HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2004 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Special Meeting
January 21, 2004
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
(This meeting not televised)
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. -OPEN MIKE
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Comments and Recommendation /Record of Decision for Legacy at
Wood's Edge Development, Findings of Fact and Conclusions
B. Legacy at Wood's Edge/ Site Plan Review
6. ADJOURN
•
•
Agenda Item 5A
Environmental Board Meeting Date: January 21, 2004
Topic: Record of Decision for Legacy at Wood's Edge Development, Findings of
Fact and Conclusion.
Background: The City of Lino Lakes and the Hartford Group applied on
November 10, 2003 to seek approval for mixed -use development with residential
and commercial buildings. A mandatory EAW was performed and reviewed by
the Environmental Board on November 6, 2003. Comments from this review are
recorded. Comments from the EAW distribution list have been received.
Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc., has prepared a Record of Decision document. The
Findings of Fact and Conclusions section of this document contains the
distribution list comments and the City's response to the comments.
Analysis: City responses to review comments address the concerns of
contributing agencies. Conclusions of the report state:
• All requirements for environmental review have been met.
• The EAW and the permit processes related to the project have
generated information that is adequate to determine whether the
project has the potential for significant environmental effects.
• Mitigation will be provided where impacts are expected to result from
project construction and operation of the site. Mitigation measures are
incorporated into the site plan, and have or will be incorporated with
state and local agencies during the permit process.
• Based on criteria in Minnesota Rules 4410, the project does not have
the potential for significant environmental effects.
Based on the findings of facts and conclusions, indications strongly deny the
need for an Environmental Impact Statement study, and strongly supports a
negative impact declaration for the Legacy at Wood's Edge Development project.
Recommendation:
Negative Declaration
Attachments:
1. Record of Decision, Legacy at Woods Edge Development, Findings of
Fact and Conclusions.
Attachment 1
Record- of Decision
LEGACY AT WOOD'S EDGE DEVELOPMENT
Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive (CSAH 23)- In the southeast quadrant
of the I -35W /Lake Drive Interchange
In the
City of Lino Lakes
Anoka County, Minnesota
Prepared for:
City of Lino Lakes
Prepared by:
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
January, 2004
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
FINDINGS OF FACT
ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND
The City of Lino Lakes is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for this
project. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared for
this project as prescribed by environmental review requirements. Lino Lakes
prepared the EAW.
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) and
circulated for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A
Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on November 24, 2003.
The thirty -day comment period closed on December 24, 2003. Written
comments received from agencies and citizens are summarized and responded
to in this report in the section "EAW Comments and Responses ".
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of mixed -use development on approximately 65-
acres of land in Lino Lakes, Minnesota. The development will include 348,292
square feet of commerciaVoffice, 450 multi - family residential units, and 38,000
square feet of civic uses (YMCA facility).
The proposed site plan incorporates the above square footages and number of
residential units into a series of buildings that have been located to minimize
disruption to existing natural features such as wetlands and mature trees, as well
as to maximize visibility and create a quality mixed -use development. The mixed
use development will inspire an energetic neighborhood and will provide a
number of living, working, and service opportunities within the project area.
The project includes an intemal street network that provides access to the
retaiVoffice, residential, and civic buildings. Town Center Parkway, which
currently provides access to the Lino Lakes City Hall, will serve as a collector
street and will provide access to Lake Drive (Anoka County State Aid Highway
(CSAH) 23) at the southwest comer of the site. The proposed local roadways will
also provide corridors for public water, sanitary sewer, and other utilities
necessary to serve the development.
The clustering of structures has been employed in the proposed development for
the purpose of preserving and enhancing sensitive land features on the site and
for providing parkland and open space. The proposed plan has the added benefit
of avoiding wetland impacts on the site and of minimizing impacts to a grove of
mature trees located along the eastem edge of the site. A proposed storm water
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
treatment system will provide an efficient infiltration and retention system for
storm water runoff from the site. Storm water ponds, vegetative grass filter strips,
and infiltration cells will be utilized to retain and treat runoff from the site. These
features will also provide aesthetic value and green space to the visually
attractive integrated neighborhood.
Initial site grading and construction of the Legacy at wood's Edge Development is
anticipated to begin in 2004. Full development of the site is expected to be
complete in 2 to 3 years.
Criteria for Determining the Significance of Environmental Effect
Minnesota Rule 4410.170, subp.7 specifies the following criteria to be used in
deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental
effects. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not considered
necessary for this project based on the criteria listed below.
1. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects
The EAW and this Findings of Fact summarize the type and extent of
impacts to the surrounding environment. Alternatives to avoid potential
impacts on the environment were considered and evaluated during the
development of the site plan and prior to the preparation of the EAW. The
proposed site plan also includes design features to mitigate potential
social, economic, and environmental impacts.
The following is a summary of the major findings of the EAW regarding
potential social, economic, and environmental impacts, as a result of the
proposed mixed -use development project.
Compatibility with Local Plans
The project is consistent with local and regional plans, which includes the
following:
• City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan
o Land Use Plan
o Sanitary Sewer Plan
o Transportation Plan
o Surface Water Management Plan
• City of Lino Lakes Subdivision and Platting Ordinance
• City of Lino Lakes Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinances
• Village Development Master Plan, 1997
• Lino Lakes Town Center Design & Development Guide
• City of Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Planning and
Conservation Development
• Rice Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Program
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the project area for mixed use
development and includes the Master Plan for this site, developed in 1997.
The City's Comprehensive Plan specifically states the following:
"The southeast quadrant of the I- 35W/Lake Drive interchange
represents the Lino Lakes Village area. The Village is intended to
integrate a mixture of commercial, medium and high density residential
and public land uses in an attractive and cohesive design."
The City's Zoning Ordinance provides for mixed -use development through the
use of the Planned Unit Development process. Additionally, the Village
Master Plan included design guidelines that are being implemented as part of
the proposed development.
Wildlife and Vegetation Impacts
A search of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural
Heritage Database for rare plant and animal species or other significant
natural features known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the
proposed project was conducted. The results of the database search show
four known occurrences of rare species or animal aggregation sites in the
search area. A Bald Eagle nesting site has been documented east of the
project site within the Wargo Nature Center, which is approximately 34-mile
east of the proposed development. No Construction is proposed within close
proximity of the nest.
The Lino Lakes Town Center Natural Resource Inventory Report was
completed in 1999. Additional biological field investigations were conducted
on July 9, 2003, to determine if any occurrences of rare plant species are
present on the site. The results of the biological field survey conclude that
there were no rare plant populations encountered and that the proposed
development will not directly impact any rare plant species.
Wetland Impacts
The proposed site plan has incorporated avoidance measures to ensure no
wetland impacts or alterations of any wetlands will occur as a result of the
Legacy at Wood's Edge Development.
Water Related Land Use (Shoreland and Floodplain Impacts)
The southem and eastem portions of the site are located within the
designated shoreland zoning districts for Marshan Lake and George Watch
Lake. The City has adopted a shoreland and a floodplain ordinance that
regulates development within these designated areas. Furthermore, the DNR
has approved these ordinances. The proposed Legacy at Wood's Edge
Development will fully comply with the standards of these ordinances. The
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
proposed project does not lie within a delineated 100 -year floodplain.
Water Quality Impacts
A surface water management plan for the development is being proposed that
will retain storm water runoff on -site for the purpose of improving water quality
and incorporate infiltration to reduce surface discharge and promote recharge
of the groundwater. To comply with City and Rice Creek Watershed District
requirements, the surface water management plan has addressed rate control
by utilizing proposed ponds and existing wetlands for live storage. The
development proposes to construct a drainage system within all the street
improvements and parking areas to convey runoff to proposed ponding areas
and infiltration cells (green space or underground storage chambers).
Subsurface chamber technology takes advantage of the soil's inherent
filtration and renovation capabilities to store and treat storm water runoff while
providing the flexibility to plan for additional buildings and green space. To
maximize pollutant removal efficiencies, the water quality control structures
will be designed and constructed according to NURP, the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Phase II permit, the City of Lino
Lakes, and Rice Creek Watershed District standards. Based on a water
quality analysis, the proposed development will maintain adequate area for
the retention (ponds) and infiltration (natural and underground chambers) of
surface water runoff. Before construction can proceed, both the City of Lino
Lakes and Rice Creek Watershed District must issue permits to satisfy
surface water management regulations.
The project will eliminate two existing infiltration basins along the north side of
Town Center Parkway. These basins will be replaced elsewhere on the site.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit
will be required for this project. Erosion prevention and sediment control best
management practices (BMP's) will be used in accordance with the NPDES
Phase II permit. An erosion control plan will be developed for the site and will
likely include temporary and permanent erosion control measures such as
timely revegetation of disturbed areas, hay bales, silt fencing, flotation silt
curtains, and sedimentation ponds.
Hazardous Waste
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the site in May
2003. The assessment revealed the following environmental conditions in
connection with the site:
• Two above - ground storage tanks, likely holding petroleum products, are
currently located and in use along the north end of the site;
• An area of cars and miscellaneous vehicles are located on the,
northeastern portion of the site; and
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
• The northern portion of the site has been used as a sandblasting facility
for approximately 25 years.
The aboveground storage tanks will be removed as part of the development
and remedial action will be taken if necessary. Further evaluation of the soils
in the vicinity of the aboveground storage tanks and the vehicle storage area
will be conducted to determine if any petroleum releases have occurred or
whether past land uses may have adversely impacted the soils on the site.
The proposed commercial and residential developments are not expected to
have petroleum or oil storage tanks. The land uses associated with the
commercial development are expected to be retail and/or restaurant types of
uses.
Traffic
AM and PM Peak Hour trip generation rates were developed for the proposed
development as well as the existing facilities (City Hall complex, Fairview
Clinic, and Lino Lakes State Bank). Trips to /from each building were assigned
to the street system within the development. This provided a tabulation of
traffic volumes at various locations within the development, as well as at the
intersection of Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive (CSAH 23). According
to this analysis, the Peak Hour traffic volume is 1,155 trips, which occurs from
4:30 -5:30 pm.
Based on the traffic analysis, a concept transportation improvement plan was
developed for the Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive intersection. On
Town Center Parkway, the plan includes three outbound lanes to separate left
turn, through, and right turning traffic and also includes two inbound travel
lanes. Signalization of this intersection would also be necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service and provided a controlled pedestrian crossing.
According to the 2020 Traffic Volume Forecast in the Lino Lakes
Transportation Plan, traffic volumes on Lake Drive are anticipated to increase
to over 17,000 trips per day. Regardless of the proposed development,
improvements to Lake Drive are expected in the future. However, to
accommodate the full development of the Legacy at Wood's Edge
Development, several additional improvements to Lake Drive are being
proposed. The concept transportation plan has proposed the construction of
two southbound left turn lanes between the intersection of Town Center
Parkway and the I -35W bridge. Furthermore, traffic signals at Town Center
Parkway and both ramps to I -35W are anticipated. To signalize the south
ramp intersection, the existing off ramp and on ramp intersections, which are
now separated, need to be aligned to a single intersection, which would
require the reconstruction of approximately 400 -feet of the northbound on
ramp.
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
Ultimately, the capacity on Lake Drive past the Town Center Parkway
intersection will need to be expanded. This will require additional lanes on
Lake Drive and the reconstruction of the I -35W bridge. Tum lanes will be
necessary at the interchange ramps to accommodate future traffic as well as
full build -out traffic from the Legacy at Wood's Edge Development. In the
interim, between the reconstruction of the bridge over I -35W and the
development of portions or all of the proposed development, an intermediate
intersection needs to be developed that has been described above.
The traffic volumes for the year 2020 along with full build -out of the proposed
development, have been used in a traffic simulation model. Results of the
traffic simulation as it relates to the regional transportation system have been
shared and discussed with Mn/DOT and the Anoka County Highway
Department. This information will also be shared with the Met Council.
Construction Impacts
Temporary construction related impacts such as dust, odors, and noise have
been considered. There are a relatively small number of residences located
immediately south of the site that could experience temporary impacts
resulting from construction activities.
Dust is likely to be generated by equipment during times of construction. Dust
generation will be minimized by enforcing best management practices, which
may include: 1) minimizing the periods and extent of areas being exposed or
graded; 2) watering construction areas and haul roads during periods of high
winds or high levels of construction activity; 3) minimizing the use of vehicles
on unpaved surfaces; and 4) covering and/or spraying material piles and truck
Toads.
Temporary odors may be generated by exhaust from engines engaged in
construction activities. Any equipment will be properly equipped to control
odor emissions.
Noise will be generated during the construction of the public improvements
(e.g. roads, sewer, water) and residential and commercial /office buildings in
the development. City ordinance regulates the daytime hours of construction
to minimize noise impacts to sensitive receptors on adjacent properties. Noise
mitigation is not proposed at this time because construction noise will be
temporary and all City and County roads in the area are exempt from state
noise standards. Noise levels along the local roadways are not anticipated to
exceed State noise standards, nor are they anticipated to be greater than
noise levels that are commonly experienced within a residential and
commercial area. Furthermore, adequate building setbacks and acoustical
site planning techniques have been incorporated into the site plan to shield
more sensitive land uses from noise impacts.
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
Visual Impacts
Only routine visual impacts associated with construction activities and typical
urban development are anticipated by the proposed development. This area
has already been developed with the City offices, police station, and early
childhood development center. The proposed development will change the
nature of a portion of the site from open space to one that is urban in nature.
The Lino Lakes Town Center Design & Development Guide, May 2000, will
be utilized to guide the orderly and integrated development of the site, which
includes a mix of land use (retail shops, office spaces, housing, recreation,
community facilities, and open space). The Guide emphasizes the importance
of creating attractive gathering spots, commons areas, and comfortable
walking environments for visitors and residents. Furthermore, the Guide
identifies the importance of maintaining a sense of place by incorporating
tree -lined boulevards, natural drainage swales, open spaces, appropriate
building materials (wood, masonry, and stone), landscaping, and architectural
standards.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted
regarding archaeology and historic resources in the area. The SHPO
completed their review, acknowledged that the overall area contains a large
number of recorded sites, but recommended that no further study is
necessary at the site of the proposed Legacy at Wood's Edge Development.
2. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects
The EAW and this Findings of Fact address the impacts related to the
proposed development, based on existing conditions and post - development
conditions. The City of Lino Lakes is not aware or any other large -scale
development plans that are contingent upon the completion of the Legacy at
Wood's Edge Development.
3. Extent to Which Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by
Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority
The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in
coordination with regulatory agencies and would be subject to plan approval
and the permitting process. Permits and approvals that may be required for
the proposed development include:
City of Lino Lakes; Preliminary Plat Approval, Rezoning /PUD Approval, Final
Plat Approval, Site Plan Approval, and Building Permits,
Anoka County; Permit for Work Within CSAH 23 R/W, Final Plat Review
Rice Creek Watershed District; Land Development Permit Approval
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
Metropolitan Council; Sanitary Sewer Extension
MPCA• Sanitary Sewer Extension, NPDES Construction Permit
MN Dept. of Health; Watermain Extension Permit
MN Dept. of Transportation; Final Plat Review, Permit for Work Within I -35W
Right -of -Way
4. Extent to Which Environmental Effects Can be Anticipated and
Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies Undertaken by
Public Agencies or the Project Proposers, Including EIS's Previously
Prepared on Similar Projects
The RGU, City of Lino Lakes, has extensive experience in the planning and
review of residential and commercial development projects. The City of Lino
Lakes finds that the environmental effects of the proposed mixed -use
development have been anticipated and will be controlled as a result of
environmental review and experience with other similar residential and
commercial developments within the City.
EAW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The EAW for the Legacy at Wood's Edge Development was distributed on
November 24, 2003 to agencies and organizations on the official Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) distribution list, as well as additional agencies/organizations
that had either requested a copy of the document, and/or that could be affected
by the proposed project. The comment period for the EAW officially expired on
December 24, 2003.
Consistent with state and federal environmental review rules, substantive
comments are responded to in this Record of Decision /Findings of Fact. Written
responses have been provided for comments pertaining to analysis conducted
for and documented in the EAW. Specifically, responses have been prepared for
statements noting: incorrect or unclear information or content requirements.
Comments agreeing with the information, general opinions, or statements of
preference were not provided a formal response.
Copies of written comments received are provided on the following pages with
"footnote" responses in the margin.
DRAFT
Legacy at Wood's Edge Record of Decision
City of Lino Lakes
January 2004
CONCLUSIONS
1. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been
met.
2. The EAW and the permit processes related to the project have generated
information that is adequate to determine whether the project has the
potential for significant environmental effects.
3. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are expected to result from project
construction and operation of the site. Mitigative measures are incorporated
into the site plan, and have or will be coordinated with state and local
agencies during the permit process.
4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules 4410, the project does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
5. An EIS is not required on the proposed Legacy at Wood's Edge Development
project.
6. The City of Lino Lakes
stating its approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and its
acceptance of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions for the Legacy at Wood's
Edge Development.
Community Development Director, City of Lino Lakes
Date
x:\ko\linol\ 030500 \word'.eawrecordofdecision.doc
DRAFT
RESPOivst
1 An initial traffic simulation model was presented to Mn/DOT and the Anoka County Highway Department in
early December 2003. Additional traffic scenarios were requested and are being developed, reviewed, and
discussed at this time.
2 Due to the absence of County, State, and Federal funds for the full reconstruction of the Lake Drive /I -35W
interchange, the City has proposed interim improvements to address forecast traffic needs: The City is
actively pursuing additional funds for interim and long -term improvements.
3 Recognizing the incompatibility between residential development and highways, the site plan has been
prepared to include commercial structures adjacent to I -35W and Lake Drive, while the majority of residential
units have been centrally located on the site.
Minnesota Depattmentof Transpottatiort
ifettFopalit n Divlsicln:.
Water's Edge
:1500 WestCounty;Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
December 23,;2003
Michael G ochale
ll omm.I evelopment:Ditect
600 town
Lino i itkort. Iv& 55014
SuBJ M f;egacyat Wriectn'ErigeDevelopmcnt, s%110T$eview.WEAWP0941
10 ,004 of l-35W`v '" ty 23 (i )
LinoLake, Anoka
Control 0280:
iv- Gacbal
Tan kyou- fortheopportunitytoreviewtheaboveseteeneed'EnvironmeadalAs sessment
WoTkahect. Reptraentative from °MnO)OT scattly ntetwwithyouir city staff regarding the
potcntialimpacts from this development of the ntcrcha ge at`I 35W and Lake'Elriite Based Poeta on
the-outcome ,of thismeetiing addidonal ormation will be needed'to tdeteneine the fottinipsetof
thiadevelopincit
'T'he'city statcdt at the.dcvclopers areworking.on a trnllie study'that will identify:eurrent and
future becds.othe" interchange ,`in>ailditionto °:intenm measures that wilimitigatenome .*fete
traffic hOPOOti ofthis dewelaprneiak This is 10 be. ntalMv n/DOTwhen the deveiopn a itissent
to our ngency forplataind/or stte.plen revaes_v
Currently'Mn/DOIT flocs not haVeruayitip",rerventrineithroneeirot ihisinterthangein •20 -year
Tianspanatton System Plata. **Oar rs cmgentlyxudatiiig as I 3S: Study from 1.494 to Hmkely
M nnestrta to,,determine�the20- ycarneeds ofthestudy eo cidorHowevcr, We would r�unmettd
at the cit,`tty'and mike' � as soon'55 possible for tievitinut interchange improvements.
M4917f.policy rs to assist localrgovernmcnts in f eting compatibility between land use and
highways. Resrdentialuses located adjacent to_highwaysottenlesult in complaints abouttratfic.
noise, Tsatlicnoisefromthishigi► waycouldexceedhosc stanclsrdscstabinledbytht
vtinncspta Pollulton Control Aaeucyf (MPC4. firs ll S.1 cparttncn ;of 400424 Urban.
Davclopment. and the IMPOPtittnioot ofT anapo on. Mkt l ie 7030.0030 siates6 et
municipalities are rsponsible for igkmg all ie tsonable .measure$ to prcveat land use `activities
listed.in the PCWOOliteAreq Claaafiartiob(NAC) where the:establisshmcntofthe land_use'
would result in vaolattona of eatabliahcd nore4 i rda
l•ln/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to wasting highways`lmohil,its the etpeaditure
of bigbway f' nds for noise iatitigatiett measures. m.° such areas. TAO•proyatproposer should asaesa
the Hors ~situation and take the,aiction *6444 ****$ to minimize. the impact ofany-highway
noise . Ifpou have at mtestions regarding"MnIDO'1 a ncisepolioypleasecontectPeter Wasko in
otirDeaignacctionat(651) 582.1293.
Arrequal.0pporttnity: -employer
lobo XC, Voabellade
Director
Anoka County
Department of Parrs and Recreation
December 29,1003
Mike.Grothatati
coMMttnity De prnent Director
of Lino bites
Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes. Minnesota 55024
Dearhlik
Please accept.ihisletter asadCnowledgment of iFle Envitonn #at'Assessment Worksheet (FAw3.for
the "Legacy at' Woods _Edge- deyaipPment' done by 'Short Eliot tiendrldoson 'Inc (5EH),..Ttovember
2003. me Melia County parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the:worksheet and makes
the following,comments:
550Bpnket take Baileva,SdNW • Andovec Minnesota 55304
TclephoneO7b3) 7$73920 • PAX (760) 7554230
the- Pn0po3ed develoPrnehttsartlacent bonne Rice tmek Glavin Lakes:Rogionat Park
the has IdenUfted natural.resource issue and is complete;
the prrased:•developmenty ;have,tninireal'ihlpa t to the:paric property:
Frorn our;perspxgve, the consultantss:SEH havedone a thorough tisk of iderrtityitrg and wittgating
impacts on the.adjacentwethmds and the surrounding natural environment We-are glad to: see that
the proposed land use will be buffered by the- existingwoodlanda' and wetlands. We are also
encouraged to see that th skarees Will tie designated as, out lots`hekl in public:ownerstrip
As we discus ed. future trait access inb the park will offermany tenet is to people Uvtng end;woddng
there..Orme you begin todeveiop traii:pians,owe should take a doserlook atpotential corridors and
connections-thatwpi work with our eisisling andpiopsed trail :system plan within the park
Weap , the oppo tunIt!to review yourptans. Pleasekeep us Informed ;on the progress ofthe
Plane erjj to
john VcnDeUnde
Mchael'Mcborwigh, -Met<Coundl
RESPONSE
1 The City of Lino Lakes concurs with the Anoka County Parks Department comment.
2 As part of the proposed development, the intent is to provide a trail connection along the easterly portion of
the development that would extend into the regional park. Further coordination between the City, Anoka
County Parks Department, and developer will occur to identify the proposed trail corridors.
lidA:MetrOPOlitail COInted
7A111 actildtkp
trntdte thnt teork
December 22, 2003
Michael Chot~liala,
Community Develot meat °Direetar
City of Lino hakes
600 Town tenter Parkway
Lino Laltes,Mt4 55014
RE Environmental Assesslment°Worksheet (EAW)— Legacy at Woods Edge
Metmpolftan Council Tieistrlc1 >1.(ca�eorgie1Elker> 651= 296 - 4'27
Metropolitan Coward: vlex±piie•blo.190665 1
Dear Mr. Crochals
Metropolitan Council staffbas reviews The : ty of LinoT ake's Environmental Assessment
Woilcshec concerning the Legacy at Weeds'Edge devclopmnent-proposal. It is Council itaf 's
understandingffiat~dtia RAW involves a mixed -use project located on approximately 65 acres in
the southeast- quadrant of the 135W and Anoka County 23;interchango. The proposal includes
almost 350.000 square feet Of.otflaefretail.com ial use, 450 multi- Tainily residential units,
and 38,000 square feet of civit:uses.
Councilsta#ihas reviewed this:EAAW to detcrmine both its adcquacy and accuncy in addressing
rcgional concerns and its potcntial for significant envi oruncntal i ilpach Staff finds that the
Draft EAW tonipleto and ac with respecttoeregonal concerns and no major issues
of consistency with Councilpoli «es. An Enviroruneotnl<Impect Statementis not necessary for
regional putposes. ,However. +letropolitan Cou tcil staff IgOvides the advisory'coinnients
itemized below for your Consideration when making subsequent project decisions.
Rini 1I Fial,, - t3'ild7lfc and,Ecoiogicail Sensltip8',Resour.ces
Since virtually all ofthestonnwater is :directed tle the regional park there could be a
regional system impact;to the Regional Recreation: Open Space System if the stormwater
quality and or volume' are such hat -they negatively impact the natural resources of the
Park- A nu nbe'ofstormwalkeirianagement techniques are listed in the.'EAW as
potential iAroys to manage stotmwater runoff. There are more ideas available in, the
Metropolitan Council's Urban.Smaii Sites 1WP, Manual The manual is available at:
httn :lwvvw.titettocoanottpigienv gnmentfWatershed%BMP7nlaaual htm.
Given the cxtent ofwetland habitat adjacent totiie•ite, councilstafrecommends that
surmountable curbingbe required-for the roadways to be. constructed : within. the; project.
Item 27— Wate,Qriar .lily— Serrrt!eWaterftunoff
In: addition to the underground storm watcerchambersproposed to bc:up7ized to infiltrate.
on -site runoff; Council' staffrectiauncllds; imcolporationof rain garden bio-infiltration.
www.metraowarllart .. Metro Ufa Les 50141555
950;Frst roatureet • at,Pais. Mimeos $51014521 ' -10511 5014000 • .:. 58* 0014550 • T1Y,.101400t
RESPONSE
1 The majority of the site will be developed at a high level of urban development. However, the City
recognizes the extensive wildlife habitat east of the site and proposes to install surmountable curbing along
the easterly side of the roadway located in the northeastern portion of the site. This would allow any wildlife
that enters the urban area from the wetland complex to the east the ability to traverse the curb and retreat
back to the east to undeveloped portions of the site and the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park.
areas into'the design of the many parkingiotvegetated islands on the site. It is unclear
from the, documentifthis low impact; development praetieeiscurrentlypart•of the
proposal. Iiy,constructing depressed rather than raised islands and surrounding: the.
islands with curb cuts or concrete edges that 'slope to the interior of the islands, runoff
from the parking areas can: be rmutedintothese vegetated areas, then through a. piped
overflow into the-undcrground chambers. In this fashion Ibe first flush ofnmoff events
ti .zi ttieeffici
can be, etainedintlialiia- 'xnf'iltratonaccas , maxun}zutg, encyof the ;est<af the
.
runolytreatment train
Item ID: —Land Cover wrd'Irem 25-- Nearby tesour
The proposal Includes a .high percentage taf impervious surfaces that will cover 30 acres if
the projectis irupleinented Ss proposed. To preserve water quality in'the adjacent
regional park stormwater runoff from the itevelopment will aced to bemanagedin an
ecologically sensitive manner..
Portions of tbe site are identified as.regionaily important nthe joint Me tropolitan
Council and MinncaotaDepartment ofilature:l'Resources;Regional NiapuaiResources
Inventory and Assessment(NRI/A). The PAW should acknowledge this designation.
Areas.of parttcrilar concern include:'
•. proposed, reductions in wooded/forested land cover abutting the regional park;
• potential loss of the island of woodsin the southwest/central part of the site;
P. use ofnative vegetation in he:proposed urban/suburbanlandscaping where there
are developmenit transitions.to the rein* park's natural areas.
Item 19 — °'Geologicl`iazards and Soll "Conditions
This item states that "excessively drained soils and relatively high ground watertable
creates a potential for.ground water contamination:" The sanitary waste issue is
addressed ;duougb the municipal sanitary treatment off site. It' is.recoinmend t attiiis
information also be considered when managing stormwaferrunoff. Deep stormwater
ponds would have the pteiliial to directlyc9ntaminate ground water witb oils, road saltt
and other containinates aasociated with roads and parking lots.
bear 21 —Traffic
The EAW.states thatyear'2020 traffic volumes for full build -out of the site will be part of
a'simulation pmgiranr that is being developed. it further States that results of the'traffic
simulation asit relates;to the regionaltransportation system will be shared and discussed
with Minnesota Department of Transportation (MOOT) and.the.Anoka County Highway
department. The"nesults ofthe traffic simulation model should also be shared and
discussed withthe•Metropolitan`Council.
There is curve ntlyno transit serviette the proposed development. However, Routes 250
and' 262. do operate local service in the area, and Route 250 travels past the site on Lake
Drive on its '1/41eadheaeMati Mating to and from St, Joseph's Church Park 8i Ride lot. Metro
Transit and Metro Transit Services can consider rerouting: one or both of these routes to
offer residents sserviceto both downtown Minneapolis and downtown St.Paul. In
3
5
RESPONSE
2 The majority of the interior parking lot islands do not have sufficient area to treat and store the amount of
runoff that will be generated from the proposed development, but these islands will consist of a pervious
surface that will provide some infiltration. Detention ponds and underground infiltration chambers will be
utilized to treat and store runoff from the site. Where applicable, a drop curb design will be used to provide
access to infiltration ponds. Currently, the site plan includes four onsite ponds that will receive runoff from
impervious areas through a drop curb design.
3 At the time the EAW was written, the City was not aware of the Regional Natural Resources Inventory and
Assessment (NRI /A) and that the MNDNR and Metropolitan Council had identified a portion of the site in the
assessment. The Metropolitan Council was contacted, and a copy of the NRI /A map was attained.
Preservation efforts have been incorporated into the site plan that will reduce impacts on a grove of mature
trees located on the eastem side of the site (adjacent to the park). Furthermore, the proposed development
includes natural open space areas and vegetative buffers between the development and the park boundary.
4 Suitable separation (3 to 4 feet) will be maintained between the bottom of detention ponds/infiltration
chambers and groundwater to minimize the potential for contamination.
addition, they could review the possibility of reverie commute service out from the
downtowns for theofCice portion ofthe.deyelopment.if there is, sufficient demand..
Metro Transit would prefer for anypotential bus stops for the development to be located
on Lake Drive to minimize route. deviations Ind ;extra *luting time. Therefore, it is
important that there arc good pedestrian connections throughout;the development and to
Lake Mire. If the proposed residential development is within 1/4 mile of Lake Drive it
would generally be considered a reasonable walking distanWd transit service.. Also;, hi
the southbound direetion riders would need to. cross Lake Driveto board the bus;. so a
tra'f6ic •siggai/crosswalk,is°suggested. Since any potential bus stops. would probabiy be on
Lake ,Drive. safety for buses making stops should=be keptin.mind when designing the
proposed.imptovements on Lake Diive.:
At the present time one of the park and ride • facilities (1•35W at 95th.Ave
Ilk Blaine, 8oti spaces) is only a ►le ofmules from the site. Most likely commuters
will drive to this park and ride, whichtoffers.a high level' of express service to downtown
Minneapolis and also limited stop Service to St. Paul. }slab, the CityofLino Lakes is
within the service area'forthe Anoka County Traveler. Currently,- dials =ride service is
availableein•the area,
This concludes" the Council's review of the,EAW. The Council will take no formal action. If
you have any questions, need further information; or would liketo "meet with discuss any
comments noted shove, please Contact Bob Mazanec. principal reviewer, at 651- 602 -1330 or at
• bob.ntazanec@metc.state mn.us.
.Sincerely„
&/S / Ser
Phyllislianson, Manager
Mee of Planning and Technical Assistance
cc: Georgie Bilker, Metropolitan: Council District 11
Bob.`Mazat►ec, Office ofPlanning and Technical4ssistance
Cheryl Olson, Reviews Coordinator, Office of Planning and Technical Assistance
V:1REWEW'S\Com enities\trao LOcaeaeit\L.iao Lakes 2003 BAW Legacy Woods final letter 1906544oc
RESPONSE
5 The Metropolitan Council will be contacted when the results of the traffic simulation are available for
discussion and review.
The City is supportive of expanding transit services to this area of the City. Sidewalks are being proposed
throughout the development that would provide access to Lake Drive and any future bus stops. The
signalization of Lake Drive has been identified as part of the transportation improvements necessary for the
proposed development. This would provide a controlled crossing point for pedestrians or transit users to
cross Lake Drive.
COUNTY OF ANOKA
Public Services Division
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
(763) 862-4200 FAX (783) 8624201
December 24, 2003
Mr. Michael Gtochala, Director
Community Development
CITY OF LINO LAKES
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lake. MN 55014
SUBJECT: Legacy at Woods Edge EAW
Dear Mike,
Fust, and foremost, I'd like to thank you for including the County lathe preliminary reviews of
this project. A well - designed, safe and titnctional roadway system will be a key component to
the success of this project. We appreciate your willingness to work with us on these issues.
With respect to the EAW non, our =dor cotes, of course, are the roads, from safety,
capacity, and finding points of view. These concerns include:
• Currently. the Calmly does not have any improvements planned to CSAH 23 (Lake
Drive), nor are any scheduled through 2015.
• While tare 2020 Traffic Voluare Forecast in the Liao Lakes Transportation Plan
anticipates volumes on CSAH 23 to Increase to over 19,000 trips per day" (EAW
pg. 23), the County's 2015 Transportation Plan anticipates volumes of 9,000 on the
southwest side ofI.35W interchange in front of the development
• Access management in the area between 1-35W and the south project limits should
meet the County's Access Management Guidelines. Mn/DOZ's guidelines may also
aPPty-
• The development - initiated Improvements to the County Road system should be ,
designed in accordance with the guidelines for plat and site plan review tbe
County's Development Review Process manual dated December, 2003 m
• The City, County, and may wish to consider a short -, mid-, and long-range
programming and finding plan for the road improvements mcommended in the
Affirmative Action l Equal Opportunity Employe'
RESPONSE
1 The City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Transportation Plan forecast traffic volume for Lake Drive /CSAH 23
was based on 1996 ADT volumes. The 2002 Traffic Flow maps indicate the traffic volumes on Lake
Drive /CSAH 23 near Elm Street were 10,000 trips per day. The 2002 map may include traffic counts from
year 2000 and probably does not reflect the growth in the Target/Kohls development area north of I -35W.
Therefore, the City believes the existing traffic volumes on the southwest side of the I -35W interchange
already exceed the Anoka County 2015 forecast volume of 9,000 trips per day.
2 The development will allow for the closure of one access point that currently provides access to Artic
Sandblasting Company. Additional access closures or restrictions will be pursued at the time capacity and
safety improvements are made to this portion of Lake Drive.
Legacy at Woods Edge
EAW. It would beprudeut to plan the improvements in such a way as to avoid
of any interim improvements made --in other words, maximize the
potential of our investments.
• The EAW mentions afigure "oaf* as It relates to the regional
results of simulation and k forwardd io�disc discussing you and
Mn/DOT, hopetLlly prior to Preliminary Plat review.
• There is some concern about the impact oftbis project on traffic farther south on
CSAH 23. While it is understood that this 1s outside of the scope of the EAW,
development of this portion of the City will anchor, or set in stone, the potential for
alternatives. Before alternatives are eliminated, it would be helptnl to discuss the
cumulative impact of this, and other, developmatprojects in rester detail with the
City.
• We encourage early, possibly draft submittal of any Preliminary Plat and/or site plan
of the Legacy at Woods Edge to the County Staff for review. This is an importmn
development for the City and we world like to give it as much attention as needed.
Thanks, again, for the opportunity to be involved in this project early in the process. We look
forward to continuing discussions with the City on the items listed above.
December 24, 2003
Sincere ly
liked
Kate Garwood
Multimodal Transportation Manages
cc: Doug Fischer. County Engineer
Jane Rose, Traffic Engineering Manager
Brigid Gombold, Mo/DOT
Ann Braden. Metro Coup
RESPONSE
3 An initial traffic simulation model was presented to staff from the Anoka County Highway Department and
Mn/DOT in early December 2003. Additional traffic scenarios were requested and are being developed,
reviewed, and discussed at this time.
4 The preliminary plat for the proposed development was submitted to Anoka County on December 16, 2003.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-
ST. PAUL» GASTRIC[. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
160F! STREET EAST
$T. PAUL,.M N 561014886'
Mil, TO De:tether 18, 2003
ATiemw:
Construction-Operations
Regulatory (04- 01360 -TJP) . Mike Greohala
City of Lire sakes
6o0 Town Centex Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 5501
'Dear Mr. Grocha at
We have reviewed the Environmental Aseessment-'Worksheet
(8AW). that was prepared, for a, project in Lino. Lakes called the
Legacy► at -Wdod's Edge, Development right* for portions of the
site have .been" acquired by Tiie fiartiord Group. The, prole' site
is. in the southeast. quadrant of I35W and Lake Drive .in the NE 1/4
Sec. 17, T. 31N., R, ,22W.,. Anoka County, Minnesota.
The "EAR indicates that wetland -areas on the site would be
preserved. The Corps of Engineers, regulates the discharge of
dredged and fi11: materia into waterer and wetlands under Section
404 of the'Clean Water Act. If the project involves no work in
any ,waters or wetlands, a permit will not be ;required frorn the
Corps.
We understand a wetland delineation has,:been conductedt and
the - development would. not require any work, within any waters or
wetlands. This delineation should - be.,verified by the Corp*'. or,
the 'Rite Creek Watershed District. .Also, ell should he
clearly Stake i. "in the field to avoid inadvertent encroachment
duri
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
December" 'PI, 200:3
Mr. Michael Grochela' _
City of Lino Lakes
fi00 Town Center'i'i
Lino LakesY.MN. M914
BE: 'The I.egacyat3V01. de Plgel?ev,4000100t
Dear =Mr. Grochafa
113v4raltra. vlm ental sanent W eet ( W) to ill Lemay t Woo is Edge Dcvetopment'haes
been reviewed lr Minnesota'Pollution Conlml,Agency (14CA) ataft This commxitletter addresses
ashen of concern 10 MPGA seaff'revtewzn&te PA'W,and is suirmtttad for onsiderattwt by lh a City of
Lino I s,. the- responst'ble Bovernmaital unit,.in dcctdin6-whether sn Environme0 al it ipact Statenrcut; •
should prepared'on heproject. It does not constitute eppravalby the MPCA ofanyor all elements of .
the project for the purpose of'pending arfuhitt14 niiittletion(s)by tree tPCA. We lave atteMpted to
adentrfy inct consult with (moult' witfinfemeited program rt0 identify the Mme" .;pets that maybe reegluired.. ,
.Additional comthents orre lutists for` information` maybe aubmitted-in the future.to address specific issues
related to the 4OyeloPorot ofsucb permits) Ultimately, 41W the responsibility oftlic pmjeci to
secure any.required permitsand to comply with any requisite perinit coeiditions.
T'fiefollowing,conunenb are made. forryou ruse in; revising the draft YAW,
'tem. :47h,
This section should i flciksde the `needio co t* w tih: to lOcAiVhaw.11 Stormwater,Perm* fihe;EAW
states "Following development ofthe'proposed site, stone water will" be: treated through infiltration in
open'spaees or 6,i1MbeMfbeeetieMber technology and tbrnughretetttton ponds that will rneet"Netional-
U Urban Runoff Program tN[ RP) guidelines, .." The Phase 11 :NPDPSpernpt- contains requirements for
sizing amtmitl ,velocities that tub pond must achieve 4n -order to be lir compliance with the permit.
These r*IilitO*011 are..not the same ltelA P. requircmcnts and need 10 'be incorpoiratcd in torthe pond
design.'
Thank y o u f o r t h e o p p o m t t m i t y to.rev e ) . the B A W Should.youleimany;que4ione Ai uttb s lead r.
please contact tin at 0631)196 -7795
Rincerely,
443475.
Kellyyt 1arvey
*eject Manager
atwtis nd Environmental Review Section
Regionpt AtMkOnrpentel ':ltmegetneet.Divklika
GuMO
520:1 atayette Rd. M •SaintPeul, MM 55100410 ; (612) 2964300 (!aks); (612) 282-5332 (i7Y1 www.pcettbr ye.
St. Patel • B[nefd .Detioltl '10e• loth • Mankato• UAerahat • stef• Mom!
!!!dal ew ior4.4 00erwt* VwerfrOifte *wwnoprwniSiooionPr! rdaaM
RESPONSE
1 The permanent storm water management system will consist of a combination of wet sediment basins and
infiltration systems (underground chambers and ponds) to meet the requirements of the NPDES Permit No.
MN R100001. Furthermore, the project has been designed to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District
infiltration requirements of 0.34 inches of runoff and dead storage requirements of 2.5 inches of runoff. A
large portion of the runoff from the site is directed to a series of infiltration basins/ponds located along the
southerly and easterly boundaries of the site or through underground infiltration chambers. Runoff from
these systems eventually outlet to a wetland (Wetland 2 on Figure 7 of the EAW) that is connected to
another extensive wetland complex (Wetland 1) that is located in the George Watch Lake watershed.
Nl chaea'C el
Conoraunity,E
Citjinf Lino
6400 Town _Center
Lino Lakes,, T 15014
Milulestita Department of Natural Resourrces
l200Warner oad
St.PauI, Miu meaota 85104 ;
651.772.7900
rabel 14.2643
i E; 1,4:441 4uc aWgo Ella. 4n .tCsseiimentWoiksitieet(EAW)
MarlVl .tikochals=
The'ilteparttnettt ofNattuat resources ° AMR) 'has reviewed the lAW, for the propo d L egsey.at Woods
Edge Dcvclopmcntu► 41* qtYPTURiakei. • In.ggner4 the EAW appears to tic; compiete and.accurato.
We offer the following t: onunent5•foryourconsideration.;
Cover Tzi es iIttem No.10)
Table 1 shows the,conversion of 4 b acres ofwooded/forest cover This may -resultliffie reanovat"of`a
aignrficant +�nuio€ X od from the site. Depending 0-44 .condition ,Ibis `t ood n y be Pied*
Landscaping aal,'firewood,;orasta.replac mentforcoalint 'heproductionofenergy. tileadeveloper
should contact,1ean Mou Regional Forest.. ihilizaf otrltnd Maiketing Sp allai:(651. - 7567), for
advice bn ihiissubject."
WaterOuailtvs SurfaceWater.Rundff(teinldo Ili
The project proposer has ' done^ a good job :of incorporating stormwater infiltration: technologies into e
plans for thi s The EAW states that the project will result in a o percent :post- develrpmentt increase.
in runed:rates, 'We reca»nrnoad that this:contra be coupled. with a zero•percentincrease °iu runoff
volumes. Imgprovementia.volun.e cpntrolwould be desimbla, especially considering that t i` project will
resuitin a 43.perceat increase n impervious cover in theahoreland district ofMarshan Lake.
Item No,.,17bstates"that treated stdanwatereiti vRill be inf. krated or400004 ti ltretiands. Tf eFAW
does not-state. the change in stdenwaterinmoff volume'Stosn * site:. This information would he useful:
and see r+eoo that itbe3t cludt d is the.E,AW..
Thank youter tbeopportwuty to tevrew this project aad the EAW 'Welookforward to receiving, your
record of decision anti responses to comments;at the conclusion of emiirodmental review . Minnesota,
Rules part'4410d900, subparts 4 ands require you to:senct us'Iour;Record sendus ofl3ecision within.five days
of dle ciding;en t isaction, 1! -you haveany questions about these*Imnientti4aease. calf WayneBanstad,
the region* ental: Assessment:Ecologist. at 6.5.1772- 7940,:
iiniquatOpposiuniiy oy Who Values Ph/crafty
owiriloima5on.1st 841157 .14584455657 TM 551.2485484 1.6006574820
RESPONSE
The City will evaluate alternative uses of wood removed from the site and will contact the Regional Forest
Utilization and Marketing Specialist for further assistance.
2 The storm water management plan for the proposed development incorporates wet sediment basins and
infiltration systems (ponds/basins and underground chambers) to treat and store runoff, which results in a
system that exceeds the Rice Creek Watershed and City storm water requirements for treatment and
storage: However, as is typically the case with most developments, the post - development conditions will
result in an overall increase of runoff volume. This increase in runoff volume is likely to only occur in the
George Watch Lake Watershed because the storm water management plan establishes a drainage system
that routes nearly all runoff from the site to the east and into the George Watch Lake Watershed. Runoff
from impervious surfaces that are within the Marshan Lake Shoreland District is directed to a series of
infiltration basins/ponds that eventually outlets to a wetland, which is tributary to another extensive wetland
complex located in the George Watch Lake watershed. Therefore, the increase in runoff volume from the
site will have no net effect on the Marshan Lake Watershed and Shoreland District.
14.4acy at Woods Edge EAW
Dceember 18; 2003
Page 2
kr
KatMeen A. Wallace
tegf ooal Director
c Steve Colvin
Wayne Barsted.
Jean1+touelle
Sarah
T irt(1
Tom Hovey
DaveEappetillo•
4 T:omRalcom
ion Lassen, LQB
Niels Rowse,-USFfS
I20030164
LLO#Legacy VocdsEdge.dot
AnEgml t mitg ployerWbo Valves Dive si
IN9fi lnfonnaaon.65t- 29e4157 1488446763W TlY e5 - see$ca4
RESPONSE
2 cont. The EAW incorrectly stated that the impervious surface coverage within the Marshan Lake Shoreland
District was calculated to be approximately 43% of the total area within the Shoreland District boundary. The
correct statement should have read that the impervious surface coverage was calculated to be
approximately 43% of the area for only the portion of the proposed development that falls within the
Marshan Lake Shoreland District. The percent change in impervious cover within the entire Marshan Lake
Shoreland District that results from the proposed development would be substantially lower.
Agenda Item 5B
Environmental Board Meeting Date: January 21, 2004
Topic:
Background:
Legacy Holdings /Lino Lakes Village
Planned Unit Development
Application Review
The City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board held a review of Legacy Holdings,
Lino Lakes Village PUD application on December 3, 2003. The purpose of this
review was to obtain Environmental Board comments on the submitted
application information. There was no formal action taken at that time. Please
see Attachment 1 concerning the review on December 3, and the minutes of that
meeting (Attachment 2). Comprehensive planning issues are discussed in
Michael Grochala's Staff Report dated December 10, 2003 (Attachment 3), and
the Hartford Group letter from Michael Grochala dated January 5, 2004
(Attachment 4).
Analysis:
Summary reports attached restate the issues of previous review. In addition:
• The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) now waits council
decision.
• Open space areas such as the designated park can offer opportunities for
entertainment events, farmers market and seasonal sales such as Christmas
trees and pumpkins.
• It appears tree losses have been minimized as much as possible.
• Landscaping:
• All tree - planting areas should have planting holes prepared as per
illustration.
•
•
•
• All planting areas where soil compaction is necessary because of
buildings and pavement should use CU structural soils or some other
method to allow for suitable root growth. It would be better to plant
smaller trees in CU soils than larger trees in compacted soils.
• Species have not been determined for planting areas yet. All exterior
(street - scaping) planting areas are to be planned, planted, and
maintained by the City. All interior planting areas are part of the
Hartford project. Species selection should combine appropriate
native /indigenous species that complement the native landscape and
architectural features. Suggest some flexibility in street tree planting
specifications in order to add possible traffic calming features (species
and spacing) to the landscape. All trees should be zone 4 species.
Desirable species for Legacy:
• Oaks ( Red, Northern pin, White, Burr and Swamp white)
• Red maple /Acer rubrum (North woods, Red maple, Autumn
spire, Fire dance, North fire, Red sunset).
• Autumn blaze (do not over use)
• Birch ( River, Paper)
• Common hackberry
• Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn
• Green ash ( Green, Bergeson, Marshall's, Patmore, Summit)
• Honeylocust/Thornless
• Larch
• Flowering crab (Dolgo, Donald Wyman, Flame, Indian magic,
Kelsey, Pink spire, Radiant, Red splendor, Snowdfirt, Sparkler,
Spring snow,
• Quaking aspen
• Linden ( American, Redmond)
• Elm ( Discovery, Accolade, or other disease resistant zone 4
elms)
• Pines ( White, Red, Austrian along freeway if pines are planned
there)
• Spruce (white)
• All shrubs should be zone 4 suitable and non - invasive.
• It is encouraged to use native flower and ground cover plants as much
as possible. The use of cultivars should be permitted as long as such
cultivars are non - invasive.
• All native seed areas should approximate the City specifications for
seed. It is encouraged to use potted plants and /or plugs as much as
possible.
• Vines. The Environmental Board has stated an interest in the use of
vines on building surfaces.
• All planting areas should have available water.
• Plantings on poles should have available water.
•
•
• Electricity for accent lighting should be available throughout the
planting areas.
• Trails
• All future trail extensions should be placed off of eco- edges.
• Site soils
• Any soils that are not intended to be compacted should be protected
from unnecessary compaction (infiltration areas, pond and park areas).
• Surface Water Management
• Phosphorous model (P8) shows phosphorous removal rates that
exceed the NURP criteria.
• Underground infiltration chambers add significant quantity and quality
improvements to the site design.
• Significant Resources
• There are no rare, endangered or threatened species of plants on the
site. There are no American eagle nests within an impact distance
from the construction site. Models show that there are no Blandings
Turtle breeding sites or activity areas in the construction area.
Options:
1. Recommend approval with suggested staff and Environmental Board
Comments.
2. Recommend denial.
Recommendation:
Option 1
Attachments:
1. Environmental Board Review /Legacy Holdings/ December 3, 2003
2. Environmental Board Review Minutes /December 3, 2003
3. Grochala Report December 10, 2003
4. Hartford Group letter /Grochala, January 5, 2004
•
Agenda Item 6A
Environmental Board Meeting Date: December 3, 2003
Topic:
Background:
Legacy Holdings /Lino Lakes Village
Planned Unit Development
Application Review.
Attachment 1
The City of Lino Lakes and the Hartford Group applied on November 10, 2003 to
seek approval for mixed -use development with residential and commercial
buildings. A mandatory EAW was performed and reviewed by the Environmental
Board on November 6' 2003. Included in this report are the following
attachments:
• Attachment 1, Corrections to the EAW following the Environmental Board
Meeting on November 6, 2003.
• Attachment 2, Preliminary Plat of "The Village ".
• Attachment 3, Boundary and Topographic and Tree Inventory.
• Attachment 4, Master Site Plan.
• Attachment 5, Master Grade Plan.
• Attachment 6, Plant Schedule.
• Attachment 7, Preliminary Senior Living Development Plan.
• Attachment 8, Preliminary Regent at Lino Lakes Senior Living Development.
• Attachment 9, Lino Lakes Planning, Legacy at Woods Edge.
• Attachment 10, Proposed Lighting Fixtures.
The focus of this review is to obtain Environmental Board Comments on the
submitted application information. No formal action is needed at this time
Project Summary:
In 1998 the City of Lino Lakes, following receipt of a grant from Metropolitan
Council, hired California based Calthorpe and Associates to prepare a Mixed Use
Master Plan for the Town Center Area. The master plan emphasized the
following design objectives:
The Legacy at Woods Edge Development plan emphasizes the following
objectives:
1. A 65 -acre complex of buildings in a controlled setting.
2. An integrated mix of uses that respond to residents' needs.
3. A gathering place that creates a sense of community, civic identity and pride.
•
•
4. A place that defines the unique character of the community.
5. An economic development initiative to increase the value of the commercial
tax base.
6. A distinctive, consistent architectural style that promotes high quality,
aesthetically pleasing commercial buildings.
The plan is intended to provide all of the classic components of traditional
neighborhoods- Civic, residential, commercial and recreational uses - within a
human scale environment so that these uses interact as part of a greater plan
rather than as separated destinations. The mix of uses is intended to implement
the principles of the Livable Communities Act and the Cities Comprehensive Plan
by creating a Town Center for the community and providing more diverse, life -
cycle housing - including affordable and rental housing —within an active and
interesting pedestrian- orientated community.
The proposed project includes up to approximately 350,000 square feet of
commercial development and 450 residential units.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The property is guided for mixed use development within the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states that "the southeast quadrant of the 1 -35
W /Lake Drive interchange represents the Lino Lakes Village area. The village is
intended to integrate a mixture of commercial, medium and high density
residential and public uses in an attractive and cohesive design ".
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
An EAW was previoulsy prepared for the Village Project in 1998. A negative
declaration was sited at that time. An updated EAW was recently reviewed by
the Environmental Board and approved for distribution and public comment on
November 10, by the City Council. The 30 -day review period for the new EAW
started on November 24, 2003.
No final action on the proposed development may occur until completion of the
Environmental Review Process.
Surface Water Management
Runoff from the site currently drains to the south and east and ultimately
discharges to Marshan Lake and George Watch Lake. Surface water concerns
center around water quality and quantity issues
•
•
•
The City's engineering consultant, SEH, Inc., is preparing the Master Surface
Water Management Plan. The plan is being designed in accordance with
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), Rice Creek Watershed District
(RCWD), and City of Lino Lakes, design standards. Storm water runoff will be
treated through infiltration areas and retention ponds. The plan is proposing to
utilize underground treatment chambers for infiltration purposes
As with past projects, infiltration is a desirable practice if ground water pollution is
mitigated by establishing at least 3 feet of sand separation between the bottom of
the infiltration area and the seasonally high ground water table. This requirement
can be met on the site.
A P8 (phosphorous) analysis will be performed to demonstrate phosphorous
loading reduction to George Watch Lake.. Best management practices for
surface water quality should be initiated and integrated into the predicted
phosphorous exports for the site. Best management practices should include
periodic and timely sweepings to capture sediment laden phosphorous on
impervious surfaces. A vacuum type sweeper is a better tool for removing
phosphorous deposits on impervious surfaces. Best management practices
should also include the elements sited in the plan for Market Place north of 35W.
Management/Housekeeping Practices/Target Site
These are used primarily in urban areas to keep impervious areas clean and are
most effective when applied on a continuous basis either year round or
seasonally depending on the nature of the problem. These controls are likely to
reduce pollutants by 25 -50 %. Individual practices include:
• Street Sweeping
• Street Maintenance
• Collection System Maintenance
• Catch basin cleaning
• Storm sewer flushing
• Litter Control
• Chemical Application reduction
• Deicing materials
• Pesticides and fertilizers
• Safe Chemical storage improvement
The entire area is in a Lino Lakes Environmental Handbook as a Lake Protection
Area with the Tamarack swamp to the West a high priority protection area and
buffer area to George Watch Lake. Treated water from the site will flow through a
degraded tamarack swamp. There may be some opportunity in the future to
restore this swamp in the future by working with Anoka County. The ditch that
drains the swamp is North of the Village site. The ditch cuts through the basin
•
and appears to cut through an elevated rim that abuts the Lake. If the rim were
to be restored to original grades, than the flood plane would be restored to
original levels that supported the Tamarack swamp and some of the rare plant
species one might find in this area.
Common parking and underground parking reduces the required parking stalls
substantially for Retail store and Service Establishments, and housing areas.
Lighting
Site lighting will need to constructed in accordance with requirements of the Lino
Lakes Zoning Ordinance. All lighting must contain and 90 degree cutoff angle.
The proposed street lighting fixtures are shown in Attachment 10.
Rare and Endangered Species
There are no rare or endangered species on the site.
Tree Preservation
A small area of oak woodlands on the SE side of the proposed development will
be impacted. The entire area of woodlands on the SW side of the development
will be impacted. There has been some discussion about moving some of the
movable -size trees from this area into the new landscape. In all cases, city
standards for tree preservation should be implemented. If trees are moved, than
storage area needs to be designated until the planting areas are ready. (Usually
tree removal happens before initial grading operations).
Street/Landscaping
The landscape /streetscape design is generic at this time. The city's engineering
department is working on this.
Staff suggestion is to add northern pin, Red and White /Burr oaks to the list of
shade trees. There are also some disease resistant Elms now available that
could be used.
There is a very wide spectrum of annuals and perennials that could be added to
the "Perennials" list for both the "Perennials" and Rain - gardens section of the
Plant Schedule. The use of native cultivars adds more design flexibility. The
shrub list could also be expanded to afford more flexibility to designing the
roundabout and the park area. If the design intention of internal elements to the
roundabout is to see through, than low plants should be used exclusively. If it the
intention of the plan to not see through than taller shrubs and other materials
should be added to the list.
•
•
All soils in planting areas should be protected from compaction. Sequencing and
best management practices should address this.
Regardless, the important issues are water availability, plant bed design, and
maintenance. Irrigation should be available to all of the areas, even the
raingarden areas. New plants in future redesign (even if they are native deep -
rooted plants) need establishment water.
All planting beds should be in a maintenance budget and schedule. Planting
beds should be on a regular schedule for mulch maintenance.
Native or raingarden areas should have a high degree of potted plants used in
the initial planting.
All tree areas should have water availability. If possible, CU Soils (structural
soils should be incorporated into tree planting areas that have limited root space.
CU Soils will enable longer lived, faster growing, and healthier trees in these
areas.
Planting baskets in the streetscape can be very nice, but again should have a
drip irrigation line. These lines can be routed up lighting poles.
Lighting the streetscape will most likely be desired. The use of lower intensity,
directional accent lighting should be used. I think this can be designed so there
is a minimum to no noticeable impact.
The maintenance of all planting areas need to be incorporated into a well thought
out common and master plan. This plan should be part of the BPM. BMP's
should have a definitive and decisive implementation budget and schedule built
into the project.
Trails are an important part of this plan. All trails should be placed in a fashion
that minimizes impacts to edge areas, at the same time instilling a high level of
resource experience for users. For example, there is a blue joint wetland to the
SE. The trail should stay off the edge , yet allow users to enjoy this feature,
Environmental Board Comments:
•
•
Attachment 2
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
APPROVED MINUTES
: December 3, 2003
. 6:37 P.M.
. 9:02 P.M.
: Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Teresa
O'Connell, and Mary Jo O'Dea
: Patrice Toler Halen and Rod Kukonen
: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson
and Community Development Director Michael
Grochala
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Grundhofer called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 29, 2003
Page 3, seventh paragraph: "She added that the current church campus used to be
a good birding site. The church removed vegetation and bird habitat, not
illustrating good land stewardship at the current facility."
O'Dea made a motion to approve the October 29, 2003 meeting minutes as
amended. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
November 6, 2003
Page 7, third paragraph: "Donlin admitted at the present time there was surface
runoff, but she was looking for no net change in quality or quantity."
Page 10, fifth paragraph: "She suggested it state that the plan be improved to
protect the night sky."
O'Dea made a motion to approve the November 6, 2003 meeting minutes as
amended. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
• Discuss 5B the Marshan Townhomes 2nd Addition, prior to 5A Legacy
Holdings/Legacy at Woods Edge/Planned Unit Development/Application
Review
The Board approved the agenda as amended.
1 APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
4. OPEN MIKE
Jim Crawford of 614 Aqua Circle, is President of the Marshan Lake Townhomes
Homeowners' Association. He explained the residents were concerned about the
density of the plan. Their complex was 6.4 units per acre. The Planning and
Zoning had denied the change from medium to high density. The homeowners'
association concurred it should remain medium density. Mr. Hokanson had built
the homes, and November 30, 2003 the ponding area had not been approved by
Rice Creek Watershed District. He had no idea if the pond had been approved.
The two factors should impact the Board's decision to recommend approval or
denial. Asleson responded that he did not know if it had been approved, and had
heard of no confirmation from Rice Creek Watershed District.
Donlin stated she recalled some lack of follow - through. She noted that the parcel
was designated for 4 -6 units per acre.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Legacy Holdings/Legacy at Woods Edge/Planned Unit
Development /Application Review
This item was postponed until after the discussion of the Marshan Townhomes
2nd addition.
B. Marshan Townhomes 2nd Addition
Asleson reviewed the background and analysis. He noted the Lake Protection
Zone had not been declared in 1995. The amount of impervious had been
amended because of the square footage to 50% per the updated letter to the City.
He also explained his recommendation to replace the Black Ash, because that
species was not doing well in that area of the City.
O'Connell questioned the choice of sumac. Asleson answered that it was a native
species.
Donlin inquired who was paying for the tree replacement nearby. Asleson
indicated the City would pay for the trees at $20 -30 each.
Donlin questioned if the City escrowed for boulevard trees. Asleson responded
that it did but the time ran out.
Ron Fox from Hokanson Development was present to respond to comments and
questions. He stated the area was purchased, and infiltration was implemented to
meet the requirements up to a 100 -year event. The infiltration plan was approved
on November 17, 2003 by Rice Creek Watershed District.
2 APPROVED MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
O'Dea asked for confirmation that Rice Creek Watershed District had approved
the infiltration plan. Mr. Fox responded that it was being reviewed. It was
initially zoned high density, but at present it was medium density.
Asleson stated the definition for medium density was 3 -6 units per acre.
Mr. Fox indicated they were asking for an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan. Asleson clarified that the site was rezoned for medium density. From an
environmental standpoint, the density was determined by how it affected the
natural resources. He noted that there were certain situations where higher density
could provide more open space.
Donlin stated that there was a tendency to have cookie cutter development, and
there were reasons for the current zoning. She indicated there were unresolved
issues, and the present plan appeared incompatible with the prior development.
Mr. Fox responded the third tier of development located farthest from the lake had
lower density.
Vice Chair Grundhofer inquired about the amount of impervious. Asleson
responded that the plan had 50% impervious and was allowed up to 65 %.
Donlin noted the parking was 80 spaces over the minimum. Mr. Fox answered
the spaces were counted four per unit because of the double garages and
additional spaces for the driveway.
Asleson questioned if it was possible to narrow the driveway by the street.
O'Connell inquired if there was parking on the street. Mr. Fox responded there
was no parking on the street.
O'Dea asked for clarification on the lighting plan. Mr. Fox answered there would
be one light by each entrance.
Donlin noted the density change would affect the lighting. Vice Chair
Grundhofer added there was a Lighting Ordinance.
Asleson mentioned there was no photometric plan, and no picture submitted of the
lighting fixtures.
Donlin stated the plan was not concrete enough. If the plan was not complete, the
Board could not recommend approval.
O'Dea inquired about the issue of infiltration. Asleson noted the NURP pond was
a requirement.
3 APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
Donlin expressed concern that it was in a Shoreland Protection Zone.
O'Connell indicated that there was a definite visual difference before the
development and after for those canoeing and kayaking the lake. Asleson
answered that native plantings along the shore would be beneficial.
Vice Chair Grundhofer inquired about any soil testing that might have been done.
Mr. Fox stated the City did borings on site.
Vice Chair Grundhofer called for recommendations.
O'Connell recommended denial because the plan was incomplete, and was
incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan in relation to parking, lighting, and
impervious. If the plan goes forward, the Board recommended the following:
• Address staff recommendations.
• Narrow the driveways and parking areas.
• Address lighting as a function of density, to include a photometric plan.
• Submit stormwater calculations and volume sizing to Rice Creek Watershed
District.
• Retain the medium density zoning as stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Legacy Holdings/Legacy at Woods Edge/Planned Unit
Development /Application Review
Asleson reviewed the background information. He assured the Board the plan
would be seen again. It would also go to the Planning and Zoning Board more
than once.
Grochala stated he met with the hydrologist, who confirmed that the site was good
for infiltration because of the sandy soil. He indicated there might be an
opportunity to work with the county to bring back the tamaracks that were lost
when the ditches were deepened for Interstate 35W. There were 84 acres of basin.
The aerial photographs of the site in 1953 showed the area was farmed.
O'Connell inquired if the rim could be restored to the natural state. Asleson
responded that it would not be possible within the project, but it would be done in
conjunction with Anoka County.
Grochala stated that the Surface Water Plan rate requirements and infiltration on
site needed to be completed to promote tamarack growth. The water might be
directed into the tamaracks to keep them moist.
4 APPROVED MINUTES
•
t
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
Donlin indicated that an injustice was done on the Target site.
Grochala noted the existing wetland consisted of 7 -8 acres, with no irrigation
planned. It would join with the wetland Asleson was speaking of. He distributed
a handout depicting the present street and streetscape plan that remained in
progress. It showed the landscape from a cross - section. The traffic and
community square would create a garden and entertainment area. The last page
showed the lighting.
Vice Chair Grundhofer inquired if the herons would be there.
Asleson asked for clarification on the definition of an interactive water feature.
Grochala responded they were basically squirt guns. He continued that the lights
would be typically 14 -16 feet high.
O'Connell inquired who was responsible for maintenance. Grochala answered
that the City would do the majority of the maintenance, except for the storefronts.
The plow and plant waterings would be the responsibility of the City. There
would be an incentive to keep them low labor. There would be a cost associated
with low labor.
Asleson questioned how it would be maintained. Grochala answered the City
would have more control. The Hartford Development Team would address it
more fully.
Bill Griffith with the Hartford Development Team introduced himself. It was a
local company, and could be more responsive to the City's vision and to the
market. Their approach was to continually come back for discussion. A key was
the environmental aspect. They came into the project accepting the fact that there
was to be no impact on the wetlands. There would be a balance with the entire
district, as opposed to a microcosm approach. The vision came out of the
CalThorpe design, also known as a new urbanism. It would not merely be
commercial, but a community where one could work shop and recreate. It would
also be intergenerational. Examples where the company had worked were in
Plymouth, Eden Prairie, and several others. The center on the master plan would
be a pedestrian environment. He showed the proposed pedestrian linkages and
skyway. There would also be varying rooftops, with the homes being located
close to the street.
Vice Chair Grundhofer inquired about the townhome parking. Mr. Griffith noted
there was no design yet, but it would either be tuck under or underground parking.
The larger building would have underground parking.
• O'Dea questioned the YMCA parking area. Grochala responded the YMCA was
initially building 17, but they wanted a suburban plan, not an urban plan. The
5 APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
Hartford Development team had worked with the YMCA to agree to shared
parking with the commercial and residential. There would be varying peak times
with the mixed use.
O'Dea suggested that the townhome residents could have guaranteed membership
that could reduce the need for parking spaces. Grochala answered that when the
greenway was established, it would be connected with the YMCA.
Vice Chair Grundhofer asked for a comparison between the plans for the YMCA
and the Shoreview YMCA. Grochala indicated it would be larger than the one
located in Shoreview.
Vice Chair Grundhofer inquired if the roundabout would be one or two lanes.
Grochala answered it would be counter - clockwise, two -lane with
accommodations for emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. The use of pavers
would be low enough to allow extra room for the larger trucks, but still keep the
impervious down. He added that turnabouts were effective for traffic control.
Vice Chair Grundhofer asked for clarification if the medians if the medians were
pervious or impervious. Grochala responded there would be a combination of
pervious and impervious surfaces.
O'Dea inquired if there were examples. Grochala responded there were examples
of the mixed development in Burnsville, St. Louis Park, and Excelsior, but Lino
Lakes would be unique because it would integrate commercial and residential.
O'Dea inquired about maintenance costs. Grochala answered the cost to the City
would be offset by the cultural and tax base. The goal would be maintenance
friendly and be beneficial to the City in the long -term. Moving trees on site was
another option.
Vice Chair Grundhofer questioned the locations of the native plantings and
wetlands. Grochala indicated the native areas and regional park areas. The
YMCA should maintain the vegetation and trees as much as possible. Initially the
YMCA was looking for a 10 -acre site, however they now would have 7 acres of
more usable space.
Vice Chair Grundhofer inquired about the impervious with the density. Grochala
indicated that the site was approaching 65% impervious, but approximately 8
acres would remain untouched.
Donlin recommended that the white buildings be softened, and allow a more rural
design and feel. She expressed concern that there was a lot of manicure, with no
grassy hills or native plantings. Grochala admitted it was a very cultured
landscape on the site. He indicated that the seasonal gardens would need to be
6 APPROVED MINUTES
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
chosen carefully to ensure various colors throughout the seasons. Plantings would
not work well on the medians.
Asleson mentioned that black -eyed susans could look nice in a formal setting.
Donlin gave examples of other species that would add to the viewscape in texture
and color.
Grochala stated there were no broad open areas for native plantings within the
plan. The natives would be fit in where possible, but had to remain marketable.
He admitted that there would have to be some middle ground. Donlin responded
that Target and Kohl's did not use natives.
Grochala indicated that there was a different perspective in establishing natives.
There have not been many success stories, and it would take 3 -4 years to establish
them. Vice Chair Grundhofer stated that it was in the eye of the beholder too.
Grochala noted that the perimeter of the site was very appropriate for native
plantings.
O'Connell expressed concern over cobblestone use. The University of Minnesota
used cobblestone and found the elderly had difficulty using their walkers.
Donlin suggested ivy on the buildings to cover up the white color. O'Connell
added murals could be used.
Grochala stated the EAW review would be finished on December 24, 2003.
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Goals
This item was tabled to the December 17, 2003 meeting.
Vice Chair Grundhofer mentioned the National Wildlife Federation had begun a
program where entire cities could be certified as backyard wildlife habitats. In
addition, they had funds available for educational purposes.
Asleson asked for copies of the information. Vice Chair Grundhofer answered
she could get a copy to staff, however due to technical difficulties, it might be
better to check the website at www. nwf.org/backyardwildlifehabitat /community.
Asleson noted the poor fen areas in backyards were a good possibility to begin the
process in the City.
7 APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
Vice Chair Grundhofer stated that there was a form to fill out to qualify for the
designation. Asleson asked if everyone could obtain a copy of it.
The Board discussed Earth Day, and the interested parties who might sponsor the
event such as the Adopt -a- highway program, the boy scouts, the girl scouts, and
4 -H.
7. OTHER DEPARTMENT REPORTS
A. Forestry
Asleson noted the boulevard plantings were finished.
B. Solid Waste Recycling/Recycling Day
This item was tabled to the December 17, 2003 meeting.
C. Environmental/Heron Issues
Asleson stated the Heron Nest Survey had been completed and mailed. There was
an increase of 20 nests this year. Jeff Perry wrote a letter addressing the sunset
clause.
Vice Chair Grundhofer inquired about the exact number of successful nests.
Asleson responded he was unsure of the exact number. They needed to also check
on predator impacts such as raccoons, and mice. The Phosphorus level was a big
issue, along with the algae and chlorophyll levels, as they relate to fall algae
blooms. Wayne LeBlanc had a limnologist from the Metropolitan Council
working on the issue.
Donlin inquired if it would be helpful for the Environmental Board to write a
letter addressing the Sunset Clause.
The Board discussed the fate of the turkeys previously on site at City Hall.
O'Connell questioned the deadline for the next newsletter. Asleson answered it
would be just before Earth Day and the Recycling Day.
8. ADJOURN
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on
December 17, 2003.
There being no further business, O'Dea moved to adjourn at 9:02 p.m. Donlin
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
8 APPROVED MINUTES
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2003
Transcribed by:
Brigette Blesi
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
9 APPROVED MINUTES
•
STAFF ORIGINATOR:
P & Z MEETING DATE:
TOPIC:
Attachment 3
AGENDA ITEM SC
Michael Grochala
December 10, 2003
Public Hearing. Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development; Development Stage Plan Review;
Site and Building Review (Regent at Lino Lakes)
Legacy at Woods Edge
ACTION REQUIRED: Simple Majority
BACKGROUND
In 1998 the City of Lino Lakes, following award of a Metropolitan Council Livable
Communities Planning Grant, retained the services of the Calthorpe Associates to design a
Master Plan for the City's Town Center District. The purpose of the Lino Lakes "Town Center"
development is to provide for the orderly and integrated development of a high- quality Town
Center which includes a mix of shops, offices, entertainment, housing, recreation, community
facilities, and open space. The mix of uses is designed to implement the principles of the
Livable Communities Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan by creating a Town Center for the
community and providing more diverse, life -cycle housing — including affordable and rental
housing — within an active and interesting pedestrian- oriented community. The development is a
cooperative effort that will leverage public and private investment to create sustainable value,
ecologically, economically and culturally.
The City has concentrated its efforts to implement this plan on the land located adjacent to the
Civic Complex, of which, approximately 6.7 acres has been reserved for the Chain of Lakes
YMCA.
PROJECT LOCATION
The 48.84 acre property is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 35/Lake Drive
Intersection. It is bounded on the west by Lake Drive, on the north by I -35W, on the east by
Rice Creek Regional Park, and on the south by the Civic Complex and the Marshan Lane
residential area. The Civic Complex, an additional 10.01 acres, is included in the plat.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Hartford Group, Inc., based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota is requesting approvals to allow for
the development of the property consistent with the Calthorpe Master Plan and Town Center
Design Standards, including Phase 1 development of a 122 unit senior apartment building with
approximately 48,800 square feet of ground floor commercial area. In total the Legacy at Woods
Edge project is proposed to allow up to 348,000 square feet of office, retail, and service uses. In
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
addition approximately 450 multi - family residential units are proposed for the development. The
residential units provide a variety of housing options and include townhomes, work -force or
income - qualifying rental housing, senior housing and for -sale condominiums.
The Hartford Group as obtained purchase agreements with both the City owned land as well as
the northern 29 acres of the site, which is privately owned.
ANALYSIS
This review is based on the most current submittal, consisting of the following plans:
1. Boundary, Topographic and Tree Inventory Survey, prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc.,
received November 10, 2003
2. Preliminary Plat, prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc., received November 10, 2003.
3. Master Site Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received November 10, 2003.
4. Master Grading Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received November 10, 2003.
5. Master Landscaping Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received November 10, 2003.
6. Preliminary Senior Living Development Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received
November 10, 2003.
7. Preliminary Senior Living Architectural Plans, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received
November 10, 2003.
The following plans were prepared by the City's Engineering Consultant Short, Elliott,
Hendrickson, Inc., dated November 25, 2001
1. Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan
2. Site Grading and Erosion and Control Plan
3. Storm Sewer Routing Plan
4. Preliminary Storm Sewer Plan
5. Existing Drainage Plan and Storm Water Calculations
6. Preliminary Street Grading Plan
7. Street Lighting Plan
8. Preliminary Streetscaping Plan (Areas 1 through 4)
Project Data:
Total Site Area: 42.05 acres (58.82 including Civic Complex & YMCA)
Upland Area: 34.55 acres
Number of residential units: 450
Commercial sq. ft. 348,492 sq. ft.
Net Residential Density: 13.02 units per acre
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.4300, subpart 32 requires the preparation of an EAW for mixed
residential and industrial- commercial projects of this size for 3rd or 4th class cities. Subsequently
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
an EAW was prepared. The EAW was reviewed by the City's Environmental Board on
November 6, 2003, and approved by the City Council for distribution and comment on
November 10, 2003. The required 30 -day public comment period ends on December 24, 2003.
Minnesota Statute 16D.04 prohibits final decisions on a proposed project until a negative
declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is made. A copy of
the EAW is attached to this report.
Existing Land Uses
The southerly end of the site is developed with the Lino Lakes City Hall complex that includes
the City Hall offices, police station, and an early childhood learning center.
Two existing businesses are located along the west side of the site. The Lino Lakes State Bank
and Fairview Clinic have frontage along Lake Drive (CSAH 23), but receive access on Village
Drive, which is a backage road connected to Town Center Parkway.
The northern portion of the site is currently occupied by Arctic Sandblasting Company and one
single - family residence and is bound by I -35W on the north, the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes
Regional Park on the east and CSAH 23 on the west. This privately held business has been in
operation since 1975. The commercial business consists of several structures, service roads, and
includes a large semi- tractor trailer storage area. Access to the business is along a service road
that intersects with Lake Drive north of Fairview Clinic in the vicinity of the I -35W access ramp.
Both the business and existing single - family residence will be removed as part of the
development project.
Adjacent Land Uses
The southern property line for the proposed development is bordered by the Rice Creek Chain of
Lakes Regional Park and a small residential development consisting of seven single - family
dwellings. The eastern property line is bordered by the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional
Park. Land uses on the west side of Lake Drive include an Amoco service station, limited
residential development, and undeveloped property that is currently zoned for commercial
development. The northern side of the project area is separated from existing commercial and
industrial uses by I -35W.
Comprehensive Plan
The City's 2001 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Mixed Use Development. The
plan specifically states the following:
"The southeast quadrant of the I- 35W/Lake Drive interchange represents the Lino Lakes Village
area. The Village is intended to integrate a mixture of commercial, medium and high density
residential and public land uses in an attractive and cohesive design." The plan is intended to
emphasize the following objectives
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
1. A 65 -acre complex of buildings in a controlled setting.
2. An integrated mix of uses that responds to residents' needs.
3. A gathering place that creates a sense of community, civic identity and pride.
4. A place that defines the unique character of the community.
5. An economic development initiative to increase the value of the commercial tax base.
6. A distinctive, consistent architectural style that promotes high quality, aesthetically
pleasing commercial buildings.
The plan provides for a residential density of between 10 and 24 units per acre within mixed use
districts.
The proposed mix of residential and commercial, civic, and recreational uses are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Village Master Plan.
_L
gin
property is currently zoned LB, Limited Business District. The City's Zoning Ordinance
provides for mixed -use development through the use of the Planned Unit Development process.
Additionally, The eastern and southern portions of the site are located within the designated
shoreland zoning districts for George Watch Lake and Marshan Lake. The Shoreland District
extends 1,000 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of public waters.
Growth Management Ordinance
The City adopted Ordinance No. 01 -03, creating a Growth Management Policy in January of
2003. Section 2, Subdivision 16 of the Ordinance specifically exempts the "Village" area from
the provisions of the policy.
Design & Development Standards
The Design and Development Standards are proposed as the regulating zoning standards for the
Legacy at Woods Edge development. The standards establish the use, site layout, site amenity
and architectural control guidelines for the Planned Unit Development.
The Development Standards were prepared by Calthorpe Associates as part of the "Village"
Master Plan process completed in 2000. The standards are being revised in conjunction with the
Woods Edge project.
Master Site Plan
The Master Site Plan and its associated Site Development Summary provides the framework
from which development will need to conform to. The plan referred to as the "Regulating Plan"
within the development standards specifies the essential physical features for the development
including:
4
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
Streets
A minimum framework of streets is required as presented in the master plan. Town Center
Parkway, including the traffic circle, Village Drive and the roads surrounding the "Community
Green" have been established with specific design standards. The proposed street layout is
generally consistent with the Calthorpe Master Plan.
Build -to Lines
Build -to Lines define locations where buildings must be built within a certain distance of the
public right -of -way. Bringing building fronts close to the edge of streets enhances the
continuity, attractiveness and intimacy of pedestrian spaces.
The build -to line defines a location at which 1) a certain minimum percentage of the block length
must contain buildings, and 2) those buildings must be built within a maximum distance from the
right -of -way.
As represented by the building layout on the Master Plan, build -to lines extend along Town
Center Parkway, Village Drive, and around the Community Green. A minimum of 50 to 70
percent of the block must have buildings, parks, or plazas adjacent to the build -to lines. In these
areas buildings may be setback no greater than 5 feet from the right -of -way line.
The proposed development conforms to these requirements.
Required Building Entries
The plan will need to show the location where major building entries must be provided to create
important pedestrian and visual connections. These entries should be located at important
corners or intersections. An important entry provided for in the proposed plan is located mid
block on both sides of the community green. This location is the primary access point to upper
story residential units and provides an important link between the parking areas and the
community green.
Gateways
Entrances to the Woods Edge development should be marked by distinctive features that
announce your arrival at the Town Center. These should be indicated on the plan and the Town
Center Parkway entrance.
Site Development Summary
The associated development summary provides the connection between the site layout and the
intended use and size of individual buildings. Buildings 6, 7, 10, 16 and 17 represent the mixed
commercial/residential structures.
5
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
Open Space
Three types of Open Spaces are proposed within the Woods Edge development. These spaces
provide recreation and relaxation space and functions as natural edges to the development. In
addition to on -site open space the site provides unparalleled opportunities for recreation due to
its proximity to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park, located immediately to the east
and south. The project will provide pedestrian/bicycle trail links into the regional park system.
Accessible Commons
The residential district must provide a minimum acreage of Accessible Commons equal to 10
percent of the District land area. Located within the center of the townhome area the commons is
a neighborhood- oriented open space intended to provide limited recreation and gathering areas.
City Parks & Plazas
An approximately one acre community green is provided for in the heart of the development.
This space provides for a public gathering area adjacent to the retail, office, higher intensity uses
within the Mixed Use District.
Natural Resource Area
Natural Resource Areas protect valuable natural features while allowing pedestrian access along
trails. The majority of the Open Space within the Woods Edge project falls within this category.
As part of the site development approximately 9 acres of the site, comprising approximately 6.5
acres of wetland, will be preserved in its natural state. The wetland area, located along the
northeastern boundary of the site is part of an 87 acre wetland complex that separates the site
from George Watch Lake. Additionally, changes in site design have allowed for the opportunity
to preserve approximately 1.6 acres of woodlands in the southeastern portion of the project in
conjunction with the future YMCA development.
Master Landscaping
The master landscaping plan as submitted will require further definition as we continue through
the review process. The plan calls for a mixture of shade and ornamental trees, shrubs and
perennial plantings throughout the development. The plan does provide for landscaped
"connected walkways" that link the parking areas with building entrances most notably between
buildings 16 and 17 leading to the future YMCA.
In accordance with the design standards, all parking lot islands are required to include trees and
additional plantings. Shade trees will be required at a rate of 1 per 10 parking stalls. Trees
should be included along the northern periphery of the site along I -35W.
Appropriate locations should be identified for native plantings such as along the existing wetland
in the northeastern portion of the site.
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
A revised landscaping plan will need to be provided that identifies specific tree types and their
locations as well as proposed ground covers.
Streetscaping Plan
SEH has prepared a preliminary streetscaping plan in accordance with the Calthorpe Design
Standards. Streetscaping is one of the most essential elements to provide a welcoming
pedestrian friendly environment. The proposed elements include landscaped medians, boulevard
trees, decorative lighting and decorative pavers throughout the development.
Also included in the plan is the preliminary design for the community green that will combine
both seasonal gardens, a central green space and plaza area. Street furniture and other amenities
will be incorporated as the project develops.
Traffic/Circulation
Access to the proposed development is provided via the Lake Drive/Town Center Parkway
intersection. As shown on the Master Site Plan, Town Center Parkway will need to be widened
to a four lane section and then taper to a two lane section north of the Civic Complex. A traffic
circle is proposed within in the center of the development to promote the efficient flow of traffic
at this main intersection. One -way streets are proposed circling the village green.
The City's engineering consultant SEH is completing a traffic analysis for the site to evaluate
traffic impacts both internally and externally of the site. As part of the study AM and PM Peak
Hour trip generation rates were developed for the proposed development as well as the existing
facilities (City Hall complex, Fairview Clinic, and Lino Lakes State Bank). Trips to /from each
building have been assigned to the street system within the development. This provided a
tabulation of traffic volumes at various locations within the development, as well as at the
intersection of Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive (CSAH 23). According to this analysis, the
Peak Hour traffic volume is 1,155 trips, which occurs from 4:30 -5:30 p.m.
Based on the traffic analysis, a concept transportation improvement plan was developed for the
Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive intersection. On Town Center Parkway, the plan includes
three outbound lanes to separate left turn, through, and right turning traffic and also includes two
inbound lanes. Signalization of this intersection would also be necessary to maintain acceptable
levels of service.
According to the 2020 Traffic Volume Forecast in the Lino Lakes Transportation Plan, traffic
volumes on Lake Drive are anticipated to increase to over 17,000 trips per day. Regardless of the
proposed development, improvements to Lake Drive are expected in the future. However, to
accommodate the full development of the Legacy at Woods Edge Development, several
additional improvements to Lake Drive will need to be made in the short term. The concept
transportation plan has proposed the construction of two southbound left turn lanes between the
intersection of Town Center Parkway and the I -35W bridge. Furthermore, traffic signals at Town
Center Parkway and both ramps to I -35W are anticipated. To signalize the south ramp
intersection, the existing off ramp and on ramp intersections, which are now separated, need to
•
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
be aligned to a single intersection, which would require the reconstruction of approximately 400 -
feet of the on ramp.
City staff and SEH representative are currently in the process of reviewing the study and the
associated simulation program with Mn/DOT and Anoka County officials.
Parking.
The development standards establish parking requirements through the use of shared parking
standards. By recognizing that peak parking demand occurs at different times for different land
uses, shared parking facilities help minimize the amount of land and expense devoted to parking
lots. Additionally, on -street parking has be included in the development plan were possible.
A parking analysis was completed to determine if the site plan has provided adequate parking
space for the proposed level of development. The analysis segmented the site into four zones to
compare the availability of parking spaces for commercial and office uses to the potential
demand within each zone. Based on the analysis, Block 1 was short approximately 12 spaces.
However, staff is evaluating the availability of the Civic Complex parking lot due to its close
proximity to this area. Otherwise the site has adequately addressed the parking demands within
each zone for commercial/office uses. Residential parking is proposed to be provided entirely
underground throughout the mixed use areas of the development. However there appears to be a
10 stall short fall in Block 3.
Staff is continuing to work with the Hartford Group to remedy these situations. Additionally, the
parking analysis will have to be revisited in conjunction with future development on the site to
insure the needs of different land uses are satisfied.
Architectural Standards
Another key component of the project is the establishment of design standards. Architectural
Standards for the proposed development fall into four Categories:
1. Facade Transparency. Facade Transparency guidelines help strengthen the relationship
between buildings and the street and increase public safety by placing "eyes" and activity
on the street.
2. Materials and Methods of Construction. Buildings shall support regional traditions and
maintain a level of craft in the process of construction. Wood, masonry, and stone are
appropriate building materials.
3. Building Scale and Definition. These guidelines are intended to create buildings with a
human scale, making the development more pedestrian- friendly and a pleasant place to
walk.
Energy Conservation and Climatic Response. The effects of the Minnesota climate can
be mitigated through intelligent building design configuration and landscape treatments.
The requirements contained within these categories will be incorporated into the building design
throughout the development.
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
Master Grading and Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
The City's engineering consultant SEH, Inc., has prepared a preliminary Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control Plan. Runoff from the site currently drains to the south and east and ultimately
discharges to Marshan Lake and George Watch Lake.
The development proposes to construct a drainage system within all the street improvements and
parking areas to convey runoff to proposed ponding areas and infiltration cells (green space or
underground storage chambers). Subsurface chamber technology takes advantage of the soil's
inherent filtration and renovation capabilities to store and treat storm water runoff while
providing the flexibility to plan for additional buildings and green space. To maximize pollutant
removal efficiencies, the water quality control structures will be designed and constructed
according to NURP, the City of Lino Lakes, and Rice Creek Watershed District standards.
Storm water rate control and treatment will occur prior to any storm water being discharged to
receiving water bodies. Therefore, water quality in the receiving waterbodies will not be
adversely impacted. Treated storm water will either be naturally infiltrated into the groundwater
or will be discharged to existing wetland basins located on and/or adjacent to the site. Water
from these wetlands eventually will enter George Watch Lake, Marshan Lake, and the remainder
or the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes system.
Master Utility Plan
The development is proposed to be serviced with public sanitary sewer and water utilities. The
sanitary sewer service will be provided by the existing trunk sanitary sewer main that runs within
both Town Center Parkway and Village Drive. The sanitary sewer laterals will be extended
through the site
Water service will be provided by the existing trunk water main that runs within both Town
Center Parkway and Village Drive. The water laterals will be extended through the site. It is
anticipated that the trunk line will be extended northerly across I -35W to provide a planned
improvement to the City's water system.
Master Lighting Plan
SEH has prepared a preliminary lighting plan for the public streets consistent with the Calthorpe
Design Standards. Decorative lighting will be used throughout the development. Private
lighting for internal parking areas will be reviewed in conjunction with proposed development.
In accordance with the design standards lighting shall not exceed .4 foot candles at the property
line and must contain a 90 degree cutoff angle. A lighting plan prepared by a qualified lighting
consultant shall be submitted for review and approval by the City.
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
Development, Ownership and Management
The Hartford Group will be the Legacy at Woods Edge master developer, and will contract with
sub - developers to develop phases of the project. Sub - developers may be affiliated Hartford
entities. The rental housing is proposed to be developed and owned by affiliates of the Hartford
Group. The townhome and commercial locations are proposed to be developed distinctly by
Hartford affiliates or separate sub- developers. The sub - developers for Legacy at Woods Edge
have not been finalized at this time.
Residences are proposed to be market -rate, with up to a twenty percent affordable component
included. The Hartford Group's market studies will determine initial pricing, with flexibility to
adjust to market changes. The Hartford may retain ownership, development, and management,
or contract for development and management, or sell parcels.
Market Analysis
The proposed project represents the maximum intensity of development, due to physical and
transportation constraints, that can be accommodated on the site. At this time the unknown is
whether the market will support this level of development. The Hartford Group has
commissioned a study which should be completed in the short term.
However it should be noted that the majority of commercial square footage is contained within
multiple story buildings. A reduction in the amount of commercial square footage, based on
market availability would not necessarily change the overall layout of the site.
Shoreland Requirements
The Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park boundary separates the project area from the
OHWL of George Watch Lake and Marshan Lake by approximately 800 -feet and 250 -feet,
respectively. Given the distance separation and forested nature of the regional park property, no
visual impact to the public water bodies is anticipated. Additionally, there will be no disturbance
of Shore Impact Zones.
Both George Watch Lake and Marshan Lake are classified as Natural Environment Lakes.
Impervious surface coverage of lots within the Shoreland District of a Natural Environment Lake
cannot exceed 60% for commercial/industrial development and 35% for multi - family residential.
The proposed impervious surface coverage within the Marshan Lake Shoreland District is
classified as commercial development and has been calculated to be approximately 43% of the
total area within the Shoreland District boundary. No impervious surfaces are proposed within
the designated Shoreland District of George Watch Lake.
The height of structures within the Shoreland Districts shall be limited to thirty -six feet.
10
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat, as submitted, proposes 13 lots, including the Civic Complex and future
YMCA parcels, and 3 outlots. There are no specific lot size standards provided for within the
Design Standards. The lot sizes proposed conform to the building arrangements set forth in the
Master Site Plan.
Street Right -of -Way
Adequate street right -of -way is provided for in the plat consistent with the Master Site Plan.
However, the final geometrics of the northbound I -35W ramp relocation will need to be
completed to determine if any additional right -of -way is required. Outlots D and E of The
Village No. 1 plat, located adjacent to Lake Drive should be incorporated into the plat and
dedicated as public right -of -way.
Access Control
Access control, dedicated to Anoka County, should be shown on the plat for those portions
adjacent to Lake Drive. Access Control, dedicated to the Mn/DOT should be shown on the plat
for those portions adjacent to I -35W.
Drainage and Utility Easements
Drainage and utility easements will be required. Typically, drainage and utility easements at
least 10 feet wide are required along exterior lot lines and centered on interior lot lines.
However, due to the nature of the development, in consideration of build to lines, these types of
easements are not practical.
Easements will be required around the 100 year flood elevation for all wetlands and stormwater
drainage basins. Additionally easements will be required centered on all stormwater and utility
lines not located within public right -of -way. The width of such easements will need to be
determined by the City's Consulting Engineer in conjunction with plan approval.
Ingress and Egress easements, by separate instrument, will also be required to provide for shared
parking throughout the development.
Park Dedication
The proposed Outlot A should be shown as Park and dedicated to the City.
Existing Easements of Record
The preliminary plat references two roadway easements per Anoka County half section maps
that run east -west across the northerly portion of the site. Title work should be prepared to verify
the status of these easements. If they are existing easements of record they will need to be
vacated or otherwise terminated.
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
Individual Site Development
Upon approval of the Rezoning and Development Stage Plans individual site development will
be reviewed in accordance with the adopted standards.
The Hartford Group has submitted as part of their application a request for site and building
approval for Phase I of the development. The Regent at Lino Lakes is a senior community
housed on the second through forth floors above first floor retail of buildings 6 and 7. The
project consist of 122 unit senior residential units with approximately 48,800 square feet of
ground floor commercial area. The community offers rental apartment homes with services
ranging from independent living to assisted living.
Through the resolution of issues raised previously the primary review issue with the Regent
project would relate to conformance to the architectural and regulating plan standards. City staff
has reviewed the proposed building and offers the following comments:
Building Design
Preliminary building floor plans and exterior elevations for the proposed "Regent at Lino Lakes
Senior Living Development" have been reviewed using Chapter 3, Mixed -Use, Highway and
Civic District Standards from the Lino Lakes Town Center Design & Development Guide
prepared by Calthorpe Associates and revised by City Staff, dated October 9, 2000.
The proposed design meets the majority of the design standards: accessible street facing building
entries, location of residential uses over commercial ground floor uses, building setbacks and
build -to- lines, facade transparency, scale and definition and rooftop equipment. It is unclear
from the preliminary plans if the proposed windows comply with the.standard regarding Reveals,
this standard states that "windows be recessed a minimum of two inches from walls or exterior
trim to create shadow for visual interest."
It appears that the building design as proposed exceeds maximum 45 foot height standard as
described on page 23 of the standards. Measurements of the plans indicate that slightly less than
50% of the building's length meets the 45 foot maximum height. The standards include
provisions for minor projections such as clock towers, cupolas and ornamental projections of
parapet walls to extend an additional ten feet above the maximum height, provided they make up
no more than one third of the length of the building's facade.
Also of concern is the manner in which the building design attempts to comply with the
standards for Building Scale and Definition and Materials and Methods of Construction. The
building's approximate 456 foot length and four level height along the park creates a very
significant structure in the Town Center as well as the overall community. In attempting to
mitigate this mass and scale the proposed design presents an overly generous variety of stylistic
treatments, details and roof heights. The overall effect is unsuccessful in achieving a structurally
legible, pedestrian friendly design. Such things as decorative window shutters placed along
windows at building's fourth level, are out of scale and character with a building of this size and
12
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
nature (vertically integrated, mixed -use.) The applications of brick and stucco/hardi -board are
also too varied and do not tie the building together as coherent whole.
It is recommended that the building design be further refined and perhaps simplified. It is also
recommended that the two major wings of the building be detailed more independently so as to
more effectively mitigate the appearance from the parking area and the park of a single, long
facade. The buildings inherent design provides an opportunity to develop two distinctive yet
coordinated facades.
City Advisory Board Reviews
Environmental Board The Environmental Board reviewed the EAW on November 6, 2003 and
reviewed the development plans on December 3, 2003. Preliminary comments from the board
will be forthcoming.
Park Board. The Park Board has not reviewed the project at this time.
City Department Reviews
CEPTED. A preliminary CEPTED review was completed and is attached for your review.
Public Services Community Development staff is working with the public services
department on issues related to maintenance, snow plowing etc. Some minor design changes can
be expected to address their concerns. Staff is anticipating addressing maintenance impacts as
part of the overall approval process.
Centennial Fire Department Community Development staff is working with the Centennial Fire
Department to address Emergency Vehicle Access and routing. Some street design changes can
be expected to address their concerns.
Agency Reviews
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). A RCWD Land Development permit is required for
the proposed project. The project is scheduled to be reviewed by the RCWD Board on
December 17, 2003.
Anoka County Plans have been forwarded to Anoka County for review. Conditions of approval
will include the requirements set forth by Anoka County.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Plans have been forwarded to Mn/DOT
for review. Conditions of approval will include the requirements set forth by Mn/DOT.
13
Planning & Zoning Board
Legacy at Woods Edge
December 12, 2003
RECOMMENDATION
Generally, the proposed development, is consistent with the original Calthorpe Master Plan and
Design Standards. The Hartford Group has been very receptive to design modifications to insure
a high quality development. There are some further changes and clarifications that need to be
incorporated into the final plan as suggested in this report. Staff, consultants and Hartford are
continuing to work on the many facets of this development. Additionally, design items such as
the streetscaping element will go through further modification and review as part of the Public
Improvement Design process.
Due to the complexity of the project and the amount of information presented to the Board it is
our recommendation to continue the public hearing until January. In addition to receiving
preliminary comments from the Board and the general public, staff would also request
consideration of a special Planning and Zoning Board meeting in January.
ATTACHMENTS
1. General Location Map
2. CEPTED Report dated November 16, 2003
3. Boundary, Topographic and Tree Inventory Survey, prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc.,
received November 10, 2003
4. Preliminary Plat, prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc., received November 10, 2003.
5. Master Site Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received November 10, 2003.
6. Site Development Summary
7. Master Landscaping Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received November 10,
2003.
8. Preliminary Senior Living Development Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received
November 10, 2003.
9. Preliminary Senior Living Architectural Plans, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc.,
received November 10, 2003.
10. Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc.
11. Site Grading and Erosion and Control Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc.
12. Preliminary Storm Sewer Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc.
13. Preliminary Street Grading Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc.
14. Preliminary Streetscaping Plan (Areas 1 through 4), prepared by SEH, Inc
15. Environmental Assessment Worksheet
14
7
LAKES
CENTER
4 TN - STREET
Department of Public Safety
POLICE
David J. Pecchia
Public Safety Director / Chief of Police
Officer Mike Rumpsa
Lino Lakes Police Department
CPTED Review
11 -16 -03
Marshall Townhomes:
• I have reviewed the plans, and have one recommendation. House numbering
needs to be clear and un cluttered
• A sign indicating what units are in each individual building should be located at
each of the buildings.
• House numbers on row mail boxes does not work for emergency response
personnel.
• ERP are driving code to emergency situations and in many cases in the dark. By
installing a sign at the entrances of each building, ERP will find the address
quickly without wasting time.
The Village:
• The underground parking roadway that connects Town Center Parkway with Unit
#17 has to be built so that motorists will not be tempted to take a left from the
underground parking onto Town Center Parkway. The driveway should only be a
right turn in only.
• Addressing the plat needs to be done in a way that keeps it simple. Each building
entrance should have a sign indicating what addresses are in each complex.
• On street parking will have to done in a way that will not obstruct driveways and
intersections.
• Signage and road paint should be utilized.
• Secured buildings could become a problem to law enforcement. Responding to
critical call could be delayed if the police are not able to enter a locked door.
Each secured building should have some sort of key or code that Police and fire
can use to gain access to the building.
• Surveillance cameras should be utilized in the underground parking area.
• Access points to the garage should be keyed and/or proxy cards.
• The traffic flow in unit #10 appears that it will follow close to the building and
around a median. If the median was shortened, traffic would not have to back
around within the parking lot.
• Snow removal will be an issue in this development.
• Snow will have to be removed and stored in areas that would not impede traffic
and pedestrians.
Snow will also have to be removed to prevent retail areas becoming targets of
criminal activity due to lack of surveillance.
640 Town Center Parkway • Lino Lakes, Minnesota • 55014 -1182
Public Administration/Records: 651- 982 -2300 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2399
ec. AIRY 4 TOF'OGRAPH IC 4 TREPNVENTORY SURVEY
---PoR4.-WARTOC:21RD._GROUF?,INC --- z........./.......,...........
12100 SINGLETREE I..ANE, SUITE 114
ECEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-1933 HTRON (....V"Z7 , r- 7
' / 1
,
,,7 f,,/
/
,, / !
,
, ,,
,/ /
-:-, /
,
, ,
,
maNT MAP
•
GRAPHIC SCALE
rot 1
1 • 0 a.
T
PAIOTO 2
a1 ono •uo TOW.. al Nom 114 dame Saab. 17. T..* T.
00* IMO 610.4 0M)
- 2 Nal Omian, Mar.
- ILE KA Nagai Pa.
- 14.001 C00.1 0 Ws .1E0 A0 • Sap fto... MOO a. Auoung of 2009
warlsjo MO. ell•
I. our, nao 0-0.1 nimont Po 4.0 *I 10. aork. 0,00.00,,
and sna.... may .0n it ontlas lo Nen A. 01:1144
r01.• upon re.. o /..o. 00.16101 or nhorno0
- ftadr. Nal Waft and obno tad. 1111F.11.011 &IWO .10. 1.1100.1
- Woe ohots Nom fto ea0 beat orna.
anwl 2,02 *Is ft ...V ...b.
• C.d.
• 11.*4 k. Wauntoal bit -
g B. Marino
• 0.011111 thuoIy 11300•0
0.11
-o- 0.00 0.
0000 May 29.
VP•0
• • 04000 Geo Uelor
14 1/0010 WRVS.
JO 0000 C00 00
0.0111 Iftanano Nos
• I/000 Senhary 1o...4.
a slanalas Cu. 006
it • 1100. 4044o 10.11aftals
114 0000 Solo 14Por
11000 Fro Mon.
Onnour Obbant Cantor
- 0..010 0.
- 00010 Ibloamia
—.--- amain Soalort 4.0
- 1/0.1. Starm Saw
D•outoo E0101p fawn
0003 *autos Colstiat 11*0104
JYYYYY... &mks Woo Ira
pal, 0000 *ow/
pnoulso Cow.
0..10
110040. P.11 Puld
n 000. Whoa
,
/ 4.0°11.
14* 3-0* •
40.04410.. 0.004
0000 tete 01.40• tamoo
4049.010.. Typo
444441 3.44*111 al edam nos load. 0a1 11104
ardfora. ona
,
/ / / /
1 '
,
/i/
0 /
I 1 l'
I Al., /
/
9, 7- ,,
/
, , ,
1 ,
, / ,,
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
/ /
, /
/
„/ / ' _..........„,—!..— ....7..—*---17;,. —2
/ 1 / / or ,........".■
.... •• /
/
/ / L ---—
/ / • `,..
1
/ /
/
/ /--,-
44
/
waft
// .
/
/ 1, / ,) •
/
I 4.4
/ 4 44.
1045pe.wte_ii101•0317ntwley-ta..24.v 114/2042 041040 Ms 131
•
I44..2 iftt or.% P.
sr mak aft iteno.d by an. sr vadat
alp dtrond auponteas *4 ihot
• 00 MOW. 1.a. Sur.. under
11$ 100 Of Um sow or ammUL
Dar 11-44•10.3 tpv. pp. 41074
tili KG. KV 4 WM, Okla.
LAW 0001111200
1400 LIDS4TaN Avs MI
011001.11 PINE% MN 00014
/0-n0r.... oft nosMoo.Orl
SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS
KIS.
2
.1
/ .
'...04 -p_
r''''Filerm,
...'4.:
,
•■•':'
. .,,,,:::.-!.,,rki
,. .
,04‘.
, • ..- ""r.
-, ..f.? •:•:-.4
• : ' ' ••0.
C20-
.
..,-.—
.... .
• ,7...
• t,
•i4:1 ' 40'''''../.•
,
. ts.
• I ...'
NW
I.-t-
•
GRAPHIC SCALE
rot 1
1 • 0 a.
T
PAIOTO 2
a1 ono •uo TOW.. al Nom 114 dame Saab. 17. T..* T.
00* IMO 610.4 0M)
- 2 Nal Omian, Mar.
- ILE KA Nagai Pa.
- 14.001 C00.1 0 Ws .1E0 A0 • Sap fto... MOO a. Auoung of 2009
warlsjo MO. ell•
I. our, nao 0-0.1 nimont Po 4.0 *I 10. aork. 0,00.00,,
and sna.... may .0n it ontlas lo Nen A. 01:1144
r01.• upon re.. o /..o. 00.16101 or nhorno0
- ftadr. Nal Waft and obno tad. 1111F.11.011 &IWO .10. 1.1100.1
- Woe ohots Nom fto ea0 beat orna.
anwl 2,02 *Is ft ...V ...b.
• C.d.
• 11.*4 k. Wauntoal bit -
g B. Marino
• 0.011111 thuoIy 11300•0
0.11
-o- 0.00 0.
0000 May 29.
VP•0
• • 04000 Geo Uelor
14 1/0010 WRVS.
JO 0000 C00 00
0.0111 Iftanano Nos
• I/000 Senhary 1o...4.
a slanalas Cu. 006
it • 1100. 4044o 10.11aftals
114 0000 Solo 14Por
11000 Fro Mon.
Onnour Obbant Cantor
- 0..010 0.
- 00010 Ibloamia
—.--- amain Soalort 4.0
- 1/0.1. Starm Saw
D•outoo E0101p fawn
0003 *autos Colstiat 11*0104
JYYYYY... &mks Woo Ira
pal, 0000 *ow/
pnoulso Cow.
0..10
110040. P.11 Puld
n 000. Whoa
,
/ 4.0°11.
14* 3-0* •
40.04410.. 0.004
0000 tete 01.40• tamoo
4049.010.. Typo
444441 3.44*111 al edam nos load. 0a1 11104
ardfora. ona
,
/ / / /
1 '
,
/i/
0 /
I 1 l'
I Al., /
/
9, 7- ,,
/
, , ,
1 ,
, / ,,
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
/ /
, /
/
„/ / ' _..........„,—!..— ....7..—*---17;,. —2
/ 1 / / or ,........".■
.... •• /
/
/ / L ---—
/ / • `,..
1
/ /
/
/ /--,-
44
/
waft
// .
/
/ 1, / ,) •
/
I 4.4
/ 4 44.
1045pe.wte_ii101•0317ntwley-ta..24.v 114/2042 041040 Ms 131
•
I44..2 iftt or.% P.
sr mak aft iteno.d by an. sr vadat
alp dtrond auponteas *4 ihot
• 00 MOW. 1.a. Sur.. under
11$ 100 Of Um sow or ammUL
Dar 11-44•10.3 tpv. pp. 41074
tili KG. KV 4 WM, Okla.
LAW 0001111200
1400 LIDS4TaN Avs MI
011001.11 PINE% MN 00014
/0-n0r.... oft nosMoo.Orl
SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS
BOU AIRY 4 POaRAP4 I c 4 TREE
FOR: HARTFORD CROUP, INC.
12100 SINGLETREE LANE, WIT 114
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 -19
NORTH
.0 Y00N:I /I N 4 M. 11.72
INVENTORY SURVEY
4IF
ify
, t,.
*te ,pp3
N1.'°
a
WET LAND
0
4
\ WET LAND sa��
�e
\`
tte
O1 N •01 ken .0101.2.4.0 1/4 ..W N S.Y. In ...a $ 1..0• 42
74.00. - *1224001. Imo)
ICCEM
.4Y loMd
- 40,0. 0*0 "4*
-4 4 000151242400[401.0 CA [W& S*. 2000. Wd and N.. 01 [001
W121.1.n re 2 en**5Y
- 401. 004.0 N. 50-01 .0500 01 0050 N N. ..t [«00.02 NP06.0N.. J
r0N1.wiw�1 M • Is ilMA100.0 Ise. Now Ine 4012 .11.0. 006 01400104'01 .w}C1 5
- 0110(05. 10010. .n0 el- 0.44*. 000.1004 NYM .4kI 0004.[6.1 W1•.
- 11.64500 .4. ..1..115101 W ..01 000,12
- SN .01 N 2 +04.5 h. 1**IY100
I.ECe1D
• 0...1.. Ir. 11.0.1 re.
3 0.61.2 b* 44251.141
Nokia Sol Nap
006000 [•.b u...sn1
local *0*
0051* 4740
v. 0.15004.4P.
O "vM Sbrl 11061
O 0.51* 50 Wlr
• 001.5 ONO, Or
O 0.54. "w. 04. •
O 24.100
• 0.e.1M 5740010 51.10500*
O * 000.4
▪ 0..4..050. S*- I.e.
D4 0.514. aft *ft
• 00224. O.. ti1N..1
O.N4 0014. 4.4l
-.- 0..14. arm w
- Nh
-O.M.. warm.
002401 4*.Y 4v
-..- 6010 SIN* S5.
-.- 0024* 04.00 0 •
0101400..5.11001110 01.01*..
fVYYVYl O.N.. 94.124
rim
Tate DeTAL
QOM. ert.- O.ws b* OVW1
00501• T.* Niel** In WI.
O*6w TM 11.
145 0000. el *w... 0... 1.240 •N wog
eon.. Um locale
0.4.. *0*
0•1.4.4 0.0601.
WY1tl 0144.000o01
`�5 0015. 20071 101.1
j 004.24 0.1
�4- -L - - -J
enBRI [haver.. D TID.s
ra r• e. 1041001.10 01. b 0, 0.100 • W 01100. 0.0
NW *INN NM so Nrr....4. N N*40 me. ---.
M.1. "01010 el se mew
424.4 0.0.ca11.4t0w .5ww+41arn-rY.l N.. 0 ▪ • AMNe..NXYwM.w.S.IN1 NtwY �Mr L r, aN161P
.....w.4MY4MM... l.a Cr, 1.4.4.01 h. 1.D •01401
415.01 Mr Yb0w.**I t• A'. I•• 1.
tNA'lo 4. Tex. N ON4.100w.0M WN ode &015. 17
INN �r4� 0ri�NW of N1)r. MS ••0001.01 YMI
2.=1 IWm .N.Na WP .
t.` Vs..'" is www=ro:+=3 °r nt
� y r
•w• 700/02.45*w.M vbri.wrYrr 4004 •i 0+001 of
Sr.r▪ wr�r'r 01"..00.1.1 km 1.5 MN 0 . wwN. N. u M•~m
mi.. 21 ....0 47010 low Own 44.1.4.
Us A' ■0.0.41 r59N • NN. w*..MNW St. 10
4.011 .25.10l0 Pm n.• .1 N-rYr. N 26 Su. 172 h0.
MOO 00 wrl .11. w µ LpY. 17 1
11.0 am. No* Mt M. w.. • own r u h1.
10Mr�....b•.noo, NN.Yw NM b.. N w W...
16000..0 "x.Nrl
4Nw,�r��tio 44 Ni.M
4 24'ei.1
1w.w.wl..rrw..,. w ▪ N W www�uw0.2 •atlyy:..1.. �'
0700 11.1 MIN ewer rlN.O~.nNW540.[4 H alw1�100tl W..ftiltrWwW
MON M N1. Mr /NM et Mot NY•0046 NNW. 6.r. et mobsest .Mrr.� .1 on. sew
ir1rM N W N W T• 2/...
�▪ .y WY 0l1.r N 05.004.1270 OM 0000
mY 1. Ywrr0 lb IY7M r••40∎00400174 loot M 00 Minot
01 .5541166201 MC 10.04.0 7P /*.20 Yt
Mo W RN MC M[rry r4iill N Ohms 001. 4�.1�.ryU00 UN.
11N41rrWoo•>r'wM M FI'r Y* W. WI yN M F. Wm NW 71 sb.• ~..� rr . Ni[rbre .w ww°.w . .100.44
soreh
wm..�NNa�lnymw0rlyoYrwl�nbl r 4404» /400.2
W m IbN11. Mp0r�rlMt II.Mhi.ONgwhvir.
wows 1
A��..I..4..*yy.�4.t1....1K1.YtlN.11A01 la t M+ "NL *..*1..
MNY.IN.W. r.0O.01 10000111 =le A 2400
[0.012
Mme= .2 le..04 0*t, • ••110•101M K *u* 40 I. Mw Yrlt oommi mom
e.r70wl ✓4Y •00110 M0hash•hrl.N We." blow
4 *120 24 INN S. N.. 040.IN 0w.YM• 40.. 0011
OrW Ow. •.05-.1•4. w. ImINg• WNNi4.1w
• 0007.1:0 ➢. deo.*. 1 401517 NNW. yey5.yr N .[y.�.4l wh
01911NA..N../wM.n..Pr *4400. FlOin41PY.IMigat
[•lml
N. N0* w r w 4 NM 4•11.4506
MO 61' 1.11• 110.01011.2 N seam v. Snowy s. M.. 22
A.w. 440.1 lb*r6.. Syr
4A ` 40164.14.04/ = M 0tl*w6005.. 5+'14.NNW
•
S0:041.00.•
1.• - .4.0*0Nw *1/4•10.
..439,0•031.r....1-...y -.Do-2.g 44,6120* 20349 YN 227
1 1107007 NNW Nal Mb MN. pan
sr by 44. of whir
• Oily 2.01.1100 NNW, UMW
M 40 N W 54.1. of 1100010.
0.l.
001. / / -C -iNI w... w. 4*n
1114. MUD • SOW NO-
4[0043TON AN. W
CIA= Ma W
.
C es
SHEET 2 of 2 SHEETS
PRE*IINAR%r F.1.44sr e);: THE vi .*4O 2
111=1•0
FOR: THE HARTFORD GROUP, THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, AND THE YMCA
I
/
/
/
GRAPHIC SCALE
• •
si nal I
1 WY 108 N.
1 / „ .
- .3. .4 - -• ss tI
, .- 4
„ , .-. , , .... i
4
s -'
, , - - - - • l'• , s
.- 4
,
al
../ '
..... ....... .. .... , e •
,'
,
1 1 :1 1...... :' ..... . 1,
.......
, / / • 3
S e
44
,..
-
- ----
, y, • 11
, s s
,
/ 1 ,. 1 '11 ' , N • 4
t
/
/ 1 ..,,'
/ i 4 „.., Vann
/' 4'4/
4, 4 1 I' 461. .
1 i / i .//' 43
. e'r'O•libb
i / e
/ , A
4 / V /4" 4KS4
i;
/ / z
, ,... P , 4 ; /'
i' q
/ '. / 4 / .t.
4t
g
30.
444
41:•""
ran -11---J
4 ,,, r
/ 6.4
/
/ •
ii 41
i ••••
' •/1 g / 4'••,...... OP'-
, 1
/1 .4.. ; ,/?
41 . -..----.
• A4;4' / / 44'• " ). , ''-
1 • Z . / 1
4'4*
/ /
'', i' Q,t ' 4
/ 3., , 0:
4 .3. , / •- 5. / 4.)
4/ 1 /5... /1 / , '
•
1 " •"
/ 4 1 kV.. ..
/
/
/ , 1:'.1 A. t ....A.■
/ 1 ,,..., / / *5.. L:
, / •
/ "7 ji.:// . ••••:.-' /71-.EW
/ / :..) / "/./ (5.-,/ ...../ •
r , 4.),/ ..•
, I / ...4
I 4. / •„ . . 1.
, 42 4
/ .. '
..',.
I ....
I ' 11../Vs .." ■,:
.., .,,_,' .....
N2Alarlif-S--
I 4 0,4p
/
4 /
/ 4..
/.--43. ..
/
3,
i r
/
/ r,...
/ r ....33
4 r --........
/ /
OUTLOT B
Or .944
tr,r4ve,:vr
Els
..... ••-f."-"t"*".1-. - ----//44.tt=41,- - 'N.': %
•• --
7 • • ..v, • ;so.
>4,5; 44'. • ....7 '-4
j4 , p 1
il
." .....,... * /... * .... 4
1.0 . . . .. ' tu NOWA=
0 . id
\ * • • I
- i
4 lr( • • .,1 . r
••••,...................... .Z.
a )1
VIC•ITY
,
UNO
.
i„
,
...
t:. ....,
• -
- ..,, 7
• i
'1Z .i.
•, ...
,.. ' •
.
.4.
t
-4.,r.
,
.',.-.
'
..3 .
-41
'
014142ca SKETCA4
IMAM INCH* SOO Mr
.1.0.,....000.0•40•0.rootaoo 110,00 43*0 01
1100 Or ot1 0•0 00 1010 1*00114
41119133 682.1A
arllt • 0• • 0
( • "•••■...„
■
/'
DEVELOPAABIT DATA.
- Tsto/ prop*/ ova NUM area
9.491.3.4 4.3333911.04 ming I • PAW (4333334 433 044.444,33 9.*3•100 3.1414 4.
1. 031o1001 *Own owl 110 dr 1.0. 1,03.4 3333 4333.
1.644 Way man. ke 104040441 lets sol Weds I • 0 • &moiled
444.
33*31 49443334 c3*44141 Ma
12QTJ:1%
44.441 S... ...I 444.1 44.%
434.41.4 10 oar Anon. mg /0 Sr Ptotloo For 401•8•4 014
Vrtlar4 Crow
31I40 11/03/0.3.
3*000 0.41*3*9.4.3333 0010 city 00 00004 (330.4.71*
&Milo b in•144 lo .41441* ph. gni Onetime .1 IWO wieorl.
• Oro. Not Valoonorl
o 0001.• 10/00.0
Ote Ploolo• Oraor Mrotoot
win In 44 pa ann IWO v*.114.1
vox so Am WC MfAM70-ofoffifix
INSIOOPOsol
-1_
41i21.412-111.
111111,110•111=-.1_010101 diTst•1010
IMP 10•1111ITtftl MIL U.:1,MM
•100.11W1.14/11101•07tAZIIIII
IOW= Nia.•nommtil'i..4i,
IMW.M1E1/1.11•100.71-01MMIll
1•1051110 MIFM111111111,1-Z.Z1=1
1•110/11101111111. t...1"of.0111111I
101110111101111CM/1101•-tiir2-1:701
Mr= IIIIMENBINIIIIIV,,t01111111
101li MIN MI .1.7,11111111..14,13,0=
IINVILINI ,,,141111M1
__mamtalletaetarcasicennakat--.-
„Norr....mozzaiderol„ftera.=
S.a7-1 4441-4r3 gal lool ter t0011
11.11 0 0.10.0 orohn thurt rot .400. v war re0101.. OM.
• hV...7.300.1•01.....10 on.st op .4 .• sr 0.4•0
0001-.11
SM 04 0•••••I 4 I Mt MOM Os •000 w. 0101“ 0Ana. .10
4/4. tn. 446..do, bliso offkob of N.., 4.44 two
••• a. el • No do•d••■ ow•=if dr onto gra 11.0••■•
Oto I be0=1Zo • r 4•Trad:W • raw ./ Ma= r oat 0
*Oa ott be Or 0 •0•■••• *ma. IN rpm 10 or. 30 oat.
OR Mr hot 440 sad L. S../ Iry 41000r.
100 0 • 00000 0001•000 • 00 ea 10 mom 000 a 010 Ortro
00•11 0060 hot 001 M. =do oortto 000 0 oar AoSto
raterh. trAl =arta= ri....t.nr.o/.....8.14 OP
1010 rroorr 0./.100 Fr wort ort, ofoomosO f. MOW of foal It
So feff .1 Yr Mo. Cork/000/0. 0000 ••• 000 to 0 0.1 rt• 00.1
Oa 0 000001 I.•• 0 4. *a Cow o4
la /04 000 Wm* *YAW 81$
...Pr Of MO sosown 1040“ ea inroad *my Of flefa sr4=.4
forme=le ne""orhrtb."'""'%.*4 111..93
wOol▪ os rm. .1001 01 We be ••••••• Mons to •• Ur 0 1*
00113000 WO %he 11. lb Moor. 06 • kr 4.1.0 00. 0.0
•4* a.* OM lor. 00 oahl I•es Irmo .111 0 dhow SW
ob.r• ar.tast 141 . . pint -.444
'Ow A. Onft..0 • omot on • • mak 0.• ••14 lare V
Mt. MOO Onot •••1 no a* guff.. *or of sou 000 Os 0*
' Mb. 0 Or M. *Nov *ha h../ no *ow • Ow 0 Ow 1004 •
At 001 me 00 vorl• Au Ne4 S•400
11.31141
• ropoly ••••41b• ■••", 00. Iran at h
/KM ha 0.. el 10 Now • I o•ol A•ON No Ws wad..
SMICOLC
bet,. el Ono* fal ON Irak. *rots* I; Now* O.
4.4.744,-,,,t,,=41442r god of $010
•
0.••••10 0 • phl IN• 010 ow •4_ swit• 14 mom
We. rOI jai.= Of.rrf 011=r4 &frafTZVAI: CV= 74
So* Offi WA.,
re,../.1•Gf 01 0 Mt 00.0 motst 44 Pawl AM Is a* 1001. tto
wow NM 000 Mem ow rorre 004 0 010 0000 g
0000 o•••■•• 00 On 00 Ow 0 WO 011100. • wow
MIN I•ao Woes IMP AO fkonfo Of *dr MY MOO holf
F13 00.10 LI or* OM MN 00 boar 00 X tyro 0 modo. 101
AA I* *VI MP. Pais. 00 An 110 161.4
*OA MAI bat aim. lima Po a.. oloaff
4.4 fan OM IP Mpin 14 OP MP 144 00.33 10jl1
0.0*311.4.t OrtrorroPr60141=0.11= 000 Vortra
1100 1.0s I* boa deorr 01•0010 001 MO 00 Aro. 03o0
0000 0 W. 00 0.1. 000 mom ors I PS warm O. 1 *Pc et a*.
0 MI e/sallbWal Ow. Moo 001/
0 iron 0 0.0.o fogION 40 00 wit orb Or 01ot Oro 1.3 01 •
....0000.41:• Z.Z....*0*=010""ro,*01. 0110 =000 0 1101 0111=
Itolow 1114
44146.4 '
dam Alt .4 41 41444 on 4.44 4.4
zir
/AMA
PM I pod el OP,* •••I IMO. SO I.,. • TK 1, ants
1.444.4444 40...
tam 0.1
11roo 401 0041 oto. 0 amok OW • trata
•■=4.4rmw
mrt
M0.1*0,601330
MB Mom, gualdb. of, •I moo oat :ma+ sop awl vorenig
No• Pr. • • ow otao lo
gm.,
. wy 43.333334 nem oe
MP
304 *404 44.444 aod that go.
• .40 ••IIV•vot PAM
Oso Iowa a Om non fd *on
•
." e
Nith. RUC4 ligNII1
LAND IRRYSTO•0
333100*44* Avit,
COWLS PI44 S.II4 64414
10,110110004 1.11•01111000
ARCIETECTIENRNEER
DEVELOPER
HARTORD
at Ile rn el die ft Wyk
l+t� -41+• r 1TI■
STRUCTURAL ENGEE ER
1111 Nanuaehok
cen.wtaok
hlarOofaM
VI MORN
ww .+.+......
OWNER
LEGACY AT
WOODS EDGE, `LC
HUD PROJECT NUMBER:
ODD -00000
MASTER
SfiE
PLAN
AT
LEGACY
AT
WOODS
EDGE
LRglA[1g1010WWLA
ISSUE:
11/10/00 - arc suNRrra
REV. mower
O No SE V.711111 SHEET
SHEET TITLE
STE
PLAN
SHEET MOM
C-1.0
,, Plant Schedule
® cormmur :/.. N/..amour, am Ramemas/ameeDeRMANNam
Shade Trees
Autumn Blaze Maple
Northwoods Maple
Swamp White Oak
Hackberry
Skyline Honeylocust
Little Leaf Linden
❑rnarnental Trees
Pinkspire Crabapple
Servlceberry
SCALE: T =tar
Rainwater Gardens
Pinkspire Crabapple
New England Aster
Cardinal Flower
Indian Grass
Shrubs
Bush Honeysuckle
Gro -low Sumac
Shrub Rose
Roundabout
Red Pine
Bush Honeysuckle
Perennials
Little Bluestein
Prairie Dropseed
Black -eyed Susan
Purple Coneflower
Butterflyweed
Lupine
Monarda
Sedum
Bluefing Iris
Little Bluestein
1\10V 10 2003
OF LINO LAKES
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
ratj Nnnu It .j
eau hak
Mearporaled
.a.aama..
Rmwsk
01111.. IOC
LEGACY AT
WOODS EDGE, LLC
PROJECT
NUO PROJECT NUMBER:
000 -00000
'MASTER
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
AT
LEGACY
AT
WOODS
EDGE
ISSUE:
11/10100 — CIn' 00M0RK
Rxv. isstmEr
0 NO REV. THIS emu
SHEET TITLE:
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
SHEETNUN®EE
C -3.0
\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
7/////////'
EH
Hornnehok
CoRo3o
Inoorporotod
36 arm ws.
01M14.113C 11.1.
LEGACY AT
WOODS EDGE, LLC
FWD PROJECT NUMBER:
000 -00003
PRELIMINARY
SENIOR LIVING
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
AT
LEGACY
AT
WOODS
EDGE
ISSUE: MM./UM ROPRONSOTA
TI/10/ 3 - rnT MMMRM.
a lemma slur
0 NO REV. M IS staff
r TITLE:
SITE
PLAN
SHEET NUMSEIt
C-4.0
nl,no n ,ier,nl,
UDUu UauLIUV
COPVIMIT i0.. MINIM MOW. - ua.11elr✓ol.l.le�n.was
RETAIL SPACE + 23 TOTAL SPACES
TOTAL GROSS AREA+ 50.703 SOFT.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE 1/16• - ,' -O•
NOV 102003
rirf Of UI4O LAKES
ARCH GECrIENO*IEER
DEVELOPER
HARTFORD
NEMEEII
rerSMIN
frall
1 alai/ oar Y W - *dada
7w( i wear ad Y l es �►
•
sla •1 oar Ira .1
.1
Pam
RI.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Nonwohak
CorrWhmle
heopmWed
aeeai YL
W iSis -•1O1 m
O
LEGACY AT
WOODS EDGE, LLC
W�,pp!O
f �IILNN
PROJECT
N00 PROJECT NOMBEI4
000 -00000
PRELIMINARY
REGENT
AT LINO LAKES
SENIOR LIVING
DEVELOPMENT
AT
LEGACY
AT
WOODS
EDGE
LTIOL R NINNOXITA
ISSUE:
I1.10J0$ - CRT 1041414
AS, Raclin stow
O NO REV.TRB sour
SHEET TITLE
OVERALL
FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
SHEET NURSES
A1.1
NI IL
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
r 01.1
+
: r2 "
WfRUCTURAL EPEINEER
Hanuselsok
Constalanis
buorporaNd
. own= R
MINK NIC
tnanla
OVNER
LEGACY AT
WOODS EDGE, LLC
afiligWati
PROJECT
000 -00004
PRELIMINARY
REGENT
AT LINO LAKES
SENIOR LIVING
DEVELOPMENT
AT
LEGACY
AT
WOODS
EDGE
UNMAKE; DOHNESOTA
ISSUE
it Wu - CDT DOW
n MARIA SHOT
p NO REV TIB SHEET
WIEST TITLE
OVERALL
SECOND
FLOOR PLAN
SHEET /IINERESt
A1.2
,3 �1 _... ...
... IIr .I1...b II1
b. �II 1 iILIIIIII\
s f� ] ` _n L ■1111111■ ■/te
IliTii11111111 so n in in pm
■ ■111111■ ■!!!! !!!!■■I •'iii ii is eii ii
=Um 'NUM
-- a1u.,II - ■..>ou: !`
'Mai Mill
®1 ■
•
! ■I 11 ■ ■■1••'••l� i■-
■ ■I 11111■ ■111 ■1111 u.nn nnon 7i
•i 11 ■1117111 ■ ■■ a uu. • I•I n
_ ;111 ■I n■ ■■I m■ ins mu
ii
11 •u•i_111
■n. 111. ..�.�.. .�..... r
11II11 ■r
■..rIII ....� . VIII.
1111 , 1111
1111 ! 1111
(ThVIEW OF BUILDING FROM PARK
3. ScALE:1/16• - i• -D-
.. ■I. VI
11 RIO ■.
.. V.. ■I
.. ....I
I. III .I
.. III .I
I. III IV
IR ■II ..
OW ■I. II
II ..■ II
11 III II
.....III
I. ■I. I.
II ■.. .I
II MIN I.
II .I. II
II R. II
II ■I■ It
11 111 1/
II VIM ..
II n. II
II uI .I
.I ORE I.
II ■nu
I■ ■I■ II
I. VII II
..VII..
II III II
■■ III .I
11 ■I. II
1121111
.■ ■.. II
WI!
IL!I!d�l'I'll I!!II•I I�b!'1!I•'11!1
1111 11 !!
1,111111111111111111'1 11111111111111111111111
0101.1K ne. MICIONMAIIONIMIO/flala
.,
U �1111111111111.16k±4.,
..,R11II II I..1....I IIIIIIIIui,.IiIIjd_.,,
-.1"1"111"1"111111111.1.3 -,. R1 � VIII .....d j q1l ' I
' g/ /■ ■V%
"328'0 hint
—502-35111r CNN
12WA
slue 10 910.5
NV 580.74
912
8. V. 8
E1001N9 snot
it' • 1 1 1 1 0 3 1�
WV 88
3
X IWV, 8C
887.98
EX IN V ,88
EX CdV 689.
XiNV
N01! ALL IMMIRMAN SHALL
DPa.5
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE
SANITARY SEWER
AND WATER PLAN
ALE NO.
AUNOL0305.01
DATE
11/25/03
DRAWING
NO.
1
BEEHIVE CASTING AND
FLARED END SECTION EROSION CONTROL
41114.115131
LINO LAKES
MIMIESOTA
LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE
FILE NO.
SITE GRADING AM AUNOL0305.01
DATE
11/25/03
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
DRAWING
NO.
1
30 LF 30" RCP
0 0.70%
151 LF 27" RCP
0 1.28X
42 LF 27" RCP
0 1.24%
73 LF 24" RCP
0 1.2'
226 LF 24' RCP
0 1.20.
250 LF 18" RCP
0 1.10X
28 21" RCP
0 1."
t
RCP
0 1.00%
12" RCP
OX
it
CP
.36X
30 LF 12" RCP
0 0.52%
LJ]
26 LF 15" RCP
0.88%
18" RCP
X
LF t2" RCP
1.00%
0 1.00%
39 LF 12"
1: -�-
0 1.20%
28 LF 12" R'P
01.1
75 LF 18" RCP
0 1.32X
RCP
.00X
40 LF 15" RCP
0 0.56X
'6W
LF 18" RC
0°.3
vQ:
34 LF 15" RCP
00.56%
33 LF 12" RCP
0 0.76%
p LF
95 LF 12" RCP
0 0.80X
Jl01E:
SKIMMER STRUCTURES WILL BE INSTALLED AT
ALL POND OUTLETS TO WETLANDS.
266 LF 18" RCP
0 0.40X
28 LF 18" RCP
0 0.40X
xi.:
NOM .MIM
OM VAIN . �s
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE
PRELIMINARY
STORM SEWER PLAN
FILE NO.
ALINOL0305.01
DATE
11/25/03
DRAWING
NO.
1
01
EH
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE
PRELIMINARY STREET
GRADING PLAN
FILE NO. DRAWING
ALINOL0305.01 NO.
DATE
11/25/03
-1�M�M�MnvU1
11UUUUUUUk UUUU|
U�|UUR
111111i UUU| UUU|R
U|iUUK
NNE,.
IIUi `MOW 'MIMI/ "411■141
1.1-•
......#
4N4
400
....-4*.A
...1.4.0 --
_. .....1**„.• _..
we,
NtliiiitgrmriMINErui•ll
•
er reraungsmosmossoug_h_volommommormluark 1.2111
1111 IP IF Ir
Plan Vim
12 SIDEWALK
13' DRIVE LANE
13' DRIVE LANE 4' BLVD
6' TRAIL ADDITIONAL LANDTCAPING
111 re rei a 111110111_
■011.
40k.
A IMINIMIIIIIINIFAIMINEL‘
.:4:421M11.10.1114.10111111111111311.1.1111113111.10:1111
%T.:26§:441•1111111•1110111111.MINIIIMEMINZEIMIll
wim ••-•• '
--,0111%1■1■1•41111111■NrAl1111k1•51111111■111%11-111■1111r41.110Wililk1151.11-10111511111110111P41111M1511111111k.,
6 - -
I Iiiii1•11111111111111011111M0111111E11■11111/4111■11111K111011111,41110111111Z111■1111MMINIIIIMILIMIMINIIIIIMIEN11111:4•111111111n
•"1"1.12PIEELSIPSIe.ENIE1022.1:5:2ELEPEMEMEMMISIEN..Selii!....g_e_SM■_!5,02,ELNEIE,MILIIEIL„.
Plan View
Plan View
January 5, 2004
Elizabeth Kautz
Hartford Group, Inc.
12100 Singletree Lane
Suite 103
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Legacy at Woods Edge
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Kautz:
Attachment 4
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the status of the Legacy project and to request
modifications to the project plans, previously submitted, based on staff's review.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
The EAW comment period ended on December 24, 2003. The City received comments from,
Metropolitan Council, Army Corp of Engineers, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department :of Natural Resources, Anoka
County Highways Department, and-Anoka County Parks Department.
There does not appear to be any comments that would warrant the need for an EIS. However,
Mn/DOT has requested additional information regarding the traffic analysis. City staff will be
meeting with SEH on Tuesday, January 6, to review the comments and.begin ,preparation of the
response document.'.
We are anticipating completion of the response document for review by the Environmental
Board at their January 28, 2004, meeting. The Record of Decision would then be brought to the
• Council for action on February, 9, 2004.
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)
Revised plans and information, as requested by the RCWD, will be submitted on January 7,
2004, for action by the district board on January 28, 2004. it is anticipated that we will receive a
CAPROC (Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes). We should have the RCWD
report and recommendation one week prior to the watershed board meeting.
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182
Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410
r •• .
Development Stage Plan Approval
As you are aware • the project was presented to the Planning .& Zoning Board on December 10,
2004. The public hearing on the proposal was continued to the January 14, 2004 board meeting.
Due to outstanding design issues, complexity of the project, and outside agency reviews, staff is-
recommending that the hearing be continued to a special meeting of the Planning and zothlg
Board. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 28, 2004. This will allow -us to finalize
EAW and Rice Creek and MnIDOT comments prior to the meeting, and allow the Board • a better
opportunity to review the information. Based on the outcome of this meeting staff would
anticipate bringing a recommendation to approve, for board action, to the February 11, 2004,
_Planning and Zoning meeting. Council review of the project would be scheduled for March 8,
2004. However, it may be possible, pending the outcome of the P & Z meeting, •to.schedule the
1st reading of the PUD rezoning for the February 23, 2004 council meeting.
To maintain this timeline the following items need• to be addressed:
Design Guidelines
City staff is in the process. of completing the modifications to the Calthorpe Design .Standards.
• SEH is completing the Land Use Plan and Regulating Plan. This should be completed, for your
review, by January 21st. Since these will function as the regulatory framework for the
development any issues or modifications you have will need to be addressed promptly.
.Preliminarg Plat
1. Outlot D, Village No. 1 plat, is included as part of Lot 4, Block 1. However, it appears
from the surveyor's .notes that this is owned by Anoka County. If correct, this parcel
should be removed from_ the plat.
2. Additional right-of-way for the northbound I 35W ramps may be required. This needs • to
be coordinated with SEH.
3. Drainage and Utility easements and dimensions need to be shown on the preliminary plat.
Easements are required around the 100 year flood elevation for all wetlands :and
stormwater drainage basins. Additionally easements will be required centered on all
stormwater and utility lines. This needs to be coordinated with SEH.
• Any portions of the plat bordering Mn/DOT or Anoka County right -of -way should
include dedication of access control to the respective agency.
5. Outlot A, should be labeled as park. Additionally, is Outlot C intended to be dedicated to
the City or County, or retained by the association? Anoka County would prefer it to be in
public ownership. If retained privately a conservation easement will need to be provided.
There appears to be some existing easements of record on the Tagg property. Title work
should be. prepared to verify the status of these easements i.e., public or private.
• The extent of the Shoreland Districts of George Watch and Marshan Lakes (1,000 feet
from the Ordinary High Water Level) should be delineated on the plat.
The total upland area should be tabulated and included on the preliminary plat (Gross
acreage less area of wetlands). Specific lots with wetlands should show both gross
acreage and upland acreage.
Master Site Plan
1. Perimeter setbacks along I -35W should delineated and dimensioned
2. Open Space areas, i.e., City Park, Accessible commons, and Natural Resource areas
should be labeled on the plan.
Master Landscaping Plata
Further .detail needs to.be provided. The master plan should include the 'following:
Planting schedtile, including:
i. Symbols.
ii. Quantities
iii. Common and botanical names.
iv. Sizes of plant materials:
v. Root specification (Bare root, .balledlburlaPped; potted, etc.):
Planting detail, show all species to scale . at normal. mature crown diameter or
spread for local hardiness zone.
Typical sections with details of landscape islands, - connected walkways, planter
beds, and foundation plantings with identification of materials to be used
4. Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas.
c-
2. The plan needs to be modified to provide for shade trees at a tate of 1 per 10 parking
stalls. The :plan should provide for trees along the northern periphery of the site along I-
35w. •
3. Identify areas for native .plantings i.e., along I -35W and existing wetland along the
northeastern side of the site
Senior Living Development Plans
Architectural Plans.
1. The building elevations and floor plans should be -revised and submitted based on our
December 17, 2003 meeting. The submitted should also include the parking level. layout.
Site Plain
1. The site plan. should be revised .to identify the extent of Phase 1 improvements (i.e., how
much of the shared: parking area is proposed to be constructed).
The plan should show the location, setback and dimensions of all proposed buildings and
structures (Phase I). •
3. Location, number, dimensions .of all proposed parking stalls, loading areas, and drive
aisles, with curbing type shown. Include radii on all landscaped islands and corners.
4. Location and type of proposed.lighting, including fixture details.
5. Provisions for storage and disposal of waste, garbage and recyclables.
Landscaping Plan
1. All items enumerated above for the Master Landscaping Plan should be incorporated into
the plan.
Details for pedestrian areas should be provided and identified. on the plan. Including
pavement areas, pavement treatments, pedestrian amenities, etc.
The revisions should be submitted no later than January 21, 2004 in order to be distributed to the
Planning & Zoning Board. However, i recognize that some of the information will be dependent
on coordination with SEH.
If you have any questions. please contact me at (651) 982- 2427.
Sincerely,
„V&_.
Michael Grocliala-
'Comnwnity Development Director
Enclosures
Mary Alice Divine
BobMoberg, SEH, Inc.
William Griffith, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindren,LTD.