessments will be conducted during 2013-2016 to determine the stressors for these impairments. The reach of Hardwood Creek between Hwy 61 and Peltier
Lake was listed in 2002 for fish bioassessments. Based on a TMDL started in 2003, this listing was updated as a dissolved oxygen stressor on aquatic life in 2004.
Wetlands
Wetland inventories have been completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as published on the National Wetland Inventory Maps, and by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, as published in their Protected Waters
Inventory. These wetland inventories will be utilized to assist in determining if a wetland is present on a given parcel of property within the City.
A number of comprehensive wetland studies have been conducted to guide the management of wetlands and their benefits within Lino Lakes. The two key studies are the Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan (RMP, 2008) and the
draft Lino Lakes Special Area Management Plan (SAMP, 2010). These two studies provide the foundation for the management of wetlands, surface water, floodplains, and greenway resources within the City of Lino Lakes. The
SAMP and RMP establish Resource Management Units and standards to support the wetland resources of the City under future development in a manner that integrates with floodplain management, stormwater management, and
greenway management.
2.5 Water Quality Data and Impairments
Water quality data for the City has been obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control agency (MPCA) Environmental Data Access site. This database is utilized by the participating agencies to compile water quality testing data
and is almost entirely used for the storage of water quality parameters. Many waterbodies in Lino Lakes are currently identified on the state List of Impaired Waters (Appendix A, Figure 7), also known as the 303(d) List from the
applicable section of the Federal Clean Water Act, these waters are ones that do not currently meet their designated use due to the impact of a particular pollutant or stressor. If monitoring and assessment indicate that a waterbody is
impaired by one or more pollutants, it is placed on this list. In Lino Lakes, these impairments for excess nutrients (total phosphorus), mercury, dissolved oxygen, and bacteria are elaborated in the Hardwood Creek Impaired Biota
(Fish) and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL (2009), Bald Eagle Lake Nutrient TMDL (2012), Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes Nutrient TMDL (2013), Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake TMDL (2013), Vadnais Lake Area WMO Total Maximum
Daily Load and Protection Study (2014), and the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Study and Protection Plan (2016).
2.6 Stormwater Management System
Hydrologic boundaries do not stop at the municipal borders and orderly coordination between related municipalities is addressed in the Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan (RMP). Hydrologic boundary based, Resource
Management Units (RMU) identified in the RMP are the basis for neighbor community coordination of shared water resources. The hydrologic modeling encompasses true watershed catchments even where the boundaries are
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 19
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
outside the municipal boundaries. The modeling covers small portions of land area within North Oaks, Hugo, and Blaine, as well as all of Centerville. Rice Creek Watershed District has similar, larger, boundaries called Resources of
Concern (ROC), that are delineated based on lakes, while the City of Lino Lakes’ RMUs are subsets within the RCWD ROCs.
Public Ditch System
The State of Minnesota has established a set of rules (Minn. Statute 103E) to provide an opportunity for individual landowners to obtain drainage and to minimize the effects to downstream landowners. There are a number of
County Ditches (Nos. 8, 10, 22, 25, 32, 47, and 55) and two Judicial Ditches (Nos. 2 and 3) that run through the City. The majority of the drainage system was constructed during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Over the decades,
much of the system was minimally maintained by different ditch authorities. Today, many ditches function as straightened creeks within a partially or marginally drained wetland slough or riparian corridor. The major public ditch
systems in Lino Lakes are:
Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 10-22-32
ACD 25
ACD 47 (abandoned)
ACD 55
ACD 72
Judicial Ditch (JD) 2 (Hardwood Creek)
JD 3 (Clearwater Creek)
In Lino Lakes, Anoka and Ramsey Counties have delegated the jurisdiction over all public ditches to the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), who has the authority for managing the drainage systems, including improvements
and repairs. Thus, the RCWD is the ditch authority for the purposes of implementing Minnesota Statute §103E (Drainage Law). There are a number of private ditches within the City that are not managed under Minn. Statute 103E,
instead are managed individually by private landowners.
Municipal Storm Sewer and Stormwater Treatment Features
The City’s storm sewer network and catalogued best management practices (BMPs) treatment devices and structures, as available in GIS, are shown in Appendix A, Figure 8. The City is also actively updating their infrastructure
database and will be adding information, such as BMP normal water levels (NWL) and high water levels (HWL) in the future, but was not comprehensively available at this time. The RCWD also has hydrologic and hydraulic
information available for the system and should be contacted if that information is needed. The numbering system and level of resolution of the RCWD data and modeling was not consistent with City information, so the RCWD
information should be obtained directly from the RCWD. A detailed figure showing all stormwater ponds, streams, lakes and wetlands and structural pollution control devices, pipes, pipe sizes, and conveyances is provided as a
larger map in Appendix D.
Intercommunity Flows
The City of Lino Lakes is surrounded by several neighboring communities and receives watershed runoff from Blaine, Centerville, Columbus, Hugo, Shoreview, and White Bear Township. Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has
estimated the flows to its jurisdictional reaches and, as such, downstream communities, like Lino Lakes, are required to include their allocated flows in their future planning studies, so as to limit adverse impacts to their downstream
neighbors of Centerville, Hugo and Circle Pines. The city is contemplating an alternate outlet for build-out conditions pursuant to the development of a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) under RCWD Rule C.5
(f). Intercommunity flows and modeled peak flow rates as provided by RCWD are shown below (Table 2-0-18). The City intends to either maintain or reduce intercommunity flow rates relative to the established benchmarks
through its goals and policies as well as deference to RCWD rules.
Table 2-0-18. Benchmark Intercommunity Flow Rates
Receiving City Watercourse
Peak Flows [cfs]
2-Year 24-Hour Rainfall 10-Year 24-Hour Rainfall 100-Year 24-Hour Rainfall 100-Year 10-Day Snowmelt
Centerville JD 3 Main Trunk 160 266 439 394
Circle Pines RCD 8 Main Trunk 6 14 29 36
Circle Pines Rice Creek 111 273 570 1206
Hugo JD 3 Branch 4 25 40 66 34
Hugo JD 3 Branch 1 8 14 25 24
Centerville ACD 55 Main Trunk 4.7 20.2 63.4 ---
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 20
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
2.5 Groundwater Resources
Various agencies are responsible for groundwater management and protection. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) regulates groundwater usage rate and volume as part of its charge to conserve and use the
waters of the State. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is the official State agency responsible for addressing all environmental health matters, including groundwater protection, the well abandonment program, and
regulation of the installation of new wells. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) administers and enforces laws relating to the pollution of groundwater. The Minnesota Geological Survey provides a complete account of
the State’s groundwater resources. The RCWD serves as an advisory and educational role in cooperating and assisting the DNR, MDH, and the MPCA in their groundwater protection efforts.
Groundwater is at or near the surface in most of Lino Lakes (Appendix A, Figure 9). Groundwater flow generally follows the surface topography and flows towards the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes (Berg 2016) and ultimately
towards the Mississippi River (Palen 1993). Groundwater has been known to seep out of natural artesian wells in the Chain of Lakes, especially near the capped St. Paul Water Authority wells in Centerville Lake. The Metropolitan
Council has reviewed the surface water and groundwater interactions for Lino Lakes, (Appendix A, Figure 10) which supports these observations and documents the aquifer recharge areas within Lino Lakes.
Groundwater studies which include the City of Lino Lakes were completed, or were in the process of being completed during the time this plan was written. Those studies include the following:
Lino Lakes Wellhead Protection Plan
North & East Metro Groundwater Management Area Plan
Anoka County Geologic Atlas, Part B
Anoka Sand Plain Regional Hydrogeologic Assessment
Minnesota DNR Draft Groundwater Management Plan
The City of Lino Lakes currently operates six active water supply wells, which draw from groundwater from the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers (Table 2-0-19). Locations of the wells are identified in Appendix A, Figure 9, all
six wells are located in a highly sensitive aquifer area, and the vulnerability of the City’s wells and groundwater source varies. Areas closer to Wells No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 contains a lack of low permeability material above the Prairie du
Chien and Jordan buried sand, while areas closer to Well No. 2 are considered less vulnerable due to the low permeability of the surficial soils. There are 750 private, non-municipal wells, in the City which are a source of concern for
potential contamination within the City’s Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). Unmaintained, damaged, poorly constructed, or unused/abandoned wells could provide a direct route for contaminants to enter the
aquifers utilized by the City of Lino Lakes as the principal drinking water supply.
Table 2-0-19. Lino Lakes Public Water Supply Wells
Local Well Name Unique Number Aquifer Well Depth [ft] Date Constructed Permitted Appropriation [MG]
Well No. 1 240171 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 306 1971 900
Well No. 2 110471 Jordan 258 1986 900
Well No. 3 559379 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 283 1995 900
Well No. 4 554207 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 338 1995 900
Well No. 5 722629 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 273 2005 207.4
Well No. 6 767887 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 295 2016
There are ten other active water appropriations permitted by the DNR within the City of Lino Lakes. These include crop irrigation, sod farms, athletic fields, nursery, and institutional uses of groundwater and surface water.
2.6 Existing Conditions
Land Uses and Utilities
Most of the land in Lino Lakes is classified as rural residential (24%), agricultural (24%) or recreation (18%) and shown on the existing land use map (Appendix A, Figure 11). The land uses are defined below:
Private Airfield: Aviation related uses
Parks and Open Space: Passive or active recreational areas and facilities as well as lands under public control that area designated as permanently undeveloped for the purpose or resource management or protection
Commercial: Retail, office, and service uses
Industrial: Manufacturing, processing, warehousing, and research and development uses
Mixed Use: Mix of residential, retail, and office uses either within one building, structure or development. Residential development may include higher density housing options.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 21
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Low Density Residential: Residential development at 1.6 to 3.9 dwelling units per acre
Medium Density Residential: Residential development at 4.0 to 5.9 dwelling units per acre
High Density Residential: Residential development at 6.0 to 10.0 dwelling units per acre
Permanent Rural: Areas that are not intended to receive sewer service due to topography and soil issues. Development limited to residential single family at low densities or agriculture related uses
Civic and Institutional: Public buildings or facilities, private or public utilities and infrastructure, public and private schools, and cemeteries
A more detailed definition of land uses within the City of Lino Lakes is available in Chapter 3 – Land Use of the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Public utility services within the City of Lino Lakes include city sewer and water. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the area in which public utilities are available, agreed upon with the Metropolitan Council and the
City of Lino Lakes (Appendix A, Figure 8).
Shoreland
The City of Lino Lakes had adopted a Shoreland Management Overlay District, a copy of which is located in Appendix C. This ordinance requires setbacks from Shoreland areas and limits the type of development, amount of
impervious area, and use of the City’s Shoreland areas (Appendix A, Figure 12).
Floodplain
The City of Lino Lakes is the administer of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for the community and has adopted a Floodplain Overlay Districts in the floodplain management ordinance in accordance with the
requirements of the NFIP. This ordinance generally regulates developments, land uses and alterations within each of the floodway, flood fringe, and general floodplain districts shown on Appendix A, Figure 13 to minimize
potential losses due to periodic flooding in these areas.
The City’s Resource Management Plan and I-35E Alternative Urban Areawide Review, as well as Rice Creek Watershed District identify specific areas of flooding concern under a full buildout scenario, summarized in Table 2-0-20
below.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 22
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Table 2-0-20. Summary of Flooding Concerns by Resource Management Unit
RMU Conveyance Type Receiving Waters Receiving Waters
Flooding Concern
Existing Flooding
Concerns
Partially Drained
Wetlands
Future Flooding
Concerns
Pollutant Loading
Concerns
Upper Rice Creek None n/a n/a No Yes Yes Yes
Hardwood Creek Natural Channel Peltier Lake Yes No No Yes Yes
Clearwater Creek Ditch and pipe Clearwater Creek/Peltier Lake Yes Yes Yes - Ditches 47 and 55 Yes Yes
Rondeau None or private ditch n/a n/a No No No Yes
Peltier Pipe and pond; ditch and pipe;
private ditch Peltier wetlands Yes Yes Yes - Ditch 72 Yes No
Centerville Pipe and pond Centerville wetlands and lake Yes Yes - minor No No No
George Watch Pipe and pond; private ditch George Watch groundwater-
supported wetlands and lake Yes No No No Yes
Marshan Ditch and pipe Marshan wetlands and lake Yes Yes Yes – Ditch 10-22-32 Yes Yes
Reshanau Pipe and pond, ditch Reshanau wetlands or lake Yes Yes - minor No No Yes
Rice Pipe Groundwater-supported wetlands and
Rice wetlands and lake No No No No Yes
Baldwin Pipe Baldwin wetlands Yes No No No No
Sherman Pipe Sherman Lake and high priority
wetlands Yes n/a No No No
Amelia Pipe Amelia Lake and high priority
wetlands No Yes No No No
Wilkinson None n/a n/a n/a No No No
Middle Rice Creek Pipe High priority wetlands Yes n/a No No Yes
2.7 Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The 2008 Resource Management Plan established the Wetland Management Corridor (WMC), which is the basis of the City’s Greenway System. Lino Lakes continues to evaluate and update the resources that go into this plan and
continues to implement this plan through development reviews. In cooperation with Rice Creek Watershed District, the WMC is updated regularly to incorporate changes resulting from development and land acquisition. Chapter 10
of the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan outlines the current data used to identify the Greenway System.
The area’s mix of plant community types provides diverse habitat for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals as well as numerous species of birds found in multiple habitat niches. The most recent known bird surveys conducted in the
mid 1970’s for Lino Lakes and Anoka County documented well over 200 species occurring in the immediate vicinity. The shoreline and shallows north of the island serve as a spawning area for Northern pike and walleye, and as a
resting area for terns, black crown night herons, and other waterfowl. The north arm of the lake is one of the few remaining places in the metro area with healthy native vegetation, including water willow, which is considered a
species of special concern.
Rare and Endangered Species
The City has a notable number of rare biological resources, see Table 2-0-21 below. As the Resource Management Plan (RMP) was developed, these rare features and habitats that support rare species were prioritized for protection
and incorporation into the Wetland Preservation Corridor. These important natural resource areas were carried forward into the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and identified as part of the Multi-Functional Greenway Corridor. In
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 23
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
general, the rare plant species are found along the upland- wetland transitional zones. Extensive botanical survey work has occurred within the City to document locations of these rare plant species. The City has also invested
resources in identifying and protecting Blanding’s turtle habitat. The critical habitat areas were identified and incorporated into the Wetland Preservation Corridor and Greenway Corridor.
Table 2-0-21. Documented Rare and Endangered Species in Lino Lakes
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Autumn Fimbry Fimbristylis autumnalis Special Concern
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Watchlist
Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii Special Concern
Black Huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata Threatened
Blanding's Turtle Emydoida blandingii Threatened
Clinton's Bulrush Trichophorum clintonii Threatened
Cross-leaved Milkwort Polygala cruciata Endangered
Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Special Concern
Lance-leaf Violet Viola lanceolata var. lanceolata Threatened
Least Moonwort Botrychium simplex Special Concern
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Watchlist
Snailseed Pondweed Potamogeton bicupulatus Endangered
St. Lawrence Grapefern Botrychium rugulosum Special Concern
Toothcup Rotala ramosior Threatened
Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Special Concern
Tubercled Rein Orchid Platanthera flava var. herbiola Threatened
Twisted Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris torta Endangered
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Watchlist
Water-willow Decodon verticillatus var. laevigatus Special Concern
2.8 Regulated Pollutant Sources
Point Sources
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is charged with regulating businesses that have applied for and received different types of environmental permits and registrations from the MPCA. The MPCA has also been
tracking potentially contaminated sites since the early 1980s when major federal and state cleanup programs were created. Appendix A, Figure 14 depicts the locations of properties that have active environmental permits or have a
record related to a potential environmental hazard. Additional information of specific sites can be found through the “What’s in My Neighborhood” feature on the MPCA website. Potential environmental hazards vary from
properties where a spill or problem has already been cleaned up, to those currently being investigated or cleaned up. In addition, some sites depicted in Figure 14 have no record of known spills or problems; but rather mark locations
where hazardous materials or wastes are used or generated. The most common types of sites in Lino Lakes are small to minimal quantity hazardous waste generators, multiple activity sites, and tank sites (Table 2-0-22). The
following descriptions are intended to elucidate sites illustrated in Figure 14 and provide the description given by the MPCA for each site type listed in the figures legend.
Unpermitted Dump Site: Unpermitted dump sites are landfills that never held a valid permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Generally, these dumps existed prior to the permitting program
established with the creation of the MPCA in 1967. These dumps are not restricted to any type of waste, but were often old farm or municipal disposal sites that accepted household waste. State assessment staff have
investigated many of these dump sites.
Voluntary Investigation & Cleanup (VIC) Site: The Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program is a non-petroleum brownfield program. VIC provides technical assistance to buyers, sellers, developers or local
governments seeking to voluntarily investigate or clean up contaminated land. Properties often enter the VIC program in preparation for sale, financing or redevelopment. Voluntary parties that complete investigation and /
or cleanup activities under Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) oversight can receive liability assurances that protect them from future Superfund liability. In some cases, the MPCA may use institutional controls as
part of the overall site remedy and notify interested parties of any property use conditions or restrictions.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 24
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Landfill, Permitted by Rule: A landfill that is permitted by rule is not required to obtain an individual solid waste permit if it meets certain eligibility criteria. However, it must comply with waste management rules and
regulations. Landfills may be permitted by rule if they have a small capacity and/or operate for a short period of time. Some yard waste composting facilities, recycling facilities and energy recovery facilities are also permitted
by rule.
Leak Site: Leak sites are locations where a release of petroleum products has occurred from a tank system. Leak sites can occur from aboveground or underground tank systems as well as from spills at tank facilities. A leak
can result from an accident or from activities that occur over a long time. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Petroleum Remediation Program staff investigates potential leaks and work to minimize or clean up
contamination at those sites.
Tank Site: A tank site is a place with an underground or aboveground storage tank of a certain size on the premises. One tank site may have multiple tanks, and these tanks may contain food products, petroleum products, or
other substances. Tank sites include gas stations, bus companies and trucking companies, as well as factories that process sugar beets, ethanol, pulp and paper, or chemicals. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
requires monitoring and maintenance at these sites, which helps to ensure that tanks do not cause environmental contamination.
Industrial Stormwater Permit: At industrial sites such as factories, salvage yards and airports, stormwater may come into contact with harmful pollutants, including toxic metals, oil, grease, de- icing salts and other chemicals.
Industrial stormwater permits are designed to limit the amount of these contaminants that reaches surface water and groundwater, by requiring good practices for storing and handling materials. Facilities with these permits
must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, detailing the practices they will use to limit stormwater pollution.
Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal Quantity Generator: A small to minimal quantity generator is a facility that generates less than 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of hazardous waste or 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of
acutely hazardous waste per calendar month. These facilities have less stringent rules than large quantity generators. This group includes Small Quantity Generators (SQGs), which produce 100 - 1000 kg of hazardous waste
per month; Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQGs), which produce less than 100 kg of hazardous waste per month; and Conditionally Exempt Generators, which produce less than 100 kg or 10 gallons of hazardous waste
per year. Like large quantity generators, SQGs and VSQGs must have current hazardous waste licenses.
Multiple Activities: Multiple Activity sites are locations where there are multiple Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) activities occurring. These sites vary from facilities with a wastewater permit and an air quality
permit to cleanup sites with more than one permit.
Table 2-0-22. Number of Potential Environmental Hazard Sites in the City of Lino Lakes
Site Type Number in City
Hazardous Waste, Small to Minimal QG 62
Multiple Activities 31
Tank Site 14
Leak Site 3
Industrial Stormwater Permit 2
Unpermitted Dump Site 2
Voluntary Investigation & Cleanup (VIC) 2
Landfill, Permitted By Rule 1
Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. Runoff picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, and
groundwater. Because of the nutrient (phosphorus) impairments of the Chain of Lakes, phosphorus is the most important nonpoint source pollutant in Lino Lakes. The current total phosphorus budgets for the Chain of Lakes are
identified in the 2013 Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes Nutrient TMDL.
Chloride pollution is an emerging contaminant of concern in much of the metro area. Snowmelt and spring runoff picks up road salts used for deicing purposes and deposits them into stormwater ponds, wetlands, lakes and
groundwater. Other sources include residential water softeners and municipal waste water treatment plant effluents. Once salts enter surface or groundwater, there are no existing methods available to remove it, and at high
concentrations it can be harmful to plants and wildlife as well as foul drinking water supply sources.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 25
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
2.9 Proposed Conditions
Lino Lakes is expected to add a significant number of households by 2040. As part of the metropolitan region, the City is required to accommodate a portion of the region’s forecasted growth. As Lino Lakes grows, it is anticipated
that development patterns will change in many areas of the City.
In Chapter 3 of the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan, a key component of developing the future land use plan was analysis of a wide variety of natural resource information. This included the location of high priority wetlands
and other natural resource areas, drainage patterns, and soil suitability information, to identify environmentally sensitive areas and areas most suitable for development. This natural resource information was used to guide decisions
regarding future land uses and intensities in Lino Lakes. Based on the development suitability information, a full build-out future land use plan was developed (Appendix A, Figure 15). The Metropolitan Council requires that
communities plan for growth up to 2040 in their current comprehensive plans. Areas that will not be developed until after 2040 are designated on the 2040 future land use map as Urban Reserve. Although the 2040 Future Land Use
Plan (Appendix A, Figure 16) will serve as the City’s official Future Land Use Plan to regulate future development, the full build-out plan is also provided for reference to guide future land use decisions regarding 2040 Urban
Reserve areas.
The City’s goals and strategies relating to natural resources were also considered throughout the development of the plan. Providing for higher density uses on some sites with scenic natural amenities such as wetland areas or along
the shores of Peltier Lake also promotes accessibility to key community features and natural amenities, which is another community goal, for residents of higher density housing. Identifying higher density options in these areas also
addresses the community’s goal and related strategies to sustain Lino Lakes’ natural resources by promoting more flexible development in these areas. Accommodating higher density in these areas provides for more site plan
flexibility, as development can be concentrated on areas of the site more suitable for development while environmental features are preserved as open space.
As Lino Lakes develops, protection of its valuable natural resources will continue to play an important role in guiding growth and shaping future development. Growth and economic development objectives should be balanced with
managing natural resource systems. Natural resource protection strategies are also an essential component of a growth management plan to ensure that the community’s resources are preserved. The City has several tools to protect
natural areas while also managing future growth. These tools are further outlined in Chapter 2 of the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan and additional information on future land uses is available in Chapter 3 of the City of Lino
Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
3. ASSESSMENT OF WATER RESOURCE-RELATED PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
Issues, goals and policies were developed for this Plan through a process of compiling issues and goals identified in plans and studies previously completed by the City and other local agencies. Primary sources of information were
the previous Surface Water Management Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Resource Management Plans, and Watershed Management Plans of the Rice Creek Watershed District and Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management
Organization. The compiled goals and policies were refined by city staff and consultants for review by the City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board (whose purpose is to advise the city council in the use and management of its
natural resources). The primary issues facing the City of Lino Lakes are:
1. Challenges in meeting stormwater volume reduction goals due to poor soils in the southeast corner of the City
2. Flood control issues in the Chain of Lakes
3. Antiquated public ditch systems without capacity for future development and stormwater runoff
3.1 Issues
A detailed list of the City-wide and RMU-specific water resources issues facing the City of Lino Lakes is provided in Appendix E, and summarized below.
Water Rate and Quantity Issues
Within the City of Lino Lakes, streams, lakes, and wetlands have been subjected to increased surface water runoff rates and volumes. Increased discharge rates and volumes have caused serious down-cutting and stream bank erosion
in some areas. Increased runoff rates and volumes also contribute to flooding concerns and water quality concerns.
These issues are likely to intensify in the future. The Metropolitan Council prepared and adopted a regional growth strategy that anticipates further urbanization of the City. In addition, transportation improvements in or near the City
will facilitate and precipitate urbanization. The City of Lino Lakes is planning for development of 1,400 acres east of Peltier Lake, North of Main Street. Furthermore, the City of Hugo is planning for development of a 215-acre area;
both areas are currently being drained by Anoka County Ditch 55 (ACD 55). Currently, precipitation events larger than 0.25-inch results in surface water ponding and surface water runoff within the ACD 55 drainage area (Houston
Engineering, 2013b). Without an alternative outlet or increased capacity, the development may be limited within the ACD 55 drainage area. This may exacerbate current flooding up stream in the ACD 55 system since ACD 55
restricts downstream flows and can only accommodate a small amount of flow. Sediment loads, and with it pollutants and contaminants, would also increase. Flow from the 215-acre area within the City of Hugo may be up to 62 cfs
during the 100-year 24-hour storm. Additionally, 54 cubic feet per second (cfs) will be generated from the 534-acre area within Lino Lakes that is currently served by ACD 55. The ACD 55 infrastructure currently reaches capacity at
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 26
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
1-2 cfs. As a result, the City of Lino Lakes is contemplating a new conveyance system and outlet structure to Peltier Lake from the 1,400-acre development area, which would be subject to review and approval by the RCWD. This
may require the development of alternative standards (stormwater rules) to demonstrate no adverse impacts through use of RCWD Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) provisions.
Water Quality Issues
Current data indicate that water bodies located within the City have water quality issues. Several City lakes, such as Bald Eagle, Peltier, George Watch, Marshan and Centerville, Reshanau, Baldwin and Rice Lakes are included in the
MPCA’s impaired waters list. In addition, both Clearwater and Hardwood Creeks are also included on the 303(d) TMDL list due to biotic impairments. A TMDL was recently completed for the Upper Mississippi River to address the
water quality standard for E. coli.
Runoff carrying nutrient-rich sediment, road salts, and hydrocarbon-based contaminants is detrimental to the water quality of the City’s lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands. Current water quality conditions present a potential stress to
the diversity and population of fish and aquatic invertebrates and impact human uses of the resources. Improvement of these waters will require a watershed wide solution because in many cases much of the drainage area originates
upstream of the City. Additionally, it has been found that internal loading sources of phosphorus derived from the lake bed sediments in Peltier Lake are affecting the water quality of downstream water bodies.
Wetland Management Issues
Benefits attributed to wetlands include floodwater storage and retention, nutrient assimilation, sediment entrapment, ground water recharge, low flow augmentation, shoreland anchoring and erosion control, aesthetics, recreation, and
education. Accordingly, the loss of wetland acres, function and value will have a direct negative effect on the City and its water resources.
Floodplain Management Issues
Given the physical characteristics, high water table, and number of water bodies and flood prone areas, floodplain management is an important consideration to minimize future flooding events. In addition, a number of areas of
current flooding concern have been identified by the City Public Works Department and RCWD. Future flooding could also be a concern if development is not conducted in a manner that reduces runoff rates and volumes and if
changes in rainfall and snowmelt patterns overwhelm existing infrastructure.
Public Ditch System Issues
Several of the major drainageways in the City are public ditch systems managed by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Some of the public drainage systems are located within completely urbanized areas, have been totally or partially
replaced by storm sewer pipe, and no longer serve agricultural land or provide agricultural benefits. These systems function as the outlet for storm water runoff. Other public drainage systems are comprised nearly entirely of
undeveloped/agricultural areas that are primarily forecasted for urban development. Public ditch systems need to be managed to provide the drainage services suited to the land contributing to the system.
Groundwater Management Issues
The City of Lino Lakes relies solely on groundwater as its water supply source. The Prairie du Chien- Jordan aquifer serves as the City’s municipal water source. There is a growing concern that water supplies may be depleting. This
will affect not only the drinking water supplies, but also resources that may depend on groundwater, such as wetlands, lakes and streams. The DNR established the Northeast Metro Groundwater Management District in 2012 to
regionally manage the area’s aquifers.
Natural Resources Issues
Lino Lakes is rich in unique and rare natural resources. These resources are most often hydrologically dependent on natural water systems. Reduced quality and variances of water levels stemming from land use changes may have
critical impacts to the sustainability of these resources. Preserving and enhancing quality natural resources within the City can have a positive effect on surface and ground water. Extensive development or misuse of the natural areas
within the City can have deleterious effects on water resources.
Erosion and Sediment Control Issues
Erosion prevention and sediment control is an important aspect in the effort to improve water quality and protect and improve water and natural resources. Erosion is caused by runoff over disturbed soils such as on a construction
site or along streambanks. This erosion can result in the transport of sediment into water and natural resources. Sediment deposits and sediment transport can decrease water quality and increase maintenance efforts.
Regulations, Permitting and Reporting Issues
The City is regulated under a number of local, state, and/or federal programs that require the implementation of ordinances, permitting, and/or reporting. In addition, the City implements ordinances and permitting to attain the goals
outlined in this Plan.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 27
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Monitoring, Maintenance and Inspection Issues
In order to protect its capital investments and provide an effective water management system, the City of Lino Lakes needs to conduct monitoring, maintenance and inspection of City infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective
manner. Infrastructure needs to be monitored and maintained regularly to prevent unnecessary reconstruction projects. This can only be accomplished if an effective inspection and regular maintenance program is in place. A
monitoring program verifies the effectiveness of the storm water infrastructure.
Public Participation, Information and Education Issues
City residents, businesses and property owners need to have a clear understanding of basic stormwater management, water quality, and natural resource protection concepts, policies and regulations to support and implement
stormwater management and natural resource protection efforts.
Financing Issues
The City needs to ensure that funding is available to implement the policies and actions identified in this plan and to respond to future needs of development, operation and maintenance, and repairs. In order to attain the goals
identified in this plan, the City will need to provide funding and staffing resources adequate to address the goals of the plan. Current funding includes trunk stormwater improvement fees and the general fund; however, other funding
options may need to be considered.
3.2 Goals and Policies
Water Rate and Quantity Goals & Policies
Goal 1 Use the natural characteristics of the City’s watersheds in combination with development standards and projects, to reduce present and future runoff rates and volumes (see also Natural
Resources and Wetlands goals and policies).
Policy 1A Continue to enforce standards for storm water runoff quantity from new and re- developments consistent with RCWD, VLAWMO and NPDES Phase II requirements.
Policy 1B Implement volume control practices to address areas of identified rate and volume concern.
Policy 1C Support implementation of RCWD comprehensive stormwater management plans as an alternative means of meeting water quality treatment standards.
Policy 1D Recognize the potential uncertainty associated with managing water resources and understand the implications of emerging issues including climate change, and use Adaptive Management when appropriate.
Policy 1E Promote “Better Site Design” development techniques in developing and redeveloping areas to minimize runoff volumes.
Policy 1F Promote the use of regional Best Management Practices where appropriate to reduce the rate and volume of runoff.
Water Quality Goals & Policies
Goal 2.1 Protect and improve water quality and the scenic and ecologic values of City lakes, wetlands and other aquatic assets (see also Natural Resources and Wetlands goals and policies).
Policy 2.1A Develop specific management plans for each Resource Management Unit
Policy 2.1B Preserve and improve the recreational resources associated with water by improving water quality.
Policy 2.1C Continue to enforce City water standards for storm water runoff quality from new and re-developments
Policy 2.1D Incorporate TMDL limits, when determined, into the City’s Surface Water Management requirements to reduce degradation and improve the quality of the City’s and region’s lakes, waterways and other
aquatic resources.
Policy 2.1E Manage city-owned facilities subject to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program requirements consistent with permit conditions.
Policy 2.1F Implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges in accordance with the City’s MS4 requirements.
Policy 2.1G Manage septic systems in conformance with state standards to protect the quality of water and natural resources.
Policy 2.1H Educate residents on the importance of cleaning up after their pets to reduce pollutants entering the stormwater system.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 28
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Goal 2.2 Initiate and continue collaborations to address, restore, and preserve the water quality of the region’s lakes, wetlands and other aquatic assets.
Policy 2.2A Work with and partner with the RCWD, VLAWMO and adjacent local governments to protect high quality resources.
Policy 2.2B Collaborate with adjacent jurisdictions and agencies to meet TMDL goals and remove impaired water bodies from the impaired waters list.
Policy 2.2C Facilitate data sharing among public entities that have jurisdiction or facilities within the City.
Wetland Management Goals & Policies
Goal 3 Maintain and enhance, where possible, the functions and services of existing wetlands and associated habitats with the City.
Policy 3A Continue to support the administration of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requirements within the City by the RCWD and VLAWMO.
Policy 3B Avoid impacts to upland natural communities that are critical to wetland wildlife habitat function and incorporate these into the wetland preservation corridors/buffer zones.
Policy 3C Integrate parcel- or project-based wetland replacement with watershed-based restoration and enhancement locations
Policy 3D Manage wetland resources using the flexibility afforded by state and federal rules, through the implementation of the Resource Management Plan and Special Area Management Plan.
Policy 3E Consider providing incentives to private landowners to avoid wetland impact, minimize wetland impact, and restore wetlands.
Policy 3F Require wetland functional assessments, based on accepted methodology, on new development projects to ensure wetland function and services are preserved to the extent possible.
Policy 3G Consider creation of wetland banks to provide local replacement options
Floodplain Management Goals & Policies
Goal 4.1 Provide adequate storage and conveyance of runoff to protect the public safety and minimize property damage.
Policy 4.1A Preserve and manage the storage associated with the 100-year floodplain along and within water-bodies to minimize the frequency and severity of flooding caused by high water.
Policy 4.1B Use the natural characteristics of the City’s watersheds (e.g., pond, swales, wetlands) in combination with development standards and projects, to reduce present and future flood damage and enhance
the quality of surface and ground water.
Policy 4.1C Require that adequate drainage facilities and easements are provided with land development activities.
Policy 4.1D Continue to enforce floodplain regulations to ensure that new structures are adequately elevated above identified flood elevations.
Policy 4.1E Update the Floodplain Overlay Ordinance as required by FEMA and the Minnesota DNR, or as needed, to ensure adequate protection for structures and eligibility for flood insurance programs.
Policy 4.1F Support efforts to restore and reestablish floodplain basins to improve their natural function.
Policy 4.1G Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System to provide residents with a discount on flood insurance policies
Policy 4.1H Review approximate floodplain boundaries and consider establishing a base flood elevation
Public Ditch System Goals & Policies
Goal 5.1 Ensure the management and operation of drainage systems and use of waterways in a manner which recognizes the origin of the system (e.g., constructed vs. natural), the
interconnectedness of resources, and present and future conveyance needs, while considering legally established rights.
Policy 5.1A Work with the RCWD to facilitate effective management of the public ditch system, as needed, to support the recognized functions of these systems.
Policy 5.1B Work with the RCWD to address the system capacity limitations of ACD 55 and ACD 72 and ACD 10-22-32
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 29
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Groundwater Management Goals & Policies
Goal 6.1 Incorporate ground water considerations into the decision-making process through recognizing the interconnectedness of surface water and groundwater supply and groundwater-
dependent natural resources.
Policy 6.1A Preserve ground water recharge areas in cooperation with Anoka County.
Policy 6.1B Promote infiltration of stormwater to result in groundwater recharge where it is feasible and does not pose a threat to groundwater quality.
Policy 6.1C Continue to implement the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan.
Policy 6.1D Participate in the Anoka County Wellhead Protection Group in implementing joint projects that benefit the City of Lino Lakes.
Policy 6.1E Continue to initiate water conservation programs through promoting water reuse and reducing water consumption
Natural Resources Goals & Policies
Goal 7.1 Identify, protect and preserve the desirable natural areas and ecological and aquatic resources of the community.
Policy 7.1A Pursue a well-defined natural resource restoration and management plan consistent with the RCWD/Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan (RMP).
Policy 7.1B Maintain the partnership of Lino Lakes and Rice Creek Watershed District and other groups such as Anoka County to maintain, restore, and manage the aquatic, aquatic dependent (Such as the Blue
Heron Rookery on Peltier Lake) and upland areas of the City.
Policy 7.1C Require natural space buffers, where appropriate, around wetlands to preserve their function and value.
Policy 7.1D Apply the Resource Management Unit recommendations from the RMP to meet RMP goals for aquatic resource protection and management.
Goal 7.2 Ensure that well-planned, quality residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development accommodates the City’s projected growth needs and occurs in a manner that also
conserves and enhances the City’s natural resources and amenities.
Policy 7.2A Encourage developers, where appropriate, to use Open Space Design/Conservation Development Model to implement the Resource Management System Plan.
Policy 7.2B Continue to use the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process to assess the impact of development on the City’s natural resources and infrastructure.
Goal 7.3 Capitalize on opportunities to enhance water quality, reduce runoff volume and flood damage, and enhance ecological resources by using open space and greenways.
Policy 7.3A Encourage the use of open space in the design of City projects when multiple benefits are realized.
Policy 7.3B Capitalize on the efforts of others responsible for managing open space to enhance their ongoing recreational programs, when these programs are related to the water and resource management effort
and are consistent with the City’s open space priorities.
Policy 7.3C Seek opportunities to enhance habitat function and integrity, to benefit water resources and eco-systems.
Erosion and Sediment Control Goals & Policies
Goal 8.1 Prevent erosion and minimize the conveyance of sediment into surface water systems through enforcement of the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Policy 8.1A Enforcement of City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including:
Require erosion control plans for all land disturbance activities in accordance with the City’s stormwater management ordinance.
Continue to enforce the Illicit Discharge and Detection Elimination (IDDE) Ordinance
Coordinate construction site inspections and enforcement with watershed management organization inspection staff
Implement and perform good housekeeping measures to minimize sediment entering the drainage system
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 30
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Regulations, Permitting and Reporting Goals & Policies
Goal 9.1 Address regulatory requirements of local, state and federal programs through updated ordinances, permitting, and ongoing reporting.
Policy 9.1A Evaluate City’s existing ordinances and programs to facilitate implementation of the Resource Management System Plan.
Policy 9.1B Coordinate with the Rice Creek Watershed District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to manage local wetland resources.
Policy 9.1C Work with the Rice Creek Watershed District to implement the Resource Management Plan.
Policy 9.1D Implement programs, implement structural solutions, and complete reporting as needed to meet MPCA’s requirements for MS4s.
Policy 9.1E Support the implementation of the SAMP by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitoring, Maintenance and Inspection Goals & Policies
Goal 10.1 Maintain the function and effectiveness of stormwater management structures through inspection, monitoring and maintenance.
Policy 10.1A Implement the City’s plan for the regular inspection and maintenance of public water resource infrastructure consistent with the requirements of the NPDES MS4 permit.
Policy 10.1B Require Operation and Maintenance agreements for the inspection and maintenance of privately constructed water resource infrastructure.
Policy 10.1C Implement and refine a training program to prevent or reduce pollutant runoff resulting from City operations.
Policy 10.1D Prepare an annual report in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit and share results with the public, City Council and Boards.
Policy 10.1E Conduct monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the City’s stormwater management actions on the quality of water resources.
Public Participation, Information and Education Goals & Policies
Goal 11.1 Inform and educate the public concerning urban stormwater management and the problems pollutants cause if allowed to enter our water resources.
Policy 11.1A Identify and alert residents of potential ecological challenges and threats.
Policy 11.1B Plan and initiate cooperative educational efforts with the state and other local government entities for resident education.
Goal 11.2 Offer programs, educational opportunities and information that facilitate an understanding of water resource issues in the City of Lino lakes.
Policy 11.2A Actively develop and implement a community education program relating to preserving and improving water quality consistent with the City’s MS4 permit requirements and/or coordinate with
regional education efforts.
Policy 11.2B Provide infrastructure management information for City-owned facilities to educate the public about how water resources are managed, the programs and policies and projects of the City, and to
encourage public involvement
Policy 11.2C Utilize and engage citizens to promote sustainable stewardship of lakes.
Policy 11.2D Continue to support and participate in the Rice Creek Watershed District’s Stream Health Evaluation Program (SHEP)
Financing Goals & Policies
Goal 12.1 Ensure that the costs of the surface water system are equitably distributed and sufficiently funded to cover the liabilities.
Policy 12.1A Update and apply area based charges so that the surface water related costs of development can be fairly borne by development.
Policy 12.1B Consider funding options that will equitably distribute the costs of managing and implementing the City’s surface water management plan, such as a stormwater utility or district- based fees.
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 31
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Goal 12.2 Leverage partnerships to cost-effectively manage the City’s surface water and natural resource systems and attain the goals of this plan.
Policy 12.2A Pursue grants, donations, and in-kind contributions to help fund stormwater projects.
Policy 12.2B The City will coordinate local stormwater management issues with the member watersheds and neighboring cities in order to leverage the watershed’s work and thus reducing City expenditures.
4. GOALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Since the last Local Water Management Plan revision, the City has taken great steps to make headway on meeting their goals. The following is a summary of the progress being made so far:
· Establishment of the Woolens Wetland Bank
· Development of TMDLs for the Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes and the Upper Mississippi River
· Development of the Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
· Updates and revisions to the City’s Stormwater, Erosion Control and Floodplain Ordinances
· Compliance with the City’s MS4 permit program and required annual updates
· Application for numerous grants to help fund water resources projects within the City
5. LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
5.1 Implementation Activities
The implementation activities identified in this Section of the Plan were taken from previously conducted planning and/or resource management documents or they are new activities developed as part of the planning process.
The actions listed below represent the ideal list of implementation activities with full funding, which is currently beyond the City’s resources. As a means of prioritizing, and aligning the efforts with a more attainable funding level, or
until additional funding becomes available, the activities identified in Tables 5-24 and 5-25 represent a synthesized and focused list of actions for city implementation. Appendix E provides a list of the proposed city-wide and RMU-
specific actions in the plan making up the implementation cost table shown in Table 5-24. Implementation activities are categorized as follows:
· City Wide Actions - Includes implementation activities that apply on a broader scale
· RMU Specific Actions – Includes implementation activities that have been identified for the three highest priority RMUs: Reshanau RMU, Marshan RMU and Clearwater Creek RMU
· Miscellaneous RMU Actions - Includes implementation activities that have been identified for the remaining RMUs
Table 5-23. City-Wide Implementation Plan
Action
No. Actions identified by Issue Category
Additional
Issue(s)
Addressed
Goals
Addressed
Policies
Addressed
WATER RATE & QUANTITY
Establish and adopt Better Site Design (BSD) standards for new development, and provide guidance for staff, City Boards, and City Council, including:
• Stormwater treatment trains;
• Protect high priority wetlands, their biological condition, and their function as high quality habitat;
• Enhance groundwater hydrology and protect groundwater-dependent natural resources;
• Provide natural flood reduction; and
• Integrate water quality improvement components in the landscape.
Water Quantity 3.1.1 3.1.1E
1 Water Quality 3.2.1 3.2.1A
3.2.1C
Natural Resources 3.7.2
3.7.4
3.7.2B
3.7.4A
Wetland Management 3.3.1 3.3.1C
Floodplain
Management 3.4.1 3.4.1B
WATER QUALITY
2 Implement water quality improvements via the Subwatershed Plans for each RMU specific to the waterbodies of the area and upcoming regulations (ex. TMDLs). Regulations 3.2.1 3.2.1B
3.2.1D
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 32
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Action
No. Actions identified by Issue Category
Additional
Issue(s)
Addressed
Goals
Addressed
Policies
Addressed
Permitting and
Reporting 3.9.1 3.9.1A
WETLAND MANAGEMENT
3 Implement Wetland Bank Plan. NA 3.3.1 3.3.1A
4 Provide for wetland impact replacement credit in cooperation with RCWD and VLAWMO NA 3.3.1
3.3.1C
3.3.1D
3.3.1E
5 Conduct annual meeting with the RCWD to review wetland mitigation permits to ensure wetland functions are being preserved.
NA 3.3.1 3.3.1E
6 Coordinate with MnDOT and County Transportation officials on projects that propose to disturb wetlands within their ROW by holding annual meeting to discuss future road
plans and wetland mitigation banking. NA 3.3.1 3.3.1A
7 Work with RCWD and VLAWMO to establish watershed-based approaches to maintaining or restoring wetland functions.
NA
3.3.1
3.3.1D
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
8 Review existing watershed models and work with the RCWD and VLAWMO to address flow constraints in the system. NA 3.4.1 3.4.1D
PUBLIC DITCH SYSTEM
9 Work with the Rice Creek Watershed District on the ditch abandonment process for public subsurface (drain tile) systems and explore partial abandonment for surface (ditch)
systems, in cases where the public drainage system requires redesign to implement the Multi-Functional Greenway Corridor, NA 3.5.1 3.5.1A
10
Support the RCWD in the RCWD’s implementation of ditch activities and Resource Management Plans by providing input where it impacts the city’s drainage system and
development plans by encouraging:
• Integrating management of ditch systems and adjacent wetland and upland systems;
• Maintaining ditch systems being used for agricultural benefit;
• Using branch maintenance in rural areas, retrofits in urbanizing areas and master planned communities with greenways and open space to reduce downstream flooding and retain
and reuse water in the local catchments;
• Minimizing future ditch maintenance costs by developing a self-sustaining design;
• Work with private landowners to retrofit/implement multi- functional greenway corridor, for those parcels that are not part of a Master Plan or are already developed.
NA 3.5.1 3.5.1A
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
11 Implement the wellhead protection plan to protect the groundwater source from contamination. NA 3.6.1 3.6.1C
12 Continue to implement the City’s Water Conservation Management Plan NA 3.6.1 3.6.1A
NATURAL RESOURCES
13 Partner with RCWD, VLAWMO and MnDNR to establish program to educate residents on the means to identify and eradicate invasive species. NA 3.7.1 3.7.1A
14 Continue to manage and protect heron rookery and other important plant and animal communities. NA 3.7.1 3.7.1B
15 Develop, distribute and present public with information regarding the importance of shoreland buffers. NA 3.7.3 3.7.3C
REGULATIONS, PERMITTING AND REPORTING
16 Implement Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Water Rate &
Quantity 3.1.1 3.1.1A
17 Resource Management System Plan through development of subwatershed management plans. The Plan will establish a clear vision of the multi-functional greenway corridor for
City Staff and developers and will be used as a tool early in the land development process.
Water Rate &
Quantity 3.1.1 3.1.1A
18
Implement Resource Management System Plan through development of subwatershed management plans. The Plan will establish a clear vision of the multi-functional greenway
corridor for City Staff and developers and will be used as a tool early in the land development process.
Complete subwatershed management plans for the three highest priority RMUs:
1. Reshanau RMU
2. Marshan RMU
Water Quality 3.2.1 3.2.1D
Wetland Management 3.3.1 3.3.1D
Floodplain
Management 3.4.1 3.4.1B
Natural Resources 3.7.1 3.7.1A
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 33
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Action
No. Actions identified by Issue Category
Additional
Issue(s)
Addressed
Goals
Addressed
Policies
Addressed
3. Clearwater Creek RMU
4. Peltier RMU
5. Wilkinson RMU
6. Amelia RMU
7. Hardwood Creek RMU
8. Rice Lake RMU
9. Rondeau RMU
10. Upper Rice Creek RMU
11. Centerville RMU
12. Sherman RMU
13. Baldwin RMU
14. Middle Rice Creek RMU
Regulations,
Permitting &
Reporting
3.9.1 3.9.1A
19 Evaluate the need to modify existing ordinances to ensure implementation of all components of the multi-functional greenway corridor Water Rate &
Quantity
3.1.1 3.1.1A
3.9.2 3.9.2A
20 Incorporate neighborhood stormwater planning and education into street reconstruction program. Water Rate &
Quantity 3.1.1 3.1.1E
21
Evaluate Revisions to Road Design Standards including:
• Reducing minimum pavement widths
• Ribbon curbs and curb cuts, with roadside swales, infiltration, and biofiltration
• Use of pervious pavements
Water Rate &
Quantity
3.9.2
3.1.1
3.9.2A
3.1.1.A
22
Continue to implement the RMP:
• Create a wetland bank to provide replacement opportunities for development or roadway projects.
• Utilize the runoff volume credit and banking system in collaboration with the RCWD.
.
.
Water Rate &
Quantity
Wetland Management
3.9.2
3.1.1
3.3.1
3.9.2C
3.1.1C
3.3.1C
3.3.1D
3.3.1E
Continue to participate in pre-permit application meetings with the RCWD and Army Corps of Engineers that support the collaborative permitting process implemented through
RCWD Rule and the Corps’ Programmatic General Permit that implements the Special Area Management Plan.
Water Quality
3.9.2 3.9.2B
23 3.2.2 3.2.2C
MONITORING, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION
24 Work with RCWD and VLAWMO to develop a long-term monitoring program to accompany RMP implementation and to evaluate quantitatively the strategy’s long-term
environmental and cost benefits. NA 3.10.1 3.10.1E
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INFORMATION & EDUCATION
25 Participate with other public agencies and organizations on education and outreach efforts.
NA
3.11
3.11.1A
3.11.1B
3.11.1C
3.11.2B
3.11.2C
3.11.2D
FINANCING
26 Pursue grants through the RCWD’s Urban Stormwater Remediation Program to assist in the funding of projects that will reduce the impact of existing development on local water
resources. NA 3.12.2 3.12.2A
27 Pursue funding support from VLAWMO for projects in the Amelia Lake and Wilkinson Lake subwatersheds. NA 3.12.1 3.12.2B
28 Review and evaluate funding sources for surface water management including ad valorem taxes, development charges, grants and user fees. NA 3.12.1
3.12.1A
3.12.1B
29 Update and continue to implement Trunk Surface Water Management Fee System. NA 3.12.1 3.12.2A
30 Pursue funding through Federal and State grant opportunities NA 3.12.2 3.12.2A
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 34
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
5.2 Implementation Costs
The estimated costs for the City of Lino Lakes to implement the City-wide and RMU-specific actions included in this implementation plan are summarized in Table 5-25. These actions are broken down into three project types:
1. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) – including new stormwater capacity, quality, and/or volume control improvements, as well as wetland mitigation or restoration activities
2. Programs – including ongoing education, inspection, maintenance, and pollution prevention activities that are necessary to maintain the existing system and meet the requirements of the City’s NPDES permit.
3. Studies – including projects necessary to evaluate the City’s system including subwatershed drainage plans and feasibility studies.
Actions in the RMU-specific implementation plan as defined in Appendix E are summarized in Table 5-26. The total estimated cost to implement this plan, including City-wide and all RMU Subwatershed Areas, is $2,901,800 over
10 years, or approximately $290,180 per year. It should be noted, that some of the costs should be recovered through surface water management impact fees collected in conjunction with development. While there are some
infrastructure costs included here, it is fairly minimal on infrastructure projects. The majority of costs are related to maintenance of the existing system and satisfying the programmatic requirements of the City’s NPDES permit. It is
further assumed that once the more detailed RMU Subwatershed Plans are completed, more of the infrastructure costs will be defined so it can be included in developer fees for each area.
Table 5-24. City-Wide Implementation Plan Actions
Project Type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years
6-10
Total
CIP $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $200,000 $270,000
Programs $180,500 $176,700 $192,500 $177,700 $183,500 $845,900 $1,756,800
Studies $49,000 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $60,000 $174,000
Total $259,500 $191,700 $217,500 $197,700 $228,500 $1,105,900 $2,200,800
Table 5-25. RMU-Specific Actions and Costs
Action
No. Specific Action RMU
Estimated
Implementation
Year
Estimated
Implementation
Cost
1 Investigate opportunities for wildlife crossings as part of future MnDOT I-35E work Amelia Lake TBD TBD
2 Collaborate with VLAWMO on future Sustainable Lake Management Plan Amelia Lake TBD TBD
3 Volume reduction retrofits Amelia Lake TBD TBD
4 Restore wetland on private ditch entering Amelia Lake Amelia Lake TBD TBD
5 Investigate load reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Bald Eagle Lake TBD $40,000
6 Assess potential for volume and load reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Baldwin TBD TBD
7 Investigate the water quality benefits of a control structure for Cedar Lake Cedar TBD TBD
8 Lake management plan, including outlet control structures and vegetation management Cedar TBD TBD
9 Assess potential for volume reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Cedar TBD TBD
10 Collaborate with stakeholders to incorporate regional BMPs, including volume reduction Cedar TBD TBD
11 Collaborate with Centerville to reduce watershed TP loading entering Centerville Centerville 2018 TBD
12 Investigate load reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Centerville TBD TBD
13 Assess feasibility of stormwater reuse at existing ballfields Centerville TBD TBD
14 Evaluate effectiveness of LaMotte pond treatment Centerville 2018 $90,000
15 Eliminate surface water discharges to wetlands George Watch TBD TBD
16 Investigate volume reduction retrofits in existing developed areas George Watch TBD TBD
17 Detailed evaluation of infiltration feasibility George Watch TBD TBD
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 35
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Action
No. Specific Action RMU
Estimated
Implementation
Year
Estimated
Implementation
Cost
18 Source control plan for areas north of CSAH 14 to prevent loading to wetlands George Watch TBD TBD
19 Wetland restoration George Watch TBD TBD
20 Proposed master community plan for sod fields Marshan TBD TBD
21 Evaluate restoration potential for system-wide nutrient load reduction to Marshan Marshan TBD TBD
22 Investigate volume reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Marshan TBD TBD
23 Investigate ACD 10-22-32 flood reductions Marshan TBD $268,000
24 Connect fragmented habitats as part of Greenway System Plan Marshan TBD TBD
25 Volume reduction retrofits Marshan TBD TBD
26 Localized urban discharges, since 1993 should be investigated Otter TBD TBD
27 Wetlands should be monitored for signs of stress Otter TBD TBD
28 Source reduction measures to infiltrate urban discharge and prevent from entering wetlands Otter TBD TBD
29 Investigate load reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Peltier TBD TBD
30 Investigate opportunities for wildlife crossings as part of future MnDOT I-35E work Peltier TBD TBD
31 Wetland restoration and volume credits for future development Peltier TBD TBD
32 Clearwater Creek channel and floodplain restoration Peltier TBD TBD
33 Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and Greenway Peltier 2019 $2,300,000
34 ACD 25 corridor is largely continuous has provides excellent opportunities for a greenway corridor Reshanau TBD TBD
35 Cedar Lake hydrologic and vegetative restoration Reshanau TBD TBD
36 ACD 25 wetland restoration Reshanau TBD $265,000
37 Protect upland habitat area set asides Reshanau TBD TBD
38 Volume reduction retrofits Reshanau TBD TBD
39 Investigate load reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Reshanau 2019 $100,000
40 Implement green infrastructure urban retrofits Rice TBD TBD
41 Investigate stormwater volume reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Rice TBD $40,000
42 Wetland restoration Rice TBD TBD
43 Detailed evaluation of infiltration feasibility Rice TBD TBD
44 Investigate load reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Rice TBD TBD
45 Develop long-term plan with the private duck club Rondeau TBD TBD
46 Watershed analysis of volume reduction BMP feasibility Rondeau TBD TBD
47 Avoid stormwater discharges to Rondeau from future land development Rondeau TBD TBD
48 Assess potential for volume reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Rondeau TBD TBD
49 Wetland protection and restoration Rondeau TBD TBD
50 Assess potential for volume reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Sherman TBD TBD
51 Lake management plan, including outlet control structures and vegetation management Wards TBD TBD
52 Assess potential for volume reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Wards TBD TBD
53 Collaborate with stakeholders to incorporate regional BMPs, including volume reduction Wards TBD TBD
54 Reduce nutrient loading to Wards Lake Wards TBD TBD
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 36
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Action
No. Specific Action RMU
Estimated
Implementation
Year
Estimated
Implementation
Cost
55 Collaborate with VLAWMO to meet City reduction in TP per VLAWMO TMDL Wilkinson 2018 TBD
56 Assess potential for volume reduction retrofits in existing developed areas Wilkinson TBD TBD
57 Incorporate habitat areas in Greenway System Plan Wilkinson TBD TBD
58 Restore drained wetlands along Abandoned Ditch 47 Clearwater Creek TBD TBD
59 Address wildlife barrier that exists as a result of I-35E Hardwood Creek TBD TBD
60 Ensure culvert crossings will function under future conditions Hardwood Creek TBD TBD
6. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Plan implementation tasks are presented in two ways. First are city-wide costs for stormwater related activities that would apply city-wide and are not specific to a certain subwatershed. Those costs are further divided into the twelve
Issue Categories identified during the planning process and reflected in the City’s Local Water Management Plan. For cost estimating, the 12 categories are listed separately, but in the implementation of those activities from a
practical stand point, there will be some activities that can be coordinated to facilitate ease of implementation. There has been an effort NOT to duplicate or create redundant funding in these costs estimates, so some efficiency of
implementation is included in the costs.
Secondly, implementation costs are also provided based on the subwatershed. The City contains fifteen subwatersheds of various sizes and complexity and therefore the needs of each will be unique. The management at the
subwatershed level is to reinforce the City’s Comprehensive Plan approach of developing Resource Management Unit level planning and management at that subwatershed scale. The top three priority subwatersheds have the costs
provided with more detail due to their higher likelihood of experiencing growth and development. All the subwatershed/RMUs will require a more detailed RMU Plan be developed for them to better detail the trunk infrastructure
costs needed. Those RMU Plan costs are included in the cost estimate table for approximately half of the RMUs based on the expected need for the plans and local issues arising (development, TMDLs, etc).
Many of the items fall under past activities that have been typically included in the City’s budget for stormwater infrastructure. The City currently has a Surface Water Management Charge that is updated annually based on the
Engineering News Record (ENR) Index for new development to cover the cost of administration, planning, and trunk/regional infrastructure. It is recommended that this fee, updated with the new cost information, will be used to
fund the Subwatershed/RMU Plans. The costs identified in the RMU studies would then be used to update the fee schedule in future years. With each RMU identified individually, the City will have the opportunity to decide if they
would like the fee schedules different for the various RMUs or combined for a city-wide average.
The remainder of the stormwater funding comes from the general fund of the City which also covers some of the stormwater planning and implementation needs. While this is common practice in many communities such as Lino
Lakes, the more the specialized, user-fee type funds can be used, typically the more stable and adequate the funding is. Other sources of funding and revenue are also worth considering. The creation of a wetland bank as shown in the
implementation plan, with time can be self- funded since there is a need for wetland bank credits. Grant opportunities at the state and local (ex. watershed) level can and should be leveraged to relieve local funding pressures and in
some cases, accelerate implementation.
7. REFERENCES
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2017). State Climatology Office. Precipitation Data. http://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/index.htm Accessed September 18, 2017.
National Centers for Environmental Information (2017). Summary of Monthly Normals: 1981- 2010, Vadnais Lake, MN US USC00218477. Available online at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/. Accessed September 18,
2017.
Metropolitan Council, 2017. Generalized Land Use 2016 data. Published June 28, 2017. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-plan-generl-lnduse2016. Accessed August 28, 2017.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. "Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes Nutrient TMDL." Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. July 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=17164 (accessed October 20,
2015).
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Local Water Management Plan 37
December 27, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. "Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake TMDL." Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. July 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=20171 (accessed October 20,
2015).
Rice Creek Watershed District, 2016. Rice Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan, adopted January 4, 2010, amended November 9, 2016.
Rice Creek Watershed District, 2017. Drainage System GIS data. http://rcwd.houstoneng.net/ditchportal/gisdata/drainagesystemsgis.zip. Accessed July 18, 2017.
Rice Creek Watershed District, 2017. Rice Creek Watershed District Rules, adopted December 14, 2016, effective January 1, 2017.
Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffrey Bonnin (2013). NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 8 Version 2, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United
States, Midwestern States. NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Setterholm, Dale, R. (2013). C-27 Geologic Atlas of Anoka County, Minnesota [Part A]. Minnesota Geological Survey. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/116119.
Accessed July 27, 2017.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed May 1, 2017.
Midwestern Regional Climate Center, 2017. Monthly Data Summary: Vadnais Lake (MN), Total Snowfall. cli-MATE: MRCC Application Tools Environment. Available online at http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/CLIMATE/.
Accessed September 18, 2017.
MnNDR, 2017. LakeFinder Database. Available online at <>. Accessed July 24, 2017.
Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization, 2016. Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan 2017-2026, adopted October 26, 2016.
Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization, 2014. Vadnais Lake Area WMO Total Maximum Daily Load and Protection Study.
Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization, 2011. Sustainable Lake Management Plan – Wilkinson Lake.
Baxter, Martin A, et al. (October 2005). A Climatology of Snow-to-Liquid Ratio for the Contiguous United States. Available online at http://www.eas.slu.edu/CIPS/PUBLICATIONS/Baxter2005.pdf Accessed September 18, 2017.
Berg, J.A., 2016, Geologic atlas of Anoka County, Minnesota (Part B: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, County Atlas Series C-27, report and pls. 7-9,
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/programs/gw_section/mapping/platesum/anokcga.html. Accessed May 1, 2017.
Anoka County Community Health and Environmental Services. Water Resources Report 2014.
Meyer, Gary N., et al. (1993). RHA-1, Anoka Sand Plain Regional Hydrogeologic Assessment, Surficial Geology. Available online at
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/rha/r01_asp/pdf_files/RHA1P1.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2017.
Palen, Barbara M., et al. (1993). RHA-1, Anoka Sand Plain Regional Hydrogeologic Assessment, Water-Table Hydrogeology and Water Well Database Distribution. Available online at
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/rha/r01_asp/pdf_files/RHA1P2.pdf Accessed September 18, 2017.
Rice Creek Watershed District. (2016) Future Land Use Conditions Hydrology & Hydraulics Analysis for Upper Rice Creek.
Custer and Galli. 2002. Feeding Habitat Selection by Great Blue Herons and Great White Egrets Nesting in East Central Minnesota, Waterbirds 25(1): 115-124,
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Surface Water Management Plan
November 22, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Appendix A – Figures
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
456723
456734
456712
456732
456723
456721
456749
456749
456754
456723
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456754
456754
456714456714
Baldwin
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Bald
Eagle
LakeWilkinson
Lake
Otter
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Cedar
Lake
J D
3
A
C
D
7
2
A C D 5 5
JD 3
A C D 2 5
R C D 8
A
C
D
1
0
-
2
2
-
3
2
R
C
D 8
AmeilaBaldwin
Centerville
Clearwater
Creek
Deep
George
Watch
Hardwood
Creek
Marshan
Middle
Rice
Creek
Peltier
Reshanau
Rice
Lake
Sherman
Upper
Rice
Creek
Wilkinson
Rondeau
Hardwood
Creek
Clearwater
Creek
R i c e C r e e k
´
Figure 2
Hydrologic Soil Group
Legend
City of Centerville
Hydrologic Soil Group
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Water
Resource Management Units
Public Ditch
Tile, Public Ditch
Private Ditch
DNR Public Watercourse
National Wetlands Inventory
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
3,500 0 3,5001,750
Feet Date: 12/19/2017
§¨¦35E§¨¦35W
456734
456712
456732
456723
456721
456749
456749
456754
456723
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456754
456754
456714456714
Baldwin
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
QpQpQp
Qp
Qp Qp
QbtQbt
Qp
Qp
Qbs
Qp
Qbt
Qp Qp
Qp Qbt
Qbt
QbsQp Ql
Ql
Qbt
Qbt Qbt
Qp
Qp
Qp
Ql
Qbs
Qbt
Qbt
Qll
Qa
Qbt
Qnt Qp
Qll
Qbt Qbs
Ql
Qbs QlQbs
Qbt
Qbt
Qp
Qbt
Qnd
Qp
Qp
Ql
Ql
Ql
Qbs
Ql Qna
QnaQbt
Qbt
QndQbs
Qp
QbtQbtQll
Qp QbtQlQbt
QpQmQp
Qp
Qbt
Qp
Qnt
Qnd
Qbt
Qbs
Qbs
Qbt
Qbt
Qbt
Qm Qnt
Qp
QpQp
Qp
QpQp
Qbt
Qnt
Qp Qll
Ql
Qp
Qbt
Qp
Qp Qbt
Ql QntQp
Qnt
Ql
Qll
QpQp
Qp
Ql
Ql
Qll
QpQbt Qbt QbcQbtQci
Qll
Qm
Qnd
QpQnt
Qbt QpQp
Qnd
Qp QnaQm
Ql
Qp QndQbt
Qp QnaQbt Qp
Qe
Qe
QntQbt
QbtQbt
Ql
Qbt
Qnt
Qbs
Qll
Qa
Qnt
Ql
Qbs
Qbs Qbt
Ql
Ql
Ql
Qbt
Qbt
QpQp
Qp
Qp
Qbt
Qp
QlQp
Qll
Qp
Qp
Qp
Qp
Qp
Qll
Qbt
Ql
Ql
Ql
Qe QbsQbs
Qbs
Wilkinson
Lake
Otter
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
Lake
Reshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Cedar
Lake
AmeilaBaldwin
Centerville
Clearwater
Creek
Deep
George
Watch
Hardwood
Creek
Marshan
Middle Rice
Creek
Peltier
Reshanau
Rice
Lake
Sherman
Upper Rice
Creek
Wilkinson
Rondeau
Hardwood
Creek
C
l
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
R
i
c
e
C
r
e
e
k
´
Figure 3
Surficial Geology
Legend
City of Centerville
QUATERNARY UNITS
Alluvium (Qa)
Lake sand (Ql)
Lake silt and clay (Qll)
Peat and muck (Qp_
Marl (Qm)
Eolian sand (Qe)
Sand facies (Qbs)
Silt and clay (Qbc)
Sand over gray loamy to sandy till (Qbt)
Loamy till (Qnt)
Sandy till (Qna)
Mixed till (Qnd)
Ice-contact deposit (Qci)
Resource Management Units
DNR Public Watercourse
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
3,500 0 3,5001,750
Feet Date: 12/19/2017
§¨¦35E§¨¦35W
456723
456734
456712
456732
456723
456721
456749
456749
456754
456723
456721
456749
456714
456723
456714
456754
456754
456714456714
Baldwin
Lake
100
250
150
1 0 0
1
0
0
250
15
0
1
0
0
100
100
10
0
100
15
0
1 5 0
20
0
1
5
0
100
100
200
1
0
0
1
5
0
150
100
100
150
150
1
0
0
100
1 0 0
1 0 0
1 0 0
1 0 0
3
0
0
2
0
0
150
150
1 0 0
1 0 0
100
10 0
3
0
0
250
150
100
100
100
1 0 0
100
1 5 0
1
0
0
100
100
1
0
0
350
3
5
0
200
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
100
250
100350
1
5
0
100
10 0
100
300
2
0
0
2
5
0
3 0 0
100
1 0 0
3
5
0
100
2
5
0
1 0 0
3 5 0
1 0 0
1 5 0
1
5
0
350
250
1 0 0
100
1 5 0
1 0 0
1
5
0
150
2 0 0
1 0 0
200
3 5 0
150
3 5 0
2 0 0
100
100
1 5 0
1
0
0
1 5 0
3 5 0
200
200
2 0 0
1 0 0
2 5 0
1 5 0
1
0
0
300
3 0 0 2 5 0
2 0 0
1 0 0
150
100
Rondeau
Lake
Bald Eagle
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake
Otter
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
Lake
Reshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch Lake
Peltier
Lake
Cedar
Lake
Ameila
Baldwin
Centerville
Clearwater
Creek
Deep
George
Watch
Hardwood
Creek
Marshan
Middle
Rice
Creek
Peltier
Reshanau
Rice
Lake
Sherman
Upper
Rice
Creek
Wilkinson
Rondeau
HardwoodCreek
Clearwater
Creek
R i c e C r e e k
´
Figure 4
Bedrock Geology
Legend
City of Centerville
Depth to Bedrock Contour Lines (ft.)
PALEOZOIC ROCKS
St. Peter Sandstone, Mid. to Up. Ord.
Prairie du Chien group, Lower Ord.
Jordan Sandstone, Up. Camb.
St. Lawrence Formation, Up. Camb.
Tunnel City group,Up. Camb.
Wonewoc Sandstone, Up. Camb.
Resource Management Units
DNR Public Watercourse
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
3,500 0 3,5001,750
Feet Date: 12/19/2017
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
456723
456734
456712
456732
456723
456721
456749
456749
456754
456723
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456754
456754
456714456714
Baldwin
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Bald
Eagle
LakeWilkinson
Lake
Otter
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Cedar
Lake
J D
3
A
C
D
7
2
A C D 5 5
JD 3
A C D 2 5
R C D 8
A
C
D
1
0
-
2
2
-
3
2
R
C
D 8
AmeilaBaldwin
Centerville
Clearwater
Creek
Deep
George
Watch
Hardwood
Creek
Marshan
Middle
Rice
Creek
Peltier
Reshanau
Rice
Lake
Sherman
Upper
Rice
Creek
Wilkinson
Rondeau
Hardwood
Creek
Clearwater
Creek
R i c e C r e e k
´
Figure 5
Resource Management Units
Legend
City of Centerville
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
Resource Management Units
Public Ditch
Tile, Public Ditch
Private Ditch
DNR Public Watercourse
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
National Wetlands Inventory
3,500 0 3,5001,750
Feet Date: 12/19/2017
Rondeau
Lake
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
")53
")153
")140
456721
456749
456749
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456721
456721
456714456714
")84
")84 Otter
Lake
Unnamed
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Golden
Lake
Baldwin Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Cedar
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake
Lila c
St
20
t
h
A
v
e
S
20th
Ave
20th Ave
La
ke
Dr N
Main
St
Main
St
Main St 80th St E
Cedar
St
Hodgson
Rd
Lake Dr
Elm St
Birch St
Birch St
Lake
Dr
Sunset
Ave
Rondeau
Lake Dr E
Ash St
Oak Ln
A p ollo D r
62nd St N
Ash St
Rondeau
Lake Rd W
Centerville
Rd
Holly Dr
4th
Ave
Holly Dr E
Birch St
64th St
City of
Blaine
Centerville
City of
Circle
Pines
City of
Columbus
City of
Forest
Lake
City of
Ham Lake
City of
Hugo
City of
North Oaks
City of
Shoreview
White Bear
Township
0 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100
Feet ´
Figure 6.
Surface Water Resources
Legend
Public Drainage System
Public Ditch
Tile, Public Ditch
Private Ditch
Abandoned Tile/Ditch
Public Waters
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Public Watercourse
Shoreland Classification
General Development
Natural Environment
Recreational Development
Impaired Waters
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
456723
456734
456712
456732
456723
456721
456749
456749
456754
456723
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456754
456754
456714456714
Baldwin
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Bald
Eagle
LakeWilkinson
Lake
Otter
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Cedar
Lake
J D
3
A
C
D
7
2
A C D 5 5
JD 3
A C D 2 5
R C D 8
A
C
D
1
0
-
2
2
-
3
2
R
C
D 8
AmeilaBaldwin
Centerville
Clearwater
Creek
Deep
George
Watch
Hardwood
Creek
Marshan
Middle
Rice
Creek
Peltier
Reshanau
Rice
Lake
Sherman
Upper
Rice
Creek
Wilkinson
Rondeau
Hardwood
Creek
Clearwater
Creek
R i c e C r e e k
´
Figure 8
Existing Storm Sewer System
Legend
City of Centerville
Resource Management Units
#*Storm Sewer Discharge Location
"Storm Sewer
Stormwater BMPs
Public Ditch
Tile, Public Ditch
Private Ditch
DNR Public Watercourse
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
National Wetlands Inventory
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
3,500 0 3,5001,750
Feet Date: 12/19/2017
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
456723
456734
456712
456732
456723
456721
456749
456749
456754
456723
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456754
456754
456714456714
Baldwin
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Bald
Eagle
LakeWilkinson
Lake
Otter
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Cedar
Lake
AmeilaBaldwin
Centerville
Clearwater
Creek
Deep
George
Watch
Hardwood
Creek
Marshan
Middle
Rice
Creek
Peltier
Reshanau
Rice
Lake
Sherman
Upper
Rice
Creek
Wilkinson
Rondeau
Hardwood
Creek
Clearwater
Creek
R i c e C r e e k
LINO
LAKES 5
LINO
LAKES 4
LINO
LAKES 3
LINO LAKES 2
LINO
LAKES 1
CENTERVILLE 1
CENTERVILLE 2
´
Figure 9
Groundwater Resources
Legend
City of Centerville
!>Municipal Wells
!.Private Wells
Modeled Depth to Water Table [ft]
0 to 10
>10 to 20
>20 to 30
>30 to 40
>40
Water
Resource Management Units
DNR Public Watercourse
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
3,500 0 3,5001,750
Feet Date: 12/19/2017
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
")53
")153
")140
")84
")84
Lilac
St
20
t
h
A
v
e
S
20th
Av
e
20th Ave
Lake
Dr N
Main
St
Main
St
Main St 80th St E
Cedar
St
Hodgson
Rd
Lake Dr
Elm St
Birch St
Birch St
Lake
Dr
Sunset
Ave
Rondeau
Lake Dr E
Ash St
Oak Ln
A p ollo D r
62nd St N
Ash St
Rondeau
Lake Rd W
Centerville
Rd
Holly Dr
4th
Ave
Holly Dr E
Birch St
64th St
City of
Blaine
Centerville
City of
Circle
Pines
City of
Columbus
City of
Forest
Lake
City of
Ham Lake
City of
Hugo
City of
North Oaks
City of
Shoreview
White Bear
Township
11
22 0 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100
Feet ´
Figure 7-8.
RCWD Future Flood Increases
Legend
Areas of Future Flooding Concern
!(Overtopping at Future 100-year Events
!(Overtopping at Existing & Future 100-year Events
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
Future Floodplain
Data Source: Courtesy of Rice Creek Watershed District, 2016
Baldwin Lake
Rondeau
Lake
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
Bald
Eagle
Lake
")53
")153
")140
456721
456749
456749
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456721
456721
456714456714
Wilkinson
Lake
")84
")84 Otter
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Reshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Cedar
Lake
Lilac
St
20
t
h
A
v
e
S
20th
Av
e
20th Ave
La
ke
Dr N
Main
St
Main
St
Main St 80th St E
Cedar
St
Hodgson
Rd
Lake Dr
Elm St
Birch St
Birch St
Lake
Dr
Sunset
Ave
Rondeau
Lake Dr E
Ash St
Oak Ln
A p ollo D r
62nd St N
Ash St
Rondeau
Lake Rd W
Centerville
Rd
Holly Dr
4th
Ave
Holly Dr E
Birch St
64th St
City of
Blaine
Centerville
City of
Circle
Pines
City of
Columbus
City of
Forest
Lake
City of
Ham Lake
City of
Hugo
City of
North Oaks
City of
Shoreview
White Bear
Township
0 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100
Feet ´
Figure 11.
Existing Land Use
Legend
Commercial
Mixed Use (Primarily Residential)
Multi-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Public/Semi-Public
Open Water
Airport
Industrial
Utility
City Park and Recreation
County Parkand Recreation
Open Space and Conservation
Agricultural
Rural Residential
Vacant-Commercial
Vacant-Industrial
Vacant-Residential
Vacant-Rural Residential
Right-of-Way
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
Open Water
Wetland
"
""""
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
""
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
")53
")153
")140
456721
456749
456749
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456721
456721
456714456714
")84
")84 Otter
Lake
Unnamed
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Golden
Lake
Golden
Lake
Baldwin
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Unnamed
Cedar
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake
Lilac
St
20
t
h
A
v
e
S
20th
Ave
20th Ave
La
ke
Dr N
Main
St
Main
St
Main St 80th St E
Cedar
St
Hodgson
Rd
Lake Dr
Elm St
Birch St
Birch St
Lake
Dr
Sunset
Ave
Rondeau
Lake Dr E
Ash St
Oak Ln
A p ollo D r
62nd St N
Ash St
Rondeau
Lake Rd W
Centerville
Rd
Holly Dr
4th
Ave
Holly Dr E
Birch St
64th St
City of
Blaine
Centerville
City of
Circle
Pines
City of
Columbus
City of
Forest
Lake
City of
Ham Lake
City of
Hugo
City of
North Oaks
City of
Shoreview
White Bear
Township
LINO
LAKES 5
LINO
LAKES 4
LINO
LAKES 3
LINO LAKES 2
LINO
LAKES 1
CENTERVILLE 1
CENTERVILLE 2
0 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100
Feet ´
Figure 7-12.
Existing Utilities
Legend
!.Private Wells
!>Municipal Wells
"Sanitary Mains
Water Mains
MUSA 2020
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
Open Water
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
456723
456734
456712
456732
456723
456721
456749
456749
456754
456723
456721
456749
456714
456754
456723
456714
456754
456754
456714456714
Baldwin
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Bald
Eagle
LakeWilkinson
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Cedar
Lake
Otter
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Reshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
Peltier
Lake
J D
3
A
C
D
7
2
A C D 5 5
JD 3
A C D 2 5
R C D 8
A
C
D
1
0
-
2
2
-
3
2
R
C
D 8
AmeilaBaldwin
Centerville
Clearwater
Creek
Deep
George
Watch
Hardwood
Creek
Marshan
Middle
Rice
Creek
Peltier
Reshanau
Rice
Lake
Sherman
Upper
Rice
Creek
Wilkinson
Rondeau
Hardwood
Creek
Clearwater
Creek
R i c e C r e e k
´
Figure 13
Floodplain Districts
Legend
City of Centerville
General Floodplain (Zone A)
Flood Fringe (Zone AE)
Floodway (Zone AE)
500-year Floodplain (Zone X)
Resource Management Units
DNR Public Watercourse
Public Ditch
Tile, Public Ditch
Private Ditch
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
3,500 0 3,5001,750
Feet Date: 12/19/2017
#
"
!.
##
"
"
"
""
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!.
#
#
##
#
#
""
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
!.
#
"
#
#
"######
"
#
"
#
"
"
"
#########################"#############
##
#
#
##
#
!.
!.
!
####
"
!
"
#
#
#
!.
"
"
#
"
#
"
#
#
!.
##
#
#
#
"""
####
!.
#
#
#
###
#
"!.
#
###
#
#
#
"
"
#
#
#####################
!.
####
#
#
!.
!.
!.
!.
"
"
"
#
#
#
#""
#
!.
!.
!.
#
"
########!.
"
"##
!.
!.
###"
"
#
##
#
"
#
!.
"
"
"
!.
#
"
"#
"
####
#
!
!.
!.
#"
!.
##
#
"
"
#
!.
##
!.
#####
#
!.
##
"
##
"
##
#
"
#
####
#
##
"
##
#
###
#
"
#
!.
!.
"
"
#
#
#
##
#
!.
#
#
#
#
#
!.
#
"
###
!.
"
#####
#
#
!.
#
#
!.
#
#
#
Rondeau
Lake
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
")53
")153
")140
")84
")84 Otter
Lake
Unnamed
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Golden
Lake
Baldwin
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Unnamed
Cedar
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake
Lilac
St
20
t
h
A
v
e
S
20th
Av
e
20th Ave
Lake
Dr N
Main
St
Main
St
Main St 80th St E
Cedar
St
Hodgson
Rd
Lake Dr
Elm St
Birch St
Birch St
Lake
Dr
Sunset
Ave
Rondeau
Lake Dr E
Ash St
Oak Ln
A p ollo D r
62nd St N
Ash St
Rondeau
Lake Rd W
Centerville
Rd
Holly Dr
4th
Ave
Holly Dr E
Birch St
64th St
City of
Blaine
Centerville
City of
Circle
Pines
City of
Columbus
City of
Forest
Lake
City of
Ham Lake
City of
Hugo
City of
North Oaks
City of
Shoreview
White Bear
Township
0 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100
Feet ´
Figure 7-14.
MPCA Environmental Sites
Legend
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
Open Water
Data Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2014
Rondeau
Lake
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
")53
")153
")140
")84
")84 Otter
Lake
Unnamed
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Golden
Lake
Baldwin
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Unnamed
Cedar
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake
Lilac
St
20
t
h
A
v
e
S
20th
Av
e
20th Ave
Lake
Dr N
Main
St
Main
St
Main St 80th St E
Cedar
St
Hodgson
Rd
Lake Dr
Elm St
Birch St
Birch St
Lake
Dr
Sunset
Ave
Rondeau
Lake Dr E
Ash St
Oak Ln
A p ollo D r
62nd St N
Ash St
Rondeau
Lake Rd W
Centerville
Rd
Holly Dr
4th
Ave
Holly Dr E
Birch St
64th St
City of
Blaine
Centerville
City of
Circle
Pines
City of
Columbus
City of
Forest
Lake
City of
Ham Lake
City of
Hugo
City of
North Oaks
City of
Shoreview
White Bear
Township
0 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100
Feet ´
Figure 7-15.
Full Build Out
Legend
Permanent Rural
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Business Campus
Industrial
Civic and Institutional
Parks and Open Space
Private Airfield
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
Open Water
Data Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2014
Rondeau
Lake
§¨¦35E
§¨¦35W
")53
")153
")140
")84
")84 Otter
Lake
Unnamed
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Bald
Eagle
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Golden
Lake
Baldwin
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
LakeReshanau
Lake
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Unnamed
Cedar
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake
Lilac
St
20
t
h
A
v
e
S
20th
Av
e
20th Ave
Lake
Dr N
Main
St
Main
St
Main St 80th St E
Cedar
St
Hodgson
Rd
Lake Dr
Elm St
Birch St
Birch St
Lake
Dr
Sunset
Ave
Rondeau
Lake Dr E
Ash St
Oak Ln
A p ollo D r
62nd St N
Ash St
Rondeau
Lake Rd W
Centerville
Rd
Holly Dr
4th
Ave
Holly Dr E
Birch St
64th St
City of
Blaine
Centerville
City of
Circle
Pines
City of
Columbus
City of
Forest
Lake
City of
Ham Lake
City of
Hugo
City of
North Oaks
City of
Shoreview
White Bear
Township
0 2,200 4,400 6,600 8,8001,100
Feet ´
Figure 7-16.
2040 Future Land Use
Legend
Permanent Rural
Urban Reserve
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Business Campus
Industrial
Civic and Institutional
Parks and Open Space
Private Airfield
Municipal Boundary
Adjacent City Boundary
Road Centerline
Open Water
Data Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2014
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Surface Water Management Plan
November 22, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Appendix B – RMU Issues and Strategies
456721
456754
")84
20th Ave S
Holly Dr E
Centerville Rd
Birch St
64th St
Centerville
City of
North Oaks
White Bear Township
Otter
Sherman
Amelia
Wilkinson
Clearwater
Creek
Amelia
Lake
Otter
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake 0 620 1,240 1,860 2,480310
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Amelia Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
Ci
t
y
o
f
Hu
g
o
White Bear
Township
Otter
Bald
Eagle
Clearwater
Creek
Otter
Lake
Bald
Eagle
Lake
0 280 560 840 1,120140
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Bald Eagle Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
Hodgson
Rd
City of
Circle
Pines
Wards
Rice
Baldwin
Long
Rice
Lake
Baldwin
Lake
0 390 780 1,170 1,560195
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Baldwin Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
Birch St
Ash St
Holly Dr E
Holly Dr
City of North Oaks
White Bear
Township
Sherman
Cedar
Wards
Wilkinson
Reshanau
Wards
Lake
Cedar
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake
0 525 1,050 1,575 2,100262.5
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Cedar Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
Centerville
George
Watch
Centerville
Sherman
Wards
Wards
Lake
Sherman
Lake
Centerville
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
0 380 760 1,140 1,520190
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Centerville Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
§¨¦35E
456721
456754
456721
456714
456754
456714
456721
")84
")84
20th Ave S
20th Ave
Main St
Main St
Cedar St
Birch
St
Centerville Rd
Holly Dr E
Birch St
64th
St
Centerville
City of
Hugo
Otter
George
Watch
Peltier
Centerville
Sherman
Cedar
Wards
Amelia
Wilkinson
Clearwater
Creek
Bald
Eagle
Hardwood
Creek
Wards
Lake
Sherman
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Otter
Lake
Bald
Eagle Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
Cedar
Lake 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Clearwater Creek
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Storm sewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
§¨¦35W
")153
456723
456714
456714
456714
Lake Dr N
Main St
Main St
Lake Dr
Elm
St
Lake Dr
Rond
e
au
Lake Dr E
Oak Ln
A p o ll o D r
Rondeau Lake Rd W
4th Ave
Centerville
Rondeau
George
Watch
Peltier
Marshan
Centerville
Reshanau
WardsRiceRice
Lake
Rondeau
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch Lake
Peltier
Lake
Reshanau
Lake
0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400550
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
George Watch Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
")140
456721
20th Ave
80th St E
City of Columbus City of Forest Lake
City of
Hugo
Peltier
Hardwood
Creek
Upper
Rice
Creek
Clearwater
Creek
Peltier
Lake
0 530 1,060 1,590 2,120265
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Hardwood Creek
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
456749
Hodgson
Rd
City of
Circle Pines
City of
Shoreview
Wards
Rice
Baldwin
Long
Baldwin
Lake
0 340 680 1,020 1,360170
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Long Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
§¨¦35W
")53
")153
456723
456714456714
Lila c St
Lake Dr N
Main St
Lake Dr
Elm
St
Lake Dr
Sunset
Ave
Oak Ln
A p o ll o D r
Rondeau Lake Rd W
4th Ave
City of
Blaine
Centerville
City of ColumbusCity of
Ham Lake
Rondeau
George
Watch
Marshan
Centerville
Rice
Golden
Reshanau Wards
Rice
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch Lake
Reshanau
Lake
Lochness
Lake
0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800600
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Marshan Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
456754
")84
64th St
White Bear
Township
Otter
Bald
Eagle
Amelia Clearwater
Creek
Amelia
Lake
Otter
Lake
Bald
Eagle
Lake
0 480 960 1,440 1,920240
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Otter Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
§¨¦35E
")140
456714
456721
456721
20th Ave
20th Ave
Main St
80th St E
Rondeau
Lake Dr E
Centerville
City of Columbus
City of
Hugo
Rondeau
George
Watch
Peltier
Hardwood
Creek
Upper
Rice Creek
Clearwater
Creek
Rondeau
Lake
Centerville
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
0 980 1,960 2,940 3,920490
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Peltier Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
Birch St
Marshan
Cedar
Reshanau
Wards
Rice
George
Watch
Centerville
Rice
Lake
Wards
Lake
Centerville
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Cedar
Lake
Reshanau
Lake
0 660 1,320 1,980 2,640330
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Reshanau Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
456749
456749
456723
Hodgson Rd
Elm
St
Birch
St
62nd St N
City of
Blaine
City of
Circle
Pines
George
WatchMarshan
Reshanau
Wards
Rice
Baldwin
Long
Golden
Rice
Lake
Golden
Lake
Marshan
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Baldwin
Lake
Reshanau
Lake
Lochness
Lake
0 950 1,900 2,850 3,800475
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Rice Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
§¨¦35W
456723
456714
Lake Dr N
Lake Dr
Rondeau Lake Dr E
Oak Ln
Rondeau Lake Rd W
City of
Columbus
Rondeau
George
Watch
Peltier
Marshan
Rondeau
Lake
Crossways Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Peltier
Lake
0 670 1,340 2,010 2,680335
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Rondeau Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
456721
456721
Birch St Birch St
Centerville Rd
Holly Dr E
Centerville
Centerville
Sherman
Cedar
Wards
Amelia
Wilkinson
Clearwater
Creek
Wards
Lake
Sherman
Lake
Amelia
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Cedar
Lake
0 550 1,100 1,650 2,200275
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Sherman Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
456721
City of
Columbus
City of Forest Lake
City of Hugo
Hardwood
Creek
Upper Rice
Creek
0 320 640 960 1,280160
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Upper Rice Creek Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
456723
456749
Hodgson Rd
Birch
St
Birch St
62nd St N
Ash St
Holly Dr
City of
North Oaks
City of Shoreview White Bear
Township
Marshan
Centerville
Sherman
Cedar
Reshanau
Wards
Rice
Baldwin
Long
George Watch
Wilkinson
Rice
Lake
Wards
Lake
Sherman
Lake
Centerville
Lake
Poplar
Lake
George
Watch
Lake
Cedar
Lake
Baldwin
Lake
Reshanau
Lake
0 925 1,850 2,775 3,700462.5
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Wards Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
456721
Ash St
City of
North Oaks
White Bear
Township
Sherman
Cedar
Amelia
Wilkinson
Amelia
Lake
Cedar
Lake
Wilkinson
Lake
0 300 600 900 1,200150
Feet ´
RMU Inventory:
Wilkinson Lake
Legend
Resource Management Unit Boundaries
"Stormsewer
Underground Storage Chambers
Pervious Pavers
Stormwater Detention Ponds
MPCA Environmental Sites
"Air
!Investigation and Cleanup
#Water
"Hazardous Waste
!Solid Waste
#Tanks and Leaks
!.Multiple Activities
MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
RCWD Watercourses
Anoka County or Private Ditches
p Boat_Launches
@A MPCA Surface Water Monitoring Locations
Impaired Lakes
Impaired Streams
DNR Public Waters
DNR Public Wetlands
Municipal Boundary
Road Centerline
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Surface Water Management Plan
November 22, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Appendix C – City of Lino Lakes Ordinances
Chapter 1011: Stormwater, Erosion and Sediment Control
Chapter 1102: Shoreland Management Overlay
Chapter 1103: Floodplain Management
Print
Lino Lakes, MN Code of Ordinances
CHAPTER 1011: STORMWATER, EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL
Section
1011.001 Title
1011.002 Purpose
1011.003 Jurisdiction
1011.004 Statutory authority
1011.005 Findings
1011.006 Definitions
1011.007 Applicability
1011.008 Exemptions
1011.009 Technical reference
1011.010 Grading, erosion and sediment control requirements
1011.011 Stormwater management requirements
1011.012 Inspections and maintenance
1011.013 Plan review procedure
1011.014 Financial securities
1011.015 Enforcement
1011.016 Abrogation and greater restrictions
§ 1011.001 TITLE.
This chapter shall be known as the Lino Lakes Stormwater, Erosion and Sediment Control Chapter and
will be referred to herein as this chapter.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.002 PURPOSE.
The general purpose of this chapter is to set forth regulatory requirements for land development and land
disturbing activities aimed at minimizing threats to public health, safety, public and private property, and
natural resources within the city from construction site erosion and post-construction stormwater runoff.
Specific purposes are to establish performance standards that will:
(1) Protect life and property from dangers associated with flooding;
(2) Protect public and private property and the natural resources from damage resulting from runoff and
construction site erosion;
(3) Ensure land development that minimizes the generation of stormwater runoff volumes and peak rates
and maximizes pervious areas for stormwater treatment;
(4) Promote regional stormwater management by subwatershed;
(5) Provide a single, consistent set of performance standards that apply to all developments;
(6) Protect water quality from nutrients, heavy metals, bacteria, pathogens, debris, thermal stress, and
other urban pollutants;
(7) Promote infiltration and groundwater recharge;
(8) Protect functional values of all types of natural water bodies (e.g., rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes,
seasonal ponds); and
(9) Sustain or enhance biodiversity (native plant and animal habitat) and support riparian ecosystems.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.003 JURISDICTION.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all lands within the incorporated boundaries of Lino Lakes.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.004 STATUTORY AUTHORITY.
This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in M.S. Chs. 103B, 103F, and
462 and Minn. Rules Chs. 7050, 7090, and 8410. This chapter is intended to meet the current construction
site erosion and sediment control and post-construction stormwater management regulatory requirements
for construction activity and small construction activity as defined in the standards of the NPDES
construction general permit, as amended.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.005 FINDINGS.
The city finds that uncontrolled stormwater runoff and construction site erosion from land development
and land disturbing activity can have significant adverse impacts upon local and regional water resources
diminishing the quality of public health, safety, public and private property, and natural resources of the
city. Specifically, uncontrolled construction site erosion and stormwater runoff can:
(1) Threaten public health, safety, property, and general welfare by increasing runoff volumes, peak
flood flows, and overburdening storm sewers, drainage ways, and other storm drainage systems;
(2) Diminish the capacity of lakes and streams to support fish, aquatic life, recreational and water supply
uses by increasing pollutant loadings of total sediment, suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, bacteria,
pathogens, and other urban pollutants;
(3) Degrade physical stream habitat by increasing stream bank erosion, increasing stream bed scour,
diminishing groundwater recharge, diminishing stream base flows, and increasing stream temperatures;
(4) Undermine floodplain management efforts by increasing the incidence and levels of flooding;
(5) Alter wetland communities by changing wetland hydrology and increasing pollutant loading; and
(6) Generate airborne particulate concentrations that are health threatening or may cause other damage
to property or the environment.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.006 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted so as to give
them the same meaning as they have in common usage and to give this chapter its most reasonable
application. For the purpose of this chapter, the words MUST and SHALL are mandatory and not
permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally. As used in this
chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section.
100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION. The elevation of water resulting from the Critical Duration Flood
Event.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP's). Measures taken to minimize negative effects on water
resources and systems as documented in the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning Handbook (MBWSR, 1988), Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA, 2000) and the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2014) as amended.
BETTER SITE DESIGN (BSD). An approach to managing runoff that seeks to attain post development
hydrology which mimics the undeveloped condition in terms of volume, rate and timing of runoff. The
goals of BETTER SITE DESIGN include reducing the amount of impervious cover, increasing the amount
of natural lands set aside for conservation, using pervious areas for more effective stormwater treatment,
innovative grading and drainage techniques and through the review of every aspect of the project site
planning process. BETTER SITE DESIGN involves techniques applied early in the design process to
reduce impervious cover, conserve natural areas and use pervious areas to more effectively treat stormwater
runoff and promote a treatment train approach to runoff management.
BIOFILTRATION. A stormwater quality and quantity BMP that utilizes vegetation and soil to filter and
absorb pollutants including nutrients, hydrocarbons and metals and remove water volume through
evapotranspiration.
BRIDGE. A road, path, railroad or utility crossing over a waterbody, wetland, ditch, ravine, road, railroad
or other obstacle.
BRIDGE SPAN. The clear span between the inside surfaces of a bridge's terminal supports.
CHANNEL. A perceptible natural or artificial depression, with a defined bed and banks that confine and
conduct water flowing either continuously or periodically.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. Includes construction activity as defined in 40 C.F.R. pt. 122.26(b)(14)
(x) and small construction activity as defined in 40 C.F.R. pt. 122.26(b)(15). This includes a disturbance to
the land that results in a change in the topography, existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative),
or the existing soil topography that may result in accelerated stormwater runoff, leading to soil erosion and
movement of sediment into surface waters or drainage systems. Examples of CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY may include clearing, grading, filling, and excavating. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY includes
the disturbance of less than one acre of total land area that is a part of a larger common plan of development
or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb one acre or more.
CRITICAL DURATION FLOOD EVENT. The 100-year precipitation or snow melt event with a
duration resulting in the maximum 100-year return period water surface elevation. The CRITICAL
DURATION FLOOD EVENT is generally either the 100-year, 24 hour rainfall event as found in NOAA
Atlas 14 or the ten-day snow melt event assumed to be 7.2 inches of runoff occurring on frozen ground
(CN=100); however, other durations (e.g., 6-hour) may result in the maximum 100-year return period water
surface elevation.
DETENTION BASIN. Any natural or man-made depression that stores stormwater runoff temporarily.
DEVELOPMENT. Any land-disturbing activity resulting in creation or reconstruction of impervious
surface including, but not limited to, municipal road construction. Normal farming practices part of an
ongoing farming operation shall not be considered a DEVELOPMENT.
DRAINAGE SYSTEM. A system of open channel, pipe or tile, to drain property, including laterals,
improvements, and improvements of outlets, which may or may not be a public system under the
jurisdiction of a watershed district under M.S. Chs. 103B, 103D, or 103E.
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW (EOF). A primary overflow to pass flows above the design capacity
around the principal outlet safely downstream without causing flooding.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN. A plan of BMPs or equivalent measures designed to
control runoff and erosion and to retain or control sediment on land during the period of land disturbance in
accordance with the standards set forth in this chapter.
EROSION PREVENTION. Measures employed to prevent erosion including, but not limited to, soil
stabilization practices, limited grading, mulch, temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing.
EXCAVATION. The displacement or removal of soil, sediment or other material.
FILTRATION. A stormwater quality BMP that uses either natural media such as soil or vegetation or
manufactured media to trap pollutants such as nutrients and particles in surface water.
FINAL STABILIZATION. All soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and all soils have
to be stabilized by a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a density of 70% over the entire pervious
surface area, or other equivalent means necessary to prevent soil failure under erosive conditions.
FLOODPLAIN. The areas adjoining a waterbody that are inundated during the 100-year flood.
FLOODWAY. The channel of a watercourse, the bed of water basins and those portions of adjoining
floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment to accommodate the 100-year flood.
FLOODWAY FRINGE. The area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100-year flood.
FREEBOARD. Vertical distance between the 100-year flood elevation or emergency overflow elevation
of a water basin or watercourse and the elevation of the regulatory elevation of a structure.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A compacted surface or a surface covered with material (i.e., gravel, asphalt,
concrete, Class 5, etc.) that increases the depth of runoff compared to natural soils and land cover. Including
but not limited to roads, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and trails, patios, tennis courts, basketball
courts, swimming pools, building roofs, covered decks, and other structures.
INFILTRATION. Water entering the ground through the soil.
LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. Any disturbance to the ground surface that, through the action of
wind or water, may result in soil erosion or the movement of sediment into waters, wetlands or storm
sewers or onto adjacent property. LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY includes but is not limited to the
demolition of a structure or surface, soil stripping, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, filling and the
storage of soil or earth materials. The term does not include normal farming practices as part of an ongoing
farming operation.
LANDLOCKED BASIN. A water basin lacking an outlet at an elevation at or below the water level
produced by the critical duration flood event, generally the ten-day snowmelt event.
LOW ENTRY ELEVATION. The elevation of the lowest opening in a structure.
LOW FLOOR ELEVATION. The elevation of the lowest floor of a habitable or uninhabitable structure,
which is often the elevation of the basement floor or walk-out level.
MILL, RECLAMATION AND OVERLAY. Removal of the top layer(s) of an impervious surface (e.g.
roadway, parking lot, sport court) by mechanical means, followed by the placement of a new layer of
impervious surface, without exposure of the underlying native soil.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORMWATER
DISCHARGE PERMIT. A permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that authorizes the
discharge of pollutants to the waters of the state.
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM (NURP). Urban Runoff Program developed by the
Environmental Protection Agency to study stormwater runoff from urban development.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW). The highest water level elevation that has been maintained
for a sufficiently long period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The OHW is commonly that
point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. If an
OHW has been established for a waterbody by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, it will
constitute the OHW under this definition.
OWNER. The person or party possessing the title of the land on which the construction activities will
occur; or if the construction activity is for a lease, easement, or mineral rights license holder, the party or
individual identified as the lease, easement, or mineral rights license holder; or the contracting government
agency responsible for the construction activity.
PUBLIC LINEAR PROJECT. A project involving a roadway, sidewalk, trail or utility not part of an
industrial, commercial, institutional or residential development.
RECONSTRUCTION. Removal of an impervious surface such that the underlying structural aggregate
base is effectively removed and the underlying native soil exposed.
SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE. The highest known seasonal elevation of groundwater as indicated
by redoximorphic features such as mottling within the soil.
SATURATED SOIL. The highest seasonal elevation in the soil that is in a reduced chemical state because
of soil voids being filled with water. Saturated soil is evidenced by the presence of mottled features or other
information.
SEDIMENT CONTROL. Methods employed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. SEDIMENT
CONTROL practices include silt fences, sediment traps, earth dikes, drainage swales, check dams,
subsurface drains, pipe slope drains, storm drain inlet protection, and temporary or permanent
sedimentation basins.
SHORELAND. Land located within the following distances from the ordinary high water elevation of
public waters:
(a) Land within 1,000 feet from the normal high watermark of a lake, pond or flowage; and
(b) Land within 300 feet of a river or stream or the landward size of a floodplain delineated by
ordinance on the river or stream, whichever is greater.
STABILIZED. The exposed ground surface has been covered by appropriate materials such as mulch,
staked sod, riprap, erosion control blanket, mats or other material that prevents erosion from occurring.
Applying mulch, hydromulch, tackifier, polyacrylamide, or similar erosion prevention practices is not
acceptable stabilization in temporary or permanent drainage ditches or areas where concentrated overland
flow occurs. Grass seeding is not stabilization.
STANDARD PLATES. General drawings having or showing similar characteristics or qualities that are
representative of a construction activity or practice.
STORMWATER. Defined under Minn. Rules 7077.0105, Subd. 41(b), meaning precipitation runoff,
stormwater runoff, snowmelt runoff, and any other surface runoff and drainage.
STORMWATER FACILITY, PRIVATE. Any BMP that is maintained by a private property owner, or
other private entity and not maintained by a public agency.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. A plan for the permanent management and control of runoff
prepared and implemented in accordance with the standards set forth in this chapter.
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN. A document which describes the best
management practices and activities to be implemented by a person or business to identify sources of
pollution or contamination at a site and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to
stormwater, stormwater conveyance systems, and/or waterbodies to the maximum extent practicable.
STORMWATER POND. Constructed basins placed in the landscape to capture stormwater runoff.
SURFACE WATERS. All streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands, reservoirs, springs, rivers, drainage
systems, waterways, watercourses, and irrigation systems whether natural or artificial, public or private.
UNDERGROUND WATERS. Water contained below the surface of the earth in the saturated zone
including, without limitation, all waters whether under confined, unconfined, or perched conditions, in near
surface unconsolidated sediment or regolith, or in rock formations deeper underground. The term
GROUND WATER shall be synonymous with underground water.
WATER QUANTITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE. The use of on-site runoff management
practices such as biofiltration, infiltration, buffers/conservation areas, impervious disconnection, and
greenway connections to satisfy stormwater management requirements.
WATERS OF THE STATE. As defined in M.S. § 115.01, Subd. 22, means all streams, lakes, ponds,
marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems,
and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or
private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof.
WETLAND. Land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems, as defined in M.S. § 103G.005,
Subd. 19.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.007 APPLICABILITY.
All land disturbing activity may be subject to standard erosion and sediment control BMPs. A grading,
erosion and sediment control permit and/or a stormwater management permit shall be required for projects
that meet or exceed the thresholds established in §§ 1011.009 and 1011.010.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.008 EXEMPTIONS.
The following land disturbing activities will be exempt from the grading, erosion and sediment control
and stormwater management permit requirements of this chapter:
(1) Cemetery graves;
(2) Routine agricultural activity such as tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or
silvicultural (forestry) crops; and
(3) Emergency work necessary to protect life, limb, or property.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.009 TECHNICAL REFERENCES.
The following documents shall be used for technical reference:
(1) The Lino Lakes Surface Water Management Plan.
(2) The Lino Lakes Engineering Design Details.
(3) The Lino Lakes Standard City Specifications.
(4) The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Rules.
(5) The Vadnais Lakes Area Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO) Rules.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.010 GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
(1) Grading, erosion and sediment control (ESC). A grading, erosion and sediment control (ESC) permit
including a grading, erosion and sediment control plan shall be required for all proposed land disturbing
activity unless otherwise exempted in this chapter that meets any or all of the following:
(a) Includes excavation, filing, or stockpiling of erodible material in excess of 50 cubic yards per acre;
(b) Involves the laying, repairing, replacing, or enlarging of an underground utility, pipe or other
facility, or the disturbance of road ditch, grass swale, or other open channel for a distance of 500 feet or
more;
(c) Disturbs more than one acre of land or 10,000 square feet if within 300 feet of a lake, stream or
wetland and drains towards it; and/or
(d) A land disturbing activity, regardless of size, that the city determines is likely to cause an adverse
impact to an environmentally sensitive area or other property.
(2) Grading, erosion and sediment control plan design standards. Grading, erosion and sediment control
plans must comply with the following criteria:
(a) All plans shall be consistent with national pollutant discharge elimination permit (NPDES)
requirements, the city engineering design standards, the Lino Lakes stormwater detail plates, and the filing
or approval requirements of Rice Creek Watershed District, Vadnais Lakes Watershed Management
Organization, Anoka County, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State of Minnesota
Stormwater Manual or other regulatory agencies;
(b) Natural site topography and soil conditions must be specifically addressed to reduce erosion and
sedimentation during construction and after project completion;
(c) Site erosion and sediment control practices must be consistent with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency document Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (2000), as amended, city-specific
written design guidance, and be sufficient to retain sediment on-site;
(d) The project must be phased as best possible to minimize disturbed areas and removal of existing
vegetation until necessary for project progress;
(e) The city may require additional erosion and sediment control measures on areas with a continuous
slope leading to a sensitive, impaired or special water body, stream, ditch or wetland to assure retention of
sediment on site;
(f) When site restrictions do not allow for a temporary sediment basin or less than the required acreage
is being developed, temporary sediment basins, where appropriate, are encouraged. They are not required in
areas with steep slopes, highly erodible soils, or to take equivalent measures such as smaller basins, check
dams, and vegetated buffer strips;
(g) The plan must include conditions adequate to protect facilities to be used for post-construction
stormwater infiltration;
(h) The plan must include conditions to minimize off-site sediment transport on trucks and equipment,
such as rock entrances;
(i) The plan must minimize work in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands;
(j) Stable slopes shall be maintained throughout the construction process.
(k) Steep slopes and the need for high cuts and fills shall be avoided (no slopes greater than 3(h): 1(v),
except as approved by the City Engineer).
(l) Protection shall be provided to minimize disturbance to surrounding soils, root systems and trunks
of trees adjacent to site activity that are intended to be left standing.
(m) Compaction of site soils shall be minimized.
(n) All imported materials shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to placement on the site.
(o) Appropriate on-site containment must be provided for all trash, solid waste, construction debris,
floating debris, and hazardous materials. Disposal of collected sediment shall be deposited only in approved
locations.
(3) Grading, erosion and sediment control (ESC) required exhibits. The plan shall be prepared and
signed by a duly licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota. The following exhibits must
accompany the permit application: two plan sets, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); one plan set, reduced to
maximum size of 11 inches by 17 inches. Additional copies may be required in accordance with applicable
zoning and subdivision provisions of city code. All plan sets shall also be submitted electronically in a .dwg
format or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer. The minimum requirements of the grading,
erosion, and sediment control plan shall be consistent with the most recent version of the NPDES permit
requirements and include the following information:
(a) Project name and type (residential, commercial, industrial, road construction, or other);
(b) Project location;
(c) County parcel identification number (legal description);
(d) Names and addresses of the record owner, developer, land surveyor, engineer, designer of the plat,
and any agents, contractors, and subcontractors who will be responsible for project implementation,
including the name, address and phone number of the party responsible for maintenance of all erosion and
sediment control measures;
(e) Tabulation of construction implementation schedule, including: estimated start date, time frames,
and schedules for each construction phase, and completion date;
(f) Copies of permits or permit applications required by any other government entity or agencies
including mitigation measures required as a result of any review for the project (e.g., wetland mitigation,
EAW, EIS, archaeology survey);
(g) Existing conditions map. An existing topographic site map, drawn to a legible scale and clearly
labeled with a north arrow and date of preparation. The plan, based on a certificate of survey, shall include
the following information:
1. Property lines and lot dimensions;
2. Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the development, including shoreland,
floodway, floodway fringe, or general floodplain, and other natural resource overlay districts;
3. All buildings and outdoor uses including all dimensions and setbacks;
4. All public and private roads, interior roads, driveways and parking lots;
5. Show ordinary high water marks of all navigable waters, 100-year critical flood duration event
elevations, and delineated wetland boundaries, if any. If not available, appropriate flood zone determination
or wetland delineation, or both, may be required at the applicant's expense;
6. Identify all special waters and impaired waters, as identified in the most recent listing by the
MPCA, within one mile of the project that receive runoff from the project;
7. Location of drainage areas, existing storm sewer facilities, including pipes, manholes, catch
basins, ponds, swales and drainage channels within 100 feet of the subject property. Existing pipe sizes,
grades, rim and invert elevations, and normal and high water elevations must be included;
8. Existing contours at one foot intervals, shown as dashed lines for the subject property and
extending 100 feet beyond the outside boundary of the proposed plat;
9. Steep slopes where areas with an average slope of more than 12% over a distance of at least 50
feet, or bluff areas as defined in the shoreland ordinance, whichever is applicable; and
10. Wooded areas, high quality native plant communities, or other officially designated natural
resource areas.
(h) Proposed conditions map.
1. Maps identifying areas discussed in (3)(g)1. through (g)10. of this section.
2. Location, size, and approximate grade of proposed public sewer and water mains.
3. Elevations, sections, profiles, and details as needed to describe all natural and artificial features of
the project.
4. Proposed grade contours at one-foot intervals shown as solid lines.
5. An estimate of the total volume (cubic yards) of materials proposed to be imported to or exported
from the site.
6. Provisions for groundwater management (dewatering), including subsurface drains, disposals,
ponding and flood controls.
7. Spot elevations at drainage break points and directional arrows indicating site swale and lot
drainage.
8. Proposed lot lines, lot and block numbers, building style, building pad location and elevations at
the lowest floor and garage slab, if applicable, for each lot.
9. Locations, sizes, grades, rim and invert elevations of all proposed stormwater facilities, including
ponds, proposed to serve the subject property.
10. The location of all oversize, non-typical easements including conservation easements, if
applicable.
11. Show the boundary of the 100-year flood elevations of all waterbodies.
12. Locations of all stormwater management practices, infiltration areas, and areas not to be
disturbed during construction.
13. Normal water level, high water level, and emergency overflow elevations for the site and all
associated ponding systems.
14. Location of areas where construction will be phased to minimize duration of exposed soil areas.
Include map and calculations as necessary of areas of grubbing, clearing, tree removal, grading, excavation,
fill, and other disturbance; areas of soil or earth material storage; quantities of soil or earth material to be
removed, placed, stored, or otherwise moved on site, and delineated limits of disturbance.
15. Location and type of all temporary and permanent erosion prevention, sediment control,
stormwater runoff, and soil stabilization BMPs, along with procedures to be used to establish additional
temporary BMPs as necessary for the site conditions during construction. Standard plates and/or
specifications for the BMP's used on the project must be included in the final plans and specifications for
the project. Location and design of temporary sediment basins where ten acres or more (five acres or more
for special or impaired waters) are disturbed and drained to a single point. When site restrictions do not
allow for a temporary sediment basin or less than the required acreage is being developed, temporary
sediment basins where appropriate are encouraged, but not required in areas with steep slopes or highly
erodible soils or to take equivalent measures such as smaller basins, check dams, and vegetated buffer
strips.
16. Methods to be used for final stabilization of all exposed soil areas.
17. Documentation that the project applicant has applied for the NPDES permit from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), when applicable.
18. A stormwater pollution prevention plan for projects that require an NPDES permit.
(4) Construction activity requirements. Any activity subject to a permit under this chapter must conform
to the standards of the NPDES general permit regarding construction-site erosion and sediment control.
(5) Inspections. (See also § 1101.011.)
(a) The applicant shall be responsible for inspection, maintenance and effectiveness of all erosion and
sediment control measures until final soil stabilization is achieved.
(b) The city may inspect the project site and require the applicant to provide additional erosion control
measures as it determined conditions warrant.
(6) Final stabilization.
(a) Erosion and sediment control measures must be maintained until final vegetation and ground cover
is established to a density of 70%.
(b) All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs will be removed after all disturbed areas have
been permanently stabilized.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.011 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(1) Stormwater management. A permit incorporating an approved stormwater management plan shall be
required for all proposed land development activity including public linear projects, unless otherwise
exempted in this chapter, which meets any or all of the following:
(a) A development, redevelopment or reconstruction, except public linear projects, that creates or
reconstructs 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, including smaller individual sites that are
part of a common plan of development that may be constructed at different times.
(b) A subdivision of an area exceeding one acre. This includes subdivision for single-family
residential, multi-unit residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional development.
(c) For public linear projects, a permit is required to create or reconstruct 10,000 square feet or more
of impervious surface through multiple phases or connected actions of a single project, as defined by the
city.
(d) The site is within the 100-year floodplain; within 1,000 feet of a public water or protected wetland;
impacts a wetland; and/or within 300 feet of Rice Creek, Clearwater Creek, Hardwood Creek, or a public
ditch.
(e) Any land disturbing activity, regardless of size, that the city determines would otherwise cause an
adverse impact to an environmentally sensitive area or other property.
(f) Stormwater management requirements do not apply to development of an individual lot within a
residential subdivision if it conforms to an approved development plan.
(g) Stormwater management requirements do not apply to sidewalks and trails ten feet wide or less
that are bordered down-gradient by vegetated open space or vegetated filter strip with a minimum width of
five feet, however the grading, erosion and sediment control requirements are still effective.
(h) Stormwater management requirements do not apply to mill, reclamation and overlay projects that
do not expose underlying soils.
(i) Stormwater Management Requirements do not apply to bridge span projects, however
grading, erosion and sediment control requirements are still effective.
(2) Stormwater management performance standards. Site plans for new development of any kind will be
assessed for stormwater quantity control and stormwater quality management. The general policy on
stormwater runoff rates is to reduce the impacts of development by maintaining predevelopment
hydrological conditions in the following ways:
(a) Use of natural topography. The applicant shall incorporate the use of natural topography and land
cover such as natural swales and depressions as they exist before development to the degree that they can
accommodate the additional flow of water without compromising the integrity or quality of the receiving
waterbody.
(b) Minimize impact to natural features. The development shall minimize impact to significant natural
features. Applicant shall review the site for natural features protected under city, state or Federal
requirements, including steep slopes, wetlands, wooded areas, endangered or threatened species, or species
of concern habitat, areas designated by the county biological survey, greenways, parks and open space,
groundwater recharge areas, wellhead or surface water protection areas or regional stormwater pond
locations.
(c) Conveyance system. Wherever possible untreated and treated stormwater runoff shall be conveyed
in facilities open to the atmosphere (e.g. swales, vegetated buffer strips, energy-dissipating structures, and
the like) rather than through enclosed pipes, so as to decrease runoff velocity, allow for natural infiltration,
allow suspended sediment particles to settle, and to remove pollutants.
(d) Proposed development design shall:
1. Maintain or decrease runoff volume;
2. Decrease erosion and sedimentation;
3. Maintain or decrease flow frequency, duration, and peak runoff rates;
4. Increase infiltration (groundwater recharge) or filtration;
5. Maintain existing flow patterns;
6. Reduce time to peak flows by increasing the time of concentration to and through storm sewers;
7. Provide storage of stormwater runoff on site;
8. Avoid channel erosion;
9. The proposed project must not adversely affect water level off the site during or after construction;
and
10. The proposed activity may not reduce hydraulic efficiency of the drainage ways at any point up-
gradient of the applicant's parcel boundary.
(e) Landlocked basins. A landlocked basin may be provided an outlet only if it:
1. Retains a hydrologic regime that complies with the requirements of the local governmental unit
(LGU) responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA);
2. Provides sufficient dead storage volume to retain back to back 100-year, 24-hour rainfalls and
runoff; and
3. Does not create adverse downstream flooding or water quality conditions as a result of increased
discharge rate or volume, or other factors.
(f) All plans shall be consistent with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination permit (NPDES)
requirements, the Lino Lakes engineering design standards, the Lino Lakes stormwater design standards,
and the filing or approval requirements of Rice Creek Watershed District, Vadnais Lakes Watershed
Management Organization, Anoka County, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State
of Minnesota Stormwater Manual or other regulatory agencies.
(g) The City of Lino Lakes may develop a comprehensive stormwater management plan (CSMP) as an
alternative way to meet the stormwater requirements of the local watershed agencies for development
within a defined area and a common resource of concern (ROC). The CSMP will be submitted to the
applicable watershed district for review and must comply with the requirements of the watershed district.
(3) Stormwater management plan modeling requirements.
(a) A hydrograph method or computer program based on Natural Resources Conservation Service
Technical Release #20 (TR-20) and subsequent guidance must be used to analyze stormwater runoff for the
design or analysis of flows and water levels within and off the project site. Composite curve numbers shall
not include directly connected impervious surfaces.
(b) In determining curve numbers to model runoff in the post-development condition, the hydrologic
soil group (HSG) of areas within construction limits is to be shifted down one classification (or one-half
classification for HSG A) to account for the impacts of grading on soil structure unless the project
specifications incorporate soil amendments in accordance with Rice Creek Watershed District Soil
Amendment guidelines.
(c) The following curve numbers (Table 1) shall be utilized for modeling of those site areas not
covered by impervious surface:
Table 1. Curve numbers for use with pervious areas
Hydrologic Soil
Group
Existing Runoff
Curve Number *
Post-Construction Runoff Curve
Number**
Undisturbed Land Disturbed Land
A 39 39 49
B 61 61 74
C 74 74 80
D 80 80 80
* Curve numbers from USDA-NRCS, Technical Release 55
** Rice Creek Watershed District 2013 Rules
(d) The analysis of flood levels, storage volumes, and discharge rates for waterbodies and stormwater
management basins must include the NOAA Atlas 14 values, as amended, for the two-year, ten-year and
100-year return period, 24-hour rainfall events and the ten-day snowmelt event, in order to identify the
critical duration flood event. The ten-day snowmelt event is simulated by a 7.2 inch, ten-day spring runoff
event during which it is assumed the ground is frozen solid and no infiltration occurs (CN set to 100 for all
areas). The City Engineer may require analysis of additional precipitation durations to determine the critical
duration flood event. Analysis of the ten-day snowmelt event is not required for stormwater management
detention basins with a defined outlet elevation at or below the 100-year, 24-hour event elevation.
(4) Water quality treatment.
(a) Land development activities creating impervious surface shall address the use of better site design
(BSD) techniques as outlined in the better site design and low impact development sections of the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2014 and subsequent revisions).
(b) The water quality treatment volume standard for all projects, except public linear projects, is
determined as follows (Table 2):
Table 2. Required quality volume calculations for new or reconstructed
developments
BMP BMP Design
Variation Water Quality Treatment Volume Calculation [ft3]
Infiltration Infiltration
Feature Impervious surface [ft2] * 1.1 [in] /12 [in/ft]
Water Reuse Irrigation Impervious surface [ft2] * 1.1 [in] / 12 [in/ft]
Biofiltration Underdrain Impervious surface [ft2] * 1.1 [in] / (0.65 * 12 [in/ft])
Filtration Sand or Rock
Filter Impervious surface [ft2] * 1.1 [in] / (0.50 * 12 [in/ft])
Stormwater
Wetlands
Shallow
Wetland Impervious surface [ft2] * 1.1 [in] / (0.40 * 12 [in/ft])
Pond/Wetland Impervious surface [ft2] * 1.1 [in] / (0.55 * 12 [in/ft])
Stormwater
Ponds
Wet Pond Impervious surface [ft2] * 1.1 [in] / (0.50 * 12 [in/ft])
Multiple Pond Impervious surface [ft2] * 1.1 [in] / (0.60 * 12 [in/ft])
(c) The required water quality treatment volume standard for public linear projects is determined as
follows:
Required Water
Quality Treatment
Volume [ft 3]
=
Area of New or
Reconstructed
Impervious Surface
[ft2]
x 0.75 [in]÷ 12 [in/ft]
(d) Public linear projects shall meet the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) or
Vadnais Lakes Area Water Management Organization (VLAWMO) as applicable.
(e) Infiltration BMPs (see city BMP standard plates and design criteria) are to be incorporated in areas
with A and B hydrologic soil groups. Stormwater from impervious surfaces other than rooftops must be
pretreated before discharge to infiltration BMPs, to remove sediment and floatables, or other materials that
would restrict the BMP's capacity or contaminate ground water.
(f) If the project meets any of the following conditions listed in Table 3, infiltration is prohibited and
the water quality volume requirements shall be provided the remaining options in Table 2:
Table 3. Specific conditions that may restrict inflitration.
Type Specific Site Conditions
Potential
Contaminati
on
Potential stormwater hotspots [PSH]
Contaminated soils
Vehicle fueling and maintenance areas
Physical
Limitations
Low permeability soils [HSG C and D]
Bedrock within three vertical feet of bottom of
infiltration area
Seasonal high water table within three vertical feet of
bottom of infiltration area
Where soil infiltration tests are more than 8.3 inches per
hour
Land Use
Limitations
Utility locations
Adjacent wells
(g) BMPs must provide infiltration where feasible. If the city concurs that the infiltration BMPs are not
feasible or directs that infiltration not be used, then any BMP may be chosen. If infiltration is feasible on-
site, then a regionally-sited BMP must provide equivalent runoff volume reduction.
(5) Peak stormwater runoff control.
(a) Stormwater runoff rates for the proposed project at the site boundary, in aggregate, must not exceed
existing runoff rates for the critical two-, ten-, and 100-year frequency events.
(b) Any increase in a critical event rate at a specific point of discharge from the site must be limited
and cause no adverse down gradient impact. The project must meet the hydroperiod standards found in
Table 4 with respect to all down-gradient wetlands.
Table 4. Hydroperiod standards
Wetland
Susceptibility Class
Permitted Storm
Bounce for 2-year
and 10-year Event*
Inundation Period
for 2-year Event*
Inundation Period
for 10-year Event*
Highly Susceptible Existing Existing Existing
Moderately
Susceptible Existing + 0.5 ft Existing + 1 day Existing + 7 days
Slightly Susceptible Existing + 1.0 ft Existing + 2 days Existing +14 days
Least Susceptible No Limit Existing + 7 days Existing + 21 days
* Duration of 24-hours for the return periods utilizing NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation
data. Source: Adapted from Rice Creek Watershed District 2013 Rules.
(c) Wetland Susceptibility Class is determined based on wetland type, as follows:
1. Highly susceptible wetland types include: sedge meadows, bogs, coniferous bogs, open bogs,
calcareous fens, low prairies, coniferous swamps, lowland hardwood forests, and seasonally flooded water
basins.
2. Moderately susceptible wetland types include: shrub-carrs, alder thickets, fresh (wet) meadows,
and shallow and deep marshes.
3. Slightly susceptible wetland types include: floodplain forests and fresh wet meadows or shallow
marshes dominated by cattail giant reed, reed canary grass or purple loosestrife.
4. Least susceptible wetland includes severely degraded wetlands. Examples of this condition
include cultivated hydric soils, dredge/fill disposal sites and some gravel pits.
(d) Exceptions. Rate control criteria of division (5) may be waived if the site discharges directly to a
water body with large storage capacity (such as a public water) that has a time-to-peak elevation greater
than that for an on-site pond and the volume discharged from the on-site pond is negligible, relative to the
volume of runoff entering the water body.
(6) Design criteria.
(a) Infiltration BMPs. Infiltration BMPs must be designed to provide:
1. Adequate pretreatment measures to remove sediment before runoff enters the primary infiltration
area;
2. Drawdown within 48-hours or 72-hours from the end of a storm event, for surface or sub-surface
features, respectively. Soil infiltration rates shall be based on the appropriate HSG classification and
associated infiltration rates (Table 5). Infiltration area will be limited to the horizontal areas subject to
prolonged wetting;
Table 5. Soil Infiltration Rates.
HSG Soil
Texture*
Corresponding Unified Soil
Classification**
Infiltration
Rate [in/hr]
A
Gravel
Sandy
Gravel
Silty Gravel
GW Well-graded gravels, sandy gravels
1.63GPGap-graded or uniform gravels,
sandy gravels
GM Silty gravels, silty sandy gravels
SW Well-graded gravelly sands
Sand
Loamy
Sand
Sandy
Loam
SP Gap-graded or uniform sands,
gravelly sands 0.8
B Loam
Silt Loam
SM Silty sands, silty gravelly sands 0.45
MH Micaceous silts, diatomaceous
silts, volcanic ash 0.3
C Sandy Clay
Loam ML Silts, very fine sands, silty or
clayey fine sands 0.2
D
Clay Loam
Silty Clay
Loam
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
Clay
GC Clayey gravels, clayey sandy
gravels
0.06
SC Clayey sands, clayey sandy
gravels
CL Low plasticity clays, sandy or silty
clays
OL Organic silts and clays of low
plasticity
CH Highly plastic clays and sandy
clays
OH Organic silts and clays of high
plasticity
Source: Adapted from the "Design Infiltration Rates" table from the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual, MPCA (January 2014).
* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
2005. National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. (Online) Available:
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/.
** ASTM standard D2487-00
3. A minimum of three feet of separation from the seasonal high water table.
4. Design and placement in accordance with the 2007 Minnesota Department of Health guidance
Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas.
(b) Water reuse. Water reuse BMPs must be designed to provide:
1. A maximum irrigation rate of one-inch per week over the irrigated lawn/turf grass area(s);
2. No greater than a 26 week (April 15 to October 15) growing season; and
3. No increase in stormwater runoff from the irrigated area or project site.
4. The amount of water quality treatment volume credit given will be based upon the three year
average of the volume irrigated, determined by the average of three years of monitoring records.
(c) Biofiltration and filtration BMPs. Biofiltration and filtration BMPs must be designed to provide:
1. Adequate pretreatment measures to remove sediment before runoff enters the primary biofiltration
area;
2. Drawdown within 48-hours or 72-hours from the end of the storm event for surface or sub-surface
features, respectively;
3. A minimum of 12-inches of organic material or sand above the rock trench or drain tile system;
and
4. Drain tile system must be designed above the seasonal high water table.
(d) Stormwater ponds. Stormwater ponds must be designed to provide:
1. Water quality features consistent with NURP criteria and city standard plate;
2. Permanent wet pool with dead storage at least equal to the runoff from a two and one half inch
rainfall over the area tributary to the pond
3. An outlet structure capable of preventing migration of floating debris and oils for at least the one-
year storm.
4. An outlet structure to control the two-year, ten-year and 100-year frequency events to existing
peak runoff sites; and
5. An identified overflow spill way sufficiently stabilized to convey flows greater than the 100-year
critical storm event.
(e) Outfalls. An outfall structure discharging to a wetland, public water or public water wetland must
incorporate a stilling-basin, surge-basin, energy dissipater, placement of ungrouted natural rock riprap or
other feature to minimize disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from stormwater
discharges.
(f) Freeboard requirements. All new residential, commercial, industrial and other habitable or non-
habitable structures, and all stormwater basins, must be constructed so that the lowest floor and lowest
entry elevations of structures comply with the following:
Table 6. Low floor and low entry freeboard requirements
Regional
Elevations
Local Detention Basins
& Wetlands Infiltration Basins Rain
Gardens Groundwater
Elevation 100 year EOF 100 year EO
F Bottom 100 year EO
F EOF Seasonal
High Level
Low Floor
Freeboar d 2-ft 1-ft 0-ft N/
A 0-ft N/A N/
A N/A 4-ft
Low Entry
Freeboar d N/A N/A 2-ft 1-ft N/A 2-ft 1-ft 0.5-ft N/A
(g) Within a landlocked basin, lowest floor elevations must be at least one foot above the surveyed
basin overflow elevation. Where a structure is proposed below the runoff elevation of a land-locked basin,
the low-floor elevation will be a minimum of two feet above the high water level as determined from an
estimate of high water levels determined from the highest of either the 100-year, ten-day runoff event or
back-to-back 100-year, 24-hour rainfalls. Aerial photos, vegetation, soils, and topography will be used to
derive a "normal" water elevation for the basin for the purpose of computing the 100-year elevation.
(7) Drainage and utility easements.
(a) If a stormwater management plan involves direction of some or all runoff off of the site, it shall be
the responsibility of the applicant to obtain from adjacent property owners any necessary easements or
other property interests concerning flowage of water.
(b) Easements are required for all stormwater management facilities, stormwater conveyances and on-
site floodplain and shall extend a minimum of ten feet beyond the basin's 100-year storm high water level
elevation.
(c) Easements are required for all outlet swales and ditches, and for overland overflow routes located
downstream of basins located on site.
(d) If the storm sewer is to be installed less than ten feet deep within private property, the easement
shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. If the storm sewer is ten feet or greater, the easement shall be twice as
wide as the depth.
(e) Easements necessary for maintenance vehicle access are required for all of the above where not
directly available on a public road.
(8) Stormwater management plan required exhibits. The stormwater management plan shall be prepared
and signed by a duly licensed engineer in the State of Minnesota. The following exhibits must accompany
the permit application: two plan sets, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); one plan set, reduced to maximum
size of 11 inches by 17 inches. Additional copies may be required in accordance with applicable zoning and
subdivision provisions of city code. All plan sets shall also be submitted electronically in a .dwg format or
as otherwise determined by the City Engineer. The minimum information requirements of the stormwater
management plan shall be consistent with the most recent version of the NPDES permit requirements and
include the following information:
(a) A grading, erosion and sediment control plan and, for projects that require a NPDES permit, a
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required;
(b) Stormwater management plan including existing and proposed hydrologic calculations for total
runoff volume and peak discharge rates as described in this chapter, including:
1. A narrative including a project description, discussion of BMP selection, incorporation of
infiltration BMPs, and revegetation plan for the project site;
2. Delineation of all drainage areas, including contributing runoff from off-site areas, proposed and
existing subwatersheds on-site, emergency overflows, and drainage ways;
3. Existing, proposed, and total amount of impervious surfaces created by the project;
4. Existing and proposed runoff curve numbers;
5. Time of concentration used in calculations; and
6. Existing and proposed total runoff volume and peak discharge rates for the two-, ten-, and 100-
year critical events utilizing NOAA Atlas 14.
(c) Property of lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(d) Locations of all stormwater management practices, infiltration areas, and areas not to be disturbed
during construction.
(e) Location of all drain tiles on the project site shall be identified.
(f) Location and engineered designs for structural stormwater management practices including
stormwater treatment devices that remove oil and floatable material (e.g., basin outlets with submerged
inlets).
(g) Normal water level, high water level, and emergency overflow elevations for the site and all
ponding systems related to NAVD88.
(h) Identification of existing and proposed one-foot contour elevations within the project site related to
NAVD88.
(i) Geotechnical analysis including soil borings at all proposed stormwater management facility
locations.
(j) Provisions for groundwater management (dewatering), including subsurface drains, disposals,
ponding and flood controls.
(k) Completed city worksheet explaining better site design techniques that were evaluated during
project design, the results of the evaluation of each and for any techniques deemed infeasible.
(l) A long-term maintenance plan and schedule for all permanent stormwater practices, along with the
identity of the party responsible for the maintenance of the project. The maintenance responsibility must be
memorialized in a document executed by the property owner in a form acceptable to the city and filed for
record on the deed.
(m) Before work is deemed complete, as-built plans must be submitted demonstrating that at the time
of final stabilization, stormwater facilities conform to design specifications.
(n) Other project site-specific submittal requirements as may be required by the city.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.012 INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE.
(1) Inspections. The applicant is responsible for inspections and record keeping in accordance with the
NPDES permit requirements. The city shall conduct inspections on a regular basis to ensure that both
stormwater and erosion and sediment control measures are properly installed and maintained prior to
construction, during construction, and at the completion of the project. In all cases the inspectors will
attempt to work with the applicant or developer to maintain proper stormwater management. Mandatory
inspections, conducted by the city, are required as follows:
(a) Before any land disturbing activity begins;
(b) Five working days after footing inspections;
(c) At the completion of the project; and
(d) Prior to the release of financial securities.
(2) Post-construction inspection and maintenance of stormwater facilities.
(a) Private stormwater facilities. No private stormwater facility may be approved unless a
maintenance agreement is provided that defines who will conduct maintenance, the type of maintenance,
and the maintenance intervals. All private stormwater facilities shall be inspected by the owner and
maintained in proper condition consistent with the performance standards for which they were originally
designed.
1. Facility access. Access to all stormwater facilities must be inspected annually and maintained as
necessary. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any necessary easements or other property
interests to allow access to the facilities for inspection or maintenance for both the responsible party and the
city.
2. Maintenance. All settled materials from ponds, sumps, grit chambers, and other devices, including
settled solids, shall be removed and properly disposed of once capacity is reduced by 30%.
3. Inspection. All private stormwater facilities must submit an as-built record plan of the facility and
must provide documentation to the city of an inspection during construction, during the first year of
operation, and at least once every five years thereafter. Private facilities are subject to city inspection at any
time to ensure compliance.
(b) Public stormwater facilities.
1. Acceptance of publicly owned facilities. Before work under the permit is deemed complete, as-
builts and certification must be submitted demonstrating at the time of final stabilization that the
stormwater facilities conform to design specifications. A final inspection shall be required before the city
accepts ownership of the stormwater facilities.
2. Inventory of stormwater facilities. The city shall inventory and maintain a database for all public
stormwater facilities within the city requiring maintenance to ensure compliance with this chapter.
(3) Maintenance. The city shall perform maintenance of publicly owned stormwater facilities within the
city as provided for in the local surface water management plan.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.013 PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE.
Plan review. The applicant shall not commence any construction activity subject to this chapter until the
stormwater management plan and/or the grading, erosion and sediment control plan have been approved by
the city. The submittal shall be processed in accordance with § 2 of the Zoning Ordinance or Ch. 1011 of
city code as applicable. City approval is contingent on issuance of all other permits required by the city or
other agencies having jurisdiction on the project. The following standards shall apply to all developments
within the city:
(1) Plan approval. If the city determines that the stormwater management plan and/or the grading,
erosion and sediment control plan meets the requirements of this chapter, the city shall issue a plan
approval valid for a specified period of time that authorizes the land disturbance activity contingent on the
implementation and completion of this plan.
(2) Plan denial. If the city determines that the plan does not meet the requirements of this chapter, the
city shall not issue plan approval for the land disturbance activity. This plan must be resubmitted for
approval before the land disturbance activity begins. All land use and building permits shall be suspended
until the developer has an approved ESC or stormwater management permit.
(3) Modification of plan. The applicant must amend the plan as necessary to include additional
requirements such as additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified or address
situations whenever:
(a) A change in design, construction, operation, maintenance, weather, or seasonal conditions that has
a significant effect on the discharge or pollutants to surface waters or underground waters;
(b) Inspections or investigations indicate the plans are not effective in eliminating or significantly
minimizing the discharge or pollutants to surface waters or underground waters or that the discharges are
causing water quality degradation;
(c) The plan is not achieving the general objectives of minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges
associated with construction activity; or
(d) The plan is not consistent with the terms and conditions of this chapter.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.014 FINANCIAL SECURITIES.
The applicant shall be subject to the financial security provisions of the city development agreement, site
improvement performance agreement and/or the city public improvement financing policy, as applicable.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.015 ENFORCEMENT.
(1) Notification of failure of the permit. The city shall notify the permit holder of the failure of the
permit's measures.
(a) Initial contact. The initial contact will be to the party or parties listed on the application and/or the
SWPPP as contacts. Except during an emergency action, 48 hours after notification by the city or 72 hours
after the failure of erosion and sediment control measures, whichever is less, the city at its discretion may
begin corrective work. Such notification should be in writing, but if it is verbal, a written notification
should follow as quickly as practical. If after making a good faith effort to notify the responsible party or
parties, the city has been unable to establish contact, the city may proceed with corrective work. There are
conditions when time is of the essence in controlling erosion. During such a condition, the city may take
immediate action and then notify the applicant as soon as possible.
(b) Emergency action. If circumstances exist such that non-compliance with this chapter poses an
immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare, as determined by the city, the city may take
emergency preventative action. The city shall also take every reasonable action possible to contact and
direct the applicant to take any necessary action. Any cost to the city may be recovered from the applicant's
financial security.
(c) Erosion off site. If erosion breaches the perimeter of the site, the applicant shall clean up and repair
or supplement with functional BMPs within 24 hours of discovery or immediately as conditions allow. If, in
the discretion of the city, the permit holder does not repair the damage caused by the erosion, the city may
do the remedial work required and charge the cost to the applicant. When restoration to wetlands and other
resources are required, the applicant shall be required to work with the appropriate agency to ensure that the
work is done properly.
(d) Erosion into streets, wetlands, or water bodies. If eroded soils (including tracked soils from
construction activities) enter or appear likely to enter streets, wetlands, or other water bodies, cleanup and
repair shall be immediate. The applicant shall provide all traffic control and flagging required to protect the
traveling public during the cleanup operations.
(e) Failure to do corrective work. When an applicant fails to conform to any provision of this policy
within the time stipulated, the city may take the following actions:
1. Issue a stop work order, withhold the scheduling of inspections, and/or the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy.
2. Revoke any permit issued by the city to the applicant for the site in question or any other of the
applicant's sites within the city's jurisdiction.
3. Correct the deficiency or hire a contractor to correct the deficiency.
4. Require reimbursement to the city for all costs incurred in correcting stormwater pollution control
deficiencies. If payment is not made within 30 days after costs are incurred by the city, payment will be
made from the applicant's financial securities as described above.
5. If there is an insufficient financial amount in the applicant's financial securities as described
above, then the city may assess the remaining amount against the property. As a condition of the permit, the
owner shall waive notice of any assessment hearing to be conducted by the city, concur that the benefit to
the property exceeds the amount of the proposed assessment, and waive all rights by virtue of M.S. §
429.081 to challenge the amount or validity of assessment.
(2) Enforcement. The city shall be responsible for enforcing this chapter.
(a) Penalties. Any person, firm, or corporation failing to comply with or violating any of these
regulations shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a fine or imprisonment or both. All
land use and building permits shall be suspended until the applicant has corrected the violation. Each day
that a separate violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.
(b) Right-of-entry and inspection; powers. The issuance of a permit constitutes a right-of-entry for the
city or its contractor to enter upon the construction site. The applicant shall allow the city and their
authorized representatives, upon presentation of credentials, to:
1. Enter upon the permitted site for the purpose of obtaining information, examination of records,
conducting investigations or surveys;
2. Bring such equipment upon the permitted site as is necessary to conduct such surveys and
investigations;
3. Examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to activities or records
required to be kept under the terms and conditions of the permitted site;
4. Inspect the stormwater pollution control measures; and
5. Sample and monitor any items or activities pertaining to stormwater pollution control measures;
6. Correcting deficiencies in stormwater and erosion and sediment control measures.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
§ 1011.016 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS.
In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of any other city
ordinance adopted by the City Council, the more restrictive standard prevails.
(Ord. 09-15, passed 10-26-2015)
CHAPTER 1102: SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY
Section
1102.01 Statutory authorization and policy
1102.02 General provisions
1102.03 Definitions
1102.04 Administration
1102.05 Shoreland Overlay District
1102.06 Shoreland Overlay District uses
1102.07 Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions
1102.08 Nonconformities
1102.09 Shoreland alterations
1102.10 Special provisions for commercial, industrial, public/semipublic,
agricultural, forestry and extractive uses and mining of metallic minerals and peat
1102.11 Water supply and sewage treatment
1102.12 Subdivision/platting provisions
1102.13 Shoreland Planned Unit Development (PUD)
§ 1102.01 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AND POLICY.
(1) Statutory authorization. Local government units are required to adopt shoreland management
ordinances in M.S. §§ 103F.201 to 103F.221, as it may be amended from time to time. This Shoreland
Overlay District chapter is adopted pursuant to these authorizations and policies and the planning and
zoning enabling legislation in M.S. Ch. 462, as it may be amended from time to time.
(2) Policies. The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the city affects the public health, safety and general
welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base.
Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise
subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has
delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development
of shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the
economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and
related land resources. The responsibility for the management of shoreland areas is hereby recognized by
the city.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.02 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(1) Jurisdiction. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the shorelands of the public water bodies as
classified in § 1102.05 and as shown on the official zoning map of the city as being located within the
Shoreland Overlay District. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous
shoreland may, at the discretion of the city, be exempt from this chapter.
(2) Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type
and locations of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste treatment
systems; the grading and filling of any shoreland area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the
subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable
regulations.
(3) Enforcement. The Zoning Administrator is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this
chapter. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter or failure to comply with any of its requirements
(including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or
conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Violations of
this chapter can occur regardless of whether or not a permit is required for a regulated activity pursuant to §
1102.04(1).
(4) Interpretation. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this chapter shall be held to
be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body and shall not be
deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by state statutes. The approximate boundaries of
the Shoreland Overlay District are indicated on the official zoning map of the city and attachments thereto.
Exact determination of the boundaries will be made by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Waters.
(5) Severability. If any section, clause, provision or portion of this chapter is adjudged unconstitutional
or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this chapter shall not be affected thereby.
(6) Abrogation and greater restrictions. It is not intended by this chapter to repeal, abrogate or impair
any existing easements, covenants or deed restrictions. Where the conditions imposed by any provision of
this chapter are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other
law, ordinance, statute, resolution or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive or
which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this
chapter are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.03 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted so as to give
them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this chapter its most reasonable
application. For the purpose of this chapter, the words MUST and SHALL are mandatory and not
permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR FACILITY. Any building or improvement subordinate to a principal
use which, because of the nature of its use, can reasonable be located at or greater than normal structure
setbacks.
BLUFF. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having the following characteristics
(an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered
part of the bluff):
(a) Part of all of the feature is located in a shoreland area;
(b) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody;
(c) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high
water level averages 30% or greater; and
(d) The slope must drain toward the waterbody.
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE. A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.
BOATHOUSE. An accessory structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats and boating
equipment.
BUILDING LINE. A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback
beyond which a structure may not extend.
CLEAR CUTTING. The removal of an entire stand of trees.
COMMERCIAL USE. The principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental or trade of
products, goods and services.
COMMISSIONER. The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
CONDITIONAL USE. A land use or development as defined by ordinance that would not be appropriate
generally but may be allowed with appropriate restrictions as provided by official controls upon a finding
that certain conditions as detailed in the official Zoning Chapter exist, the use or development conforms to
the comprehensive land use plan of the community and the use is compatible with the existing
neighborhood.
DECK. A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises or other
features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site and at any point extending more than
three feet above the ground.
DWELLING SITE. A designated location for residential use by one or more persons using temporary or
movable shelter, including camping and recreational vehicle sites.
DWELLING UNIT. Any structure or portion of a structure or other shelter designed as short- or long-
term living quarters for one or more persons, including rental or timeshare accommodations such as motel,
hotel, and resort rooms and cabins.
EXTRACTIVE USE. The use of land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial
minerals, other nonmetallic minerals and peat not regulated under M.S. §§ 9.44 to 9.51, as it may be
amended from time to time.
FOREST LAND CONVERSION. The clear cutting of forested land to prepare for a new land use other
than reestablishment of a subsequent forest stand.
HARDSHIP. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed
by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not
created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a HARDSHIP if a reasonable use for the property exists
under terms of the official controls.
HEIGHT OF BUILDING. The vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the
building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or
average height of the highest gable of a pitch or hipped roof.
INDUSTRIAL USE. The use of land or buildings for the production, manufacture, warehousing, storage
or transfer of goods, products, commodities or other wholesale items.
INTENSIVE VEGETATION CLEARING. The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous
patch, strip, row or block.
LOT. A designated parcel, tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted
by law, to be used developed or built upon as a unit.
LOT WIDTH. The shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line.
NONCONFORMING USE. Any legal use, structure or parcel of land already in existence, recorded or
authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments thereto that would not have been
permitted to become established under the terms of the official controls as now written, if the official
controls had been in effect prior to the date it was established, recorded or authorized.
OPEN SPACE. Undeveloped land of the subdivided property providing visual expanses and recreational
areas clear of obstructions other than natural vegetation, or structures directly related to the use and
enjoyment of these spaces. OPEN SPACES may include natural habitats, places for neighborhood
recreation and pedestrian corridors.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL. The boundary of public waters and wetlands and shall be an
elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to
leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from
predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A type of development characterized by a unified site design for a
number of dwelling units or dwelling sites on a parcel, whether for sale, rent or lease, and also usually
involving clustering of these units or sites to provide areas of common open space, density increase, and a
mix of structure types and land uses. These developments may be organized and operated as
condominiums, time-share condominiums, cooperatives, full fee ownership, commercial enterprises, or any
combination of these, or cluster subdivisions of dwelling units, residential condominiums, townhouses,
apartment buildings, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, resorts, hotels, motels and conversions of
structures and land uses to these uses.
PUBLIC WATERS. Any waters as defined in M.S. § 103G.005, Subd. 15, as it may be amended from
time to time.
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A use where the nature of residency is
nontransient and the major or primary focus of the development is not service-oriented. For example,
residential apartments, manufactured home parks, time-share condominiums, townhouses, cooperatives and
full fee ownership residences would be considered as RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT. To qualify as a residential PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, a development must
contain at least five dwelling units or sites.
RESORT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Typically uses that provide transient, short-term
lodging spaces, rooms or parcels and their operations are essentially service-oriented. For example,
hotel/motel accommodations, resorts, recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily service-
oriented activities are resort planned unit developments.
SEMIPUBLIC USE. The use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that
is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization.
SENSITIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. The preservation and management of areas unsuitable for
development in their natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock,
highly erosive or expansive soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding or occurrence of flora or fauna in
need of special protection.
SETBACK. The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system or other
facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, road, highway, property line or other
facility.
SEWER SYSTEM. Pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main and all other construction,
devices, appliances or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a
point of ultimate disposal.
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. A septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or
cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in § 1102.11 of this chapter.
SHORE IMPACT ZONE. Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a
line parallel to it at a setback of 50% of the structure setback.
SHORELAND. Land located within 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lakes and land
located within 300 feet from the streams classified in § 1102.05 or the landward extent of a flood plain
designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced
whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters
for lesser distances and when approved by the Commissioner.
SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITE. Any archaeological site, standing structure or other property that
meets the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register
of Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of M.S. §
307.08, as it may be amended from time to time. An historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed
on either register or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota
state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are
automatically considered to be SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITES.
STEEP SLOPE. Land where development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due
to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics as mapped and described in available county. Soil
surveys or other reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are
used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Where specific information is not available, STEEP
SLOPES are lands having average slopes over 12%, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or
more that are not bluffs.
STRUCTURE. Any building or appurtenance, including decks, mobile homes, docks and boat launches,
except aerial or underground utility lines, such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph, gas lines, towers,
poles and other supporting facilities.
SUBDIVISION. Land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent or lease, including planned unit
developments.
SURFACE WATER-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL USE. The use of land for commercial purposes,
where access to and use of a surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business.
Marinas, resorts and restaurants with transient docking facilities are examples of that use.
WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY, STRUCTURE OR FACILITY. A small, above ground building or
other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship
of its use to a surface water feature, reasonable needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal
structure setback. Examples of those structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses,
fish houses, pump houses and detached decks.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.04 ADMINISTRATION.
(1) Permits required.
(a) Permit required. A building permit is required for the construction of buildings or building
additions (including related activities such as construction of decks and signs), the installation and/or
alteration of sewage treatment systems, and a grading permit for those grading and filling activities not
exempted by § 1102.09 of this chapter. Application for a permit shall be made to the Zoning Administrator
on forms provided. The application shall include the necessary information so that the Zoning
Administrator can determine the site's suitability for the intended use and that a compliant sewage treatment
system will be provided.
(b) Permit stipulation. A building permit authorizing an addition to an existing structure shall
stipulate that an identified nonconforming sewage treatment system, as defined in § 1102.11 shall be
reconstructed or replaced in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(2) Certificate of zoning compliance. The Zoning Administrator shall issue a certificate of zoning
compliance for each activity requiring a permit as specified in division (1) above of this section. This
certificate will specify that the use of land conforms to the requirements of this chapter. Any use,
arrangement or construction at variance with that authorized by permit shall be deemed a violation of this
chapter and shall be punishable as provided in § 1102.02(3) of this chapter.
(3) Variances.
(a) Variances may only be granted in accordance with M.S. Ch. 462, as it may be amended from time
to time, as applicable. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this chapter. No
variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the
subject property is located. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance to ensure compliance
and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. In considering a variance request, the Zoning
Administrator must also consider whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the
variance, whether the property is used seasonally or year-round, whether the variance is being requested
solely on the basis of economic considerations, and the characteristics of development on adjacent
properties.
(b) The City Council shall hear and decide requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it
has adopted for the conduct of business of the City Zoning Chapter. When a variance is approved after the
Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification
of the approved variance required in division (4)(b) shall also include the City Council's summary of the
public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of the
variance.
(c) For existing developments, the applications for variance must clearly demonstrate whether a
conforming sewage treatment system is present for the intended use of the property. The variance, if issued,
must require reconstruction of a nonconforming sewage treatment system.
(4) Notification to the Department of Natural Resources.
(a) Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, zoning amendments or
conditional uses in the Shoreland Overlay District must be sent to the Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources or the Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten days before
the hearings. Notices of hearing to consider proposed subdivision/plats must include copies of the
subdivision/plat.
(b) A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions/plats and final decisions granting variances or
conditional uses in the Flood Plain or Shoreland Management Districts must be sent to the Commissioner
or the Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten days of final action.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.05 SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT.
(1) Establishment of Shoreland Overlay District. The public waters of the city have been classified
consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300. The Shoreland Overlay
District for the waterbodies listed below is that land within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level of the
lakes and 300 feet from a river or stream as shown on the official zoning map.
(a) Natural environment lakes.
Natural Environment Lakes Protected Water
Inventory I.D. #
Ordinary High Water
Level (OHWL)
Unnamed 2-1
Peltier Lake 2-4 884.7
George Watch Lake 2-5
Marshan Lake 2-7 883.3
Rice Lake 2-8 883.1
Wards Lake 2-10 883.7
Sherman Lake 2-11
Cedar Lake 2-12 892.9
Amelia Lake 2-14 908.1
Rondeau Lake 2-15
Wilkinson Lake 62-43 895.2
(b) Recreational development lakes.
Recreational Development Lakes Protected Water
Inventory I.D. #
Ordinary High Water
Level (OHWL)
Otter Lake 2-3 911.5
Centerville Lake 2-6 885.0
Reshanau Lake 2-9 883.5
Baldwin Lake 2-13 883.1
(c) General development lake.
General Development Lake Protected Water
Inventory I.D. #
Ordinary High Water
Level (OHWL)
Bald Eagle Lake 62-2 911.0
(d) Tributary rivers and streams.
Tributary Rivers and Streams Protected Watercourse Legal Description
Rice Creek From Basin 740 to Basin 13
Hardwood Creek From T31N, R22W, Sect. 12 to Basin 4
(2) Establishment of official zoning map. The official zoning map, together with all materials attached
thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The attached material shall
include the protected waters inventory map for Anoka County. The official zoning map shall be on file in
the office of the Zoning Administrator.
(3) Land use district descriptions.
(a) Criteria for designation. The land use districts in division (3)(b) below and the delineation of a
land use district's boundaries on the official zoning map must be consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the comprehensive land use plan.
(b) Land use district descriptions. The land use districts and the allowable land uses therein for the
given classifications of waterbodies shall be properly delineated on the official zoning map for the
shorelands of the city. The designated land use districts shall be in conformance with the criteria specified
in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3200, Subp. 3.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.06 SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT USES.
(1) Permitted uses. The permitted uses in the Shoreland Overlay District are those uses allowed and
regulated by the applicable underlying zoning district as indicated on the official zoning map of the city.
(2) Conditional uses.
(a) The conditional uses in the Shoreland Overlay District are those uses allowed and regulated on a
conditional basis by the applicable underlying zoning district as indicated on the official zoning map of the
city.
(b) Evaluation criteria. A thorough evaluation of the waterbody and the topographic, vegetation and
soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure:
1. The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after
construction in accordance with Chapter 1001 and 1005 and the Zoning Chapter 1007 of the city code;
2. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited;
3. The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and
4. The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation
to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft.
(c) Conditions attached to conditional use permits. The city, upon consideration of the criteria listed
above and the purposes of this chapter, shall attach the conditions to the issuance of the conditional use
permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this chapter and the City Zoning Chapter. These
conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level;
2. Limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the requirement that additional vegetation
be planted; and
3. Special provisions for the location, design and use of structures, watercraft launching and docking
areas and vehicle parking areas.
(d) City Council. The City Council shall hear and decide applications for conditional uses permissible
under this chapter in accordance with conditional use permit approval process of the city code.
(3) Permitted accessory uses.
(a) The permitted accessory uses in the Shoreland Overlay District are those uses allowed and
regulated as accessory uses by the applicable underlying zoning district as indicated on the official zoning
map of the city.
(b) Water-oriented accessory structures are permitted when constructed in accordance with the design
criteria of § 1102.07(2)(b).
(c) Dock and boat launches are permitted provided they are constructed on the same lot as the
principal structure.
(4) Prohibited uses. Any uses which are not permitted or conditional uses as regulated by the applicable
underlying zoning district as indicated on the official zoning map are not permitted.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.07 ZONING AND WATER SUPPLY/SANITARY PROVISIONS.
(1) Lot area and width standards. The following standards shall apply to all lots within the Shoreland
Overlay District, provided that the resulting total development density in the shoreland area does not
exceed the total city-wide shoreland density allowed based on state shoreland standards. The city, in its
evaluation of any development, shall evaluate the proposed development in light of the development
capacity of the city-wide Shoreland Overlay District. Where the requirements of the underlying zoning
district are more or less restrictive than those set forth herein, the more restrictive standards shall apply.
(a) Residential (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-3, R-4) Zoning Districts.
NE RD GD T
Lot Area per Unit:
Unsewered* no unsewered in R-2, R-3, R-4 zones 10 acres 10 acres 10 acres 10 acres
Sewered abutting **
Single-family 20,000 20,000 20,000
Two-family/duplex 8,775 8.775 8,775
Triplex/quad/townhome 6,000 6,000 6,000
Sewer non-abutting **
Single-family 10,800 10,800 10,800
Two-family/duplex 8,775 8,775 8,775
Triplex/quad/townhome 5,000 5,000 5,000
Lot Width/Base Lot***
Unsewered*330 330 330 330
Sewered abutting
Single-family 80 80 80 80
Two-family/duplex 130 130 130 130
Triplex/quad/townhome 130 130 130 130
Sewered non-abutting
Single-family 80 80 80 130
Two-family/duplex 130 130 130 130
Triplex/quad/townhome 130 130 130 130
* Lot size requirement in unsewered area are delineated by the standards of the base zoning
districts.
** Lot area and width requirements along rivers in sewered areas and commercial zoning districts
in sewered areas will be delineated by the standards of the base zoning districts.
*** Lot widths shall be measured at both the front building setback line and at the setback from
the ordinary high water level.
(b) Commercial and Industrial (NB, LB, GB, CB, SC, LI, GI) Zoning Districts.
NE RD GD T
Lot area
No unsewered commercial or industrial
Sewered abutting
Commercial 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre **
Industrial 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre
Sewered non-abutting
Commercial ********
Industrial 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre
Lot widths***
Sewered abutting
Commercial 100 100 100 100
Industrial 150 150 150 150
Sewered non-abutting
Commercial ********
Industrial 150 150 150 150
* Lot size requirement in unsewered area are delineated by the standards of the base zoning
districts.
** Lot area and width requirements along rivers in sewered areas and commercial zoning districts
in sewered areas will be delineated by the standards of the base zoning districts.
*** Lot widths shall be measured at both the front building setback line and at the setback from
the ordinary high water level.
(c) Additional special provisions.
1. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters and outside existing watercourses
can be used to meet the lot area standards.
2. The shoreland lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and the
building setback line.
3. All single-family, two-family, triplex, quadraminium, townhouse, commercial and industrial
subdivisions must provide a grading and drainage plan for review and approval of the city engineer and
Rice Creek Watershed District. The grading and drainage plan shall include:
a. Compliance for the impervious surface standards of the respective zoning district;
b. The subdivision or lot development shall provide for the collection and treatment of storm water
in compliance with the Lino Lakes local storm water management plan if determined that the site
improvements will result in increased runoff directly entering a public water. All grading and drainage
plans shall require review and approval by the city engineer and the Rice Creek Watershed District;
c. Measures to be taken for the treatment of storm water runoff and/or prevention of storm water
from directly entering a public water. The measures may include, but not be limited to the following:
i. Appurtenances as sedimentation basins, debris basins, desalting basins or silt traps;
ii. Installation of debris guards and microsilt basins on storm sewer inlets;
iii. Use where necessary, oil skimming devices or sump catch basins;
iv. Direct drainage away from the lake and into pervious, grassed yards through site grading, use
of gutters and downspouts;
v. Construct sidewalks and driveways of partially pervious raised materials such as decking
which has natural earth or other previous material beneath or between the planking;
vi. Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid-infiltration; for example,
sand and gravel under impervious materials with adjacent infiltration swales graded to lead into them;
and/or
vii. Install berms, water bars or terraces which temporarily detain water before dispersing it into
pervious area.
4. Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed the following percentages of lot area:
NE RD GD R
Single-family 30%30%30%30%
Two-family/duplex 30%30%30%30%
Triplex/quad/townhomes 35%35%35%35%
Commercial/industrial 60%60%60%60%
5. Medium density residential, commercial and industrial structures, parking areas and other
facilities shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by
vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and
topographic screening shall be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided.
6. Accessory structures and facilities shall meet the required principal structure setback and shall be
centralized.
7. Multiple-family developments shall contain open space meeting the following criteria:
a. At least 35% of the total development area shall be preserved as open space;
b. Dwelling units or sites, land covered by road surfaces, parking areas or structures are developed
areas and shall not be included in the computation of minimum open space;
c. Open space shall include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their
natural state and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries; and
d. The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, shall be included as open space. At
least 50% of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least 70% of the shore impact zone
area of new developments shall be preserved in its natural or existing state.
8. Residential subdivisions exceeding those permitted by the lot area standards of this section can
only be allowed if designed and approved as a residential planned unit development under § 1102.13 of this
chapter.
(2) Placement, design and height of structures.
(a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and
facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of
a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining
setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore
impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows.
1. Structure and on-site sewage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary high water level.
Classes of Public Waters
Structures Sewage
Treatment
SystemUnseweredSewered
Lakes
Natural environment 150 150 150
Recreational development 100 75 75
General development 75 50 50
Rivers and streams 100 50 75
* One water-oriented accessory structure exclusive of one dock and lake access individual lot, designed in
accordance with division (2)(b) below of this chapter may be set back a minimum distance of ten feet from
the ordinary high water level.
2. Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the
classification of the water body:
Setback From:Setback (in feet)
Top of bluff 30
Unplatted cemetery 50
Right-of-way line of federal, state or county highway 40
Right-of-way line of a town road, public street or other roads or
streets not classified 30
3. Uses without water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs must be substantially
screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
4. Exceptions to structure setback requirements. Accessory structures may be located in the front
yard of lakeshore properties upon approval of a riparian lot variance.
(b) Design criteria for structures.
1. High water elevations.
a. Structures must be placed with the lowest floor three feet above the (OHW) ordinary high water
level in accordance with the local water management plan for the City of Lino Lakes.
b. Water-oriented structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined
in the local water management plan if the structure is constructed of flood-resistant materials to the
elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding
is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris.
2. Water-oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure not
meeting the normal structure setback in division (2)(a) above of this chapter if this water-oriented structure
complies with the following provisions:
a. The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails and cannot
occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. Detached decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any
point;
b. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten
feet;
c. The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and
adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions;
d. The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed or used as a storage
area;
e. The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain
water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and
f. Within the shoreland areas of general development and recreational development waterbodies,
water-oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage or related
boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area up to 400 square feet provided the
maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline.
3. Stairways, lifts and landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic
alterations for achieving access up and down steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the
following design requirements:
a. Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may
be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties and planned unit
developments;
b. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area.
Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational
properties and planned unit developments;
c. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts or landings;
d. Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or
placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil
erosion;
e. Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots,
as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical;
and
f. Facilities such as ramps, lifts, mobility paths for, physically handicapped persons are also
allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of
division (2)(b)1. to (2)(b)5. or complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations,
Chapter 1340.
4. Significant historic sites. No structure may be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that
affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented
in a public repository.
5. Steep slopes. The Zoning Administrator must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and
development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment
systems, roads, driveways, structures or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary,
conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation
screening of structures, vehicles and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming
summer, leaf-on vegetation.
(c) Height of structures. All structures shall not exceed 36 feet in height, except churches and
nonresidential agricultural structures.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.08 NONCONFORMITIES.
All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this chapter may continue, but they will be
managed according to applicable state statutes and other regulations of the city for the subjects of
alterations and additions, repair after damage, discontinuance of use and intensification of use; except that
the following standards will also apply in the Shoreland Overlay District.
(1) Construction on nonconforming lots of record.
(a) Lots of record in the office of the county recorder prior to the date of enactment of this chapter
which do not meet the requirements of § 1102.07(1) may be allowed as building sites without variances
from lot size requirements, provided:
1. This use is permitted in the underlying zoning district;
2. The lot is and has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became
substandard;
3. The lot was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time;
4. All other dimensional requirements are complied with insofar as practical; and
5. Sewage treatment and setback requirements of this chapter are met.
(b) A variance from setback requirements must be obtained before any use or building permit is issued
for a lot. In evaluating the variance, the City Council shall consider sewage treatment and water supply
capabilities or constraints of the lot and shall deny the variance if adequate facilities cannot be provided.
(c) If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not
meet the requirements of § 1102.07(1), the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the
purposes of sale or development. The lot must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they
equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the requirements of § 1102.07 of this chapter as much as
possible.
(2) Additions/expansions to nonconforming structures.
(a) All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must
meet the setback, height and other requirements of this chapter. Any deviation from these requirements
must be authorized by a variance pursuant to § 1102.04(3).
(b) Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback
from the ordinary high water level if all of the following criteria and standards are met:
1. The structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established;
2. A thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck
meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure;
3. The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not exceed 15% of the existing
setback of the structure from the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than 30 feet,
whichever is more restrictive; and
4. The deck is constructed primarily of wood and is not roofed or screened.
(3) Nonconforming sewage treatment systems.
(a) A sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of § 1102.11 of this chapter must be
upgraded, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on,
or use of, the property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be
considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system's improper setback from
the ordinary high water level.
(b) The governing body of the city has by formal resolution notified the commissioner of its program
to identify nonconforming sewage treatment systems. The city will require upgrading or replacement of any
nonconforming system identified by this program within a reasonable period of time which will not exceed
two years. Sewage systems installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards
adopted under M.S. § 103F.211, as it may be amended from time to time, in effect at the time of installation
may be considered as conforming unless they are determined to be failing, except that systems using
cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits or other deep disposal, method or systems with less soils treatment
area separation above groundwater than required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Chapter
7080 for design of on-site sewage treatment systems shall be considered nonconforming.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.09 SHORELAND ALTERATIONS.
Alterations of vegetation and topography in the Shoreland Overlay District will be regulated to prevent
erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent
bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat.
(1) Vegetation alterations.
(a) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, uses
permitted in the underlying zoning district and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by
division (3) below of this chapter are exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow.
(b) Removal or alteration of natural vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as
regulated in § 1102.10, shall be restricted to prevent erosion into protected waters, to consume nutrients in
the soil and to preserve shoreland aesthetic. Removal of natural vegetation in the Shoreland Overlay
District is allowed subject to the following standards.
1. Clear cutting of natural vegetation is prohibited.
2. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees is allowed to
provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways
and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas and permitted water-oriented
accessory structures or facilities, provided that:
a. The screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming
summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced;
b. Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and
c. The above provision is not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs or branches that are dead,
diseased or pose safety hazards.
3. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project is completed
to retard surface runoff and soil erosion.
4. The provisions of this section shall not apply to permitted uses which normally require the
removal of natural vegetation.
(2) Topographic alterations/grading and filling.
(a) Grading, filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment
systems, driveways and other uses permitted in the underlying zoning district under validly issued
construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit.
However, the grading and filling standards in this section must be incorporated into the issuance of permits
for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways.
(b) Public roads and parking areas are regulated by division (3) of this chapter.
(c) Notwithstanding divisions (2)(a) and (2)(b) above, a grading and-filling permit, in accordance with
the City Zoning Chapter, will be required for:
1. The movement of more than ten cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within the shore impact
zone; or
2. The movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material per acre.
(d) The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of
construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision
approvals:
1. Grading or filling in any wetland must be evaluated to determine the extent of impact to the
functions and values of the wetland area in accordance with the city code. This evaluation must also include
a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews or approvals by
other local, state or federal agencies such as a watershed district, a local governmental unit, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant will be so
advised.
2. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of
bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where
necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon
as possible;
3. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water
feature must be used. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent
with the field office technical guides of the Anoka County Soil and Water Conservation District and the
United States Soil Conservation Service;
4. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. Plans to
place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued
slope stability and must not create finished sloped of 30% or greater;
5. Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of the waterbodies described in § 1002.05(1)
must first be authorized by the Commissioner under M.S. § 103G.245, as it may be amended from time to
time;
6. Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are necessary to allow a defined permitted
accessory or conditional use within the underlying zoning district and do not adversely affect adjacent or
nearby properties; and
7. Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a
filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the
landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level and the height of the riprap
above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet.
(e) Connections to public waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public
water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons and harbors, must be controlled by local shoreland controls.
Permission for excavations may be given only after the Commissioner has approved the proposed
connection to public waters.
(3) Placement and design of roads, driveways and parking areas.
(a) Public and private roads and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural
vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation
must be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to
minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the Lino Lakes local water management plan.
(b) Roads, driveways and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within
shore impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist,
they may be placed within these areas and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts.
(c) Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads and access-related parking areas may
be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of
this division are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of division (2) of this chapter
must be met.
(4) Stormwater management.
(a) Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed the impervious surface percentage of lot area
outlined in § 1102.07 of this chapter.
(b) When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands and vegetated soil surfaces must be used
to convey, store, filter and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters.
(c) Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of
disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas
must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the
site.
(d) When development density, topographic features and soil and vegetation conditions are not
sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of
constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways and ponds
may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation and infiltration rather
than buried pipes and man-made materials and facilities. Residential, commercial and industrial
subdivisions and site plans shall provide for the collection and treatment of storm water in compliance with
the city storm water management plan if determined that the site improvements will result in increased
runoff directly entering a public water. All grading and drainage plans shall require review and approval by
the city engineer and the Rice Creek Watershed District.
(e) When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, documentation must be provided
by a qualified individual that they are designed and installed consistent with the Lino Lakes local water
management plan.
(f) Newly constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of
suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.10 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC,
AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND EXTRACTIVE USES AND MINING OF METALLIC
MINERALS AND PEAT.
(1) Standards for commercial, industrial, public and semipublic uses. Surface water-oriented
commercial uses and industrial, public or semipublic uses with similar needs to have access to and use of
public waters may be located on parcels or lots with frontage on public waters. Those uses with water-
oriented needs must meet the following standards:
(a) In addition to meeting impervious coverage limits, setbacks and other zoning standards in this
chapter, the uses must be designed to incorporate topographic and vegetative screening of parking areas and
structures;
(b) Uses that require short-term watercraft mooring for patrons must centralize these facilities and
design them to avoid obstructions of navigation and to be the minimum size necessary to meet the need;
and
(c) Uses that depend on patrons arriving by watercraft may use signs and lighting to convey needed
information to the public, subject to the following standards:
1. No advertising signs or supporting facilities for signs may be placed in or upon public waters.
Signs conveying information or safety messages may be placed in or on public waters by a public authority
or under a permit issued by the Anoka County Sheriff;
2. Signs may be placed, when necessary, within the shore impact zone if they are designed and sized
to be the minimum necessary to convey needed information. They must only convey the location and name
of the establishment and the general types of goods or services available. The signs must not contain other
detailed information such as product brands and prices, must not be located higher than ten feet above the
ground and must not exceed 32 square feet in size. If illuminated by artificial lights, the lights must be
shielded or directed to prevent illumination out across public waters; and
3. Other outside lighting may be located within the shore impact zone or over public waters if it is
used primarily to illuminate potential safety hazards and is shielded or otherwise directed to prevent
illumination out across public waters. This does not preclude use of navigational lights.
(2) Agriculture use standards.
(a) General cultivation farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, sod farming and wild
crop harvesting are permitted uses if steep slopes and shore impact zones are maintained in permanent
vegetation or operated under an approved conservation plan consistent with the Lino Lakes local water
management plan, as provided by a qualified individual or agency. The shore impact zone for parcels with
permitted agricultural land uses is equal to a line parallel to and 50 feet from the ordinary high water level.
(b) Animal feedlots must meet the following standards:
1. New feedlots must not be located in the shoreland of watercourses and must meet a minimum
setback of 300 feet from the ordinary high water level of all public waters basins; and
2. Modifications or expansions to existing feedlots that are located within 300 feet of the ordinary
high water level are allowed if they do not further encroach into the existing ordinary high water level
setback.
(3) Forest management standards. The harvesting of timber and associated reforestation must be
conducted consistent with the provisions of the Minnesota Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment-Forestry
and the provisions of Water Quality in Forest Management "Best Management Practices in Minnesota."
(4) Extractive use standards.
(a) Site development and restoration plan. An extractive use site development and restoration plan
must be developed, approved and followed over the course of operation of the site. The plan must address
dust, noise, possible pollutant discharges, hours and duration of operation and anticipated vegetation and
topographic alterations. It must also identify actions to be taken during operation to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts, particularly erosion and must clearly explain how the site will be rehabilitated after
extractive activities end.
(b) Setbacks for processing machinery. Processing machinery must be located consistent with setback
standards for structures from ordinary high water levels of public waters.
(5) Mining of metallic minerals and peat. Mining of metallic minerals and peat, as defined in M.S. §§
93.44 to 93.51, as they may be amended from time to time, shall be a permitted use provided the provisions
of M.S. §§ 93.44 to 93.51, as they may be amended from time to time, are satisfied.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.11 WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE TREATMENT.
(1) Water supply. Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed
standards for water quality of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
(2) Sewage treatment. Any premises used for human occupancy must be provided with an adequate
method of sewage treatment as follows.
(a) Publicly-owned sewer systems must be used in accordance with Chapter 402 of the city code. Any
new buildings used for human habitation or human occupancy, including businesses, located on property
adjacent to a sewer main or in a block through which the system extends, shall be connected to the
municipal sanitary sewer system.
(b) All private sewage treatment systems must meet or exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's standards for individual sewage treatment systems contained in the document titled, "Individual
Sewage Treatment Systems Standards, Chapter 7080," as may be amended, a copy of which is hereby
adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter.
(c) On-site sewage treatment systems must be set back from the ordinary high water level in
accordance with the setbacks contained in § 1102.07 of this chapter.
(d) All proposed sites for individual sewage treatment systems shall be evaluated in accordance with
the criteria in divisions (2)(d)1. through (2)(d)4. below. If the determination of a site's suitability cannot be
made with publicly available, existing information, it shall then be the responsibility of the applicant to
provide sufficient soil borings and percolation tests from on-site field investigations. Evaluation criteria:
1. Depth to the highest known on calculated ground water table or bedrock;
2. Soil conditions, properties and permeability;
3. Slope; and
4. The existence of lowlands, local surface depressions and rock outcrops.
(e) Nonconforming sewage treatment systems shall be regulated and upgraded in accordance with §
1102.08(3) of this chapter.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.12 SUBDIVISION/PLATTING PROVISIONS.
(1) Land suitability. Each lot created through subdivision, including planned unit developments
authorized under § 1102.13 of this chapter, must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with
minimal alteration. Suitability analysis by the City Council shall consider susceptibility to flooding,
existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion
potential, steep topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, near-shore aquatic
conditions unsuitable for water-based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant
historic sites or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of
future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community.
(2) Consistency with other controls. Subdivisions must conform to all official controls of this
community. A subdivision will not be approved where a later variance from one or more standards in
official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended purpose. In areas not served by publicly
owned sewer and water systems, a subdivision will not be approved unless domestic water supply is
available and a sewage treatment system consistent with §§ 1102.08(3) and 1102.11 can be provided for
every lot. Each lot shall meet the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements of § 1102.07(1) including
at least a minimum contiguous lawn area, that is free of limiting factors sufficient for the construction of
two standard soil treatment systems. Lots that would require use of holding tanks shall not be approved.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
§ 1102.13 SHORELAND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD).
(1) Types of PUDs permissible. Shoreland planned unit developments, as defined in § 1102.03, are
allowed for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previously built sites or conversions of
existing buildings and land.
(2) Processing of shoreland PUDs. Planned unit developments shall be processed as a conditional use
permit or a rezoning to PUD in accordance with the City Zoning Code as well as the performance standards
outlined herein.
(3) Application for a PUDs. The application for a PUD/CUP must submit the following documents in
addition to documents required by Chapter 1001 of the city code and the City Zoning Code, Chapter 1007,
prior to final action being taken on the application request:
(a) A site plan and/or plat for the project showing locations of property boundaries, surface water
features, existing and proposed structures and other facilities, land alterations, sewage treatment and water
supply systems where public systems will not be provided and topographic contours at ten-foot intervals or
less. When a PUD is a combined commercial and residential development, the site plan and/or plat must
indicate and distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential, commercial or a
combination of the two.
(b) A property owners association agreement (for residential PUDs) with mandatory membership and
all in accordance with the requirements of division (4)(c)3.
(c) Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that:
1. Properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional
buildings, beaching of watercraft and construction of commercial buildings in residential PUDs; and
2. Ensure the long-term preservation and maintenance of open space in accordance with the criteria
and analysis specified in division (4)(d).
(d) When necessary, a master plan/drawing describing the project and the floor plan for all commercial
structures to be occupied.
(e) Those additional documents as requested by the city that are necessary to explain how the PUD
will be designed and will function.
(4) Site "suitable area" evaluation. Suitable area for development within a shoreland planned unit
developments (PUDs) shall exclude all wetland, watercourses, land below the ordinary high water level of
public waters, public street rights-of-way and public parks. This suitable area and the proposed project are
subject to PUD performance standards governing density and design.
(a) All PUDs must have access to public sanitary sewer and water.
(b) Lot area and width standards. The following lot are per unit standards shall apply to all PUDs
within the Shoreland Overlay District provided that the resulting total development density in the shoreland
area does not exceed the total city-wide shoreland density allowed based on State of Minnesota shoreland
standards. The city, in its evaluation of any PUD, shall evaluate the proposed PUD density in light of the
development capacity of the city-wide Shoreland Overlay District. Where the requirements of the
underlying zoning district are more or less restrictive than those set forth herein, the more restrictive
standards shall apply.
Residential (R-3, R-4 Zoning Districts)
NE RD GD T
Lot area:
Townhomes 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Apartments/condominiums 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900
Lot width:
Townhomes 150 130 130 130
Apartments/condominiums 150 130 130 130
Setbacks:
1. OHWL 200 feet
2. Setback from streets:
a. Right-of-way line of federal, state or
county highway 40 feet
b. Local street 30 feet
3. Side yard setback 20 feet
4. Setback between buildings on multiple
building site 35 feet
5. Bluff setback 50 feet
(c) Maintenance and administration requirements.
1. Provisions for preservation and maintenance. Before final approval of a planned unit
development, adequate provisions must be developed for preservation sand maintenance in perpetuity of
open spaces and for the continued existence and functioning of the development.
2. Open space preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication
and acceptance or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long-term
preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections:
a. Commercial uses prohibited (for residential PUDs);
b. Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance prohibited;
c. Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials prohibited; and
d. Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft prohibited.
3. Development organization and functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community
framework is established, when applicable, all residential planned unit developments must use an owners
association with the following features:
a. Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive
purchasers;
b. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses and unpaid assessments
can become liens on units or sites;
c. Assessments must be adjustable to: accommodate changing conditions; and
d. The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly
owned property and facilities.
(d) Open space requirements. Planned unit developments must contain open space meeting of the
following criteria:
1. At least 50% of the total project area must be preserved as open space;
2. Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way or land covered by road surfaces, parking areas or,
structures, except water-oriented accessory structures or facilities are developed areas and shall not be
included in the computation of minimum open space;
3. Open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their
natural state and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries;
4. Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of dwelling units or
sites, by guests staying in commercial dwelling units or site and by the general public;
5. Open space must not include commercial facilities or uses, but may contain water-oriented
accessory structures or facilities;
6. The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation and allowable uses, must be
preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance or
other equally effective and permanent means; and
7. The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, must be included as open space. For
residential PUDs, at least 50% of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least 70% of
the shore impacts zone area of new developments must be preserved in its natural or existing state. For
commercial PUDs, at least 50% of the shore impact zone must be preserved in its natural state.
(e) Erosion control and stormwater management. Erosion control and stormwater management plans
must be developed and the PUD must:
1. Be designed, and the construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion
occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length
of time or bare ground exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer
strips or other appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion impacts on surface water features.
Erosion control plans must be in accordance with the Lino Lakes local water management plan and
approved by the City Council; and
2. Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and qualities of
stormwater runoff. Impervious surface coverage must not exceed 35% with an approved stormwater
management plan and consistency with § 1102.09.
(f) Centralization and design of facilities. Centralization and design of facilities and structures must be
done according to the following standards.
1. Planned unit developments must be connected to publicly owned water supply and sewer systems.
2. Dwelling units or sites must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of
the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional
standards for the relevant shoreland classification, setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation
above the surface water features and maximum height.
3. Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks and watercraft
mooring areas and launching ramps, must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. The shared
lake access must be approved by the City Council. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of
land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock or other relevant factors. The
number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring or docking of watercraft must not exceed one
for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier (notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an
existing commercially used harbor). Launching ramp facilities including a small dock for loading and
unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers.
4. Structures, parking areas and other facilities must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed form
public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color or other means
acceptable to the City Council, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening
must be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided.
5. Accessory structures and facilities, except water-oriented accessory structures, must meet the
required principal structural setbacks and must be centralized.
6. Water-oriented accessory structures and facilities may be allowed if they meet or exceed design
standards contained in § 1102.07(2) of this chapter and are centralized.
(5) Conversions. The city may allow existing resorts or other land uses and facilities to be converted to
residential planned unit developments if all of the following standards are met.
(a) Proposed conversions must be initially evaluated using the same procedures for residential planned
unit developments involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the
development and these standards must be identified.
(b) Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage,
open space and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the
conditional use permit.
(c) Shore impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of
the conversion. These improvements must include, where applicable, the following:
1. Removal of extraneous buildings, docks or other facilities that no longer need to be located in
shore impact zones;
2. Remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of
buildings and other facilities as viewed from the water; and
3. If existing dwelling units are located in shore impacts zones, conditions shall be attached to
approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial alterations. The
conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible, to other locations,
meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced.
(d) 1. Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in division (4) may be
allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the
future.
2. Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring
seasonal use, improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage
treatment systems or other means.
(Ord. 04-95, passed 4-10-1995)
CHAPTER 1103: FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
Section
1103.01 Statutory authorization, findings of fact and purpose
1103.02 General provisions
1103.03 Definitions
1103.04 Establishment of zoning districts
1103.05 Floodway District (FW)
1103.06 Flood Fringe District (FF)
1103.07 General Floodplain District (GF)
1103.08 Land development standards
1103.09 Public utilities, railroads, roads, and bridges
1103.10 Manufactured homes, manufactured home parks, recreational vehicle
parks and recreational vehicles
1103.11 Administration
1103.12 Nonconformities
1103.13 Amendments
1103.99 Penalties and enforcement
§ 1103.01 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE.
(1) Statutory authorization. The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in M.S. Chs. 103F and 462,
delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood
losses.
(2) Purpose.
(a) This chapter regulates development in the flood hazard areas of the city. These flood hazard areas
are subject to the periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety
hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood
protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this chapter, to promote the public
health, safety and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions.
(b) National Flood Insurance Compliance. This chapter is adopted to comply with the rules and
regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 C.F.R. pt. 59 - 78, as amended, so as to
maintain the community's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.
(c) This chapter is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses
and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil
erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits
and enhance community and economic development.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.02 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(1) Uses. This chapter adopts the floodplain maps applicable to the city and includes three floodplain
districts: floodway, flood fringe, and general floodplain.
(a) Where floodway and flood fringe districts are delineated on the floodplain maps, the standards of §
1103.05 or § 1103.06 will apply, depending on the location of a property.
(b) Locations where floodway and flood fringe districts are not delineated on the floodplain maps are
considered to fall within the General Floodplain District. Within the General Floodplain District, the
floodway district standards in § 1103.05 apply unless the floodway boundary is determined, according to
the process outlined in § 1103.07. Once the floodway boundary is determined, the flood fringe district
standards in § 1103.06 may apply outside the floodway.
(2) Applicability.
(a) This chapter applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city shown on the official zoning map
and/or the attachments to the map as being located within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe, or
General Floodplain Districts.
(b) The Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts are overlay districts that are
superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in the overlay districts are in addition
to any other requirements in the zoning ordinance. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will
apply.
(3) Incorporation of maps by reference. The following maps together with all materials are hereby
adopted by reference and declared to be a part of the official zoning map and this chapter. The referenced
material includes the Flood Insurance Study for Anoka County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas and the
Flood Insurance Rate Map panels enumerated below, all dated December 16, 2015 and all prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. These materials are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the
Zoning Administrator.
(4) Regulatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE) is an
elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood
elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
(5) Interpretation. The boundaries of the zoning districts are determined by scaling distances on the
flood insurance rate map.
(a) Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official zoning map and
actual field conditions, the flood elevations shall be the governing factor. The Zoning Administrator must
interpret the boundary location based on the ground elevations that existed on the site on the date of the first
national flood insurance program map showing the area within the regulatory floodplain, and other
available technical data.
(b) Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a reasonable opportunity to
present their case to the Board of Adjustment and to submit their own technical evidence.
(6) Abrogation and greater restrictions. It is not intended by this chapter to repeal, abrogate or impair
any existing easements, covenants, deed restrictions, or other private agreements. However, where this
chapter imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. All other ordinances
inconsistent with this chapter are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only.
(7) Warning and disclaimer of liability. This chapter does not imply that areas outside of the floodplain
districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. The
chapter does not create liability on the part of the city or its officers or employees for any flood damage that
may result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made under it.
(8) Annexations. The flood insurance rate map panels adopted by reference into § 1103.02(3) above may
include floodplain areas that lie outside of the corporate boundaries of the city at the time of adoption of
this chapter. If any of these floodplain land areas are annexed into the city after the date of adoption of this
chapter, the newly annexed floodplain lands will be subject to the provisions of this chapter immediately
upon the date of annexation.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.03 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter must be interpreted according to
common usage and so as to give this chapter its most reasonable application.
ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE. A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature
customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure.
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. The elevation of the regional flood. The term BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION is used in the flood insurance study.
BASEMENT. Any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below
ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level.
CONDITIONAL USE. A specific type of structure or land use listed in the official control that may be
allowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as
provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon finding that:
(a) Certain conditions as detailed in the zoning ordinance exist; and
(b) The structure and/or land use conform to the comprehensive land use plan, if one exists, and are
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
CRITICAL FACILITIES. Facilities necessary to a community's public health and safety, those that store
or produce highly volatile, toxic or water-reactive materials, and those that house occupants that may be
insufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life or injury. Examples of critical facilities include hospitals,
correctional facilities, schools, daycare facilities, nursing homes, fire and police stations, wastewater
treatment facilities, public electric utilities, water plants, fuel storage facilities, and waste handling and
storage facilities.
DEVELOPMENT. Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including buildings or
other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of
equipment or materials.
EQUAL DEGREE OF ENCROACHMENT. A method of determining the location of floodway
boundaries so that floodplain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share
of flood flows.
FARM FENCE. A fence as defined by M.S. § 344.02 Subd. 1(a) - (d). An open type fence of posts and
wire is not considered to be a structure under this chapter. Fences that have the potential to obstruct flood
flows, such as chain link fences and rigid walls, are regulated as structures under this chapter.
FLOOD. A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that
results in the inundation of normally dry areas.
FLOOD FREQUENCY. The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge
may be equaled or exceeded.
FLOOD FRINGE. That portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous
with the term FLOODWAY FRINGE used in the Flood Insurance Study for Anoka County, Minnesota.
FLOODPLAIN. The beds proper and areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or
hereafter may be covered by the regional flood.
FLOODPROOFING. A combination of structural provisions, changes or adjustments to properties and
structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages.
FLOODWAY. The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the
adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge.
LOWEST FLOOR. The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or
flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other
than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor.
MANUFACTURED HOME. A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the
required utilities. The term MANUFACTURED HOME does not include the term RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE.
OBSTRUCTION. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection,
excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure or matter in,
along, across or projecting into any channel, watercourse or regulatory floodplain which may impede,
retard or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried
by the water.
ONE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. Lands inundated by the REGIONAL FLOOD. (See
definition.)
PRINCIPAL USE OR STRUCTURE. All uses or structures that are not accessory uses or structures.
REACH. A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced
by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two
consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. A vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less when
measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a
light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living
quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. For the purposes of this chapter, the term
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE is synonymous with the term TRAVEL TRAILER/TRAVEL VEHICLE.
REGIONAL FLOOD. A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally
in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the
magnitude of the 1% chance or 100-year recurrence interval. REGIONAL FLOOD is synonymous with the
term BASE FLOOD used in the Flood Insurance Study.
REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION (RFPE). An elevation not less than one foot
above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on
the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
REPETITIVE LOSS. Flood related damages sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a
ten year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event on the average equals or
exceeds 25% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. A term used for flood insurance purposes synonymous with ONE
HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site
utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured
homes, recreational vehicles not meeting the exemption criteria specified in § 1103.10(2)(b) of this chapter
and other similar items.
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. Means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of
restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of
the structure before the damage occurred.
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT. Within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction,
rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure
before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred
substantial damage, regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include
either:
(a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and
which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions.
(b) Any alteration of a historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's
continued designation as a historic structure. For the purpose of this chapter, HISTORIC STRUCTURE is
as defined in 44 C.F.R. pt. 59.1.
VARIANCE. A modification of the strict provisions of this chapter as applied to a specific piece of
property in order to provide relief for a property owner because of exceptional hardship imposed upon the
property by this chapter. A VARIANCE shall normally be limited to height, density and yard requirements.
A modification in the allowable uses within a district shall not be considered a VARIANCE.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. The Community Development Director, or assigns, who is charged with
the administration and enforcement of this chapter.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.04 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS.
(1) Districts.
(a) Floodway District. The Floodway District includes those areas designated as floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in § 1103.02(3). For lakes, wetlands and other basins, the Floodway
District includes those areas designated as Zone A or AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map that are at or
below the ordinary high water level as defined in M.S. § 103G.005, Subd. 14.
(b) Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District includes those areas designated as flood fringe on
the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in § 1103.02(3), as being within Zone AE but being located outside
of the floodway. For lakes, wetlands and other basins (that do not have a floodway designated), the Flood
Fringe District includes those areas designated as Zone A or AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels
adopted in § 1103.02(3) that are below the 1% annual chance (100-year) flood elevation but above the
ordinary high water level as defined in M.S. § 103G.005, Subd. 14.
(c) General Floodplain District. The General Floodplain District includes those areas designated as
Zone A or Zone AE without a floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in § 1103.02(3), but not
subject to the criteria in divisions (1)(a) and (b) above.
(2) Compliance. Within the floodplain districts established in this chapter, the use of any land, the use,
size, type and location of structures on lots, the installation and maintenance of transportation, utility, water
supply and waste treatment facilities, and the subdivision of land must comply with the terms of this
chapter and other applicable regulations. All uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in §
1103.05, 1103.06, and 1103.07, respectively, shall be prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here
that:
(a) New and replacement manufactured homes and certain recreational vehicles are subject to the
general provisions of this chapter and specifically § 1103.10 and Ch. 1007: Zoning Code.
(b) Modifications, additions, structural alterations, normal maintenance and repair, or repair after
damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by
the general provisions of this chapter and specifically § 1103.12 and Ch. 1007: Zoning Code.
(c) As-built elevations for elevated or flood-proofed structures must be certified by ground surveys and
flood-proofing techniques must be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect
as specified in the general provision of this chapter and specifically as stated in § 1103.11.
(d) Critical facilities, as defined in § 1103.03, are prohibited in all floodplain districts.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.05 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW).
(1) Permitted uses. The following uses, subject to the standards set forth in § 1103.05(2), are permitted
uses if otherwise allowed in the underlying base zoning district or any applicable overlay district:
(a) General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod
farming and wild crop harvesting.
(b) Industrial-commercial loading areas, parking areas and airport landing strips.
(c) Open space uses, including but not limited to private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving
ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, seasonal docks, swimming areas, parks,
wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, hunting and fishing areas,
and single- or multiple-purpose recreational trails.
(d) Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas and play areas as long as no permanent structures are
constructed.
(e) Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines, provided that the Department of
Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist is notified at least ten days prior to issuance of any permit, and that
the standards in divisions (4)(a), (4)(c)1., and (4)(f) of this section are met.
(2) Standards for floodway permitted uses.
(a) The use must have a low flood damage potential.
(b) With the exception of the uses listed in division (1)(e), the use must not obstruct flood flows or
increase flood elevations and must not involve structures, fill, obstructions, excavations or storage of
materials or equipment.
(c) Any facility that will be used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood
warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity
such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four
upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood.
(3) Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed as conditional uses following the standards
and procedures set forth in § 1103.11(4) of this chapter and further subject to the standards set forth in
division (4), if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district or any applicable overlay district.
(a) Structures accessory to the uses listed in division (1) and the uses listed below.
(b) Extraction and storage of sand, gravel and other materials.
(c) Marinas, boat rentals, permaent docks, piers, wharves and water control structures,
(d) Storage yards for equipment, machinery or materials.
(e) Placement of fill or construction of fences that obstruct flood flows. Farm fences, as defined in §
1103.03, are permitted uses.
(f) Travel-ready recreational vehicles meeting the exemption standards in § 1103.10(3).
(g) Levees or dikes intended to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood event equal to or less
than the 10-year frequency flood event.
(4) Standards for floodway conditional uses.
(a) All uses. A conditional use must not cause any increase in the stage of the 1% chance or regional
flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected.
(b) Fill; storage of materials and equipment.
1. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive or
potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited.
2. Fill, dredge spoil, and other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain must be
protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. Permanent sand
and gravel operations and similar uses must be covered by a long-term site development plan.
3. Temporary placement of fill, other materials, or equipment which would cause an increase to the
stage of the 1% percent chance or regional flood may only be allowed if the City Council has approved a
plan that assures removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available.
(c) Accessory structures.
1. Accessory structures must not be designed for human habitation.
2. Accessory structures, if permitted, must be constructed and placed on the building site so as to
offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters:
a. Whenever possible, structures must be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the
direction of flood flow; and
b. So far as practicable, structures must be placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as
those of adjoining structures.
3. Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with
the FP-1 or FP-2 flood-proofing classifications in the State Building Code. All floodproofed accessory
structures must meet the following additional standards:
a. The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement
and designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; and
b. Any mechanical and utility equipment in the structure must be elevated to or above the
regulatory flood protection elevation or properly floodproofed.
4. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be internally/wet floodproofed to the FP-3 or FP-4
flood-proofing classification in the State Building Code, provided the accessory structure constitutes a
minimal investment, does not exceed 576 square feet in the size. A detached garage may only be used for
parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood-proofed accessory structures must meet the following
standards:
a. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of two automatic
openings in the outside walls of the structure, with a total net area of not less than one square inch for every
square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; and
b. There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings
must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention
to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings.
(d) Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected
wetlands or public waters are subject to the provisions of M.S. § 103G.245.
(e) A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway must not cause an increase to the 1% chance
or regional flood. The technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a
stream.
(f) Floodway developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and
adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.06 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF).
(1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are those uses of land or structures allowed in the underlying zoning
district(s) that comply with the standards in division (2).
(2) Standards for flood fringe permitted uses.
(a) All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor, as
defined, is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures
must be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill must extend at
the same elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure.
1. All service utilities, including ductwork, must be elevated or water-tight to prevent infiltration of
floodwaters.
2. As an alternative to elevation on fill, an accessory structure that constitutes a minimal investment
and that does not exceed 576 square feet in size may be internally floodproofed in accordance with §
1103.05(4)(c).
(b) The cumulative placement of fill or similar material on a parcel must not exceed 1,000 cubic yards,
unless the fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with division (2) of this section,
or if allowed as a conditional use under division (3)(c) below.
(c) The storage of any materials or equipment must be elevated on fill to the regulatory flood
protection elevation.
(d) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or
potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
(e) Fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap,
vegetative cover or other acceptable method.
(f) All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two
feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, or must have a flood warning /emergency evacuation
plan acceptable to the City Council.
(g) Accessory uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at an elevation lower than
the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, any facilities used by employees or the general public
must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is
inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second)
would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood.
(h) Interference with normal manufacturing/industrial plant operations must be minimized, especially
along streams having protracted flood durations. In considering permit applications, due consideration must
be given to the needs of industries with operations that require a floodplain location.
(i) Flood fringe developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and
adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system.
(j) Manufactured homes and recreational vehicles must meet the standards of § 1103.10 of this chapter.
(3) Conditional uses. The following uses and activities may be allowed as conditional uses, if allowed in
the underlying zoning district(s) or any applicable overlay district, following the procedures in § 1103.11(4)
of this chapter.
(a) Any structure that is not elevated on fill or floodproofed in accordance with division (2)(a) of this
section.
(b) Storage of any material or equipment below the regulatory flood protection elevation.
(c) The cumulative placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill when the fill is not being used to
elevate a structure in accordance with division (2)(a) of this chapter.
(4) Standards for flood fringe conditional uses.
(a) The standards listed in divisions (2)(d) through (j) apply to all conditional uses.
(b) Basements, as defined by § 1103.03 of this chapter, are subject to the following:
1. Residential basement construction is not allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation.
2. Non-residential basements may be allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation
provided the basement is structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with division (4)(c) of this section.
(c) All areas of nonresidential structures, including basements, to be placed below the regulatory flood
protection elevation must be floodproofed in accordance with the structurally dry floodproofing
classifications in the State Building Code. Structurally dry floodprooflng must meet the FP-1 or FP-2
floodproofing classification in the State Building Code, which requires making the structure watertight with
the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components capable of
resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. Structures wet floodproofed to
the FP-3 or FP-4 classification are not permitted.
(d) The placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material on a parcel (other
than for the purpose of elevating a structure to the regulatory flood protection elevation) must comply with
an approved erosion/sedimentation control plan.
1. The plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event at a
minimum of the regional (1% chance) flood event.
2. The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer or other qualified
individual acceptable to the City Council.
3. The plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of the material from the floodplain if
adequate flood warning time exists.
(e) Storage of materials and equipment below the regulatory flood protection elevation must comply
with an approved emergency plan providing for removal of such materials within the time available after a
flood warning.
(f) Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's
lowest floor above the regulatory flood protection elevation. These alternative methods may include the use
of stilts, pilings, parallel walls, etc., or above-grade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under
garages. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered above-grade and not a structure's
basement or lowest floor if:
1. The enclosed area is above-grade on at least one side of the structure;
2. It is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; and
3. It is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The above-noted alternative
elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards:
a. Design and certification. The structure's design and as-built condition must be certified by a
registered professional engineer or architect as being in compliance with the general design standards of the
State Building Code and, specifically, that all electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning
equipment and other service facilities must be at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or be
designed to prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within these components during times of
flooding.
b. Specific standards for above-grade, enclosed areas. Above-grade, fully enclosed areas such as
crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate:
i. The minimum area of openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a
floodproofing technique. There shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure
and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The automatic openings shall
have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to
flooding unless a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice.
The automatic openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices
provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters without any form of human
intervention; and
ii. That the enclosed area will be designed of flood resistant materials in accordance with the FP-
3 or FP-4 classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used solely for building access, parking of
vehicles or storage.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.07 GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF).
(1) Permitted uses.
(a) The uses listed in § 1103.05(1) of this chapter.
(b) All other uses are subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria specified in division (2)
below. Section 1103.05 applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Floodway District. Section
1103.06 applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Flood Fringe District.
(2) Procedures for floodway and flood fringe determinations.
(a) Upon receipt of an application for a permit or other approval within the General Floodplain
District, the Zoning Administrator must obtain, review and reasonably utilize any regional flood elevation
and floodway data available from a federal, state, or other source.
(b) If regional flood elevation and floodway data are not readily available, the applicant must furnish
additional information, as needed, to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation and whether the
proposed use would fall within the Floodway or Flood Fringe District. Information must be consistent with
accepted hydrological and hydraulic engineering standards and the standards in division (c)3. below.
(c) The determination of floodway and flood fringe must include the following components, as
applicable:
1. Estimate the peak discharge of the regional (1% chance) flood.
2. Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the
stream channel and overbank areas.
3. Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood
stages more than one-half foot. A lesser stage increase than one-half foot is required if, as a result of the
stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of
the stream within the reach must be assumed in computing floodway boundaries.
(d) The Zoning Administrator will review the submitted information and assess the technical
evaluation and the recommended Floodway and/or Flood Fringe District Boundary. The assessment must
include the cumulative effects of previous floodway encroachments. The Zoning Administrator may seek
technical assistance from a designated engineer or other expert person or agency, including the Department
of Natural Resources. Based on this assessment, the Zoning Administrator may approve or deny the
application.
(e) Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries have been determined, the Zoning
Administrator must process the permit application consistent with the applicable provisions of §§ 1103.05
and 1103.06 of this chapter.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.08 LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(1) In general. Recognizing that flood prone areas may exist outside of the designated floodplain
districts, the requirements of this section apply to all land within the city.
(2) Subdivisions. No land may be subdivided which is unsuitable for reasons of flooding or inadequate
drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Manufactured home parks and recreational vehicle
parks or campgrounds are considered subdivisions under this chapter.
(a) All lots within the floodplain districts must be able to contain a building site outside of the
Floodway District at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation.
(b) All subdivisions must have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites
no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, unless a flood warning emergency
plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and people during the regional (1% chance) flood has been
approved by the City Council. The plan must be prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified
individual, and must demonstrate that adequate time and personnel exist to carry out the evacuation.
(c) For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the floodway and flood fringe district boundaries, the
regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads must be clearly labeled
on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents.
(d) In the General Floodplain District, applicants must provide the information required in §
1103.07(2) of this chapter to determine the regional flood elevation, the floodway and flood fringe district
boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site.
(e) If a subdivision proposal or other proposed new development is in a flood prone area, any such
proposal must be reviewed to assure that:
1. All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone
area;
2. All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and
constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; and
3. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard.
(3) Building sites. If a proposed building site is in a flood prone area, all new construction and
substantial improvements (including the placement of manufactured homes) must be:
(a) Designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral
movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of
buoyancy;
(b) Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage;
(c) Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; and
(d) Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating
within the components during conditions of flooding.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.09 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES.
(1) Building site. All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply
systems to be located in the floodplain must be floodproofed in accordance with the State Building Code or
elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation.
(2) Public transportation facilities. Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the
floodplain must comply with §§ 1103.05 and 1103.06 of this chapter. These transportation facilities must be
elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation where failure or interruption of these facilities would
result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning
of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or
interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety.
(3) On-site water supply and sewage treatment systems. Where public utilities are not provided:
(a) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters
into the systems;
(b) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and they
must not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding; and
(c) Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the state's current statewide standards
for on-site sewage treatment systems is considered to be in compliance with this section.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.10 MANUFACTURED HOMES, MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE PARKS, AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
(1) Manufactured home parks. New manufactured home parks and expansions to existing manufactured
home parks are prohibited in any floodplain district.
(2) Manufactured homes.
(a) The placement or replacement of manufactured home units are prohibited in the Floodway District.
(b) The placement or replacement of manufactured home units in the Flood Fringe District is subject to
the requirements of § 1103.06 of this chapter and the following standards:
1. New and replacement manufactured homes must be elevated in compliance with § 1103.06 of this
chapter and must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation,
collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-
top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring
requirements for resisting wind forces.
2. New or replacement manufactured homes in existing manufactured home parks must meet the
vehicular access requirements for subdivisions in § 1103.08(2)(b).
(3) Recreational vehicle parks. New recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds and expansions to
existing recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are prohibited in any floodplain district. Placement of
recreational vehicles in existing recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds in the floodplain must meet the
exemption criteria below or be treated as new structures meeting the requirements of § 1103.10(4)(b) in this
section.
(4) Recreational vehicles.
(a) Recreational vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this chapter if they are placed in any of the
following areas and meet the criteria listed in division (4)(b):
1. Individual lots or parcels of record;
2. Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds; and
3. Existing condominium-type associations.
(b) Criteria for exempt recreational vehicles.
1. The vehicle must have a current license required for highway use;
2. The vehicle must be highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, attached to
the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle
parks;
3. No permanent structural type additions may be attached to the vehicle;
4. The vehicle and associated use must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning district;
5. Accessory structures are not permitted within the Floodway District. Any accessory structure in
the Flood Fringe District must be constructed of flood-resistant materials and be securely anchored,
meeting the requirements applicable to manufactured homes in division (4)(b); and
6. An accessory structure must constitute a minimal investment.
(c) Recreational vehicles that are exempt in division (4)(b) lose this exemption when development
occurs on the site that exceeds a minimal investment for an accessory structure such as a garage or storage
building. The recreational vehicle and all accessory structures will then be treated as new structures subject
to the elevation and floodproofing requirements of § 1103.06 of this chapter. No development or
improvement on the parcel or attachment to the recreational vehicle is allowed that would hinder the
removal of the vehicle should flooding occur.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.11 ADMINISTRATION.
(1) Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall administer this chapter.
(2) Permit requirements.
(a) Permit required. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator prior to conducting the
following activities, in the floodplain:
1. The erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation, or alteration of any building, structure or
portion thereof. Normal maintenance and repair also requires a permit if such work, separately or in
conjunction with other planned work, constitutes a substantial improvement as defined in this chapter;
2. The use or change of use of a building, structure or land;
3. The construction of a dam, fence, or on-site septic system, although a permit is not required for a
farm fence as defined by this chapter;
4. The change or extension of a nonconforming use;
5. The repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood, fire, tornado, or any other source;
6. The placement of fill, excavation of materials or the storage of materials or equipment within the
floodplain;
7. Relocation or alteration of a watercourse, including new or replacement culverts and bridges,
unless a public waters work permit has been applied for; and/or
8. Any other type of development as defined in this chapter.
(b) Application for permit. Permit applications must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on
forms provided by the Zoning Administrator. The permit application must include the following as
applicable:
1. A site plan showing all pertinent dimensions, elevations, existing or proposed buildings,
structures, and significant natural features having an influence on the permit.
2. Location of fill or storage of materials in relation to the stream channel.
3. Copies of any required municipal, county, state or federal permits or approvals.
4. Other relevant information requested by the Zoning Administrator as necessary to properly
evaluate the permit application.
(c) Certificate of zoning compliance for new, altered, or nonconforming use. No building, land or
structure may be occupied or used in any manner until a certificate of zoning compliance has been issued
by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this
chapter.
(d) Certification. The applicant is required to submit certification by a registered professional
engineer, registered architect or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were
accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Floodproofing measures must be certified
by a registered professional engineer or registered architect.
(e) Record of first floor elevation. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of the elevation of
the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures
in the floodplain. The Zoning Administrator must also maintain a record of the elevations to which
structures and alterations or additions to structures are floodproofed.
(f) Notification for watercourse alterations. Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river
or stream, the Zoning Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied for a
permit to work in public waters pursuant to the M.S. § 103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A
copy of the notification must also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
(g) Notification to FEMA when physical changes increase or decrease base flood elevations. As soon
as practicable, but not later than six months after the date such supporting information becomes available,
the Zoning Administrator must notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting
a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data.
(3) Variances. An application for a variance to the provisions of this chapter will be processed in
accordance with Ch. 1007: Zoning Code and reviewed in accordance with the following:
(a) Adherence to state floodplain management standards. A variance must not allow a use that is not
allowed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection
elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by state law.
(b) Additional variance criteria. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency must be satisfied:
1. Variances must not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any
increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
2. Variances may only be issued by a community upon:
a. Showing of good and sufficient cause;
b. Determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the
applicant; and
c. Determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights,
additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
3. Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary,
considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
(c) Flood insurance notice. The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a variance that:
1. The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in
increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage;
and
2. Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such
notification must be maintained with a record of all variance actions.
(d) Factors used in decision making. In passing variance applications, the City Council must consider
all relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter and those factors identified in division (5) of
this section.
(e) Submittal of hearing notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Zoning
Administrator must submit hearing notices for proposed variances to the DNR sufficiently in advance to
provide at least ten days' notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to
the respective DNR area hydrologist.
(f) Submittal of final decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting variances must be
forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S.
Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist.
(g) Record-keeping. The Zoning Administrator must maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and must report such variances in an annual or biennial report to
the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, when requested by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
(4) Conditional uses.
(a) Application. An application for a conditional use permit under the provisions of this chapter will be
processed and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1007: Zoning Code, in addition to the following
supplemental information:
1. Determination of flood hazards. Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use permit for a
use within the Flood Plain Overlay District where the regulatory flood protection elevation is unknown, the
applicant shall be required to furnish the following information as is deemed necessary by the Zoning
Administrator for the determination of the regulatory flood protection elevation:
a. A typical cross section showing the channel of the stream, elevation of land areas adjoining each
side of the channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied by the proposed development and high water
information;
b. Plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground; pertinent structures, fill or
storage elevations; size, location and spatial arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site;
location and elevation of streets; photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and
downstream; and soil type; and
c. Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream for at least 500
feet in either direction from the proposed development.
2. One copy of the above information shall be transmitted to a designated engineer or other expert
person or agency for technical assistance in determining whether the proposed use adversely affects the
capacity of the flood plain and to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation. Procedures consistent
with Minnesota Regulations NR 86-87 shall be followed in this expert evaluation. The designated engineer
or expert shall:
a. Estimate the peak discharge of the regional flood;
b. Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the
stream channel and overbank areas; and
c. Compute the area necessary to convey the regional flood without increasing flood stages more
than one-half foot. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach shall be
assumed in computing the area of the regional flood.
3. Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated engineer or expert, the City Council shall
determine whether the proposed use adversely affects the capacity of the flood plain or the regional flood
protection elevation at the site.
(b) Factors used in decision making. In passing upon conditional use applications, the City Council
must consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter and those factors identified in
division (5) of this section.
(c) Conditions attached to conditional use permits. The City Council may attach such conditions to the
granting of the conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purpose of this chapter. These
conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities;
2. Limitations on period of use, occupancy and operation;
3. Imposition of operations, controls, sureties and deed restrictions;
4. Requirements of construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees and
other protective measures; and
5. Flood-proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this chapter. The
applicant must submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that
the flood-proofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation, the local water
management plan and associated flood factors for the particular area.
(d) Submittal of hearing notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Zoning
Administrator must submit hearing notices for proposed conditional uses to the DNR sufficiently in
advance to provide at least ten days' notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S.
Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist.
(e) Submittal of final decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting conditional uses must be
forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S.
Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist.
(5) General considerations. The community shall consider the following factors in granting variances
and imposing conditions on variances and conditional uses in floodplains:
(a) The potential danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by
encroachments;
(b) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others;
(c) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems, if any, and the ability of these systems to
minimize the potential for disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions;
(d) The susceptibility of any proposed use and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such
damage on the individual owner;
(e) The importance of the services to be provided by the proposed use to the community;
(f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location;
(g) The availability of viable alternative locations for the proposed use that are not subject to flooding;
(h) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in
the foreseeable future;
(i) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive land use plan and flood plain
management program for the area;
(j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;
(k) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters
expected at the site.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.12 NONCONFORMITIES.
Continuance of nonconformities. A use, structure, or occupancy of land which was lawful before the
passage or amendment of this chapter but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this section may
be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, as identified in § 1103.03 of this
chapter, are subject to the provisions of division (1) through (7) below.
(1) A nonconforming use, structure, or occupancy must not be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in
a way that increases its flood damage potential or degree of obstruction to flood flows except as provided in
division (2) below. Expansion or enlargement of uses, structures or occupancies within the Floodway
District is prohibited.
(2) Any addition or structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that would
result in increasing its flood damage potential must be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation
in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or floodproofing techniques (i.e., FP-1 through FP-4
floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except as further restricted in (3) and
(7) below.
(3) If the cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50% of the market value of
the nonconforming structure, then the entire structure must meet the standards of § 1103.05 or § 1103.06 of
this chapter for new structures depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe
District, respectively. The cost of all structural alterations and additions must include all costs such as
construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor.
(4) If any nonconforming use, or any use of a nonconforming structure, is discontinued for more than
one year, any future use of the premises must conform to this chapter.
(5) If any nonconformity is substantially damaged, as defined in § 1103.03 of this chapter, it may not be
reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. The applicable provisions for
establishing new uses or new structures in § 1103.05 or § 1103.06 will apply depending upon whether the
use or structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively.
(6) If any nonconforming use or structure experiences a repetitive loss, as defined in § 1103.03 of this
chapter, it must not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.
(7) Any substantial improvement, as defined in § 1103.03 of this chapter, to a nonconforming structure
requires that the existing structure and any additions must meet the requirements of § 1103.05 or § 1103.06
of this chapter for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe
District.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.13 AMENDMENTS.
(1) Floodplain designation; restrictions on removal. The floodplain designation on the official
floodplain map must not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in
error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regulatory flood protection elevation
and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if the Commissioner determines that,
through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use.
(2) Amendments require DNR approval. All amendments to this chapter must be submitted to and
approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources prior to adoption. The
Commissioner must approve the amendment prior to community approval.
(3) Map revisions require ordinance amendments. The floodplain district regulations must be amended
to incorporate any revisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps
adopted in § 1103.02(3) of this chapter.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
§ 1103.99 PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.
(1) Violation constitutes a misdemeanor. Violation of the provisions of this chapter or failure to comply
with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection
with grants of variances or conditional uses) constitute a misdemeanor and will be punishable as defined by
law.
(2) Nothing in this chapter restricts the city from such taking other lawful action as is necessary to
prevent or remedy any violation. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning
Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an
additional violation of this chapter and shall be prosecuted accordingly.
(3) Enforcement. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and city
may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and
fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood
Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The city must act in good
faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to
jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.
(a) When a violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator,
the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of
the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information will be submitted to
the appropriate State Department of Natural Resources and Federal Emergency Management Agency
regional office along with the city's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible.
(b) The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this chapter and
all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the
structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator may order the
construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the
community. If the construction or development is already completed, then the Zoning Administrator may
either:
1. Issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period
to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls; or
2. Notify the responsible party to apply for and after-the-fact permit/development approval within a
specified period of time not to exceed 30 days.
(Ord. 10-15, passed 11-23-2015)
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Surface Water Management Plan
November 22, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Appendix D – City of Lino Lakes Stormwater
Infrastructure and Best Management Practices
In progress
DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Surface Water Management Plan
November 22, 2017 - Project CLL17010
Appendix E – Issues, Goals, Policies and Implementation
City-Wide Issues, Goals, and Policies
RMU-Specific Issues, Goals and Policies
APPENDIX E - LINO LAKES CITY-WIDE GOALS AND POLICIES
ISSUE CATEGORY
ISSUE
NO. ISSUE
GOAL
NO. GOAL
POLICY
NO. POLICIES Wa
t
e
r
R
a
t
e
a
n
d
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
We
t
l
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Fl
o
o
d
p
a
i
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
i
t
c
h
S
y
s
t
e
m
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Er
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
1 Continue to enforce standards for stormwater runoff quantity from new and redevelopment projects consistent with RCWD, VLAWMO, and NPDES requirements.X x x x x x x
2 Implement volume control practices to address areas of identified rate and volume concern X x
3 Support implementation of RCWD Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plans to provide an alternative means of meeting RCWD water quantity and rate rules.X x x x x x x
4 Recognize the potential uncertainty associated with managing water resources and understand the implications of emerging issues, such as climate change, and use Adaptive Management when appropriate.X x x
5 Promote Better Site Design development techniques in developing and redeveloping areas to minimize runoff volumes and maintain water quality X x x x x
6 Promote the use of regional BMPs where appropriate to reduce the rate and volume of runoff X x
1 Develop specific management plans for each Resource Management Unit x X x x x x
2 Preserve and improve the recreational resources associated with water by improving water quality X x
3 Continue to enforce standards for stormwater runoff quality from new and redevelopment projects consistent with RCWD, VLAWMO, and NPDES requirements.x X x x x x x x
4 Incorporate TMDL limits, when determined, into the City's Local Water Management Plan to reduce degradation and improve the quality of the City's water resources X x x x
5 Manage City-owned facilities subject to MS4 program requirements, consistent with permit conditions X x x x
6 Implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges in accordance with the City's MS4 requirements X x x x
7 Manage septic systems in conformance with state standards to protect the quality of water and natural resources X x x x x
8 Educate residents on the importance of cleaning up after pets to reduce pollutants entering the stormwater system.X x x x
1 Partner and work with RCWD, VLAWMO, Anoka County Soil and Water Conservation District, and adjacent local governments to protect high quality resources X x x x x x
2 Collaborate with adjacent jurisdictions and agencies to meet TMDL goals and remove impaired water bodies from the impaired waters list X x x x x
3 Facilitate data sharing among public entities that have jurisdiction or facilities within the City X x x x
1 Continue to support the administration of the WCA requirements within the City by the RCWD and VLAWMO X x x x
2 Avoid impacts to upland natural communities that are critical to wetland wildlife habitat function and incorporate these into the City's Greenway System Plan X x x
3 Integrate parcel- or project-based wetland replacement with watershed-based restoration and enhancement locations X x x
4 Manage wetland resources using the flexibility afforded by the state and federal rules, through the implemenation of RMU Plans and the Special Area Management Plan X x x x
5 Continue to enforce standards for wetland management for new and redevelopment projects consistent with RCWD, VLAWMO, and NPDES requirements.X x x x
6 Promote Better Site Design development techniques in developing and redeveloping areas to avoid or minimize wetland impacts x x X x x x x
7 Consider providing incentives to private landowners who avoid or minimize wetland impacts or restore wetlands.X x x x
8 Require wetland functional assessments, based on accepted methodology, on new development projects to ensure wetland function and services are preserved to the extent possible.X x x x
9 Consider creation of wetland banks to provide local replacement options.X x x x
1 Preserve and manage the 100-year floodplain storage along and within waterbodies to minimize the frequency and severity of flooding caused by high water x X x x
2 Promote Better Site Design development techniques in developing and redeveloping areas to reduce existing and future flood damage X x
3 Require that adequate drainage facilities and easements are provided with land development activities x X x
4 Continue to enforce the City's floodplain regulations to ensure that new structures are adequate elevated above identified flood elevations X x x
5 Update the City floodplain ordinance, as required by FEMA and the MnDNR, to ensure adequate protection for structures and eligibility for flood insurance programs X x x
6 Support efforts to restore and re-establish floodplain basins to improve their natural function x x X x
7 Consider joining the Community Rating System as a way to improve floodplain management and reduce resident's flood insurance premiums within the City X x x x x
8 Address capacity limitations of ACD 55 to alleviate existing floodprone areas x x X
9 Address capacity limitations of ACD 72 to alleviate existing floodprone areas x x X
1 Work with RCWD to facilitate effective management of the public ditch system, as needed, to support the recognized functions of these systems X x
2 Address capacity limitations of ACD 55 to meet current, and future, land use stormwater runoff x x x x X
3 Address capacity limitations of ACD 72 to meet current, and future, land use stormwater runoff x x x x X
1 Preserve groundwater recharge areas in cooperation with Anoka County x X x
2 Promote infiltration of stormwater to recharge groundwater, where feasible and does not pose a threat to groundwater quality x x X x
3 Continue to implement City's Wellhead Protection Plan X x x
4 Participate in the Anoka County Wellhead Protection Group by implementing joint projects that benefit the City X x x
1 Pursue a well-defined natural resource restoration and management plan, consistent with the RCWD and Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan (RMP)X x x
2 Maintain the partnership with RCWD, VLAWMO, Anoka County and others, to maintain, restore, and manage the aquatic, aquatic-dependent, and upland areas of the City x X x
3 Require natural space buffers, where appropriate, around wetlands to preserve their function and value.x X x
4 Apply the Resource Management Unit Plan recommendations to meet goals for aquatic resource protection and management X x
5 Protect the existing Blue Heron rookery on Peltier Lake X
1 Encourage developers to use Open Space Design/Conservation Development Model to implement the Resource Management System Plan X
2 Define incentives to achieve Better Site Design to the extent feasible on all development X x
3 Continue to use the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process to assess the impact of development on the City's natural resources and infrastructure x x x x X
1 Encourage the use of open space in the design of City projects when multiple benefits are realized X x
2 Capitalize on the efforts of other responsible for managing open space to enhance their ongoing recreational programs x X x
3 Seek opportunities to enhance habitat function and integrity, to benefit water resources and ecosystems x x x X
1 Require erosion control plans for all land-distrubing activities in accordance with the City's stormwater management ordinance x X x x
2 Continue to enforce the Illicit Discharge and Detection Elimination (IDDE) ordinance x X x x
3 Use best management practices (BMPs) at all construction sites per the MPCA General Construction Permit and Minnesota Stormwater Manual, as amended x X x x
4 Coordinate construction site inspections and enforcement with watershed inspection staff. Enforcement actions will be taken where warranted to support the protection of water resources.x X x x
5 Implement and perform good housekeeping measures to minimize sediment entering the drainage system.x X x x x
6Groundwater
Management
Land use changes and misuse of the
natural areas may have deleterious
effects on the City's unique and rare
natural resources
7Natural Resources
Prevent erosion and minimize the conveyance of sediment into
surface water systems through the enforcement of the City's
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1
Construction site runoff over
disturbed soils and streambank
erosion due to altered hydrology
8Erosion and Sediment
Control
Capitalize on opportunities to enhance water quality, reduce
runoff volume and flood damage, and enhance ecological
resources by using open space and greenways
3
Ensure new and redevelopment projects accommodate the City's
projected growth needs and occurs in a manner that also
conserves and enhances the City's natural resources and amenities
2
Stormwater runoff carrying
sediment, nutrients, road salts, and
hydrocarbons
2Water Quality
Maintain and enhance, where possible, the functions and services
of existing wetlands and associated habitats within the City1Loss of wetland acres, function and
value3Wetland Management
Protect and improve water quality of City lakes, welands, creeks
and other aquatic assets1
Initiate and continue collaborations to address, restore, and
preserve the water quality of the City's lakes, wetlands, creeks, and
other aquatic assets
2
Water Rate & Quantity 1
Increased surface water runoff rates
and volumes 1 Reduce present and future runoff rates and volumes
1 Identify, protect and preserve the desirable natural areas and
ecological and aquatic resources of the City
Ensure the management and operation of the drainage systems,
considering present and future conveyance needs, and legally-
established rights
1
Agricultural drainage systems not
capable of handling urban
stormwater runoff
Incorporate groundwater considerations into the decision making
process1Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer
supply declining
5Public Ditch System
Provide adequate storage and conveyance of runoff to protect the
public safety and minimize property damage1Existing flooding and floodprone
areas4Floodplain Management
1 OF 2
APPENDIX E - LINO LAKES CITY-WIDE GOALS AND POLICIES
ISSUE CATEGORY
ISSUE
NO. ISSUE
GOAL
NO. GOAL
POLICY
NO. POLICIES Wa
t
e
r
R
a
t
e
a
n
d
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
We
t
l
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Fl
o
o
d
p
a
i
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
i
t
c
h
S
y
s
t
e
m
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Er
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
1 Develop and implement RMU plans for each RMP x x x x x x x X
2 Cooperate, collaborate, and partner with other entities, such as RCWD, VLAWMO, and other regulating agencies, to implement this plan.X x
1 Evaluate City's existing ordinances and programs to facilitate implementation of the Resource Management System Plan x x x x x x x X
2 Coordinate with RCWD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to manage local wetland resources x x X
3 Work with RCWD to implement the recommendations of the 2008 Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan x x x x x x x X
4 Implement programs, structural solutions, and complete reporting as needed to meet MPCA's MS4 requirements x X x
5 Support the implementation of the SAMP by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers x x X
1 Implement the City's plan for regular inspection and maintenance of public water resource infrastructure, consistent with the requirements of the NDPES MS4 permit x x x x X
2 Require operations and maintenance agreements for the inspection and maintenance of privately-constructed water resource infrastructure x x x x X
3 Implement and refine a training program to prevent or reduce pollutant runoff resulting from City operations x x x x X x
4 Prepare an annual report in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit and share results with the public, City Council and Boards x x x x X x
5 Conduct monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the City's stormwater management actions on the quality of water resources.x x x x X
1 Identify and alert residents of potential ecological challenges and threat that can affect the City residents, businesses, and properties.x x x X
2 Plan and initiate cooperative efforts with the state and local government entities in programs that provide information to the public on how to effectively address and manage ecological and water quality threats.x x x x X
3 Proactively educate the community and its residents of all ages about the specific actions they can or may be asked to take in addressing ecological and water quality threats.x x x x X
1 Continue to encourage and support programs that measure the effectiveness of Best Management Practices x x x X
2 Actively develop and implement a community education program relating to preserving and improving water quality consistent with the City's MS4 permit requirements x x x x X
3 Coordinate with regional educational efforts to educate the community residents consisten with the City's MS4 permit requirements x x x x X
4 Share infrastructure information developed through the MS4 program for City-owned facilities to educate the public about water resources management; the City's programs, policies, and projects; and to encourage public involvementx x x x x X
5 Utilize and engage citizens to promote sustainable stewardship of lakes x X
6 Continue to support and participate in the RCWD Stream Health Evaluation Program (SHEP)x x x x x x x x X
1 Update and apply area-based charges so that the surface water-related costs of development can be fairly borne by development X
2 Consider funding options that will equitably distribute the costs of managing and implementing the City's Local Water Management Plan, such as stormwater utility- or district-based fees x X
1 Pursue grants, donations, and in-kind contributions to help fund stormwater projects x x x x x x X
2 Coordinate local stormwater management issues with the member watersheds, county, and neighboring communities in order to leverage the watershed's work and reduce City expenditures x x x x x x X
Implement the Resource Management System Plan through
Resource Management Unit Plans1
Existing infrastructure needs regular
monitoring and maintenance to
remain effective
10
Monitoring,
Maintenance, and
Inspection
2
Address regulatory requirements of local, state, and federal
programs through updated ordinances, permitting, and ongoing
reporting
Multiple regulatory agencies and
requirements in City9Regulations, Permitting,
and Reporting
11
Public Participation,
Information, and
Education
Leverage partnerships to cost-effectively manage the City's surface
water and natural resource systems to attain the goals of this plan2
Ensure that the costs of the surface water system are equitably
distributed and sufficiently funded to cover the liabilities1
Adequate funding and staffing
resources12Financing
Inform and educate the public concerning urban stormwater
management and the problems pollutants cause if allowed to enter
the City's water resoruces
1
Offer programs, educational opportunities and information that
facilitate an understanding of water resource issues in the City2
City residents, businesses, and
property owners need a clear
understanding of basic stormwater
management, water quality and
natural resource protection
concepts, policies and regulations
Maintain the function and effectiveness of stormwater
management structures through inspection, monitoring and
maintenance
1
2 OF 2
APPENDIX E - LINO LAKES RMU-SPECIFIC ISSUES
ISSUE
NO. RMU ISSUE RMU Wa
t
e
r
R
a
t
e
a
n
d
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
We
t
l
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Fl
o
o
d
p
a
i
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
i
t
c
h
S
y
s
t
e
m
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Er
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
A-1 Riparian animal movement restricted Amelia X
A-2 Potential for excess nitrogen from agriculture activities in watershed Amelia X X X X
A-3 Stormwater sensitive wetlands at risk Amelia X X X X X X X
BE-1 Total phosphorus levels exceed state standards Bald Eagle X X X X X X
BE-2 Impaired water for mercury in fish tissue Bald Eagle X X X X X
B-1 Impaired water for excess nutrients Baldwin X X X X X
B-2 Stormwater sensitive wetlands at risk from stormwater runoff and future land development Baldwin X X X X X X X
B-3 Fully developed urban drainage area limits opportunities for stormwater management Baldwin X X X
B-4 Unregulated stormwater volume Baldwin X X X
CD-1 Water levels controlled by ditched outlets Cedar X X X X X X
CD-2 Stormwater sensitive wetlands at risk Cedar X X X X X X X
CD-3 Excess total phosphorus Cedar X X X X X
CE-1 Total phosphorus levels exceed state standards Centerville X X X X X
CL-1 Impaired water Clearwater Creek X X X X X
CL-2 ACD 55 tile system ineffective for traditional urban runoff volumes Clearwater Creek X X X X
CL-3 Existing floodprone areas Clearwater Creek X X X X
CL-4 Floodplain missing and unmitigate volume Clearwater Creek X X X X X X
CL-5 City of Hugo stormwater runoff Clearwater Creek X X
GW-1 Threat to tamarack plant community from existing stormwater runoff George Watch X X X X X
GW-2 High phosphorus loads from Peltier Lake affect George Watch George Watch X X X X X
GW-3 Altered hydrology George Watch X X X
HW-1 Existing floodprone areas Hardwood Creek X X X X X X
HW-2 ACD 72 capacity limitations Hardwood Creek X X X X
HW-3 Downstream confined tile requires strict adherence to volume control in future development Hardwood Creek X X X
HW-4 Riparian animal movement restricted Hardwood Creek X
HW-5 Impaired water Hardwood Creek X X X X X
M-1 ACD 10-22-32 ineffective for future urban runoff volumes Marshan X X X X
M-2 Fragmented habitat Marshan X X X
M-3 High phosphorus loads from Peltier Lake affect Marshan Marshan X X X X
M-4 Unregulated stormwater volumes Marshan X X X X X
1 OF 3
APPENDIX E - LINO LAKES RMU-SPECIFIC ISSUES
ISSUE
NO. RMU ISSUE RMU Wa
t
e
r
R
a
t
e
a
n
d
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
We
t
l
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Fl
o
o
d
p
a
i
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
i
t
c
h
S
y
s
t
e
m
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Er
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
O-1 Rare and high qualilty vegetation, including cranberry bog, sensitive to changes in water chemistry Otter X X X
O-2 Impaired water Otter X X X X X
P-1 Impaired water for excess nutrients Peltier X X X X X
P-2 Impaired water for mercury in fish tissue Peltier X X X X X
P-3 Unregulated volume Peltier X X X X X
P-4 ACD 55 tile system ineffective for traditional urban runoff volumes Peltier X X X X
P-5 ACD 72 tile system ineffective for traditional urban runoff volumes Peltier X X X X
P-6 Internal phosphorus loading in lake Peltier X X X X X
P-7 Blue Heron rookery Peltier X X X X
P-8 Riparian animal movement restricted Peltier X
P-9 Incised channel on Clearwater Creek Peltier X X X
P-10 Highly sensitive wetlands Peltier X X X X X X
P-11 Existing floodprone areas associated with ACD 55 and 72, and Clearwater Creek Peltier X X X X
RE-1 Impaired water for excess nutrients Reshanau X X X X X
RE-2 High quality forest in WMC Reshanau X X
RE-3 Unregulated volume Reshanau X X X X X
RE-4 ACD 25 has altered wetland hydrology Reshanau X X X X X
RE-5 Partially drained wetlands Reshanau X X X X X X
RE-6 Stormwater sensitive wetlands at risk from stormwater runoff from existing conditions Reshanau X X X X X X
RI-1 Watershed is nearlly fully developed urban land use Rice X X X
RI-2 Intercommunity flows from municipal storm sewer mains Rice X X X X
RI-3 Stormwater ponds may be subject to flooding under future conditions Rice X X
RI-4 Stormwater sensitive wetlands at risk from stormwater runoff from existing conditions Rice X X X X
RI-5 Impaired water for excess nutrients Rice X X X X X
RI-6 Unregulated volume Rice X X X X X
RO-1 Plant communities highly susceptible to urban stormwater Rondeau X X X X
RO-2 High quality wetlands at risk from stormwater runoff and future land development Rondeau X X X X
RO-3 Unregulated volume Rondeau X X X X X
2 OF 3
APPENDIX E - LINO LAKES RMU-SPECIFIC ISSUES
ISSUE
NO. RMU ISSUE RMU Wa
t
e
r
R
a
t
e
a
n
d
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
We
t
l
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Fl
o
o
d
p
a
i
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
i
t
c
h
S
y
s
t
e
m
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Er
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
S-1 Stormwater sensitive wetlands at risk from stormwater runoff from existing conditions Sherman X X X X
S-2 Unregulated volume Sherman X X X X X
UR-1 Downstream confined tile requires strict adherence to volume control in future development Upper Rice Creek X X X X X
WA-1 Water levels controlled by ditched outlets Wards X X X X X
WA-2 Stormwater sensitive wetlands at risk Wards X X X X
WA-3 Excess total phosphorus Wards X X X X X
WI-1 Total phosphorus levels exceed state standards Wilkinson X X X X X
WI-2 Unregulated volumes Wilkinson X X X X X
WI-3 Stormwater sensitive wetlands at risk Wilkinson X X X X
WI-4 Protect wildlife habitat and migratory refuge Wilkinson X X
C-1 Increased surface water runoff rates and volumes contribute to erosion problems, water quality and flooding concerns City X X X X X X X X X X X
C-2 Approximate floodplain boundaries result in unnecessary flood insurance policies and expensive amendment process for
residents and landowners.City X X X X X X
C-3 Contaminants of emerging concern such as chlorides threaten water quality and natural resources City X X X X
C-4 Concern that maximum impervious percentages are out of line with other communities City X X X X X X
3 OF 3