The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/21/2005 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday September 21, 2005 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Distribution of I -35E Corridor Final AUAR 2. Village of Hardwood Creek LLC Update 3. Reconstruction Communication Plan 4. Pine Street Paving Petition 5. Community Survey Proposal 6. Memorial Suggestions Regular Agenda Items Adjourn I -35E Corridor Final AUAR Presented by: John Shardlow, AICP President, Director of Planning Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. September 26, 2005 I -35E Corridor AUAR What is an AUAR? Why an AUAR? Environmental review occurs early in the -planning process to help anticipate and rectify problems when specific projects are still flexible The AUAR process gives the City the opportunity to assess the impact of development on the area's natural resources prior to receiving and considering development proposals for approval The AUAR Boundary Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Proactive alternative review process that integrates comprehensive /master planning and environmental review Review development scenario(s) for a geographical area rather than a specific project Development scenario(s) typically established by local comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or developers' master plans Why an AUAR? Single review process can include public infrastructure projects and future residential, commercial, and light industrial development By examining multiple development scenarios through the AUAR process, the City is able to evaluate how much development can be accommodated in an area and analyze and implement more comprehensive and effective strategies for mitigation and natural resource conservation 1 Why an AUAR? • Results in a mitigation plan adopted by the City Council for how the significant environmental impacts will be avoided, and assurance that mitigation strategies will be implemented AUAR Advisory Panel • Citizens • Property Owners • Business Owners • Developers • Environmental Board • Planning & Zoning Board • Economic Development Advisory Cmte. AUAR Advisory Panel Workshops Topic Date 6. Development Scenarios I Feb 3, 2005 7. Development Scenarios 11 Feb 17, 2005 8. Development Scenarios III Mar 2, 2005 9. Draft AUAR June 9, 2005 10. Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan Sept 22, 2005 I -35E Corridor AUAR Who has been involved? AUAR Advisory Panel Workshops Topic Date 1. Intro to AUAR Process Nov 18, 2004 2. Municipal Services Dec 2, 2004 3. Natural & Cultural Resources Dec 16, 2004 4. Transportation Jan 6, 2005 5. Demographics & Market Jan 20, 2005 Analysis Agency Representatives • Anoka County • Department of Natural Resources • Department of Transportation • Rice Creek Watershed District • Anoka Conservation District • US Fish & Wildlife Service • Metropolitan Council • Washington County Army Corps of Engineers D 2 Agency Workshops Topic Date 1. Municipal Services & Tour Nov 23, 2004 2. Natural & Cultural Resources Dec 7, 2004 3. Transportation Dec 28, 2004 4. Development Scenarios 1 Jan 25, 2005 5. Development Scenarios 11 Feb 22, 2005 Review: The AUAR Process to Date • Selected area boundaries and defined development scenarios. • Prepared Draft AUAR according to EQB guidelines. • Distributed to regional, state, and federal agencies as well as Advisory Panel and surrounding municipalities. I -35E Corridor AUAR Process What are the development scenarios? I -35E Corridor AUAR Process What has been accomplished to date? Review: The AUAR Process to Date • Received 11 Draft AUAR Comment Letters • Prepared responses to comments • Revised /expanded AUAR document to address comments received during the 30- day comment period. • Prepared a Final Mitigation Plan. 3 Commercial /Industrial Emphasis Development Scenario Comparison Table T. Development Scenarios Land 0s Average Intaity Soe4rio 1 S rio 2 (notes) (acmu) 1255 MO Rural Land Use Low Density UnsewemA Residential (L000) Low Density Sewemed Reedmniol (LDSR) Low - Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential (MDR) Medium - High Density Residential High Density Residential (HDR) Commercial Industrial Church Regional Park/Peltier lake and Rice Creek Other Water and Open Space RighboFWay (Dewily) 0.1 units/acre NA 2.5 units/ace 4.0 units/ace 6.0 umileame 9.0 units/ace 120 nniWace 0.25 FAR 0.25 FAR NA NA NA NA 225 188 640 0 242 90 174 1072 528 938 91 1002 1002 173 368 417 Scawrio 3 (acme) 434 37 56 972 379 156 383 555 1002 172 427 Tonal 4664 4664 4664 Comments on the Draft AUAR • Comments were received from: — Mn Department of Transportation — Mn Department of Natural Resources — Metropolitan Council — Anoka County — Washington County — Rice Creek Watershed District — City of Hugo — HERON Group — Brite -Vue, LLP — Village of Hardwood Creek, LLC — Wayne LeBlanc I -35E Corridor AUAR What has the response been? Comments on the Draft AUAR Positive Comments from agencies! — DNR Comment: "The City has engaged a wide range of stakeholders...in a very effective gathering and exchange of information, leading to a document that is complete and accurate." — RCWD Comment: "The District commends the city on this holistic plan of the AUAR area.' 4 Comments on the Draft AUAR Positive Comments from agencies! - Anoka County: "Overall, this has been a terrific planning process and we would like to thank you..." - Met Council: "The City should be commended for ... its commitment to conserving natural resources and for attempting to balance development with natural resource conservation." Comments on the Draft AUAR • Transportation comments: - Requested additional analyses: Noise Impacts, AM Peak, Existing Conditions - Need to establish traffic monitoring program - Timing/funding of improvements & staging development Response to Comments • The response to comment section includes comments and responses concerning substantive issues. • The responses clarify issues in the Draft AUAR. • The responses detail changes to the text or Mitigation Plan. Comments on the Draft AUAR • Majority of the comments concerned: - Transportation - Stormwater Management Comments on the Draft AUAR • Stormwater Management comments: - Runoff Curve Numbers - Stormwater Management Techniques /Best Management Practices - Sizing of Stormwater Management Areas The Final AUAR What does it contain? 5 The Final AUAR includes: • Draft AUAR Comment Letters • Response to Comments • Final Mitigation Plan • Revised AUAR document The Final Mitigation Plan What does it mean? Purpose: Final Mitigation Plan • RGU must determine if a specific development proposal is consistent with the mitigation plan • If the mitigation plan is not followed, then the AUAR is not valid and a project proposer must conduct additional environmental review (EAW, EIS, or AUAR) The Final AUAR includes: • Revised AUAR document - Executive Summary - Item 17: Surface Water Runoff • Appendix D: Hydrologic Analysis — Item 21: Traffic • Appendix E: 2030 No Build Analysis (new) • Appendix F: 2030 AM Peak Analysis (new) Purpose: Final Mitigation Plan • Action plan for how to avoid significant environmental effects • Commitment by RGU to take action to prevent or mitigate potential impacts • Site specific issues are addressed during the development review and approval process Overview: The Final Mitigation Plan 1. Conservation Design Framework (CDF) 2. Stormwater Management 3. Traffic 6 Overview: The Final Mitigation Plan • Wetlands • Water Use • Water Surface Use • Erosion and Sedimentation • Wastewater Figure 10 -3: Conservation Design Framework (CDF) Figure 10 -2: Wetland /Aquatic & Upland Habitats Core Upland Habitat Outlier Upland Habitat = Other Upland Habitat Core Wetland & Aquatic Habitat Outlier Wetland Habitat `.: Other Wetland Habitat 14. Overview: The Final Mitigation Plan • Soil & Groundwater Contamination • Cultural Resources • Unique Farmlands • Compatibility with Plans Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • CDF Implementation: — Amend Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan to include core and outlier habitat areas — Require public land dedication of priority natural open space areas through subdivision process — Require cash in lieu of dedication within the AUAR area be spent within the AUAR area 7 Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • CDF Implementation: — Cooperative partnership between private land owners, developers, and the city. — Project proposers will: • Plan for ecological stormwater management and natural conservation within the development project site • Provide land, finances, and /or construction activities to implement the CDF Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • CDF Implementation: — Create buffers to protect natural areas • Apply buffers on a case -by -case basis • Each development site will be examined for appropriate, feasible buffering of sensitive resources • Use AUAR and Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenway and Trail System Plan for guidance Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • General Ecological Resources: • Concern: — Bald Eagle Nests — Blanding's Turtles — Heron Rookery — Rare Plants Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • CDF Implementation: Within a proposed development site, future project proposers can implement the CDF using: • Conservation design /low impact development • Clustering /Density transfers • Park dedication and other gifts • Conservation easements, deed restrictions • Management planning, stewardship funding, ecological education programs Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • CDF Implementation: Create greenway corridors for ecological connections and stormwater management Within a specific development site, establish greenways where multiple features exist: • Drainageways • Significant habitat areas • Identified trail corddors • Logical connections between features Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • General Ecological Resources Implementation: — Protect ecologically sensitive resources • DNR Bald Eagle Disturbance Guidelines • Surmountable curbing • Peltier Lake No -Wake Zone & Buffers • Rare plant surveys 8 Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • Stormwater Management: • Concern: — Development may increase runoff rates and volumes — Development may increase nutrient concentrations Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • Transportation: • Concern: — Development of the AUAR area under any scenario will require significant transportation improvements. — Regional background traffic is projected to grow significantly Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan For example, if it is determined that full -build out of a proposed development project would overly burden the transportation system, then varying degrees of development, i.e., 75 %, 50 %, 25% would be analyzed. - As surrounding infrastructure is improved, i.e., new interchange at 80th St/ I -35E, the remaining portion of a proposed development could be evaluated to determine if it could be constructed. - This is intended to address the cumulative traffic impacts that occur within the AUAR area (e.g., several projects will trigger the need for a new interchange at 80th St/ I- 35E) Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • Stormwater Management Implementation: — Establish a regional stormwater management system within the CDF — Create Stormwater Management Areas (SMAs) — Establish post - development runoff volumes criteria — Encourage no net increase in total phosphorus content Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • Transportation Implementation: — Create a traffic monitoring program • Require traffic impact study for all developments • Require consistent methodology • Identify impacts and reasonable mitigation measures • If no reasonable mitigation measures are proposed, stage development to avoid over burdening the transportation system Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • Transportation Implementation: — Improve the transportation system. Primary improvements include • Developing a frontage /backage road system • Work with Anoka County to reconstruct and provide additional capacity for CSAH 21 • Prioritize alternative travel modes • Work with appropriate road authorities to construct the Northerly Bypass 9 Specifics: The Final Mitigation Plan • Transportation Implementation: — Northerly Bypass phasing plan (from CSAH 14 Alternative Analysis Report — July 2004): • CSAH 14, I -35W to I -35E (funded and programmed for construction) • CSAH 14, I -35E Interchange • CR 140 (80th Street )/I -35E Interchange • CSAH 14 across Peltier Lake (Northerly Bypass /Connector) CSAH 14/1 -35W Interchange The Next Step Where are we in the process? City Council Authorization • Authorizing distribution: — Indicates the Council finds the materials to be accurate and complete. — Indicates the Council finds that the actions included in the Mitigation Plan will prevent potentially significant impacts from occurring as a result of development in the AUAR area. Mitigation Plan — Implementation Development within the AUAR area will occur over time The mitigation strategies included in the Mitigation Plan will be implemented on a phased basis to respond to development proposals within the AUAR area It is not feasible or reasonable for the Mitigation Plan to address project specific details such as construction design, specific timing of recommended infrastructure improvements, and funding of improvements Next Step • City Council - Authorize distribution of the Final AUAR for the 10 -day objection period • Send the Final AUAR to all agencies and persons who commented on the Draft AUAR • 10 -day objection period • Adopt FAUAR & Mitigation Plan Questions /Discussion 10 • • WS -3 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Date: September 21, 2005 Re: Work Session Item 3 Reconstruction Communication Plan On September 13, 2005 the City Council approved Resolution No. 05 -XX Calling for an Election on the 2007 Street Reconstruction Project. At this time staff is requesting council direction with regard to establishment of a citizen communication plan. In 2003 the City provided project information in the following methods: 1. Informational Press Release published in the Quad and Pioneer Press 2. Reconstruction article in the City Newsletter (Spring & Fall) 3. Program on Channel 16 describing project and need (program was ran repeatedly leading up to the election) 4. Information Brochure mailed to all Lino Lakes Property Owners (copy attached) 5. Held two "open house" Information meetings with staff, engineer, and financial consultants. Open House advertised in brochure and Quad Press. 6. Project information posted on City web -site. Given that their has been discussion regarding the lack of communication to residents during the 2003 election staff is requesting Council direction on what additional methods should be used. Attachments 1. 2004 -2005 Street Improvement Referendum Brochure Page 1 NW 'oessp SZZ •oN �iWJad GIVd 86elsod 'S'fl PIS Psid Information ti 'AON `A8ps0111l UO 810n 01 aagwae,Uaa Np O 5 b > ai a 0 a y ° '0 ¢� O • 0 '0 y E " O s O c a u o � CI) o a JJJ ,� I. W p • 4� V1 4.) °> o et ► O.0 00 4) ;20 a� g p � C, 4_ 'bo 0 g . O a� b � • - , 0 -5 N as � .d U p . y - � yo 0 b p., s M � o `" o '? 3 >' 0 oa o S O � 4'1 _ Qo ,; • , a � . p o 0 t...„1 4 , 4,1 � G'" A.� 4'% a6 aai ~ 0 y U iip o c y U o 0 a >, o :� � O RS 0 oo a, o•z m t i.. 5b 0 o • O Q rOu y v7 � O y E. M 4 O o O o v O 0 F U a O 2 Annual Cost .�6 2 i LOSS a ;osauu J 'sa)e1 ou fl AeMMJed Ja ;ue unnol 009 N N TA N N N O V coo M ✓ .wt. N p�' -+v) t�M pp M V1 vo N O■ O O E O� if? 64 69 in b9 m E r„i p p p E = ,E� 000000 °'O" U �'', r.� clj cr\0 NCTON ~'x,x 0 in. 64 6t. 4 -6 4 O ^' 0 d •0 a a) 6. O S 0 0 0 8 0 0. ••-+ N N OM M V' 0 VOTE NOVEMBER 4, 2003 00 7. o .0 al Si. a N S c go O o .5 ° �7 O c t w y w C v :M :c; vO n ' b 2A c �� a ' a E E t y v, C _ oa u• U an M o 0 y `n `n co o • G .5 y E c ca 0 �� _ y N b O p •'U ••N v " O 'w O O C s 2 S 2002 w u o C . w° 0 o Y a V. N t C4 et) ca � �2 b • �b ; 5 44 XI 10 o 3 a„ o c oo ° o O4 °b 0 ;b 4.) ••••• 33 a0 a3 6. o 0 co y 0 v i a, C ° s aY 5 a 3 C "�3 .. Ti..) v� a y 3 y a b .'�.' 'o a• °�. aai o o a� o ° a a y 0 o 4 0 ,.., a. y la uitHu ti Q a+ cv y R 'C1 y �I y ca p o w c b e u �, y 00 0 w y Ca.�gno 0 w ig.� o �% 0,4 43 0 o Ltii =4 0 C/3 6 4, u ,v o° E'' u> U �a > a C.I. m CA o y o aa C7 ��"cc a y c o cn —°' ' .�' 0 °p"op„ —' ° -o .3 ��0c .... as y 2 Cln O o 4) t, c`" bp y U �iy ^- .4 ai �, b3 '' Z0N . Jo = >1 i '4-3 zu- 6. 0 40, 1, 0 .) g t:Ci 0 03 P-, PIZ 2 N a w o y U ° ° S • a a 8 � ° ° A a Os u A t i 8 y c , o " Y °' a ' " 'b ° 03 E ti E ° y m 3 a o y 2.og.o aE" o es tu i • ` 7,1' t N O . a v N • ti 0 O> Z ca -o 0 v� Ite 1:3 = 0 4- 8 ,,:t 0 .H C a b d til r O aq o N TS .. w ., Q _ V G '7 y i.. . •cs ° o '7 b b N y 0 = ; g 7=1 WS -4 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: James E. Studenski Date: September 21, 2005 Re: Work Session Item 4 — Pine Street Background Per Council direction, the City sent a letter July 25, 2005 to Pine Street residents requesting their input on paving Pine Street. A petition was included with three scenarios to choose from: (1) Pave Pine Street from Lake Drive to Western Terminus, (2) Pave Pine Street from Lake Drive to 4th Avenue, or (3) Against any street paving. The results of this petition as of September 1, 2005 were as follows: • Total for paving Pine Street: 8 (25 %) • Pave Pine Street from Lake Drive to Western Terminus: 3 (9 %) • Pave Pine Street from Lake Drive to 4th Avenue: 5 (16 %) • Against: 11 (34 %) • Did Not Respond: 13 (41%) Please note there are 32 residents that front Pines Street. Attached please find a location map, which displays these results. Columbus Township is waiting for Lino Lakes' decision on the project. They received petitions of 54% in favor paving the entire road length and 63% in favor of paving from Lake Drive to 4th Avenue. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting direction from the City Council as to the next step that staff should • take in response to the paving request. Page 1 •1-Vl S3 1141-1-7.0A1 Amu 11111111111111 1:111116111 :mum ms • • • WS -5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 5 Date: Council Work Session September 21, 2005 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Community Survey Proposal Background In 1996, the City of Lino Lakes hired Decision Resources, Ltd. to prepare the 1996 Quality of Life Study, which consisted of the findings and analysis of a community survey. The City Council included funds in its 2005 budget to have a similar study conducted again in order to have current information. A proposal to conduct a study has been requested from Decision Resources, Ltd. as they conduct nearly all the local government surveys in Minnesota. They are also experienced in designing surveys to provide useful information for subsequent visioning and comprehensive plan update activities, which we will be doing. Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking direction from the Council as to whether the proposal is acceptable and should be placed on the September 26, 2005 regular meeting agenda for action. Attachment The proposal from Decision Resources, Ltd. is attached. 1 • PROJECT PROPOSAL Decision Resources, Ltd. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 920 -0337 Fax: (612) 920 -1069 September 19, 2005 COMMENTS Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to provide this proposal for survey research to you. Survey Parameters: • Costs: Quality of Life and Visioning Study 400 Random Sample of City of Lino Lakes residents Written Analysis of Survey Presentation of Data and Findings 400 Random Sample, ±5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases 40 Question Units $10,200.00 Each additional question would be: $135.00 This cost includes one meeting for the discussion of the survey and one meeting for a presentation of the survey results. Any additional meetings would be $500.00 each. Company policy requires one -half of the total cost at the time of the approval of the question PRIOR TO FIELDWORK; the remainder is due at the time of the delivery of the Report of Findings. Project Timeline: 1. Planning with you and other designated participants to establish topics for questions. This activity to be completed within two weeks of the initiation of the contract and will be accomplished in the interests of efficiency, using telephone and faxes. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities • to be completed within two weeks of the initiation of the contract. 3. Final determination of the field dates for the interviews and questionnaire approval. 4. Pre - testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity will be completed by the second day of fieldwork. 5. Computer analysis and preparation of the written report. Frequencies of responses will be provided to the client within two weeks after the completion of all fieldwork. All statistical analysis and preliminary commentary will be available four weeks after completion of the fieldwork. 6. Telephone discussion with you and designated participants to explain and discuss survey results. This preliminary discussion can be arranged at a time convenient for you and appropriate City Council and/or staff. 7. One meeting with City Council and/or staff in either work session or formal presentation to explain and discuss the results of the survey. The final presentation or discussion session can be arranged at a time convenient for Board members and/or staff after delivery of the written report. A final written report would be made available within two weeks of this final meeting. Work Products: Report of Findings Frequencies of Responses Cross - Tabulation Tables Presentation Graphics I hope this overview sufficiently covers all the information you require. Let me assure you that we believe we can provide you with timely and reliable information. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you. But, in any case, we wish you the best of luck with your efforts.