My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-17-26 City Council Meeting Packet
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020's
>
2026
>
02-17-26 City Council Meeting Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2026 12:34:42 PM
Creation date
2/18/2026 12:31:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• Cons <br />o More costly for the City to maintain both roadways and drainage ditches. <br />o Reduced roadway and drainage system service life, resulting in more frequent <br />maintenance and reconstruction cycles. <br />o Significant increase in conflicts with property owners over drainage system <br />maintenance and restoration. <br />o Does not account for city design standards for required sidewalks (along one side <br />of all streets) and boulevard trees. If sidewalks/trails are added, the rural design <br />section is problematic for meeting ADA standards, locating hydrants, streetlights <br />and small/dry utilities. Challenges with application of a new standard, where would <br />this be acceptable? Will other developers request it? <br />o Concerns over drainage ditch design and function. Potential impacts to publicly <br />owned and maintained stormwater ponds with improper design or maintenance. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT: <br />By approving nonstandard elements in a project, the City may be increasing the cost for the life cycle of <br />the infrastructure while reducing performance of the drainage system. Potential impacts of the shorter <br />lifespan of a rural road section may be significant for the City. <br /> <br />OPTIONS: <br />No decisions or actions are made at the time of Concept/sketch Plan Review. This process is advisory, and <br />staff are seeking guidance. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />The City Council is asked to provide feedback, generally, and specific guidance on the City’s policies for <br />stormwater BMPs on private lots, and whether the developer is granted an exception to construct a rural <br />section roadway. <br /> <br />Staff recommend the following considerations in a discussion on the nonstandard elements proposed: <br />1. Stormwater BMPs on Private Lots - If this is permitted: <br />a. It is recommended that staff be directed to review and create design standards for <br />this practice and bring back recommendations for zoning districts that this <br />practice will be permitted. <br />b. Should the City consider any additional limitations or requirements? <br />2. Rural Road Section – If this is permitted: <br />a. It is recommended that staff be directed to review and create design standards for <br />this practice and bring back recommendations for zoning districts that this <br />practice will be permitted. <br />b. Should the City require sidewalks, trails, or boulevard plantings as it does in <br />urban sections? <br />c. Is the City Council comfortable with the potential for higher maintenance costs <br />for rural roadways and stormwater management/drainage systems? <br />d. If design is a concern, should the City consider public final design in these <br />situations? <br /> <br />ATTACHMENTS: <br />• Rachel Development Narrative and Plans <br />• Review Comments and Memos
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.