The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/21/2004 Council Packet• WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday July 21, 2004 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Review Final Draft of the Parks, Greenways, and Trail System Plan, Jeff Schonebauer 2. Master Planning Process, East Lino Lakes & Hodgson Rd. /Cty Rd. J, Mary Divine 3. Schwan's Relocation, Mary Divine 4. Pheasant Hills 12th Addition EAW, Jeff Smyser 5. Development proposal, Lake Drive, (work session item requested by Councilmembers Carlson, Dahl) 6. Regular Agenda Items 7. Adjourn Revised 01/01/04 ajb 9:35 a.m. Date: To: From: Re: WS -2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Council Work Session, Wednesday, July 21, 2004 City Council Mary Divine Master Planning Process, East Lino Lakes & County Road J/Hodgson Road Two master planning efforts are getting underway in Lino Lakes. The City Council directed staff to consider options for improving the Hodgson Road /County Road J intersection area. Staff has asked Landform, a firm with a broad range of abilities in planning and design, engineering and architecture, to begin working on a master plan of the County Road J/Hodgson Road area. The city has worked with Carolyn Krall of Landform in the past on the downtown development. The developers of the "Benchmark" site on 35E also hired Landform to develop an action plan and lead the public visioning process for master planning that site. Because Landform group has a good reputation and staff has been pleased with its past work with the city, staff considers this an excellent choice for leading that project. However, staff wishes to inform the Council and receive input to ensure members are comfortable with this firm working on behalf of the city on one project and on behalf of the developer on the other. • • WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: Council Work Session, Wednesday, July 21, 2004 To: City Council From: Mary Divine Re: Schwan's Relocation Schwan's is considering relocating its delivery service /warehouse currently on Lake Drive to the Marshan Industrial Park, on a site located between the Distribution Alternatives building and the elementary school. The initial building will be 10 - 15,000 sq. ft. with expansion capability up to 20,000 sq. ft. This facility will be a distribution depot to residential customers, serving the north metro area. Products are delivered by semi trailer, stored, and then loaded on Home Service Delivery Trucks. The site will need to accommodate approximately 14 — 40 Home Service Delivery Trucks when fully developed. Home deliveries take place between 7:30 AM and 9:30 PM. Schwan's also requires an above ground propane storage tank on site approximately 18,000 gallons in size. The proposal has been brought to both EDAr and P &Z for their input. EDAC and P &Z indicated this is an appropriate use for that site with appropriate screening and landscaping to buffer the home delivery truck parking from view of 35W. Staff will continue to work with Schwan's on the relocation and also on the future use of the Lake Drive site. t�4J vlU•J'L �e,�S i oil, MEMORANDUM July 19, 2004 to: City Council from: Jeff Smyser subject: Record of Decision for the EAW, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition (Island Project) The Environmental Assessment Worksheet process on this project is nearing completion. The next action is for the City Council to make a positive or negative declaration: whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required. Staff is requesting direction from the Council at this time on whether or not the Council wishes to hold a public hearing on the EIS decision. If so, we could hold the hearing at the City Council meeting on August 9t'. Staff has prepared a draft Record of Decision, but we have not yet prepared the City Council resolution that will include the declaration itself. The Record of Decision includes findings and responses to comments on the EAW. The document should be revised as necessary to reflect the City Council's views on the issues. As a reminder, the decision on the EAW is not an approval or denial of the development project. The EAW addresses potential environmental impacts. Information in the EAW should inform the decision on the project itself, but action on the project is a different decision. Though the Record of Decision as yet includes no direct recommendation, staff's view at this time is that an EIS should not be ordered (negative declaration). The main environmental issues are noise and vibration from the bridge construction and the visual impact of the proposed bridge. The bridge construction will be temporary, and the noise and vibration impacts could be mitigated and avoided through a pre - construction monitoring survey and an ongoing monitoring program. A new bridge type with a lower profile has been submitted by the developer. This would have far less visual impact than the previously proposed truss bridge. There will be a visual impact, but the question is whether it is significant. We discussed the draft Record of Decision with the Environmental Board on July 15. The Board requested some changes and clarifications to the text of the document, which are included in the July 19 draft. The Environmental Board then recommended a negative declaration on the need for an EIS. Record of Decision, Pheasant Hills 12th page 2 To assist in considering the need for an EIS, here is a part of Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subpart 7, which lists the criteria to be considered to determine if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects —that is, if an EIS is warranted. 4410.1700 DECISION ON NEED FOR EIS. Subpart 1. Standard for decision on need for EIS. An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. The development application itself has been through the Environmental Board and the Planning & Zoning Board. The EAW process put a hold on the project application. When the EAW process concludes, the project process begins again. Because of information collected for the EAW, revised plans will be needed to bring the project application to the City Council. Here is a summary of the history: April 2001 Project submittal for comprehensive plan amendment, rezone to planned development, and preliminary plat. Submittal incomplete. September 2001 December 2001 January 2002 February 2002 March 2002 August 2002 New submittal, incomplete. Additional information received over following weeks. Environmental Board voted to recommend denial of project as submitted. P & Z voted to recommend denial of the project as submitted. City received petition requesting preparation of EAW. City Council required preparation of an EAW. Comprehensive plan adopted, which includes site in Low Density Sewered Residential area, eliminating the need for the comprehensive plan amendment. • • August 2003 October 2003 April 2004 May 10, 2004 June 1, 2004 July 9, 2004 July 15, 2004 Record of Decision, Pheasant Hills 12th page 3 EAW completed and distributed for public comment: notice in EQB Monitor Sept. 1, comment period ends October 1. Comments raised questions, City notifies applicant that more info needed on specific items. Infoiniation received over next months. City Council work session, Council instructs applicant to provide more information with specific info needed by staff (bridge, noise). Bridge images submitted. Bridge piling/abutment sketches submitted. Draft Record of Decision distributed to Env. Bd., applicant, neighborhood (petitioner) representative Environmental Board recommends negative declaration. attachments: Draft Record of Decision, July 19, 2004 Environmental Assessment Worksheet, August 5, 2003