Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/2009 P&Z Packet• CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers (Scheduled to be televised on Ch. 16) Please be courteous and turn off all electronic devices during the meeting. AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. SWEARING IN OF REAPPOINTED BOARD MEMBER III. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 11, 2009 VI. OPEN MIKE • VII. ACTION ITEMS A. None • VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Birch Street Corridor Study — SRF Consulting Group B. Comprehensive Plan Update i. Requests for Changes to Land Use Map and Staging Map ii. Comments from Adjacent Jurisdictions IX. ADJOURN Meeting guidelines on reverse side. City of Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board MEETING GUIDELINES Open Mike — The purpose of a Board Meeting is to accomplish the business of the city. When presenting at a meeting please remember to be respectful, and follow these guidelines: • Please address the meeting chair. • State your name and address for the record. • Please observe a 4- minute limit. • The topic must relate to city business. • Open Mike is for items not on the agenda. • A spokesperson must represent a group of five or more — groups will have 8 minutes. • The Presiding Officer may limit duplicative presentations. • Remember, the meeting is to discuss city business only. Public Hearing - Held as a separate item of business on the agenda. The public hearing segment is your opportunity to tell the Board how you feel about issues scheduled to be heard. Typically, a hearing follows these steps: • The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice - Chair) will announce the proposal to be reviewed and ask for the staff report. The presiding Officer shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. • Staff will present their report on the proposal. • Board members will then ask City Staff questions about the proposal. • The Presiding Officer will then open up the public hearing for anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Comments should be limited to four (4) minutes unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer. All comments should be directed to the Board as a body and not to any individual Board Member or City Staff Member unless permission is granted by the Presiding Officer. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Board without the permission of the Presiding Officer. • After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his/her comments, the Presiding Officer shall close the public hearing. • The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. • The Board will then make a recommendation(s) and/or a decision. When you are called upon for your comments, please step to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the record. Occasionally, the Board may continue a hearing to another meeting before taking action. Meeting Etiquette The Planning & Zoning Board must preserve order and decorum while the meeting is in session. A resident shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the business of the Board, nor disturb any resident or Board Member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board. • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES • Februa 6 :46 P.M. 9 :03 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Acting Chair Pogalz called the I: at 6:46 p.m. on February 11, 2009. II. SWEARING IN OF APPOINTED Mayor John B , °sons, ' „ m newly ap inted board member Elizabeth Brady. • s Planning an ng Board meeting to order Mr. Pogalz note meetin_. Therefore, Ile was reapp ted to the board but unable to attend the end a future meeting to swear in Mr. Tralle. IV. APP'' OF M [ TES: Jan 14 Mr. Root mad a MOTION to approve the January 14, 2009 Minutes as presented. Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 - 0. (Brady abstained.) V. OPEN MIKE Acting Chair Pogalz declared Open Mike at 6:50 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 11, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:51 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Brady. Motion carried 4 - 0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Low Density Sewered Residential to Commercial, Rezone from Rural to General Business, and Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Sales Lot, in order to allow the addition of automobile sales to an existing auto repair shop located at 909 Maple Street. Paul Bengtson, Associate Planner, presented the staff re Mr. Bengtson explained that the existing use of the it use and as such the current use is allowed only increase to the current use, occurs on the site. Staff's recommendation was that no chan adopted the updated Comprehensive Plan. Sta further to determine what zoning district is the mo Bengtson added that a change o . n the site woul with the regulations of the current a N m e. consi .: a non - conforming o chan the use, and no to until the Me , ouncil has ed . t the site be examined opriate for the site. Mr. ire the property to comply Staff received two phoned inquiries notice. The written the site, and was question abo t as a result of the public ent include . • terns abr, `- street parking and pollutants on part of the °a ff report. e phone inquiries included a type and c . ern about the parking situation. Board members staff. were rezoned to General Business, then any type of use future — and if all conditions of the use are met, by e use on the site. In or to be zo site woul city sewer an with MUSA ar Conditional Use Permit to be granted, the property would have Business. In order to rezone the site GB General Business, the 'thin the current MUSA boundary and have immediate access to . Even though the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan would do away s, staff would seek to amend the zoning ordinance to prevent unsewered commercial development in a different manner. A variance for parking would be required in order to make the use legal. Lighting concerns were minimal after staff noted that no additional lighting was shown on the plans, and that the existing building light is directed downward and is not on all night. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 11, 2009 Page 3 Hazardous Waste on the site was a concern. The applicant would need to renew their Hazardous Materials license with Anoka County, and the county would be responsible for enforcement. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has been involved and the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) could be involved if there were any future concerns. The city does not license this type of business, however a required state license usually includes a zoning verification signature by the city. Applicant, Kevin Halversen, 9116 Lexington, MN, stated that engineer) Jim Studenski and Rud Land Surveying to addres lights on site are timed to shut off at 6:00 p.m. Their rec inside the building at night. He has had numerous dis aware of the negative concerns by staff. He spoke he fire ent and the state, and spent money on plan review. He said that t - g io $ s owner, •on Auto, didn't listen to the concerns of the neighbors. He w.£ • like to take the neg ve issues and turn them positive. He stated that staff told hi • t shoul •e submitted an 1�. e city is in the process of change. Mr. Halversen tate' t he iy really changi �`; e use. He stated that vehicles get pulled inside the garage t ' e `''equested ad tonal time by staff in order to meet requirements. He explained sales to become an onsite dealer. the transactions. He explained tha surveyor, and met with the city eng Conditional Use Permit for the site. the business in the He spoke wit alt with (city ues. °' He said that the is kept in a can that goes staff but he was not they are doing is adding the e the cars like a bank and do r uested, hired a land a copy of the previous 'nfo ed him that they don't want lann myser to try and make this a usiness. said they are in the used car and they want to do it right. He said they hts .; r y are trying to get their license and do like to 'tted what th ed that he positive add -on business, not are not ch. ti the right things. g successfu ant to sell or the ligh fo sit or t p There is an part of the a ite and impro ce.car sales area site oward the s the c on. He proposed _ es t•' urveying, said he was asked to do a survey for the applicant. tion, • cl ded a site plan, utility plan, and grading plan showing nts. .' ed that plans showed improvements including striping well . a bituminous parking area. He stated that drainage on the t and into the street, and the plans will not increase the drainage there is no potential for pollutants. He said there are no ilities, adding that the sewer system will work as it does now. o eptic system with no storm sewer in the area Mr. Halversen stated the septic system had been brought up to code. He tried to make sure things were done in a positive way. He asked that the board understand what it is like to be a small business owner. He is here to add on to an existing business to make it profitable. He said the State of Minnesota is okay with the proposal. Acting Chair Pogalz opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Kevin Hedgers, 862 Maple Street, distributed a compilation of points of concern from the residents of Maple Street. The residents are opposed to the proposed applications and all DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 11, 2009 Page 4 but one resident was in attendance. (The documents are filed as part of the city's public record.) Maple Street residents were concerned that they were uninformed about a previous business change on the property. Staff explained that certain applications require a public notice, but a change of ownership does not warrant a notice to the neighborhood. Terry Johnson, 987 Maple Street, stated that although vehicles are kept behind the fence, they are in the road during the day and sometimes block the road. Richard VanCleave, 907 Maple Street, stated that he didn't , t to .eak. However, he was upset that they were not informed of the business ch.e 1991. He said that he likes Ivan (of K.I. Auto) and he goes over there to tal he ' en there are issues. He was not so concerned about the lighting. He stated th s driv:, g has cracks from trucks turning around in his driveway. He adde. - Ae. °.le some knock on his door as late as 11:00 p.m. asking about the b & ¢ `ess next door. He sp i- ith Ivan who informed him that he is not a sales person, < - does i ix insurance co _ ars but he does not sell them. He doesn't like an o hat is • g on. If he h own what was going on in 1991, he would have opposed i . ; the first time he as come to the city to make a complaint. He said that he was ther- i the others to voice his concerns. He doesn't need people working 4 door late at ni • has resolved issues with Ivan in the past. Mr. Hedgers added concern about th ater te. at it be posted that any hazardous fluids are t with in the c anne Board memb sked th ' . __ `.licant to ad - ss resident concerns. Mr. Halversen sta hours w. 1 d be from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and they are no . ¢ < . 11 cars ,C . a e could display a sign posting the hours and as • . lease quietly. ` e said the "bus" on his property was used to haul rte, b• _. ve 'cle went up for sale following a resident complaint. will n• kept inside. He said that he will follow rules as stated in onditions of .: oval. e stated that if the neighbors didn't like the use of the prop hey could e bought it. He said they want to be productive and get along with pe. . He has particular plans to expand the site. He acknowledged that situations occ d with turnarounds and parking. Mr. Halversen plained that 15 different insurance companies contact them with cars that need repair, they in turn purchase the vehicles and resell them, and now they would like to sell the cars on the lot rather than going to an alternate location to transact the sale. Board Members commented that although they encourage local business, they must consider the effect to residents as well. They pointed out that the proposed change in business would increase the amount of traffic to the site. The current business is repair and not sales, therefore adding sales would increase the volume of customer traffic to the site. The Board asked Mr. Halversen if he plans to see a net change in the number of people accessing the site. Mr. Halversen replied yes, he hopes there is a big change and DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 11, 2009 Page 5 • they are planning to have more people show up. He is looking to increase his business. Mr. Halversen stated he expects to sell approximately 30 cars per month on this lot. • Mr. Halversen stated that they made no attempt to meet or discuss the situation with the neighbors. He said he did not want to disturb them. Board members suggested that it would have shown an effort on his behalf if he would have contacted the residents directly. Mr. Hedgers added that hazardous issues on the site do not follow the betterment of the city. Mr. VanCleave added that he feels the applicant is more ed about money than the impact on his neighbors and the community. Dennis Ramsden, 871 Maple Street, stated cone u cars bein_ + sped off if the applicant gets this permit. Teresa Johnson, 987 Maple Street, stated con because cars are worked on in the street and flat that cars turn around in driveways, and was conce not get down the street. and to drive do the street at t " es in the st eet. She added at ambulances and busses could Diane Schally, 892 Maple Street, st She complained about the noise espe only nine residents • '- +e street, and t the neighborhoo• : ° . lot of abu that the ex g car business was there. S pointed out that there are ut on 8 attendance. She stated that Mr. Root m e Mr.Hyden. Moto close the Pu earing. Motion was seconded by any car sa es on the site had ceased for well over a year, lid . n the site. Mr. Halversen stated he was not aware of enforcement steps will be made by staff to address the non - confo with the isting conditional use permit. Staff pointed + "t the property may not meet all requirements of General Business. The city woul . ' of allow a new business to occur without sewer and water. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, no new commercial/industrial areas will be created without sewer & water. Mr. Bengtson explained that an application fee and submittal materials are required in order for staff to process a review. He added that there most certainly were indications from staff that the application may be denied during discussions with the applicant. Mr. Bengtson wanted to clarify that a non - conforming use within the city can be reestablished if it reoccurs within a year, and the city is not required to notify the public. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 11, 2009 Page 6 However, if a use ceases to exist for a year, then starting that use again would require applications that include a public hearing. The city wants to reinstitute the condition of approval that would ensure that all conditions are being met and not causing issues with public welfare. A condition of approval can require annual review. Board members agreed that they want to see business survive in Lino Lakes. However, there are currently problems with the existing business being located too close to homes within a residential area. Board members agreed that there is an existing impact existing business. They hope that the neighbors d b together and get through their issues with the curre board members agreed that an expans impacts to the neighborhood. They determin for the proposed type of business. to ighborhood with the er can continue to work on the site. ld increase the riate location and es e air bus .� h busines a. at this was not the t r In addition, board members pointed out that if t ss "``sere approve but fails, this would open up additional issues as to what future bum _ ss could apply. Ms. Brady made a MOTION to re Amendment to change the land use to Commercial at 909 Maple Street. carried 4 -0. denial of the hensive Plan om Low I ity Sewered Residential rte .. y Mr. Hyden. Motion Mr. Hyden m General Bu passed 4 -0. to recomme e Street. Mo denial of the Rezoning from Rural to as supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion o recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for an lo the addition of automobile sales to an existing auto treet. Motion was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion tdoor Sales it shop locate 4 -0. The Bo council if s. applicant that he can still pursue his application with the city Mr. Halversen ounced that he was displeased with staff and that he was uninformed about the prob ems with his application. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2008 Year End Review Mr. Smyser noted that enclosed in the board member meeting packets was a summary of actions taken by the board in 2008. Mr. Smyser added that items approved DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 11, 2009 Page 7 administratively by staff in 2008 were included on the reverse side of the report. B. Comp Plan Update Mr. Smyser updated the board on the progress of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He noted that some proposed changes were discussed at the council work session on February 2. He stated that another Public Hearing will be held at a future P &Z Meeting once all jurisdictions have commented on the plan. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9 Motion was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 4 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Dawn Bugge Community Development Assistant DRAFT MINUTES • AGENDA ITEM VIII.A. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala MEETING DATE: March 11, 2009 TOPIC: CSAH 34 (Birch Street) Corridor Study BACKGROUND Birch Street (CSAH 34) serves as a vital transportation corridor for both the City of Lino Lakes and Anoka County. Population growth in Anoka County and surrounding communities has resulted in higher traffic volumes throughout the area. This increased traffic has been especially noticeable in the City of Lino Lakes on CSAH 34, also known as Birch Street, raising concerns about perceived congestion, safety and traffic signal needs. In 2007 the Lino Lakes City Council adopted a Goals and Management Plan that included the objective of preparing an access management plan for Birch Street to address these concerns. Additionally, the city received a petition in early 2008 requesting improvements to the Ware Road and Birch Street intersection. In response IP Anoka County, in partnership with the City of Lino Lakes, has hired SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to assist in the preparation of the CSAH 34 Corridor Study. The study, which began in November 2008, will continue over the next 18 months. In addition to addressing existing concerns, the study will provide the city with an important tool as we prepare to manage growth over the next twenty years. As shown in the City's draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan, growth along the corridor as well as surrounding communities is expected to continue. Proper management of the corridor in the following years will be vital to maintaining and improving safety and mobility. Preparation of the plan is supported in part by the 2030 Vision Plan, accepted by the council in 2006. The Roads and Transportation section of the plan includes strategies to maintain and strengthen our transportation system as follows: • Ensure by 2030 that main east/west corridors ... are of good quality and allow for potential, required expansion and upgrades... • Identify potential traffic safety problem areas and adopt plans to lessen risks as traffic volume increases along these problem stretches and intersections. • Plan ... for an expanded and improved road system to accommodate projected increases in traffic volume accompanying predicted /planned growth and development. • These strategies have been incorporated into the goals and policies of the draft comprehensive plan. Chapter 11 of the plan specifically recommends preparation of the corridor study. Representatives from SRF Consulting Group will be present to provide an overview of the process and information collected to date. ATTACHMENTS 1. CSAH 34 Corridor Study Handout • • Newsletter 1 What is the study purpose? The purpose of this study is to identify and plan for short -, mid- and long -term transportation improvements along CSAH 34 (Birch Street) in order to address congestion, safety, access and mobility concerns expressed by local residents, business owners and public safety officials. The CSAH 34 Corridor Study is the initial step in addressing these concerns and planning for the future. February 2009 What are the study objectives? The primary goal of this study is to identify a preferred roadway concept for the CSAH 34 Corridor. As an important east and west route for the City of Lino Lakes and Anoka County, CSAH 34 is a critical component of both the city and county transportation systems. The study objectives are listed below: • Develop an understanding of the issues, constraints and opportunities in the corridor through: comprehensive data collection /assembly; technical analysis of issues /problems; and discussions with stakeholders. • Prepare a corridor vision and creatively develop a range of solutions that reflect sound technical design practices and meet the project's goals while minimizing potential social, economic, and environmental impacts. • Consider opportunities to strengthen the sense of community by incorporating gateway treatments and streetscape concepts into roadway alternatives if they are compatible with roadway design and support corridor safety objectives. • Consider the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in the overall corridor implementation plan. • Evaluate the concepts, select a preferred option and propose a staged implementation program that meets federal and state environmental regulations. • Involve stakeholders throughout the decision - making process to: enhance understanding of corridor issues, goals and objectives; build credibility for technical analysis; and foster support for implementation. Who is guiding the study? The project is co- sponsored by Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes and is being guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which comprises staff from the city, county, and Mn /DOT. For those citizens interested in getting involved, there will be several opportunities for public participation throughout the study, including a Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) which will be formed after the first open house. The NAC will be composed of 15 to 20 representatives from key neighborhood and community groups and will play a critical role in helping to provide feedback on the study process. Visit the project website at http: / /ww2.anokacounty.us /v3 highway /CSAH34 to find out how to get involved. cf) ♦_ V O 0 0 0 N 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 c C •• 00 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 a 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 2 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 O N Z 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 C d E O O O C � ssues Identi ication (on irmatio ureCo,,..si E E • O V z E V m. ementation P a d L 0 E C E 0, � a = z d • • • • • Alen coon ination (5 • • We'site •set-u, and six Mate o 0 m c c ' c O 0 O 0 a .N O -0 j V _c 0 • O a 2 m L ` 02 o c ", _ N V v O a) .2 CD w ...2a 0 Ew 0 -a E V C E V O -a oo a) 0 0 CS a c a > 0_ . c +- p C '..7 .73 w aa) N -a a a C o a a E oa aa) C N 0 a 0) a O •7, U X o p m-0 a a eL C V C N S 0 a a j C a C NN LL a L. 4) S • •— ,_'„ 00 Q O O O Preferred Corridor Plan Revised Cost Estimates for Corridor Plan 2) O 0 2 0 a) 0 a) c .0) 0 0 a 0 'n Q a) C O O C E 0 4) 0- 070 E a Public Involvement Process • • • • • • • \ = 7; = \ / \g } ! § � /\ \ } §A\ !1 1 ! {1k ;A' ƒ2 §! } z! )! § 2k))\\ X. -fl f: § §� 4 ( 3= § \ ; {f § } } *! \I| }i! }!}2J! /! SAH 34 Corri•or Stud in Lino Lake. GOAL: Plan and develop CSAH 34 (Birch Street) so that it functions as a safe east -west minor arterial serving the City of Lino Lakes Objective 1: Improve Safe • Address high crash locations • Improve pedestrian crossing of CSAH 34 • Enhance trail linkages across and along the corridor • Identify future traffic signal locations where they are warranted • Enhance emergency vehicle response time • With continued corridor urbanization, roadway design changes are likely going to be needed to safely move traffic within the corridor. Design changes could include lower vehiclular speeds, additional turn lanes, additional through lanes, modified access and /or a combination of these strategies. Ob'ective 2: Im • rove Mobili • Reduce current and anticipated future congestion • Reduce delay during AM and PM peak hours • Improve current level of service (LOS) to at least LOS D for key intersections by 2030 Objective 3: Coordinate Transportation Im • rovements and Land Use Plans • Implement access management spacing to the greatest extent possible (1/2-mile full and 1/4-mile secondary) along undeveloped segments of the corridor • Retrofit public and private access, where possible in developed areas • For new development, coordinate land use and transportation activities during the platting process • Minimize land acquisition for corridor improvements by attempting to stay within the existing 120 -foot right -of -way as much as possible • Accommodate planned growth with sufficient future roadway capacity SRF CSAH 34 Corridor Stud in Lino Lakes CONSULTING Gaoor.Ixc A jI! anuany ylpZ 09 L'Z 0 L 0 2.� an c ■ - w di 0) INC dal pa aAei uewiayS peon aII!AJalua3 00.'9 - _... V L' u co OL8 �p )/ono ,l3el8 S OAV 111Z l 0 ! � OOL'L o , Peob aJenn 6 .7 eM peon uos6poH 000'8 00 V N d° O Q Q CC 5 3 V `-'v° cdQQQ �� 0 c Existing and Future Level of Service (LOS) Definition o o LL 0 0 0 WCO a 0 X K g) l) a J AH 3 Corri. or to •n•ition • h at are the A� ai'E)�aA enuany qo 008'£6 00S'01 0 0 0 0 peon ap!AJaluao 009$6 00914 m�Aa a LL� v w Ipv_ 0 pa uewJayg ^R 0 N 00 S anti 4326 009'1 0 N o U- Vehicle /Capacity (V /C) Analysis d 15 S ° °o E 0 O v O — • u a- v j N O >-0 o u Q O Q ° Q 0>-0 E -0 0 C O J 0 0 m 3 uX o p o T. E 0 v u 0 0 • p 0 0 ) 0 - T O o M v o'a-p-0Qm° D U E o E s � T� c o- c ° O E v u 0 E o z E a y E • o u y O OG T~ O > E a `o Evo ✓ 0 Q a 0 —N > c o a � 2 U 00 ¢.. aE.j�- isL 0 E - � 4011 -§1-u.. iE ° g- ';s -�2� -O E 199 `lk ,yii Iis Sn iyy0 ?mr;.2 f rn .P ff -F.E Li ' P P .11 §,t .E e- Eo Z..�4 ' `co1 y`a� t a Y vPi� vPi `0.4'P ¢ „°-'�E� `v.Pi 0-.Gi, _ C o ? a n a 8 t n n n n b 9 0 0> a n .' ' n n n n O s'6 a .P 0 m v c u. ■ .r.TI IR: in Lino La e • • • AGENDA ITEM VIII B. i. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: March 11, 2009 TOPIC: Discussion: Requests for Changes to Land Use Map and Staging Map in the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan BACKGROUND The P & Z Board held a public hearing to consider the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan on September 9, 2008. The City Council decided that the Board should hold a second public hearing to allow public discussion of comments and revisions to the draft that have occurred since September. The second public hearing is scheduled for the P & Z meeting on April 8, 2009. The discussion in September included some requested changes to the land use designations and the staging map. Since then, we have received four additional requests to change the land use map and/or the staging plan map. Staff anticipates that the property owners requesting the changes will attend the public hearing and is presenting the requests tonight to inform the Board of the requests. The requests include: 1. Beecher property, 797 Main St.: Guide the site Mixed Use to allow for home business computer service and sales. 2. Nogai property, 1370 Birch St.: Bring the site into pre -2030 staging area. 3. Joyer property, Main St. west of Elbe St.: Bring the site into Stage 1 (2009- 2020). 4. Leroux property, 2104 64th St.: Bring the site into pre -2030 staging area. The attached information indicates the locations of these properties and includes information analyzing the requests. RECOMMENDATION Staff will present the analyses for discussion and is seeking comments from the Board to guide preparation for the public hearing. • 1. Beecher property, 797 Main St. draft comp plan request 2002 (existing) comp plan existing zoning and use analysis and recommendation '7030 • Site is on edge of neighborhood, separated from the proposed Mixed Use area by a Low Density Residential Guide the site Mixed Use Low Density Sewered General Business separate property that is a segment of a driveway for several other lots. The driveway is to allow for home business Residential comprised of other parcels and easements under different ownership and is 1200 feet Stage 1 A (2009 -2015) computer service and sales. Stage 1 (1998 -2010) single family home on site long. This driveway serves as a good dividing line between the residential neighborhood and future commercial /mixed uses. • Recommend: Guide as Low Density Residential as proposed • Recommend: Rezone site to R -1 Residential like the rest of the neighborhood. • Recommend: Revise home occupation requirements in zoning ordinance. This would occur with amendments of ordinances to implement new comp plan. Example: home offices & small service activities allowed in residential zones on lots on major streets, no large truck deliveries, maximum square footage allowed for such activities. AERIAL PHOTO 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE MAP 2. Nogai property, 1370 Birch St. 2030 draft comp plan request 2002 (existing) comp plan existing zoning and use analysis and recommendation • Utilities must be brought from White Oak Road and Birch by development of small Urban Reserve through Bring the site into pre -2030 Low Density Unsewered Rural properties to west. Also would require running utilities down Joyer Lane to lot Stages 1 & 2 (2009 -2030) Low Density Residential staging area. Residential single family home on site boundary. The site would accommodate three lots, or maybe four with a small interior cul de sac and removal of existing house. The financial viability of all this is questionable without a larger utilities project serving the neighborhood. Stage 3 (after 2030) • Recommend: This would be appropriate for a comp plan amendment for a larger utilities and road reconstruction project initiated by property owners in the neighborhood. • Recommend: Guide as proposed, Urban Reserve to 2030, then Low Density Residential. AERIAL PHOTO 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE MAP r • 3. Joyer property, Main St. west of Elbe St. 111030 draft comp plan request 2002 (existing) comp plan existing zoning and use analysis and recommendation • Development of this site would require utilities, increasing possibility to serve Urban Reserve through Bring the site into Medium Density Rural neighborhoods along Main St., which are in same sewer subdistrict. Stages 1 & 2 (2009 -2030) Stage 1 (2009- 2020). Residential Stage 2 (2010 -2020) • Removal from utilities service plan of existing older neighborhood in same sewer subdistrict freed enough capacity to comfortably serve this site. Medium Density Residential • Access to Main St. and stubbed 81st St. (though a new Main St. access would be a right in /out street per the access management plan.) Stage 3 (after 203 0) • Recommend: Include this parcel in Stage 1, 2009 -2020. (1A or 1B to be determined) • Recommend: Add 40+ units to forecast. (Approx. 12 acres upland, less 25% for streets /ponding = 9 acres, Medium Density 3.6 to 6.9 units /acre, yields 32 to 62 units.) AERIAL PHOTO 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE MAP 4. Leroux property, 2104 64th St. 2030 draft comp plan request 2002 (existing) comp plan existing zoning and use analysis and recommendation • Utilities are stubbed in Clearwater Creek, but it is unknown if all of this area can be Urban Reserve through Bring the site into pre -2030 Low Density Sewered Rural served by this sanitary sewer pipe because of depth and land elevation. Two properties Stages 1 & 2 (2009 -2030) staging area. Residential to the north must develop first to bring utilities to the site. Low Density Residential Stage 2 (2010 -2020) single family home on site • Development of area would require construction of 64th St. to provide adequate access, and connection to Flora Court in Clearwater Creek neighborhood. Stage 3 (after 2030) • If this area of 70± acres with potential for 100+ lots is moved into earlier stage, should consider removing land from that stage or adding units to city forecast. • Recommend: This would be appropriate for a comp plan amendment for a larger utilities and road reconstruction project initiated by property owners in the area. • Recommend: Add text in Planning District 3 section of comp plan discussing this area and potential for amendment if multi - property development plan is created. • Recommend: guide as proposed, Urban Reserve to 2030, then Low Density Residential. AERIAL PHOTO 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE MAP • • • AGENDA ITEM 8.B.ii STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: March 11, 2009 TOPIC: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Jurisdictional Review Comments On November 10, 2008 the City Council approved distribution of the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan with Resolution Number 08 -131. Copies of the draft plan were sent out to the surrounding jurisdictions on November 14, 2008. Each entity has six months to respond to the City of Lino Lakes with any comments. While the full time period has not yet expired, a majority of the jurisdictions have responded and it is appropriate to review those comments at this time. Staff has completed an initial review of the comments and assigned any necessary corrections to the appropriate consultant or staff member. To track the necessary work, staff created a spreadsheet of the comments and the recommended changes. I have manipulated this spreadsheet further in an effort to provide a summary of all comments we have received for review by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. An abbreviated version of the spreadsheet's format is shown below. A total of twelve of the twenty jurisdictions have responded at this point. The following table indicates the jurisdictions from which comments have been received. Attached to this report you will find a copy of the original comment letters sent by each of the jurisdictions. JURISDICTION RCV'D City of Ham Lake X City of Forest Lake X Forest Lake School Dist. No. 831 X Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) X White Bear Lake School Dist. No. 624 X City of Blaine X City of Centerville X City of Shoreview X Washington County Transportation and Physical Development X Rice Creek Watershed District X Anoka County Highway Department X Anoka County Parks Department X City of Hugo City of North Oaks City of Circle Pines City of Columbus White Bear Township Centennial School Dist. No. 12 Ramsey County Public Works Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization • • CI'1 "Y OF HAM LAKE CHAPTER PAGE / FIGURE COMMENT ANALYSIS INo Comments INo action necessary CITY OF FOREST LAKE CHAPTER PAGE I FIGURE COMMENT ANALYSIS INo Comments No action necessary F U H 0 -4 0 v w z COMMENT PAGE / FIGURE No Comments MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION z COMMENT E /'FIGURE a. CHAPTER O 0 ANALYSIS 2 0 0 GE / FIGURE WHITE BEAR L CHAPTER No action necessary No action necessary 0) c O O O O U N -o CO a.) Q) al 3 U L � 0 • U C (6 2 Y N N O 0 0 0 J 4_ L U 0 O 0 O C a) 0 U V) ca O 0 0 (B U 7 a] co 0 0 0 0 ca O a) 0 0 0 0 0 educational I z' COMMENT LL. 0 •IwI m x a Q u 0 No action necessary The City supports this realignment, and SRF will add text to reflect that support. SRF will confirm this with Anoka County SRF will confirm this with Anoka County SRF will confirm this with Anoka County TKDA will correct the maps and figures. 'Goal 3, Policy 1 - supports the coordination of trail & sidewalk connections with adjacent communities. 'Goal 7, Policy 3 - Insert, where appropriate, support for County plan to realign CSAH 12 in Blaine to match with Apollo Dr at CR53 (Sunset Ave) Jurisdictional Classification - confirm extension of CR53 (Sunset) to northern border is in Anoka County plan Confirm classification of CR 53, CSAH 12 & CSAH 23 with Anoka County plan Confirm classification of CR 53 Correct water tower labels on all water system maps (both towers shown as #1) M N 0) CL M co 0) o_ L.0 O 0) n. M 6 °—) LL 0 6 0) o_ VARIOUS Resource Mgmt Transportation Transportation Transportation 1Transportation Water Supply 0 ,PAGE / FIGURE co.- 0) a) c c a) (0 C (1) U 0 E E- P 4- D O a) 3- U (0 m 0_ 0 a) -O a) C13 >' O L C 0 a) U C > O L (0 CO E L 0) • N H co o 33 N (0 (0 0 a) 0, 0 U_ 0_ a) 0 O 0) m a) a) -c a) U () > in L 'O < 0• ) H co 03 c O U a) c C 0 U CT) a) U 0) c 0 (13 0) E X 0) a) U ❑ H 0 c O a) O (0 o_ (0 E 0 Q c 0 a) (0 0 o_ C c (0 a) U c ❑ H a) U 7 0 (0 0) c 7 0 L 7 U c (0 E 0 (0 (0 Q o 0 W O CO '- a) (0 c U U c a) O a) C Q) 0 C (0 U) o_ c0 E a) _c U a) O U ❑ H 0 N U O L O c c 0 N Y a) c < a) _c L O .0 • 0 C • O O �y E W i (0 (7) c c O E _0 c_ 0 (0 O 0 O co C U a) C C O U Q) c N 4) E E O N � C 4 O _0 • Q) • 0 • O • U 8 72 U (6 0 U ct a) 0 a. c 0 U (0 Q E_ oes H ❑ li L U • (L6 N H -0 0 C 0 C O C 2 •` O • c c a) a) a) • _c c (0 > a) ❑ C (j) O 0) N co c O O co a) O E a) c U a) c U Amend text per above comment 0) a) n (0 a) O * U a) n3 • O ▪ ) N O N U a) c L m _o O Q ▪ E E a) C U) a E w E O (0 E • ca (0 v) Fig. 7 -3 & 7 -4 0 Transportation Transportation Sanitary Sewer SHOREVIEW CHAPTER WASHINGTON COUNTY CI IAPTER PAGE / FIGURE COMMENT ANALYSIS Transportation Fig. 6 -3 Review classification of future CR 140 (80th St) SRF will confirm the projected traffic volumes on this right of way, and if necessary amend the figure. Transportation Fig. 6 -4 Projected volume for CR 140 seems more in line with a SRF will confirm the projected traffic volumes on this right of Minor Arterial rather than a Principal Arterial. (as noted in way, and if necessary amend the figure. previous comment.) Transportation Pg. 6 -11 Add text to support extension of CR 84 from city limits to Figures within the plan already show a future roadway in this junction with TH 97 as a joint Anoka - Washington County area, but SRF will also add text to reflect the city's support. roadway (.O (O Q) LL _Q) LL 1- Q) LE LC) _6 it U 0 WASHINGTON COUNTY CI IAPTER PAGE / FIGURE COMMENT ANALYSIS Transportation Fig. 6 -3 Review classification of future CR 140 (80th St) SRF will confirm the projected traffic volumes on this right of way, and if necessary amend the figure. Transportation Fig. 6 -4 Projected volume for CR 140 seems more in line with a SRF will confirm the projected traffic volumes on this right of Minor Arterial rather than a Principal Arterial. (as noted in way, and if necessary amend the figure. previous comment.) Transportation Pg. 6 -11 Add text to support extension of CR 84 from city limits to Figures within the plan already show a future roadway in this junction with TH 97 as a joint Anoka - Washington County area, but SRF will also add text to reflect the city's support. roadway (.O (O Q) LL _Q) LL 0 / 0 \ 0 _ 0 CO 0 \ °0 CD / ƒ • c w O \ § o = a 0 k/ 0 / 0 0 0 CO 0 / 0 / \ 0 \ ƒ 2 0 Q) U \ § / 0 < / / 0 _ LT_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ £ 15- 0 \ 0 \ � / E 0 0 _ / 0 \ 0 0 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 . § 0 0 / \ \ 0 eL 0 \ remove "Draft" from Lino Lakes RMP / 0 Cr) CL \ 0 0 > Resource Mgmt Resource Mgmt Entire Document ANOKA COUNTY COMMENT No action necessary TKDA will review the report mentioned to determine if any change is necessary TKDA will make this change in the Water Supply chapter. TKDA will change the text to state that there are no 'compatible' aquifers instead of 'suitable aquifers. L Bonestroo will work with the Environmental Services Coordinator to add text. Bonestroo will work with the Environmental Services Coordinator to add the Compost Site to this figure. This goal was written as part of the citizen participation process, is not inaccurate, and should not be changed. This goal was written as part of the citizen participation process, is not inaccurate, and should not be changed. Staff feels that this figure serves the purpose it is intended for, to show the location of transportation system issues. SRF will add this figure into the plan for clarity SRF will remove the redundant text as commented. SRF will confirm the future designation with the County and amend accordingly. SRF will revise the text to reflect the CSAH 34 study that has already begun. Plan was well- written and addressed all areas of concern to the county Suggested changes to the plan in regards to water supply adequacy for future development levels. Replace all references to "Groundwater Protection Plan" to read "Wellhead Protection Plan" Disagree with city's contention that the northern section of the city doesn't have a suitable aquifer. add text to summarize programs & facilities available to residents to manage waste revise map to include location of Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Compost Site Goal 2: Rationale - consider using the term "crash" instead of "accidents" Goal 6: consider removing and rail" since rail is a form of transit. Issues Map - Consider enlarging figure to make easier to read. insert the Existing Functional Classification System Map into short plan fix typo by removing redundant text (CSAH 32 is listed twice) "A' Minor Arterials: confirm with County the future designation of CR 53 (Sunset Ave) - adjust accordingly "B" Minor Arterials: revise text to refer to the future classification of CSAH 34 to be a result of the Corridor Study '7 + � \ \ a 6 ƒ G J 1 , k e , k / 6 k Q ( \ Parks and Trails Water Supply Water Supply Water Supply Comm. Facilities Comm. Facilities Transportation Transportation Transportation (Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation ANALYSIS SRF will discuss the system improvements section with Anoka County, and will revise the text to reflect the 'potential' need for four lane streets. The final design of all of these roadways will require further study. SRF will discuss the system improvements section with Anoka County, and will revise the text to reflect the 'potential' need for four lane streets. The final design of all of these roadways will require further study. This legend is repeated on all maps and doesn't warrant a revision on only those where the symbol is unused. Staff feels the current information is sufficient and topical. SRF will revise the figure to clarify the volumes for the interstate and 20th Avenue South. SRF will review the traffic forecast for Main Street and fix accordingly SRF will discuss the system improvements section with Anoka County, and will revise the text to reflect the 'potential' need for four lane streets. The final design of all of these roadways will require further study. SRF will revise the text to reflect a more accurate portrayal of the conditions of Main Street. SRF will review the traffic forecast for Main Street, and Birch Street and fix accordingly. SRF will review the traffic forecast for Main Street, and Birch Street and fix accordingly. SRF will change the text to reflect the suggested terminology SRF will revise the text to add a statement requiring the official controls be amended to include access management guidelines in the Implementation section. SRF will revise this text to clearly indicate that the potential acquisition of right of way is not limited to local roads. SRF will revise the text to include the Met Council's Right -of- way Acquisition Loan Fund as a potential source for right of way acquisition. SRF included this information in the full Transportation Plan, and staff feels it is not necessary in the abbreviated version in the Comprehensive Plan SRF will revise the text to eliminate the repetition Anoka County would like to discuss with the city the 2030 system needs listed in the plan, specifically the current projections for number of lanes. Adjust placement of 60,000 vehicles to clarify for I -35E and not 20th Ave. S. adjust placement of traffic volumes on CSAH 14 through the park as described in comment letter Anoka County would like to discuss with the city the 2030 system needs listed in the plan, specifically the current projections for number of lanes. revise text in first full paragraph regarding conditions on CSAH 14 as described in comment letter review forecasted trips on CSAH 34 between CSAH 21 & CSAH 54 as described in comment letter adjust CSAH 14 alignment & traffic volumes as described in comment letter Access Management - first paragraph /last sentence: change text from "accident" to "crash" Recommend endorsing /adopting Mn /DOT and Anoka County access management guidelines. The acquisition of right of way shouldn't be limited to just local roads. include reference to RALF as a right of way acquisition option Transit Market Area: The plan should note the existing and future market areas for the city. Existing Transit Service - fix typo by deleting redundant sentence "Metro Transit and First Student..." CO 6 LL (O m it CO 6 LL (0 Q co LL _ co 6 Q. (0 6 Q (0 6 Q 6 cn Q pg. 6 -21 N (0 6 Q Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation COMMENT CONTINUED) SRF will revise the figure to reflect the future routes that Metro Transit and the city anticipate. SRF will revise the figure to close the gap SRF will revise the text to increase the font SRF will revise the text to add a statement requiring the official controls be amended to include access management guidelines SRF included this information in the full Transportation Plan, and staff feels it is not necessary in the abbreviated version in the Comprehensive Plan SRF will include text that clearly identifies CR 153 as a turnback route. Transit Service and Facilities: discuss with Metro Transit any potential future bus service lines - revise accordingly Transit Service and Facilities: revise map to fix gap in bus route on CSAH 21 at county border Aviation Plan: increase title size to match formatting The County would like the City to endorse /adopt the Mn /DOT and Anoka County guidelines for access management. Consider identifying safety problem areas. ,Insert text where appropriate that the county has identified CR 153 as a turnback route to the city. w ch m it pg. 6 -30 pg. 6 -31 other other Transportation Transportation 'Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation From: Doris Nivala [mailto:DNivala @ci.ham- Iake.mn.us] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:36 AM To: Jeff Smyser Subject: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Jeff, We have reviewed the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lino Lakes and have no comment. Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan. Doris Nivala Administrator City of Ham Lake 15544 Central Avenue NE Ham Lake, MN 55304 763 - 235 -1670 • From: Doug Borglund [Doug @ci.forest- Iake.mn.us] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:11 PM To: Michael Grochala *Subject: Lino Lakes Michael, The City of Forest Lake has reviewed the proposed draft Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan and has no comment. Sincerely, DDI.(U F>or LIA.VtGI City of Forest Lake Community Development Director Office: 651 - 209 -9734 • • • Schoo/ . . I ''" L .pcA�..1 ••101.4.•t', � 0 1988 ARW- FOREST LAKE AREA SCHOOLS 6100N 210th St Forest Lake MN 55025 651- 982 -8100 www.forestlake.k12.mn.us December 8, 2008 Michael Grochala Community Development Director 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Mr. Grochala: Superintendent Lynn R Steenblock Administration & Human Resources Ronald A. Spies Business Services Lawrence A. Martini Community Education Julie A. Ohman Special Education Deborah A. Wall Teaching & Learning Linda M. Madsen Thank you for your letter dated November 14, 2008, along with the draft Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan updates. This is to let you know that we have reviewed the draft Plan and have no additional comments to the document. Should you have questions and/or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank You Sincerely R. Steenblock Superintendent of Schools Cc: Larry Martini, Director of Business Services Inspire the learner, ignite the potential! Forest Lake Area Schools • Independent School District 831 . Equal Opportunity Employer • • tro �yo Minnesota Department of Transportation E Metropolitan District if Waters Edge mop e 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 -3174 December 31, 2008 Jeff Smyser, City Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RECERTED JAN 0 5 2009 CITY OF LINO LAKES Subject City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Mn/DOT Review #CPA08- 052 City Wide Lino Lakes/Anoka County Dear Mr. Smyser. Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft 2030 City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan. Mn/DOT's staff has reviewed the transportation section of the draft City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive, Plan and finds it to be acceptable. If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to contact me at (651) 234- 7792. Copies sent via Groupwise: Tod Sherman Gayle Gedstad Mark Lindeberg Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council File copy: Mn/DOT Metro District File - CS 0280 Mn/DOT LGL File — Lino Lakes, MN An equal opportunity employer From: PETE WILLCOXON SR. [ mailto: pwilco @wbl.whitebear.k12.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:06 AM To: Michael Grochala Cc: CYNTHIA MOORE; DAVE GUENTHER; ELSA POPE; JILL THELEN; KATHLEEN DANIELS; MICHAEL LOVETT Subject Re: Comprehensive Plan Comments Michael: On behalf of the White Bear Lake Area School District I thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan. I have viewed the plan and I am very impressed with its thoroughness. I concur with the community's #1 Goal (stated on page 9 -1): Maintain the first -class education that the children of Lino Lakes are receiving, while also providing opportunities for additional education for adults. Our District would concur that this goal is a priority and we make every effort to attain it. As of this school year, we have revamped our middle school curriculum to include foreign language offerings. Next year we will be changing our high school schedule to a six period day which will give our students more time on task with our core programs while eliminating mandatory study halls. Our District community service program offers a significant number of educational opportunities for adults. We would be happy to sit down and discuss any additional programs that you feel would be of interest to the community. Thank you for the opportunity to reflect and comment on the comprehensive plan. Pete Willcoxon Sr, CPA Executive Director of Business Services White Bear Lake Area School District ( #624) Phone: (651) 407 -7516 FAX: (651) 407 -7514 City of Blaine 10801 Town Square Drive NE Blaine, MN 55449 -8101 www.ci.blaine.mn.us December 29, 2008 Mr. Michael Grochala Community Development Director 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 SUBJECT: Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan Review Dear Mr. Grochala: The City of Blaine has reviewed the City of Lino Lakes' Comprehensive Plan and offer the following staff comments: • Page 2 -3: Goal 3, Policy I - The City of Blaine supports the coordination of trail and sidewalk connections with adjacent communities:.. . • Page 6 -3: Goal 7, Policy 3 — In tune with this policy, Lino Lakes could note that Anoka County plans to realign.CSAH 12 (109th Avenue) in the City of Blaine to match with Apollo Drive at County Road 53 (Sunset Avenue). • Page 6-5: Jurisdictional Classification — The future roadway extension of CR 53 (Sunset Avenue) from CSAH 14 (125th Avenue) to the north City limits was not considered in the Blaine Northeast Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved in 2002 and was not included in our 2030 Comprehensive Plan. • Page 6 -8: Figure 6-3 — CR 53 and CSAH 12 are shown as A Minor Expanders? This differs from Anoka County's 2030 Transportation Map that indicates CR 53 as a Major Collector and CSAH 12 as an A Minor Arterial. CSAH 23 is shown as an A Minor Reliever? Anoka County's . map indicates CSAH 23 as an A Minor Arterial. Has the City of Lino Lakes discussed a functional classification change with ACHD? • Chapter 8 - All water system maps label both water towers as #1. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 763 - 785 -6144. Good Luck with your plan submittal and approval process. Bryan Schafer Community Development Director h: Icon unity dcaelgsarnfl/dmaringipc rre Jgcs1200A10A -00 oiler ymxp cmxy+planNh a bates kilo. 12290Itsks Planning and Community Development 763 - 785 -6180 — 763- 717 -2634 Fax • January 13, 2009 1880 Wain Street, Ccnteroige, MN55038 Jeff Smyser, City Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 651 -429 -3232 or Tat 651 -329 -8629 Re: Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Smyser. Thank you for the opportunity to review your comprehensive plan. We noted the following items: 1. Your future land use map indicates a high density residential zoning district on the Centerville north boundary just west of 20th Avenue. Our current zoning district as well as our future land use plan for property adjoining that location is single family residential. This high density designation could cause traffic concerns for Centerville as noted in comment 2. We may not want any street interconnects if you choose to proceed with this density. Our Planning Commission asked that you consider removing the high density zone from this location and making it a low or medium density area. If you need to replace the acreage to maintain overall densities, consider a location on the south boundary of Centerville west of 20th Avenue. Centerville has high density residential on our south as well as industrial zoning immediately adjacent to 20th Avenue. (You should have our future land use map in your files, as you reviewed our draft plan.) We believe this location for high density development would be more compatible. 2. Your figure 6-4 map shows a future street connecting to Centerville's Old Mill Road. Your map shows estimated traffic counts of 7000 AADT. Centerville has concerns that our streets could become shortcuts for traffic from these areas which may be this high because of your proposed high density residential district noted in comment one above. Our streets on this side of Centerville are not designed for traffic volumes of this magnitude. 3. In your map Figures 7.3 and 7.4 as well as narrative on page 7 -20, it should be mentioned that Lino Lakes residences on the end of Mound Trail as well as LaMotte Drive are served with sanitary sewer via an interconnect with Centerville. 4. Same map Figure 7.3 uses the same color for Medium Density Residential as it does for Manufactured Home Park. To make sure there is no confusion as to what this means, these colors should be distinctly different 5. Your map Figure 8-1 shows your water towers but labels both towers as Tower 1.° We appreciate your considering our comments on your plan. Yours truly, Dallas Larson, City Administrator • • • • • City Council: Sandy Martin, Mayor Blake Huffman Larry Morrisette Terry Quigley Ady Wickstrom Shorevew City of Shoreview 4600 Victoria Street North Shoreview, MN 55126 651 -490 -4600 phone 651 - 490 -4699 fax www.shoreviewmn.gov January 30, 2009 Mr. Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: City of Lino Lakes, Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Grochala: The City of Shoreview has reviewed the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan and offers the following comments: Chapter 3, Land Use The City is supportive of the mixed -use designation for the Highway 49 /County Road .1 area but remains concerned about the impact the future development of this area will have on the transportation network (See comments under Chap 6, Transportation). Chapter 6, Transportation It appears that the projections for housing, employment and population vary significantly from those of the Metropolitan Council's at various points between now and 2030. The City questions bow those differences are reflected in the transportation modeling, and the Metropolitan Council's Regional model that is based on their assumptions. The Staff commends Lino Lakes for recognizing the limitations the City Charter has and how it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to have a viable long range infrastructure plan. The City supports a coordinated effort with Lino Lakes on providing trail segments that serve the needs of our communities. Fig 6-4 appears to show a projected 60,000 vehicles north of County Road J. The Staff believes this daily traffic count is for Interstate 35E, however, due to the Interstate's proximity of 20a' Avenue North, this number may be misread to apply to counts on 20th Ave north. The map should be modified to clarify the roadway on which these counts are projected. Also, See Fig 6-6. 411 Fig 6 -5 shows a number of four -lane divided highways, which raises some concern regarding traffic impacts on Shoreview's roadway system. Chapter 7, Sanitary Sewer, The Plan indicates sanitary sewer will be extended along County Road J in the future. The City of Shoreview is willing to work with Lino Lakes to examine the feasibility of providing sewer services to nnsewered parcels located in Shoreview, on County Road J, near the Poplar Lake Open Space Chap 9, Parks, Incl. Trails - The City of Shoreview supports the coordinate planning of trails between the communities to ensure connections exist; specifically those along the common boundaries /corridors; County Road 1, County Road E, Lexington Avenue, Rice Creek Open Space Chapter 10 — Planning Districts Planning District 1: Recommendation - "Work with Anoka County and Ramsey County to ensure appropriate access management on County Road J (Ash Street)." The City of Shoreview will request to participate in the development of access management guidelines for this arterial roadway. The City of Shoreview appreciates the opportunity to review the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 651- 490 -4682 or via email at knordine @shoreviewmn.gov. Shoreview looks forward to working with the City of Lino Lakes as this plan is implemented in the future. Sincerely, Kathleen Nordine City Planner 2 • • • Washin a-- Coun December 23, 2008 Gorden Heitke City Administrator 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182 RE: Lino Lakes Draft Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Mr. Heitke Board of Commissioners Dennis C. Hegberg, Chair District 1 Bill Pulkrabek District 2 Gary Kriesel District 3 Myra Peterson, Vice Chair District 4 Lisa Welk District 5 Washington County has reviewed Lino Lake's Draft Comprehensive Plan Update. Enclosed is a memorandum containing comments from our staff reviewers. Please consider these comments as you finalize your plan. If there are questions on these comments, please contact Ann Pung - Terwedo, phone: 651 - 430 -4362; e-mail: ann.puno- terwedo@co.washinqton.mn.us. Washington County commends the City of Lino Lakes for its efforts and foresight in developing this plan. We look forward to continued cooperation with the city as we work together to update our comprehensive plans to implement our shared vision. Si ly, Dennis C. Hegberg Washington County Board Chair Enclosure .. Govemment Center • 14949 62nd Street North — P.O. Box 6, Stillwater, Minnesota 55062 -0006 Phone: 651 -430 -6001 • Fax 651 -439 -6017 • TTY: 651 -430 -6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action Was County Office of Administration James R. Schug County Administrator Molly F. O'Rourke Deputy Administrator MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director FROM: Washington County Comprehensive Plan Review Staff DATE: December 23, 2008 RE: City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan Update Washington County has reviewed the City of Lino Lakes Draft Comprehensive Plan. We offer comments on the Transportation Section since we have mutual issues that have cross jurisdictional boundaries. If you have questions on these comments, please contact Ann Pung - Terwedo at 651- 430 -4362 or e-mail at ann. punq- terwedo @co.washinoton.mn.us. The following are specific comments on the plan: 1. Page 6-8, Transportation: Figure 6-3: The future designation of Anoka County Road 140 (80 St. E.) as a Principal Arterial does not seem accurate. Based on traffic volumes and functionality, it seems to be more appropriately classified as a Class A Minor Arterial — Connector or Expander. Washington County would expect to request a classification of Class A Minor — Expander on County Road 4A and CSAH 4 (170th St. N.), the easterly extension of Anoka CR 140, when the interchange is constructed. 2. Figure 6-4, on page 6-14, shows a projected volume for CR 140 in the 2,000 - 10,000 range, which also seems more in line with a Minor Arterial than a Principal Arterial. 3. Page 6-11, New CR 84 from CSAH 14 to the north city limits: Washington County supports the planning and construction of this roadway -looks forward to working with the cities of Lino Lakes, Hugo, Columbus and Forest Lake to develop this route as a joint Anoka - Washington County roadway. We expect that the northem terminus of this route would be Trunk Highway 97 in Columbus and Forest Lake. O: \Comprehensive Plan \Community Comp Plans\CIty of lino Lakes\LinoStaff Comment memo 12- 23- 08.doc Govemment Center • 14949 62nd Street North — P.O. Box 6, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 -0006 Phone: 651 -430 -6001 • Fax 651 -430 -6017 • TTY: 651 - 430 -6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action • • RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT February 9, 2009 Mr. Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 4325 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #611 • Blaine, MN 55449 -4539 Phone 763- 398 -3070 • Fax: 763- 398 -3088 www.ricecreek.org RE: City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan Comments Dear Mr. Grochala, The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the City of Lino Lakes' updated 2030 Comprehensive Plan, received November 17, 2008. The plan appears consistent with the City's Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP), approved by the RCWD in 2005. The RCWD is not reviewing the LSWMP, pursuant to MN Statute 103B.235 at this time. The RCWD recognizes the City's intent to delay an update to their LSWMP until after the RCWD completes an update to its own Water Resource Management Plan, which is currently underway. The RCWD congratulates the City on successful integration of the recently approved Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan and associated Rule RMP -3 into its Comprehensive Plan update. The RCWD offers the following comments relating to the City of Lino Lakes' 2030 Comprehensive Plan: 1. Page 2 -21: Revise narrative to reflect the approval of the Lino Lakes RMP by the RCWD on October 8, 2008. RCWD's Rule RMP -3, implementing the Lino Lakes RMP, was adopted on January 28, 2009 and became effective on February 4, 2009. 2. Page 2 -31: Revise the end of 4th paragraph to reference Figure 2 -8, not 2 -7. 3. Page 2 -43: Revise narrative to reflect the approval of the Lino Lakes RMP by the RCWD on October 8, 2008. RCWD's Rule RMP -3, implementing the Lino Lakes RMP, was adopted on January 28, 2009 and became effective on February 4, 2009. Delete "It is noted that the RMP rule is likely to be adopted in late summer /early fall 2008." 4. Other references to the RMP and Rule within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan should also be revised as indicated above. 5. Appendix A: Lino Lakes RMP is no longer a draft document. The RCWD appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. We look forward to future collaboration to ensure the successful implementation of the Lino Lakes RMP, BOARD OF n MANAGERS Barbara A. Haake Rick A. Mastell Susan R Oven Patricia L Preiner John J. Waller Ramsey County Anoka County Ramsey County Anoka County Washington County ti) Painted on cax seceded. mxvou-cart+•^•rpaper usingetsgatable axdink. providing for preservation and enhancement of water resources within the Rice Creek Watershed and the City of Lino Lakes. If you have any further questions please contact me at (763) 398 -3072 or kaxtell @ricecreek.org. Sincerely yle Axtell Water Resource Specialist CC: RCWD File — Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan • • January 7, 2008 COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. NW, ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (763) 862 -4200 FAX (763) 862 -4201 Mr. Michael Grochala Lino Lakes Community Development Director 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Comments on the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan: Dear Mr. Grochala: Thank you for providing Anoka County the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lino Lakes. The following comments have been gathered from various county departments and are summarized by plan areas: Parks and Trans: • The plan was well-written and addressed all areas of concern to the county. Water Supply: • Legislative reports prepared by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Sustainability of Minnesota's Ground Water - Statement of Issues and Needs, June 2005) and the Metropolitan Council (Water Supply Planning in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, January 2007) have suggested that groundwater resources in middle and northern Anoka County may not be sufficient to support extensive, long -term growth. The Anoka County Comprehensive Plan (1998 -2020) indicates that there is a need for additional groundwater information to determine the extent of potential risks (including exceeding the safe yield of groundwater resources). The Met Council report states `municipalities typically make water system investments and conduct resource evaluations on a local level without consideration of regional implications." The report includes a Water Supply Adequacy Analysis for the City of Lino Lakes indicating: available aquifer yield is moderate with no major limitations on groundwater withdrawal; the demand projections are medium; and groundwater resources are adequate for current use (Appendix F: Water Supply Adequacy Analysis, Water Supply Planning in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Technical Report, January 2007). Regardless of water resource adequacy projections — we believe that the city must address the emerging issue of sustainable water supply by monitoring water level trends to determine if municipal or regional withdrawal is negatively impacting supply. In its most recent water appropriations permit the city committed to increased cooperation with the DNR's Ground Water Level Monitoring Program and water conservation through education and applying increased water use pricing to discourage wasteful water users. By cooperating with the DNR the city is playing an active part in monitoring its water resources and managing its future water supply system. The plan should acknowledge the city's efforts. We recommend that the plan include the provisions of the city's water appropriation permit to cooperate with the Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources mission to monitor and maintain sustained water resources. - • The plan makes reference to a city Groundwater Protection Plan including. Policy 6.Protect the groundwater source from contamination by implementing the groundwater protection plan. (pg. 8 -3) Groundwater Protection: The city will implement the groundwater protection plan to protect the groundwater source from contamination. (pg. 8 -20) We believe that the "Groundwater Protection Plan" referenced in this plan is actually the city's Wellhead Protection Plan that addresses (in a sense) groundwater protection in discrete zones around the city's municipal wells. No references to the city's Wellhead Protection Plan or its goals are found in this plan. We recommend the plan be revised to replace references of a city groundwater protection plan with the city's wellhead protection plan. • The plan states: "In Lino Takes the Jordan Aquifer only exists beneath the southern section of the city. There is no suitable aquifer for a well in the northern part of the city." (page 8-4) The plan does not offer an explanation or reference documentation that supports this statement We disagree with the statement that there are no suitable aquifers for a well in northern Lino Lakes. The Minnesota Geological Survey map (M -104; Bedrock Geology and Structure of the Seven - County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota) indicates that the Franconia-Ironton- Galesville (FIG) and the deeper Mount Simon- Iimckley (Mts -I m) aquifers are found throughout the City, Anoka County, and the region. The FIG aquifer is used extensively where the Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer unit does not exist. . The city maintains an interconnection with the Minnesota Correctional Facility's water system (for emergency supply to the city) that draws water from the FIG and Mts -Hln aquifers. • • We note that construction of new municipal wells in the deepest aquifer (Mount Simon- Nmrkley) is restricted to the city that must first meet state water resource management requirements before utilizing this aquifer. We recommend that the city obtain a Groundwater Supply and Availability Assessment from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources through their Ground Water Technical Analysis Program for reference and possibly inclusion in the Resource Management System and Water Supply chapters. We also recommend that the statement that there is no suitable aquifer for a well in the northern part of the city be removed from the plan text Community Facilities: • The plan inventories city, county, and state facilities located within the city. The plan also indicates services and support for residents and businesses located within the city including the Anoka County Library. However, facilities to support residents in managing their wastes through recycling, composting, and preventing environmental impacts from disposal of household hazardous wastes are not addressed in the plan. The city's comprehensive plan to guide future development management should also address efforts to maintain the city's resources through facilities and programs provided to residents and businesses. We recommend that the plan summarize programs and facilities available to residents to manage their wastes including. the city's recycling program; Anoka County's Rice Creek Chain ofLakes Compost Site; and the Anoka County Household Hazardous Waste Facility. We also recommend that the map (Figure 9 -1) include the location of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Compost Site. Transportation: • Page 6-1— Goal 2 — Rationale: consider using the term "crash" instead of "accidents ". Crash is becoming the industry standard. However, we understand how difficult it is to get people to agree to goals and wording can be sensitive, so if it cannot be changed, we understand. • Page 6-2 — Goal 6: consider removing "and rail" since rail is a form of transit It is somewhat redundant to put rail in there. Another option would be to say "rail and bus transit". Again, we understand how difficult it is to get people to agree to goals, so if it cannot be changed, we understand. However, we feel that the public needs to be educated on the fact that both rail and bus are transit • Figure 6.2 Issues Map: This figure is difficult to read in its present format The figure should be enlarged to 11 x 17 or broken up into a couple of pages. • Page 6-7 — Functional Classification: The text does a good job describing the functional classification system. Figure 6.3 shows the future functional classification system. It may be helpful to the reader to also include the existing fimctional classification or a map showing the proposed changes. A lot of people are visual and simply listing the proposed changes in functional classification may be difficult for people to follow. • Page 6-9 — "A" minor expanders list CSAH 32 is listed twice. • Page 6-10 — "A" Minor Arterials — CR 53 (Sunset Avenue): The county and the city should discuss the future status of this roadway and where limits of a potential change in designation should occur. • Page 6-11— `B" Minor Arterials — CSAH 34 (Birch Street): For this corridor (not just the portion that is currently a collector, but the whole route) the city may want to consider adding a note to the text that a final functional classification recommendation will come out of the CSAH 34 study. It is possible (even if it is slim) that the roadway could be recommended as an "A" minor arterial. • Page 6-13 — Year 2030 System Needs — County System Improvements: The city and the county should discuss the list as it appears in the plan. There are some routes where the roadway is extremely close to the threshold between a two -lane facility and a four -lane facility. Roadways close to the 10,000 AADT threshold may need more management type activities (e.g., access management, traffic signal location, etc.) rather than expansion. Maybe the text could be softened to state that four -lane facilities should be considered for the following routes and then note that on the future number of lanes map. • Figure 6.4 2030 Forecasts: o The legend includes a symbol for a future full access interchange, but no new ones are shown. Remove from legend. o Do you want to show traffic volumes in the City of Centerville? Other maps in the document blend out anything in Centerville. o We assume that the 60,000 vehicles shown on 20th Ave South are actually for I -35E. o The traffic volumes shown on CSAH 14 through the park may need some placement adjustments. The first number shown on the north side of the park is 14,000. Just south of the first shield the number increases to 15,600. This does not make sense — we don't think that Wargo Nature Center is generating 1,600 trips a day. • Figure 6.5 Future Roadway System: See comment above for Page 6-13. Page 6-16 — First full paragraph: The county is concerned about the text used to describe conditions on CSAH 14. We agree with the notion that there is a limit to increasing capacity on CSAH 14 and that other system changes are needed. Where there is an issue is the text (2nd sentence) that states, "even with the improvements identified above" — does this mean • • • that a six -lane facility in the interchange area is not sufficient? When the text talks about the improvements being made today does it take into account the interchange improvement or just the roadway expansion to the interchange project limits? If it doesn't, the text should be modified to account for the interchange improvements and if it does take into account the interchange project, why was this not brought up as a problem in the interchange project? That area has been modeled several times and if there are operational issues we need to discuss this ASAP. • Figure 6.6 — Post 2030 Traffic Forecast o Where do the 3,000 trips that are on CSAH 34 (as shown on Figure 6.4) between CSAH 21 and CSAH 54 go? Additional trips are not shown on Holly Drive and the numbers drop on existing CSAH 14 in this same area. We understand that the new CSAH 14 alignment will pull traffic off of the old alignment, but it is really out of the way for vehicles on CSAH 34 to go to the northern end of the city. It appears as though 1,000 may use CSAH 21 to go south, but where do the others go? o The new CSAH 14 alignment shown in the goldenrod color should be on top of the green line that is shown for Rondeau Lake. The way it is currently depicted on the map makes it look lie traffic volumes drop from over 13,000 vehicle and then go up to 16,000 vehicles without a number in between. o Traffic volumes on existing CSAH 14 through the park — similar situation as noted • for Figure 6.4, although the difference is 800 trips versus 1,600 trips. • Page 6-19 — Access Management — first paragraph — last sentence- change "accident" to "crash" • Page 6-19 — Access Management We would recommend that the plan endorse/adopt Mn/DOT and Anoka County guidelines on access management. It is a Met Council plan requirement and if we hope to get federal funding grants for roadway improvements through the regional solicitation process, endorsement of the guidelines needs to be made explicit. The text sort of dances around the issue of endorsing the guidelines by saying that they try to meet the county guidelines on minor arterials. We understand the city's concern that the guidelines cannot be met in some areas due to existing development patterns. We do, however anticipate the city would support implementation of the guidelines as new development occurs. This should be acknowledged for both principal and minor arterials — not just the minor routes as identified in the text. The text should include reference in an appendix to the guidelines for both the state and the county. It should also note that the guidelines will be incorporated into subdivision and zoning ordinances (Met Council requirement) • Page 6-19 — Right of Way. The county agrees that the city will need to be a partner for preserving right of way on state and county facilities. We feel that the text does not quite go far enough. The tools suggested for right of way preservation on city roads also applies to preservation of right of way for state and county facilities. We recommend that the text be modified to say that the tools for right of way preservation can be used on all facilities. Cities can assist in county and state projects through direct purchase and its planning and zoning authority — the county and the state have no ability to utilize these tools for their own facilities because they do not have these powers. Another tool not mentioned, but should be included, is obtaining funding for preservation through the Met Council's RALF program. • Page 6-21— Transit Market Area The plan should note the existing and future market areas for the city. The text currently does not identify the number. • Page 6-21— Existing Transit Service — text below the bulleted list The sentence, "Metro Transit and First Student is repeated twice. Delete the sentences just above the section for fixed route transit service • Figure 6 -8 — Transit Service and Facilities: o The map shows future park and ride locations, are there any future bus service lines that should be shown? At one time there was discussion of a park and ride and service out of the library area. If that is still proposed, it should be added to the map. o The bus route shown on CSAH 21 disappears at the county border for about a half an inch and then shows up to the south — please fill in the gap or put an arrow pointing south at the city limits. • Page 6-30 — Aviation Plan: The title size should be increased to match other titles of new sections. • Page 6-31— Plan Implementation — Access Management The text is a little weak in endorsing/adopting county and Mn/DOT access guidelines. The county acknowledges the difficulty of making the guidelines work in all locations due to existing development. The county is not asking for the city to remove access at all locations that do not meet the guidelines. However, it will be difficult for the county and the city to successfully apply for funding grants with the way the text is currently written. Access management is a significant strategy for safety and mobility on the regional highways and, therefore, is strongly endorsed and supported by the Metropolitan Council. This is evident in the Regional Solicitation program, which is a major funding source for regional roads. Past practice of those scoring these grant applications for access management indicates that stronger support of the access management guidelines is essential The way the plan is currently written, an application for a project within the city of Lino Lakes would not score well at all in this important category. The implementation plan should also acknowledge that these guidelines need to be incorporated into subdivision and zoning ordinances. • Other — the Met Council requirements outlined in the local planning guidebook indicate that safety problem areas should be identified. The county plan will have locations that could be noted by the city if you are interested. • Other — the county has identified CR 153 as a to mback route to the city. This should be noted in the city's plan. • • Thank you again for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions on our comments please feel free to contact me at 763 - 862 -4219. Sincerely, 6,-„zi/u J k Corkle, PTP, AICP Senior Multimodal Transportation Planner cc: Jon Olson, Public Services Division Manager Doug Fischer, County Engineer John VonDeLinde, Director of Parks and Recreation Bart Biernat, Environmental Health Specialist David Minke, Deputy County Administrator Karen Skepper, Community Development Manager Tim Kircho f Supervisor of Transit Operations and Planning Kate Garwood, Multimodal Transportation Planning Manager