Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.15.2020 Parks Commission Packet NOTICE OF MEETING City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission 3800 Laverne Avenue North June 15, 2020 6:30 PM AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve Agenda 4. Approve Minutes a) February 19, 2020 5. Public Comments 6. Review 2021-2025 CIP 7. Review of Bruggman Open Space Planned Unit Developemnt (OP-PUD) 8. Review of Schiltgen Farm PUD 9. July 20, 2020 Meeting Agenda 10. Communications 11. Adjourn ***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations. Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character Dr a f t MINUTES City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission February 19, 2020 Members Present: Commissioners- Mayek, Nightingale, Olinger, Schumacher and Weeks Absent: Ames Staff Present: City Planner- Prchal, Public Works Director- Powers The meeting was called to order by Weeks at 6:30 PM. Announcements Weeks wanted to take a moment to mention that at the start of the New Year the parks commission has three openings. Commissioners Nightingale and Ames re-applied and were appointed to the Commission. Mike Zeno did not re-apply and the Commission wanted to thank him for his service as he was on the Commission for at least 15 years. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair Olinger nominated Weeks to serve as the chair, seconded by Schumacher. Weeks accepted the nomination. Nomination was approved unanimously. Schumacher nominated Olinger to serve as the vice chair, seconded by Weeks. Olinger accepted the nomination. Nomination was approved unanimously. Approval of Agenda Weeks motioned to approve the agenda, seconded by Schumacher. Agenda was approved unanimously. Approval of Minutes a) December 16, 2019 No changes were made. Minutes were accepted as presented. Public Comments None. Review Sunfish Lake RFP Submission Prchal presented to the Commission on the RFP submission for the bike trail in Sunfish Lake Park. The City Council recently voted to allow the trail to be built in the park. Staff received one proposal from Trail Source to build the trail. Prchal gave some background on the company and their recent projects they have completed. The submission included references from Hillside and Lebanon Hills Parks where Trail Source performed Dr a f t work. The proposal has built time scheduled to be completed in 5-6 weeks working 5 days a week, weather permitting. July 30th is the expected completion date for the trail. The City reserved $120,000 for this project and the proposal came in under budget leaving a contingency of $8,300. Maintenance is not expected to exceed $2,500 a year. Prchal is recommending the Commission to approve the proposal from Trail Source for the construction of the bike trail in Sunfish Lake Park. Schumacher asked about the equipment that will be required for construction and how much of the parking lot that will take up. Tim Wagner from Trail Source said that the equipment will not be in the lot but it will be in the park for about 2 days then they will move them back to their own storage. They may keep one storage trailer in the parking lot depending on security of the area. Some of the equipment will be small excavators and hand tools. Schumacher also asked about properly marking the trail intersections during the construction. Mr. Wagner stated that they will work closely with City staff to map out the topography of the park to properly mark the trail. Schumacher asked about the barriers along the intersections because the proposal says they could be built and he wanted to know if they will be put it. Mr. Wagner said that will be up to the City if they want barriers and they would probably be rocks. Schumacher also asked where material would be coming from if a slope had to be built. Mr. Wagner said they do not have to import any soil, they can usually move enough dirt around to accommodate for a slope. Olinger asked about who decides if trail modification needs to be made. Mr. Wagner said that would be up to the Parks department and Commission. Director Powers said public works will be monitoring it every day as well as equipment monitoring in the park. Olinger asked Powers how often he would be meeting with Trail Source. Powers said that they would check on the construction daily and as it progresses maybe down to every other day or as needed. Olinger asked if during construction if any parts of the park will be closed to the public. Mr. Wagner said they plan on keeping the trails that are being constructed closed until the construction is completed. Olinger also asked who Trail Source taught to build trails. Mr. Wagner said he did a lot of work with Minnesota off Road Cyclists and taught a lot of them to build trails. Weeks referenced a comment Mr. Wagner made back at an initial meeting in 2017 about the walking and skiing trails being so wide and that Trail Source would not build them that way anymore. Weeks asked if any of the erosion issues on the current trails in Sunfish could be fixed by Trail Source. Mr. Wagner said they could possibly look at redesign options but that would take some evaluations before a decision could be made. Weeks also asked if the proposal included any signage because he would like to use the left over $8,300 for some signage. Mr. Wagner said it did not include signage and he would have some companies that he could recommend for signage. Olinger asked if there would be an adequate description on the City website or somewhere that people could easily read to understand the trails. Mr. Wagner said bike trails are labeled like ski trails such as green, black, and yellow for level of difficulty. They would look to get a good mix of difficulty levels built. Prchal said staff could put together a document that would describe to riders what the trails will be like. Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Avenue. Ms. Bucheck asked if the city spends a certain amount of money if they are required to get more than one submission. Prchal said that amount is Dr a f t $150,000 or more and this bid is under that. She asked if the hand tools and equipment being used that are up to 50 inches wide are too big which she believes according to the Minnesota Land Trust the equipment cannot be wider than 30 inches. Prchal said he talked with the Minnesota Land Trust and they had no issues with the proposed equipment in the park. She was also concerned about the width of 7-8ft wide clearings. It was clarified that would be at the intersections. The Minnesota Land Trust reviewed the RFP and had no issues with the project. Ms. Bucheck agreed with Commissioner Olingers’ point abut labeling the trails for difficulty so riders know what they are for. Susan Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd Street North. Ms. Dunn asked if Mr. Wagner was the contractor who designed Reid Park. Weeks said the City had consulted Mr. Wagner on trail designs but it was a group up in Stillwater who did the work on Reid Park. She raised concerns that Sunfish Lake was meant to be a nature preserve and not have bike trails. She also had a concern about the time frame and wanted clarification. Week said the proposed construction length would be 5-6 weeks with construction starting in May. Ms. Dunn appreciated the points from Mr. Wagner regarding erosion control. She is concerned that people may use bikes to run down animals and she does not want that to happen. She ended by saying that she wished more people knew the history of the park and she told the commission they need to take care of the park and be careful with their decisions. Ms. Bucheck added that for the maintenance of the trails being led by volunteers is not a good idea. She thought she had heard that was also the case in Reid Park and that has not happened yet. Weeks said they have been building in Reid Park, but they ran into some water issues and they have not been completed. Her point was that the Parks Commission should consider using some of their budget for maintenance rather than relying on volunteers. Mayek motioned to recommend acceptance of the proposal from Trail Source to build bike trials within Sunfish Lake Park. Seconded by Nightingale. Motion passed unanimously. March 16, 2020 Meeting Agenda 1) No items at this time. Communications Weeks talked about the Inwood Park development. City Council discussed for a while and ended up recommending what the Parks Commission proposed. Powers said the First Lego students who came to present on the 180 acres have been in contact with him. They have more details and proposals they would like to present to the Commission. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Alex Saxe, Deputy Clerk STAFF REPORT DATE: June 15, 2020 ITEM #: TO: Parks Commission FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: 2021-2025 Parks CIP REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Marty Powers, Public Works Director BACKGROUND: A Capital Improvement Program, or CIP, is a multi-year (typically 5 years) capital expenditure plan for a City’s infrastructure (such as streets, parks and utility systems), and equipment and public buildings. It identifies the major projects needed and desired by the community, their potential costs and how they would be financed. A project identified and budgeted through the CIP does not commit the City to that project. The City Council must specifically authorize each one, and the associated funding before any project may proceed. When the CIP is reviewed (ideally annually, in conjunction with the budgeting process) projects may go forward as planned, advance ahead of schedule, be removed entirely, or new projects may be added, these adjustments are dependent upon changes in circumstances and priorities. The Minnesota Land Planning Act requires that the implementation plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan include a CIP for major infrastructure needs (transportation, wastewater, water supply, parks and open space) for a five- year time period. Cities often expand the scope of their CIPs to include other capital needs (major equipment replacements, for example) and sometimes look beyond the five-year time period, up to 20 years in the future for some projects. Such projects represent more of a “wish-list” that can be evaluated each time the plan is updated. As a part of the Comprehensive Plan, the CIP has some legal standing. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.865 provides that “a local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan.” A fiscal device includes a budget or bond issue; so it is important that the plan and CIP be kept up to date and in synch with city budgets. The primary benefit of a CIP is as a financial planning tool, to help the City plan for the impact of capital needs on future budgets and property taxes, and to help forecast the need for borrowing to undertake major projects. The information developed as part of the capital planning process can help document the need for various projects and help the City Council sort out competing priorities. Lake Elmo’s CIP includes all capital projects that cost at least $25,000 and have a useful life span of five years or longer. ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: What parks improvements should be included in the 2021-2025 CIP? When should they be completed? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Included in your packet is a document listing all of the City parks and trail projects that Staff is aware of at this time. Note that the amount shown for the Central greenway Corridor has changed and will continue to change over time as the installation/development is aligned to coincide with projects that Washington County has identified in their CIP. More costs will be added as more segments of the trails are planned. City costs for the full build out may be around $3 million depending on grants, development and county cost share. The commission may also want to consider putting a place holder in the CIP for improvements needed to other city trails throughout the community. Public works staff will be working over the summer to review all city trails and develop a maintenance plan and long range improvement plan that could be included next year in the 2021-2025 CIP. Other Items? Any other items the Parks Commission would like to see in the 2021-2025 CIP need to be identified. Each member should come prepared to identify their top 3 priorities for the next 5 years. The commission can then also assign a priority to each project based upon the following framework: 1. Critical or urgent, high-priority projects that should be done if at all possible; a special effort should be made to find sufficient funding for all of the projects in this group. 2. Very important, high-priority projects that should be done as funding becomes available. 3. Important and worthwhile projects to be considered if funding is available; may be deferred to a subsequent year. 4. Less important, low-priority projects; desirable but not essential. 5. Future Consideration When determining a project, the Commission should keep in mind the requirements set out in the City Code. Section 154.15 Park Land Dedication Requirements (F) Park Dedication Fund outlines the parameters of where funds can be spent. (F) Park Dedication Fund (1) A cash contribution paid to the City shall be placed in a special fund. The money shall be used only for: (a) The acquisition and development or improvement of parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open space based on the approved park systems plan; (b) Redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing park facilities or sites; or (c) Debt service in connection with land previously acquired or improvements thereto previously constructed. (2) No funds shall be used for ongoing operation or maintenance of existing parks recreational facilities or sites or City vehicles. Items Scheduled for 2020. There are projects scheduled for 2020 that have been planned for but the funds have not been spent yet. Those projects are listed below. - Sunfish Lake Park Mountain Trail System $120,000 expenditure - Inwood Park Improvements $145,549.69 FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact is dependent upon project selection and available funds. 2020 Expenses still to come: Sunfish Trails 120,000 Inwood Park $145,549.69 TOTAL 2020 Expenses $265,549.69 Expected Funds in 2020: Union Park $124,000 (phase 1) Wyndham $75,000 Applewood Point $132,280 Total $331,280 Park Dedication Fund Balance (6.9.2020 does not include “Expected Funds”) $1,318,556 Fund Balance after 2020 Expenses $1,053,006.4 OPTIONS: 1) Commission identify additional projects to add to the 2021-2025 CIP 2) If no further projects are identified, the listed projects would be forwarded on for review and processed by Finance and Council. ATTACHMENTS: • 2021-2025 Draft Capital Improvement Plan for Parks Capital Improvement Plan - 2021 - 2025 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator 2021 2025thru Department Parks and Recreation Description Central Greenway Regional Trail beginning at CSAH 19 and I-94, traveling through Lake Elmo Park Reserve, east along Stillwater Bvld to Manning Ave and then north to TH36. Project #PR-009 Priority 3 Important Justification Trail would address the following community needs: -Deliver students safely to school -Bring people to our downtown -Bring people to our parks -Provide safe recreation -Trail Diversity-Provide feel of Lake Elmo -Omit need to bike down Hwy 5/CSAH 14 -Compatibility with public grant opportunities -Compatibility with private funding opportunities Feasibility of land acquisition will be a consideration Trail likely to be built in segments in conjuction with county road projects and as funding allows through Met Council or other state grants Budget Impact/Other Additional trails to maintain-labor and materials for snow removal if desired by city Trail construction cost may be as high as $12 million. City would expect cost share with county as well as grants to offset costs. 2023 costs are for trail through new roundabout at CSAH 19 and CSAH 10 and trail extension abutting Hagebergs Future costs will be added as they are known Useful Life Project Name Central Greenway Regional Trail Category Park Improvements Type Improvement Status Active Total20212022202320242025Expenditures 220,000220,000Construction/Maintenance 220,000 220,000Total Total20212022202320242025Funding Sources 220,000220,000Park Dedication Fund 220,000 220,000Total Friday, June 5, 2020Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software Capital Improvement Plan - 2021 - 2025 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director 2021 2025thru Department Parks and Recreation Description F550 pickup dump truck with chipper box and plow mount replaces 2009 vehicle. Project #PR-015 Priority 3 Important Justification End of Useful life Budget Impact/Other Useful Life Project Name Dump Truck Category Vehicles Type Equipment Status Active Total20212022202320242025Expenditures 70,00070,000Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 70,000 70,000Total Total20212022202320242025Funding Sources 70,00070,000Vehicle Replacement Fund 70,000 70,000Total Friday, June 5, 2020Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software Capital Improvement Plan - 2021 - 2025 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator 2021 2025thru Department Parks and Recreation Description New ballfields to be constructed or refurbished after Tartan ball fields are no longer used by the public Project #PR-017 Priority 1 Critical Justification Replacement of some of the fields at Tartan Park lost to development of Royal Oaks Golf Course Community Budget Impact/Other Funding to be provided from developer in development agreement with Royal Golf. Funds to be used for acquisition of land, if necessary, and builidngor refurbishing of (a) new ballfield(s). Useful Life 40 years Project Name New or Refurbished Ballfields Category Park Improvements Type Improvement Status Active Total20212022202320242025Expenditures 1,000,0001,000,000Construction/Maintenance 1,000,000 1,000,000Total Total20212022202320242025Funding Sources 1,000,0001,000,000Grants/Donation 1,000,000 1,000,000Total Friday, June 5, 2020Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software Capital Improvement Plan - 2021 - 2025 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director 2021 2025thru Department Parks and Recreation Description Parks commission recommended the search and planning for a dog park somewhere near the denser developments Improvements would be minimal such as fencing Project #PR-019 Priority 4 Less Important Justification Residents on small lots in denser developments need a place to take their dogs for exercise. By providing a dog park those who let their dogs run off leash in other parks can be redirected Budget Impact/Other Useful Life 25 years Project Name Dog Park Category Park Improvements Type Improvement Status Active Total20212022202320242025Expenditures 25,00025,000Construction/Maintenance 25,000 25,000Total Total20212022202320242025Funding Sources 25,00025,000Park Dedication Fund 25,000 25,000Total Friday, June 5, 2020Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software Capital Improvement Plan - 2021 - 2025 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director 2021 2025thru Department Parks and Recreation Description Replaces 2014 Kubota Project #PR-020 Priority 3 Important Justification End of Useful Life Budget Impact/Other Useful Life 10 years Project Name Utility Vehicile/Trail Groomer Category Vehicles Type Equipment Status Active Total20212022202320242025Expenditures 37,00037,000Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 37,000 37,000Total Total20212022202320242025Funding Sources 37,00037,000Vehicle Replacement Fund 37,000 37,000Total Friday, June 5, 2020Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software Capital Improvement Plan - 2021 - 2025 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota PROJECT LISTING20212025thru Includes Projects from All Years Parks and Recreation Status Project #Project Name 50th Street TrailPendingPR-002 Demontreville Park ImprovementsPendingPR-003 Sunfish Lake Park ImprovementsPendingPR-007 Central Greenway Regional TrailActivePR-009 Dump TruckActivePR-015 New or Refurbished BallfieldsActivePR-017 Dog ParkActivePR-019 Utility Vehicile/Trail GroomerActivePR-020 Friday, May 1, 2020Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software Capital Improvement Plan - 2021 - 2025 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT 2021 2030thru Total20212022202320242025Department20262027202820292030Project # Parks and Recreation PR-009Central Greenway Regional Trail 220,000220,000 220,000220,000Park Dedication Fund PR-015 70,000Dump Truck 70,000 70,00070,000Vehicle Replacement Fund PR-017 1,000,000New or Refurbished Ballfields 1,000,000 1,000,0001,000,000Grants/Donation PR-019Dog Park 25,00025,000 25,00025,000Park Dedication Fund PR-020 37,000Utility Vehicile/Trail Groomer 37,000 37,00037,000Vehicle Replacement Fund 1,352,0001,070,000 245,000 37,000Parks and Recreation Total 1,352,0001,070,000 245,000 37,000GRAND TOTAL Friday, June 5, 2020Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software STAFF REPORT PARKS COMMISSION DATE: 6/15/2020 AGENDA ITEM: TO: Parks Commission FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Bruggeman Builders Open Space PUD – 2500 Manning Avenue – Concept PUD Review REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director INTRODUCTION: Mr. Paul Bruggeman, representing Bruggeman Builders, is requesting City approval of a concept open space planned unit development (OP - PUD) for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue. The proposed concept plan for the OP PUD is for a 14 single family residential subdivision on 32.3 gross acres with a density of +/- 0.45 dwelling units per acre (D.U.A). Much of the property is within the Shoreland Management Area of Downs Lake. The Shoreland Ordinance has provisions for the development of PUD’s in the areas near lakes, subject to additional design and performance standards. Keeping in mind that the review of this permit is for a Concept Plan some of the requests by the developer do not necessarily meet the City Code. However, this review is intended to give the developer feed back on the overall plan and is not necessarily an approval or denial for the development. In addition, the developer is proposing an OP PUD that would not meet all the City requirements for an OP PUD and those for a residential development within a shoreland district. Such requested exceptions or modifications include having lots that do not meet the lot width, lot area and impervious requirements for new development near Natural Environment lakes such as Downs Lake. I will discuss these requests in more detail later in this report. ISSUE BEFORE THE PARKS COMMISSION: The Parks Commission is respectfully being requested to review and provide feedback to the developer and make a recommendation to the City Council for the concept OP planned unit development (OP - PUD) proposed by Bruggeman Builders for the property located 2500 Manning Avenue. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Paul Bruggeman, Bruggeman Builders, Stillwater, MN 55042 Property Owner: Gary and Meg Johnson, 2500 Manning Avenue Location: 2500 Manning Avenue, Lake Elmo. PID#: 24-029-21-13-0002 Request: Concept PUD Plan approval Site Area: 32.3 acres (gross) Existing Land Use: Single-family home and accessory buildings, agriculture Land Use Guidance: Rural Area Development (RAD) Current Zoning: RR – Rural Residential District Proposed Zoning: Open Space PUD Surrounding Zoning: OP (Heritage Farms to the north), West Lakeland Township across Manning Avenue (east), Rural Residential (RR) and Small lot residential (RS) (south), RR (west). Page 2 History: The owners have used the property for hobby farming and the growing of pumpkins. There is one single family dwelling and accessory building on the property. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 4/28/2020 60 Day Deadline – 6/26/2020 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 8-24-2020 Applicable Code: Article 15 - Open Space Planned Unit Development Regulations Article 18 – Shoreland Management Overlay District Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations §150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Concept Plan Review. The City allows an applicants to submit a concept plan to the City so that it can be reviewed by Staff and comments can be provided by the Commissions and Council. Under this review process the City does not necessarily approve or denial but instead will comment on the presented plan. Overview. The proposed Open Space (OP) PUD development will be located on a 32.3 acre property located at 2500 Manning Avenue, just south of the Heritage Farms OP PUD development. The proposed development is proposed as an OP PUD because the developer is proposing a rural-style residential development and is requesting flexibility from the strict zoning regulations of the Shoreland Ordinance and the rural zoning regulations. The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components: • Concept Plan Overview. The attached project narrative includes a general overview of the project with additional details concerning some of the unique aspects of the proposed development. • Existing Conditions. The applicant has provided an aerial photo and site plan depicting the existing conditions in and around the project area. • Concept Plan. The PUD Concept Plan includes a proposed configuration of roads, lots, and other public spaces on the applicant’s site. While the plan provides initial dimensions for many of the various lots and streets, some details are still missing and will need to be further reviewed for compliance with the City’s standards and regulations. Land Use and Zoning Flexibility. The proposed lot layouts and street widths in some cases do not meet minimum zoning or shoreland ordinance requirements. The City’s OP PUD Ordinance allows for some flexibility from zoning and subdivision requirements, subject to City Council approval. Single family homes are a permitted use in the underlying RR zoning district Land Use: The proposed residential development is consistent with the future land use map, which guides this area RAD (rural area development). OP PUD Ordinance Regulations: The following OP PUD Code sections are relevant to this proposal: Section154.657.B.7.a Open Space 1. The total preserved open space area within an open space PUD development shall be no less than 50 percent of the total gross land area 2. Land needed for storm water facilities…may count toward required open space for the purposes of open space PUD design, but must ultimately be placed in outlots to be dedicated to the City. Page 3 3. Excluding land needed for storm water facilities, not less than 60 percent of the remaining preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels which are five acres of more in size. Section 154.657.B.3 Required Buffer zones. No build zones as follows: a. 200 feet buffer from all adjacent property lines that about an existing residential development or parcel of land not eligible for future development as an open space planned unit development (Applicable to the south side-west end) b. If the development site is adjacent to an existing or approved OP development, the required buffer shall be equivalent to the buffer that was required of the adjacent development (Applicable to the north side) Shoreland Regulations Most of the development site is in the Shoreland Boundary area of Downs Lake. The City has adopted a shoreland management overlay district (Article 18 of the City Code) that regulates land uses and the intensity of land uses within the shoreland boundaries of the lakes in Lake Elmo. The purpose of the Shoreland Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters and conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands. This is accomplished by regulating the placement of improvements and structures and regulating the amount of land alterations and the intensity of development that may occur in the shoreland management area. The shoreland boundary area and management overlay district generally extends 1000 feet out from the ordinary high water mark of a public lake, as determined by the Minnesota DNR. With that said at least 50 percent of the total project area shall be preserved as open space an meet the standards in the ordinance. Proposed Exceptions and Modifications One of the reasons the applicant has elected to pursue an OP Planned Unit Development is that the development proposal includes certain elements that do not conform to City requirements. Deviations are listed below: 1. The proposed street within the project area is shown at 24-feet of width in a 50-foot-wide right-of-way. As per the City Engineer’s comments, the City should require a 60-foot-wide right-of-way and a standard width street with concrete curb and gutter. 2. The applicant is requesting City approval of several exceptions or modifications to the OP-PUD code or City shoreland standards with this development; These include: 3. Not having a home-owners association (HOA) for the 14 lots as they are not proposing to have any commonly owner property. 4. Allowing each home to have its own on-site septic system and drainfields rather than having a community septic system or systems that would serve several homes. Communal drainfields also are a requirement of the shoreland ordinance for PUD’s. The applicant also wants the City to allow drainfields in the open space areas on each lot. 5. Not having community-owned open space. As an alternative, they are requesting the City allow them to plat or dedicate conservation easements on each lot that would protect the natural features on each lot to meet the open space requirements. 6. Having the storm water ponding area(s) on individual lots rather than in a separate outlot that would become the responsibility of the HOA or City to maintain. 7. Having a reduced buffer from the south property line for construction on the development site (100 feet instead of 200 feet). 8. Having a rural section road with gravel shoulders and ditches. 9. Having street right-of-way width of 50 feet instead of 60 feet. 10. Having lots with less than 80,000 square feet of lot area and lot widths less than 200 feet as required by the Shoreland Ordinance. 11. Not showing the exiting wetland and wetland buffer area in a separate outlot. Site Data and Density Analysis. The proposed development includes lots for 14 dwelling units. The applicant’s data shows the site with a total of 32.3 acres (including right-of-way for the new street with no proposed parkland or any arterial street (Manning Avenue) right-of-way. Page 4 The City calculates the site density in this case as follows: 32.3 gross acres – 0.19 wetland acres = 32.11 net acres. 14 units divided by 32.11 net acres = 0.44 units per net acre. Section 154.657 A. Density. Identifies an allowed density of .45 units per acre. The request is in line with the OP Code. Open Space. The OP-PUD ordinance requires that at least 50 percent of the total gross land area in an OP-PUD be preserved as open space. The ordinance also requires that not less than 60 percent of the remaining preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels that are five acres of more in size and that the preserved open space parcels be contiguous with preserved open space or public park land on adjacent parcels. The Shoreland Ordinance also requires PUD’s in the shoreland district of a lake to have at least 50 percent of the total project area be preserved as open space. For the 32.3 acre site, the minimum amount of open space the developer shall preserve is 16.15 acres. The intent of these regulations is to preserve the appearance and function of open space area, including the topography and vegetation within those areas. The Shoreland Ordinance also requires the developer/owner to provide for the preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, open space and the continuation of the development as a community. The Concept Plan submitted by the developer is proposing to preserve about 15.6 acres of open space in this development, which is 0.55 acres less than the required 16.15 acres, by dedicating conservation easements on parts of each lots for the areas that would be preserved as open space. They are proposing this rather than having the open space in separate commonly-owned parcels within the development. Some of this land also would be used for some of the subdivision’s storm water facilities and possibly for septic system drainfields. Since these areas would be privately owned they would not be available for public use and enjoyment, this proposal appears contrary to the concept of preserving open space for the public to use enjoy. Natural Resource Areas. Preservation of the most sensitive ecological areas is one of the goals of this development. The Concept Plan shows one new street through the site that generally follows the existing contours and allows for the placement of new houses on lots that would minimize the need for site grading and would preserve many of the existing trees on the property. The conservation easement area is represented by the dotted green area. Strom water ponds will also be held in the green areas. Park Dedication Requirements: To understand the City’s park dedication expectations we need to look at section 153.15 Parkland Dedication Requirements. The table below outlines the percentage of money or land that is required to satisfy the City Park dedication requirements. The property is zoned as RR, meaning 5% would be collected. Page 5 There are standards in terms of what can/should be accepted for dedication, the following language describes such lands. Also, the City can opt to either accept cash, land, or a combination of both to satisfy the dedication requirements. 153.15 Parkland Dedication Requirements. (C) Land acceptability. The City must approve the location and configuration of any park land which is proposed for dedication and shall take into consideration the suitability of the land and for its intended purpose; the future needs of the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space; and the recommendations of the City’s Parks Commission. The following properties shall not be accepted for park land dedications: (1) Land dedicated or obtained as easements for streets, sewer, electrical, gas, storm water drainage and retention areas, or other similar utilities and improvements; (2) Land which is unusable or of limited use; and/or (3) Land within a protected wetland or within a flood plain area unless the Council determines that all of the following criteria are satisfied: (a) Would be in the best interests of the general public; (b) Would be valuable resource for environmental preservation, educational, or habitat preservation purposes; (c) Has an exceptional aesthetic value; and (d) Would not become financially burdensome to the City as a result of maintenance or preservation requirements. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Park Plan has not identified any future park facilities in the area of this development. The Developer is not proposing any publicly-owned park facilities with this PUD. The park dedication requirement for a 32.3 acre development is 1.62 acres (5% of the land area) of public parkland or fee equal its value. Staff Comments on park dedication: In this instance it would be recommended to accept a cash payment in lieu of accepting land. Given that the development is presented as an OP-PUD a substatial portion of land is preserved as open space (50%). Furthermore, the land is then required to have a conservation easement applied to preserve the lands, as outlined in Section 154.658. Although the land would not be public it will still be protect by the conservation easement. Because of this and the fact that the comprehensive plan has not identified this area as an area in need of a neighborhood park, Staff views this as the best option for the development and the City. With that said, the City will be accepting 5% of the value of the property as a cash dedication, unless credit for the trails is provided, the amount would then be less. Trails: 153.15 (D) Trails. Trails constructed by a subdivider within dedicated public open space having at least 30 feet (For clarity the trail itself is not 30 ft. wide) of width are eligible for park credit. The maximum amount of trail dedication credit shall not exceed 25% of the total required park dedication. To receive credit for a trail, there must be a through public trail connection to the larger Lake Elmo or Washington County trail network. If the proposed trails are not able to connect to existing trails, they must be installed in a way that would provide a connection to future planned trails as additional infrastructure is established. At this point The City’s standard street detail requires a 6 foot wide public sidewalk be constructed on one side of any public street and to accommodate a sidewalk and the standard right-of-way width is 60 feet wide. The developer has shown on the concept plans an eight-foot-wide trail along the north side of the street running through the development. The plans also show a 50-foot-wide right-of-way for the new street. Staff Comments: Based on the provided layout it appears the trail network that is presented is more or less required and would not warrant park dedication credit. Page 6 Additional Review: City Engineer Review. Although the site might not look drastically different from existing neighborhoods there is enough about the development that is different on a technical level to where the City Engineer is recommending the developer submit revised concept plan for additional City review before the City accepts an application for preliminary PUD/plat due to extensive changes that are needed to address the requirements of Washington County and to meet City design standards and requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Please keep in mind the approval of Concept plan does not provide the Developer with development rights nor does denial completely shut the project down. This is simply an opportunity for the developer to receive City feedback and amend plans as needed. Staff recommends that the Park Commission recommend to the City Council accept funds equal to 5% of the Land Value in lieu of land for development of the OP PUD Concept Plan. “Motion to recommend approval to accept a cash dedication instead of physical land to satisfy the park dedication requirement.” ATTACHMENTS: 1.Application Narrative dated April 28, 2020 2.Concept PUD Plan 3.Location Map 4.Park Search Area Map 5.City Engineer’s Report dated May 20, 2020 12445 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 * Phone: 651-439-8833 * Website: FFSurveying.com Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Freeman, LS 1939 – 2001 Principal April 28, 2020 PROJECT NARRATIVE Concept Plan OPEN SPACE PUD The subject property is located in the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24. Bounded on the north by the Heritage Farm open space development; on the east by Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15) with West Lakeland Township east of Manning; on the south (east portion) by a single family Rural Residential parcel; on the south (west portion) by a single family RE zoned project EDEN PARK; and on the west by a single family Rural Residential parcel. The property is 32.27 acres and is mostly open, rolling and used for agricultural with one single family home occupied presently by the property owners Gary and Meg Johnson. For years their small farm has grown vegetables for sale at a local stand at the end of their driveway. The land also features two drainageways for water from the north to drain southerly toward Downs Lake. There is one small wetland area (0.19 acres) in the northern part of the easterly drainageway that is shown on the plan and it has been delineated and verified by Valley Branch Watershed District. There is a heavy stand of pine trees providing screening from Manning Avenue. There are several rows of trees that have been planted by the property owners to provide screening along the pipeline route and the southerly property line. There is a nearly continuous row of screening trees along the north line, the westerly line and southerly line of the property. The screening of mature existing trees is proposed to be preserved with the new conservation easements. This should more that cover the 10 trees per lot required in the Open Space PUD ordinance. The architecture of the neighborhood will be controlled by City Code as well as in the PUD overlay ordinance for this development. Similar building components, materials and roof pitches should be maintained. The architectural styles should extend to the outbuildings on each lot, requiring them to look similar with similar colors and materials to compliment the main home. The land is guided RAD in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive plan. The zoning is RR Rural Residential. The property is also in the Shoreland District. The Valley Branch Watershed district regulates the surface water, wetland and runoff for this area. The property is served by the Stillwater Area School District 834. Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15) is a major traffic route from the eastern portion of Lake Elmo and various other communities to the north and east of the site. Traffic on Manning Avenue is connected from Highway 36 on the north to Interstate Highway 94 on the south, and beyond down to Hastings. The Washington County Highway Department regulates traffic, entrances and upgrades on Manning Avenue. The Highway Department has been consulted extensively on the concept layout and street access point. They are supportive of the street access and location, with some conditions. The first condition is that the existing driveway on Manning Avenue would be removed and changed to access the new street. The second condition is to provide access to the property to the 4/28/2020 PROJECT NARRATIVE Page 2 of 4 south to insure there will not be another request to access Manning Avenue when that property is developed. They also require that turn lanes and bypass be provided for safety of the intersection. This new street connection to Manning Avenue will provide a much needed second access for the Heritage Farm neighborhood, as it was proposed and was a requirement of that development when it was built. Currently there are 36 homes that only have one access point. When Heritage Farm was platted there was an alternate access for Lisbon Avenue to be connected on the south side of this property to the street platted in Eden Park. The north end of the street in Eden Park was vacated by petition of the adjoining property owners to the City Council. The access to Manning is now the only alternative outlet at this point. This property is eligible for and proposed as an Open Space Planned Unit Development. This project features 14 single family home sites as allowed in the Open Space PUD ordinance. Lot sizes range from 1.26 acres up to 4.32 acres. The new street right of way is proposed as a 50-foot-wide right of way with additional 10-foot-wide Drainage and Utility Easements on each side. There is just over 1900 lineal feet of new street to be built as a 24-foot-wide rural section street with gravel shoulders and an 8-feet-wide bituminous trail on the north side of the street. The property is served with City water from the north in Heritage Farm. The new homes sites will all have individual on-site septic tanks with individual drain- fields. The proposed impervious surface is at just under 10% with homes, driveways and street/trail. As was allowed in almost all the Open Space Preservation developments of the past, we request that the individual drainfield portion of the septic systems be allowed in the open space areas. We are looking for maximum flexibility in siting the drainfields, seeing as the adjoining properties have had some troubles with soil suitability for drainfields. The drainfields are not an above ground feature of the lot and will grow to be nearly invisible once the vegetation is established. The Shoreland Ordinance requires that drainfields be communal… and we are asking to vary from this requirement to allow individual drainfields. The property will have over 50% of the lot area reserved as open space, covered with conservation easements proposed to be held by the City of Lake Elmo. The open space will be owned and maintained by the individual lot owners, subject to the conservation easement for the City. The City will not have any responsibility for the open space areas… other than to be the entity that holds the easements. The easements will run with the land and be recorded against the lots in perpetuity. The purpose of the open space will be to preserve the land as passive open space with wildlife habitat. A plan will be submitted which will indicate how he land will be maintained. The individual homeowners will be responsible for the plan implementation on their area of the open space. There will not be a CIC declaration nor Homeowners Association for the development. The open space is contiguous with the open space and City Park created in the Heritage Farm open space development f rom the late 1990s. The open space in this project surrounds the entire property and includes the areas of the drainageways. The open space areas are contiguous throughout the project, except for the street/trail crossings. The open space area protects the existing trees that are crucial to screening this development from Manning Avenue and the adjoining properties. The existing mature trees more than account for the required 10 trees per lot. We will encourage the new lot owners to plant trees as a part of their individual landscaping plans. They can select their own tree 4/28/2020 PROJECT NARRATIVE Page 3 of 4 species and plant them in the preferred locations on their lots. Trees planted by the property owners have a better chance of thriving… as the owners will have a heightened sense of ownership because they planted them. We anticipate planting the required boulevard trees, one every 30 lineal feet in clusters that make the most sense. That is 1917 lineal feet of street divided by 30 feet spacing is 64 trees. This will be a nice beginning compliment to the landscape plans of the new homeowners in this neighborhood. It is envisioned that the only area of storm water ponding would be at the very south end of th e main drainageway, before it exits towards Downs Lake to the south, as it always has. We propose to cover this drainageway and ponding area with easements instead of creating an Outlot for the pond. This will keep the property on the tax roll and the individual lot owner would maintain the vegetation while allowing the City and Watershed District access to the pond. There will be a 50 foot wide street right of way dedicated to the property south of this project. This street right of way will be adjacent to the ponding area. The property to the south is also eligible for an Open Space PUD development. This will provide a street access, as opposed to having another street entrance on Manning Avenue. This is one of the conditions required by the Washington County Highway Department. The property owners to the south have been consulted… and they have no interest in developing their property at this time. The street would not be built until such time as the property to the south is developed. The buffers are as follows: The east property line is the right of way of Manning Avenue North, no buffer required. The north line is a border with Heritage Farm, no buffer required because Heritage Farm did not have a buffer when it was built. The west line adjoins a single family home zoned RR. There is a pipeline easement that is east of the property line about 250 feet to the east line of the easement. No additional buffer is required. On the south property line, we are adjoining both Eden Park neighborhood and on the easterly portion is an RR parcel that is eligible to be an Open Space PUD. The buffer is 100 feet from property that could be Open Space PUD. The portion that is bordered by Eden Park should technically be a 200 foot buffer. We are asking for a modification from this buffer due to the fact that the lots in Eden Park are wooded lots as well as the distance from the existing homes to the homes proposed in this development is in excess of 300 feet. The ordinance does provide for buffer mitigation by vegetative planting… if the buffer is modified. There is a half street, labeled 25th Street that was platted along with Eden Park. That street will never be opened. With a street… there would have been even less buffer required. This project will feature minimum grading to the site. The street layout and lot configuration were designed to be in harmony with the land. The existing trees and rolling nature of the site make for a beautiful landscape for this new neighborhood. The grading will be limited to grading for the street and the storm water ponding features along the south line. There will not be any mass grading of the site, nor any graded “house pads” in this project. The home sites will be individually located to follow the land. With the streets being proposed as rural section streets with gravel shoulders, this will feel like another one of the many desired rural neighborhoods in Lake Elmo. The park plan for the City of Lake Elmo does not designate a park on this property. A larger parcel was dedicated as a park just to the north of this project in Heritage Farm. That park land is currently being 4/28/2020 PROJECT NARRATIVE Page 4 of 4 used as passive open space, instead of a typical developed park. We would anticipate that the City would prefer to have a “cash in lieu” payment instead of land dedication. We are hoping to get feedback from the City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council during this Concept Phase. We have outlined some items that need a 4/5th majority vote to vary from the strict language of the Open Space PUD requirements and the Shoreland Overlay requirements. They include using a rural street section without the concrete ribbon curb in favor of gravel shoulders. This would create a more rural street image while saving the costs of the concrete areas. We also ask to use individual drainfields instead of communal drainfields, along with the flexibility to site the drainfields in the open space area of the lots. We ask that the required Homeowners Association be waived for this project. There will be no commonly owned lands or features that require cost sharing and maintenance. We also ask for modification to the buffer in one area along the south line (west portion) from 200 feet to 100 feet, adjacent to the Eden Park neighborhood. Another modification we are asking for is regarding the stormwater ponding area. It will be created adjacent to the dedicated public street access for the property to the south and we would prefer to have the lot owner own the area covered by the pond instead of creating an Outlot. We feel that with the Drainage and Utility Easement covering it, it would be protected and still allow for City access to the ponds. The adjoining lot owner would be charged with maintaining the area around the ponds. The Shoreland Ordinance suggests that lot area should be 80,000 square feet (1.83 acres) and lot with of 200 feet. While many of the lots in this development are within the 1000 foot area of Downs Lake… but there is NO frontage on the lake and there is NO view of the lake. The ordinance allows for varying from these two standards. They are created to protect the views from the lake, as well as the intensity of development on the lake. Included on the “Area Map Around Downs Lake” you can see the existing homes around the lake are not compliant with either of these two standards. Also, included on the map there is a cross section line. This helps to illustrate that the new development doesn’t have any view lines to or from the lake… as well as it being completely screened by mature trees from the lake. Those mature trees are being preserved by the open space easements. The open space design elements of the ordinance have been met, or modifications have been requested in the previous areas of this narrative. We have strived to outline how these deviations or modifications are supported by achieving the goals of the ordinance. They will allow for a higher quality building and site design, create a more unified environment for the development by minimizing streets, grading and disruption of the natural landscape. We look forward to working with the City on creating a harmonious new neighborhood with this project. Washington County, MN Ju ne 4, 2020 0 1,400 2,800700 ft 0 450 900225 m 1:1 6,0 00 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-23 Map 6-7. Search Areas for New Parks and Facilities     PAGE 1 of 3  MEMORANDUM           Date:  May 20, 2020    To:  Ken Roberts, Planning Director  Re:  Bruggeman Open Space PUD (2500 Manning Ave)  Cc:  Chad Isakson, PE, Assistant City Engineer    Concept Plan Review  From:  Jack Griffin, PE, City Engineer          An engineering review has been completed for the Bruggeman Open Space (2500 Manning Avenue) Concept Plans  received on April 30, 2020. The submittal consisted of the following documentation:   Concept Plan Narrative dated April 28, 2020.   Concept Plan Open Space Neighborhood, dated April 17, 2020.      STATUS/FINDINGS:  Engineering  review  comments  and  recommendations  should  be  considered  preliminary.  Concept plan changes will be significant to adequately address the requirements from Washington County, and to  make the necessary plan changes to meet city design standards and requirements. It is therefore recommended  that revised concept plans be submitted for additional city review prior to accepting Preliminary Plan submittal.    When submitting revised concept plans, the application should be deemed complete unless the submittal meets  the minimum city ordinance requirements, including a 1” = 100’ scaled existing conditions plan; labeled 2‐ft.  contours; and a 1” = 100’ scaled proposed site plan.      STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION   Manning Avenue right‐of‐way. Additional right‐of‐way must be dedicated along Manning Avenue to provide  90‐feet of right‐of‐way from the Manning Avenue centerline. The proposed plan only shows 60‐feet.   Access Management. Washington County has reviewed and approved the access point to Manning Avenue.  Based on County improvement plans for Manning Avenue, this access will likely become a right‐in right‐out  access with a center median preventing full access to the neighborhood. With the approval of this access,  a local street right‐of‐way must be provided (as shown) to the property to the south as an additional access  to Manning Avenue will not be permitted by the County for development of this southerly property.    Manning Avenue Improvements. The development will be responsible to make improvements to Manning  Avenue, at developer’s sole cost, with all improvements installed per Washington County requirements.  Improvements include right and center left turn lanes at the intersection of the new local street.   Local Street Access Improvements. The local street connection at Manning Avenue should include a short  length of wider street to provide dedicated right and left turn lanes onto Manning Avenue.   Manning Avenue Trail. The developer will be responsible to construct a 10‐ft. wide bituminous trail along  the frontage of Manning Avenue consistent with the Washington County trail plans.   Secondary Access. A residential street connection is required to Lisbon Avenue in the Heritage Farms  development, as shown, connecting to Lisbon Avenue where there is existing right‐of‐way. Parts of Lisbon  Avenue will need to be reconstructed into the Heritage Farms neighborhood to convert the existing cul‐de‐ FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.  Cara Geheren, P.E.   651.300.4261  Jack Griffin, P.E.                651.300.4264  Ryan Stempski, P.E.  651.300.4267  Chad Isakson, P.E.  651.300.4283      PAGE 2 of 3  sac to a future through street meeting current city street design standards. Updating to current standard is  necessary as the street is converted from a dead end to a through street.    A residential street stub will be required to the southerly plat limits as shown. The stub location must be  coordinated with the property owner, and both the right‐of‐way must be platted and the street constructed  as part of this development. If the street is not required to be constructed as part of this development, this  street connection is likely to not be completed as planned.   All streets must be designed to meet the City Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street  width and cul‐de‐sac radii. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter should be installed in single family  residential areas with future driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roadways.    The application requests 24‐foot wide rural section streets, no ribbon curb, and within 50‐foot right‐ of‐way.  Rural  section  streets  are  prohibited  by  the  Open  Space ordinance  and  are  not  recommended.   Rural section streets with property constructed roadway drainage ditches would not fit within a 60‐ foot right‐of‐way, in particular with a trail or sidewalk.   If rural roadways are permitted, concrete ribbon curb in accordance with city standards should be  required to protect the roadway from premature failure.   The minimum development right‐of‐way must be determined based on roadway design specifications and  proposed roadway use.   An 8‐foot bituminous trail with 2‐foot clear zones is recommended to be constructed along the  entire  length  of  all  proposed  streets,  as  shown.  The  proposed  right‐of‐way  of  50‐feet  is  not  sufficient  to  accommodate  the  city  standard  urban  roadway  with 8‐foot  bituminous  trail.  A  minimum of 60‐feet is required.   Street widths should be constructed consistent with the revised city standards dated April 2019 to  address adequate emergency access along all city streets.    On‐street parking needs should be considered and street widths adjusted accordingly in areas  where parking is deemed needed and to meet city design standards.    Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 19 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb.  The  divided  roadway  segment  of  Lisbon  Avenue  must  be  reconstructed  to  meet  current  city  standard for divided one‐way streets.   The proposed public street appears to cross a significant drainage way. The preliminary plans will need  include a detailed drainage design to identify adequate culvert capacity while meeting city design standards.  An emergency overflow will be required as part of the street design and supporting hydraulic modeling  provided.   Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐way.   The new local street must intersect Manning Avenue at 90‐degrees and maintain a minimum 100‐tangent  prior to any curvature. The maximum street slope in the first 50 feet cannot exceed 2.5%.   Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6% with sidewalks/trails.    MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY   Municipal water service is readily available within the Heritage Farms development located north of the  proposed subdivision. The applicant is responsible to extend municipal water into the development to serve  the proposed properties. Use of private wells is not recommended due to the ongoing groundwater  contamination issues in the area.   Two connection points to the existing watermain system is recommended. The subdivision should connect  to the existing 6‐inch watermain located in Lisbon Avenue and extend along the length of the proposed  public roadway. City design standards only permit a maximum length for dead end pipe of 1,000 feet. A  second  connection  should  be  made  to  Lisbon  Court  North  on  the  east  side  of  the  Heritage  Farms  subdivision.   Extension of city water to serve this development may pose circulation and service pressure concerns.  Should the development proceed forward, it is recommended that a water service study be completed to  analyze system capacity and pressures for serving the proposed subdivision.      PAGE 3 of 3   A watermain lateral stub will be required to the south plat limits for future extension of city water along  Lisbon Avenue within the Eden Park subdivision.   A watermain lateral stub will be required to the south plat limits along the proposed stub street.   Trunk watermain oversizing will need to be evaluated upon receipt of preliminary plat/plans.    MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER / WATEWATER MANAGEMENT   The development property is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA)  for sanitary sewer service. The developer is proposing individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems for  each lot to address wastewater management within the development.   Individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems (ISTS) are regulated by Washington County and  would  be  required  to  meet  the  permitting  requirements  of  the  County.  City  ordinances  also  requires all ISTS to conform to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Standard Chapter 7080.   The application should be revised to show both a primary and secondary ISTS system for each lot  and both systems must be fully located on the lot it serves (no common areas).   The Concept plan must be revised to show all septic systems meeting all setback requirements,  including  10‐feet  from  all  property  lines  and  20‐feet  from  all structures.  Setbacks  should  be  dimensioned and labeled on the revised plans.   All septic systems must be shown to not encroach any part of a lot easement or drainage and utility  easement, including all 100‐year HWL from adjacent storm water ponds and from the stormwater  drainage pathway.   At the time of Preliminary Plat submittal, the application should be deemed incomplete unless the applicant  has demonstrated sufficient available land for the use of individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems  for each lot, with each ISTS meeting or exceeding all applicabl e City rules and MPCA Chapter 7080. Submittal  documents must include documentation from field investigations and soil borings taken at the proposed  ISTS locations demonstrating suitable soils for each site.    STORMWATER MANAGEMENT   The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and  regulations. No proposed storm water management plan was provided as part of the Concept Plan.   Storm water facilities proposed for the site plan,meeting State and VBWD permitting requirements, must  be constructed in accordance with the all City Engineering Design Standards.   The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a drainage  system  that  provides  positive  storm  water  drainage  across  the  development.  Overland  emergency  overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.   The site plan shows one storm water pond area located on Lot 1, Block 3. The Site plans must be revised to  show all storm water basins to be located on dedicated Outlots. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully  incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10‐foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads. Preliminary  drainage calculations should be performed as part of revising the concept plans for resubmittal to allow for  adequate storm water basin site planning.   The site plan shows one storm water pond area located within an existing storm water drainage path. It is  likely that the storm water pond will need to be located to allow for the continuation for the existing  drainage path.   The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3 feet.  Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street. Drain  tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.   Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width.    ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS   All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in  accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website.  1 STAFF REPORT PARKS COMMISSION DATE: 6-15-2020 TO: Parks Commission FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Schitlgen Farm Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan Review REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director BACKGROUND: Mr. Ben Schmidt, representing the Excelsior Group, is requesting approval of a concept planned unit development (PUD) for the Schiltgen Farm property located 10880 Stillwater Boulevard. The proposed concept PUD has a total of 318 housing units – 200 single family home sites and 118 townhouse or row home units on 105.3 acres (net) with a density of about 3.0 dwelling units per acre (D.U.A). A western portion of the development site is within the Shoreland Management Area of Sunfish Lake. This triggers the need for a Planned Unit Development because the proposed lots do not meet the lot area, lot width and impervious requirements listed in the City’s Shoreland Code for Natural Environment lakes. ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION: The Commission is respectfully being requested to review and provide feedback to the developer, and make a recommendation on proposed parkland and trails to the City Council for the Concept Planned Unit Development to be called Schiltgen Farm. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Excelsior Group (Ben Schmidt), 1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 400, Saint Louis Park, MN 55416 Property Owner: Schiltgen Farms Inc. 10880 Stillwater Boulevard, Lake Elmo Location: 10880 Stillwater Blvd, Lake Elmo Four Parcels all in Section 14, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota. PID#s: 1402921140001, 1402921410003, 1402921410001 and 1402921410002 Request: Concept PUD Plans approval Site Area: 123.4 acres (all PIDs) Residential Development Area: 105.3 acres Existing Land Use Designation: V-LDR (Village Low Density Residential) Proposed Land Use Designation: V-MDR (Village Medium Density Residential) Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District Proposed Zoning: VMX/PUD (Village Mixed Use/PUD) Surrounding Zoning: V-LDR/PUD (north)/ PF – Public Facilities (east)/ RS across railroad tracks (south)/ RT and RR (west). Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/07/2020 60 Day Deadline – 7/05/2020 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 9-3-2020 Applicable Code: Article 12 – Urban Residential Districts Article 18 – Planned Unit Development Regulations Article 19 – Shoreland Management Overlay District Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations §150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control 2 PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Development Summary. In order for the development to be approved there are some zoning related amendments that need to take place. For example they will need approval of a comprehensive plan amendment, which will adjust the guided land use for the property. The intent of this amendment would allow multi-family housing units to be incorporated into the portion of the development south of Stillwater Blvd. At this time the developer has submitted a proposal which consists of 118 town house units and 200 single family units. The table below outlines how the land for the development is broken out. With this in mind the number units compared to the net acreage results with density count of 3 du/acre. Parks and Trails. • Park Dedication Requirement. The developer is required to provide the City with either physical land, cash payment, or a combination of both. The developer will be required to provide the City with 10% of the land, which would come to 12.34 acres. • Park Dedication. There are large sections of the development which are left open (20.8 acres), specifically next to the lake. Much of that is undevelopable due to the existing slopes and the requirements in the shoreland code. • Neighborhood Park Search Area. The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies a neighborhood park search area over a portion of the proposed development area. The Comprehensive Parks Plan also identifies this development in the search area for a Sports Complex/community park. The Commission should consider the need of a neighborhood park within the development site or a community sports complex in this area. • HOA Land. The developer intends to preserve the barn and there will be 4 acres of land around the barn that will also be undeveloped and owned by the HOA. Total Site Area 123.4 acres (gross) Residential Site Area 105.3 acres (Net) Outlot & Open Space Areas 24.8 acres (20.8 acre open space/green area and 4 acres open space area – barn) Ponding Areas 10.6 acres Stillwater Blvd ROW 5.5 acres Lake Elmo Ave ROW 2 acres Wetland Area 10.6 acres Residential Lot Area 105.3 acres (net) Neighborhood Park Search Area 3 Trails. The Comprehensive Trails Plan identifies a needed trail along Lake Elmo Avenue and for a trail along Stillwater Boulevard. Washington County is planning for a trail in this corridor as part of their Central Greenway, which was a jointly planned trail segment with the City of Lake Elmo. This trail segment is critical to the connection of the entire network. These trail segments have been planned for many years and this development creates an opportunity to install a new section of the Central Greenway Trail. The Concept Plan shows an internal trail network that would also extend into Legacy at North Star along the roadway (Northern Development) and connect into downtown Lake Elmo by the rail road tracks. For reference the trails are shown as blue on the concept map. Staff would also like the commission to consider a trail connection from the north west corner of the Schiltgen Farm into the south west corner of the Legacy at Northstar development. This would allow residents to quickly gain access to the Northstar network and eventually the Hamlet on Sunfish trail network. Though, keep in mind the Hamlet trails are still considered private and the connection through theoutlot, used as a storm water pond, should be studied further during preliminary plat design and review. 20.8 Acres 4 Acres 2 Acres Concept PUD Plan Recommended Trail Connection 4 Park Dedication Criteria: The City Code outlines the type of land that is considered acceptable for park dedication. This language outlined below, can be found in Section 153.15 Park Land Dedication Requirements. 153.15 Parkland Dedication Requirements. (C)Land acceptability. The City must approve the location and configuration of any park land which is proposed for dedication and shall take into consideration the suitability of the land and for its intended purpose; the future needs of the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space; and the recommendations of the City’s Parks Commission. The following properties shall not be accepted for park land dedications: (1)Land dedicated or obtained as easements for streets, sewer, electrical, gas, storm water drainage and retention areas, or other similar utilities and improvements; (2)Land which is unusable or of limited use; and/or (3)Land within a protected wetland or within a flood plain area unless the Council determines that all of the following criteria are satisfied: (a)Would be in the best interests of the general public; (b) Would be valuable resource for environmental preservation, educational, or habitat preservation purposes; (c)Has an exceptional aesthetic value; and (d) Would not become financially burdensome to the City as a result of maintenance or preservation requirements. Staff has not walked the land but does believe some of the area near the lake would have some value as a “nature park” and would have similar aesthetics to Sunfish Lake Park. In order for this land to be accepted the City would need to consider the criteria of 153.15 C 3. a-d (above). Furthermore, trails can count towards the required park dedication. Unless the trails are public and deeded to the City, dedication credit for the trails should not be considered. With that said, Staff does believe portions of the open space could count towards the park dedication requirements. This type of dedication would not lead to further park development as it would more than likely remain “natural.” The Commission should also consider the need for a more traditional 1-2 acre neighborhood park within the development. The Parks Chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive plan defines a neighborhood park as “smaller parks offering more common and highly-used facilities to immediate area residents.” Within the neighborhood search area there is not a public park to serve the immediate area. The Parks within Legacy at Northstar are not public and there would not be a location internal to the development that immediate residents would have access to. The elementary school is in close proximity but it would require children to cross a busy roadway to utilize the facility. Being that this is the concept phase of the development review it would be most appropriate to state the types of facilities the Commission would like to see in a neighborhood park, if desired. For example, a ball field, open field for field sports, a playground, or a combination. Size Reference: Reid Park - The area encompassing the ball field and park is around 3 acres. Lions Park - 3.36 acres, playground, hockey rink, and ball field VFW Park - 3.23 acres, ball field Easton Vil. Park - 1.36 acres, field and playground Hammes Park - 1.93 acres, playground OPTIONS: The Commission may recommend to the City Council: •The City accept cash in lieu of land. •The City accept land in lieu of cash. •The City take a combination of both. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Parks Commission review the proposed Concept Plat and PUD Plans and make recommendation to Council about the park dedication and trail requirements for the development by choosing one of the options listed above. ATTACHMENTS: •Concept Plan and Narrative •Lake Elmo Park Search Area – Map 6-7 •Washington County Central Greenway Map c 1OFSCHILTGREN PROPERTY LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 8-28-19 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2019 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS xx I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson 1THE EXCELSIOR GROUP 1660 HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH, SUITE 400 SAINT LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 CONCEPT PLAN 5 Section III: Development Concept 21Central Greenway Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment: Lake Elmo Segment \\ June 12, 2019 Figure 21: Trailhead and Rest Stop Locations G A T E W A Y STATE T R AIL LAKE ELMO PARK RESERVE SUNFISH LAKE PARK GiWX GlWX ?ÇA@ !"b$ GnWX GsWX ?öA@ GoWX GqWX GqWX GqWX GoWX GlWX %&h( GoWX GoWX GkWX GnWX G¡WX GeWX Sf GoWX N00.25 0.50.125 Miles ?¸A@ CITY OF GRANT CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY OF PINE SPRINGS CITY OF MAHTOMEDI CITY OF STILLWATER CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY OF BAYTOWN WEST LAKELAND TOWNSHIP CITY OF AFTON CITY OF WOODBURY CITY OF OAKDALE Horseshoe Lake Jane Lake Lake Elmo Sunfish Lake Eagle Point Lake WhiteBearLake Lake Bielenberg Dr Settlers Ridge Pkwy Tower Dr Tamarack Rd Radio Dr Valley Creek Rd Woodbu r y D r Weir Dr 75th St N 50th St N I nterlachen Pk w y Hadley Ave N Hudson Ave Woodla n e D r H u d s o n Rd Sa i n t J o h n s D r H elmo Ave N Hudson Blvd Stillwater Rd 4th St N Cou r t l y Rd M a n n i n g A v e N Lake Elmo Ave N MahtomediAve 30th St N 34th St N GreenwayAve 7th St N 15th St N Co u n t y R d 7 1 BoutwellRdN 43rd St N 50th St N 80th St N O l s o n L a ke Tr N 20th St N Keats Ave N Commer ce Dr W il d w o o d R d Mckusick Rd N Ideal Ave N 39th St N Manning Ave S 47th St N Dem o n trevill e Tr N 40th St N JamacaAveN M a nningTr N Neal Ave S Stillwate r Blvd N Stillwater Blvd N H ilto n Tr R R R TH TH TH D D D D D D D D D D Existing Public Trails (6-10’ wide) Existing Private Trails (6-10’ wide ) Existing County Soft Surface Trials (6’ wide) Existing County/Regional Trails (8-10’ wide) Gateway State Trail (10’ wide) County Parks City Parks Regional Trails Regional Trail (on new trail) Regional Trail (on existing trail) Regional Trail Railroad Crossing Alternate Interim Regional Trail (on existing local trail) Interim Regional Trail (on future local trail) Regional Trail Rest Stop Regional Trail Trailhead Regional Trail Directional Sign 0 0.25 0.5 miNORTH R TH D Trailhead at Stillwater High School Eagle Point Trailhead Trailhead at Lake Elmo Elementary School/Lake Elmo City Hall PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-23 Map 6-7. Search Areas for New Parks and Facilities     PAGE 1 of 3  MEMORANDUM         Date:  June 3, 2020      To:  Ken Roberts, Planning Director  Re:  Schiltgen Property  Cc:  Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer    Concept Plan Review  From:  Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer          An engineering review has been completed for the Schiltgen Property Concept Plans received on May 26, 2020.  The submittal consisted of the following documentation:   Residential PUD Concept Plan Narrative dated May 7, 2020.   Residential PUD Concept Plans, Sheets 1‐3, dated April 3, 2020.      STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering recommends that the concept plan be revised prior to formal City review and  comment, to address several key design elements that will likely result in significant plan layout. The Concept Plan  development for this property should begin with the identification and incorporation of the CSAH 14 and CSAH 17  intersection  reconfiguration,  the  dedication  of  required  right‐of‐way along CSAH 14 and CSAH 17, and the  identification and use of County approved site access along both CSAH 14 and CSAH 17.    Stormwater management considerations should also inform the design to ensure that storm water basins are not  landlocked by homes and roads. Overland emergency overflow elevations are required and must be utilized for all  stormwater ponding while maintaining 2‐foot minimum separation between structure low floor elevations and  the overland EOF. A system of interconnecting drainage ways should be incorporated into the design.            The public sanitary sewer system is not readily available to serve this site. The City capital improvement program  has tentatively scheduled the installation of sanitary sewer to the south side of the UP Railroad, as shown on the  concept plan, however the earliest sewer would be available would be in November 2021, if the project remains  on schedule. As the development plans move forward with this site, the city should not accept a preliminary  plat/plan application until a construction contract is awarded for the sanitary sewer project that includes the  scope of improvements necessary to make sanitary sewer available.    When submitting revised concept plans, the application should be deemed incomplete unless the submittal meets  the minimum city ordinance requirements, including a 1” = 100’ scaled existing conditions plan; labeled 2‐ft.  contours; and a 1” = 100’ scaled proposed site plan.    All  public  improvements  constructed  to  support  the  development must  be  designed  and  constructed  in  accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website dated April, 2019.            FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.  Cara Geheren, P.E.   651.300.4261  Jack Griffin, P.E.                651.300.4264  Ryan Stempski, P.E.  651.300.4267  Chad Isakson, P.E.  651.300.4283      PAGE 2 of 3  TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS      CSAH 14 and CSAH 17 Intersection reconfiguration. The concept plans should be revised to incorporate  the proposed reconfiguration of the CSAH 14 and CSAH 17 Intersection improvements, including right0of‐ way dedications and site access.   Right‐of‐way  dedication.  The  Plat  must  dedicate  sufficient  right‐of‐way  along  CSAH  14  (Stillwater  Boulevard) and CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) as required by Washington County.    180 feet is required along the full length of CSAH 14. Only 150 feet is shown.   75 feet from centerline is shown from CSAH 17, however the dedication  must  consider  the  realignment of this roadway corridor.   Access Management. The concept plans should be revised to incorporate the County approved access  locations along CSAH 14 and CSAH 17.   Intersection Improvements. The applicant will be responsible to construct all intersection and turn lane  improvements along CSAH 14 and CSAH 17 as required by Washington County. These improvements must  be completed at the developer’s cost.   Pedestrian facilities: The concept plans should be revised to incorporate bituminous trails along CSAH 14  and CSAH 17.    RESIDENTIAL STREETS     All streets must be public streets and must be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards  including right‐of‐way width (60‐feet), street width (28‐feet) and cul‐de‐sac radii.    All street intersections must be at 90 degrees and maintain 50 feet of tangent with maximum slopes of  2.5%. Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6% with sidewalks.   Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family residential areas with future  driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roadways and roadway stretches with no lots.    The proposed internal street network is well interconnected creating multiple access routes into and out  of the development. Street geometrics must meet city standards and the use of compounding curves  should be eliminated.   Additional right‐of‐way dedication may be required along Klondike Avenue and the roadway improved to  city standards.   Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 19 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb. Right‐ of‐way along divided roadways must provide a minimum 16‐foot boulevard along both sides of the street.   Six  (6)  foot  sidewalks  must  be  provided  along  all  residential  streets  and  as  may  be  required  for  connectivity.    Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways.    STORMWATER MANAGEMENT   The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules.    Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State and VBWD permitting requirements  must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual.   The concept plan shows a Regional Pond at the intersection of CSAH 14 and CSAH 17 as required in the  City CIP. The capacity and area dedicated for the required regional pond should verified with the city and  the plans updated accordingly.   All storm water facilities (ponds and infiltration basins) must be placed in Outlots. The Stormwater Facility  Outlots must fully incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10‐foot maintenance bench and all maintenance roads.   Maintenance access roads meeting City standards must be provided for all storm water facilities.    Stormwater management considerations should also inform the design to ensure that storm water basins  are not landlocked by homes and roads. Overland emergency overflow elevations are required and must  be utilized for all stormwater ponding while maintaining 2‐foot minimum separation between structure  low  floor  elevations  and  the  overland  EOF.  A  system  of  interconnecting  drainage  ways  should  be  incorporated into the design.              PAGE 3 of 3   The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3.0 feet.  Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street.  Drain tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.   Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width.    MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY   Municipal water supply is available immediately adjacent to the proposed development along the north,  east  and  south  sides.  The  applicant  is  responsible  to  extend  the  municipal  water  supply  into  the  development site at developer’s cost.   The watermain distribution lines and connections will be required wherever reasonably possible to create  a looped network.   A watermain stub will be required to extend to the western boundary of the development for future  extension along CSAH 14.    MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER   Municipal sanitary sewer system is not readily available to serve this site. The City capital improvement  program has tentatively scheduled the installation of sanitary sewer to the south side of the UP Railroad,  as shown on the concept plan, however the earliest sewer would be available would be in November  2021, if the project remains on schedule. As the development plans move forward with this site, the city  should not accept a preliminary plat/plan application until a construction contract is awarded for the  sanitary  sewer  project  that  includes  the  scope  of  improvements necessary  to  make  sanitary  sewer  available.   The applicant is responsible to extend sanitary sewer north across the UP Railroad into the development  site at developer’s cost. The development phasing must plan accordingly.   A 15‐inch trunk sanitary sewer must be stubbed to the western boundary of the development for future  extension along CSAH 14.  11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 -9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action Public Works Department Donald J. Theisen, P.E. Director Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer June 3, 2020 Ken Roberts City of Lake Elmo 3600 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Washington County comments on the Shiltgen property Dear Ken, Thank you for providing Washington County with the concept plan for the Shiltgen property in the City of Lake Elmo, dated 8-28-2019. The proposed project consists of 318 residential dwelling units on two parcels north and south of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 14 (Stillwater Blvd), west of CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue). Other proposed uses include a nature park, interpretive center and open space. Based on the plan provided, we have the following comments:  Washington County has previously discussed with city staff and school district staff the potential to reconfigure the CSAH 17 intersection at CSAH 14 to address various issues pertainting to safety, geometry, access, and stormwater management. The approval of adjacent development will constrain future opportunities for these intersection improvements and therefore should be carefully considered prior to approval of any development concepts. We have provided those drawings as an attachment to this letter. This work is not presently programmed in the county’s Capital Improvement Plan.  The Functional Classification of CSAH 17 is an “A” Minor Arterial Roadway, Expander category. The right-of-way requirement for this corridor is 150 feet total consisting of 75 feet of dedicated right-of-way from the center line of CSAH 17. The proposed dedication cannot be determined based on the plan submitted.  The Functional Classification of CSAH 14 is also an “A” Minor Arterial Roadway, Expander Category. The right-of-way requirement on CSAH 14 is 180 feet total, consisting of 90 feet from the center line. This dedication also should be verified.  The 2018 traffic volume on CSAH 17 is 5300 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and 10,300 AADT for CSAH 14 according to the Washington County 2019 Traffic Volume Map. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040 has estimated that traffic will increase to 7000 AADT by 2040. For CSAH 14, the future traffic volumes are estimated to be 13,300 AADT.  Access from the townhouse site on the south side of CSAH 14 should be connected to the intersection at CSAH 17. Gorman’s Restaurant driveway would need to be realigned to tie into the new local road access at the intersection as well. June 3, 2020 Shiltgen property Page 2 of 3  The access location proposed on CSAH 17, across from the elementary school exit, is acceptable to the county. Turn lane improvements at the intersection should be center, left, and right turn lanes and the design will need to be approved by the county traffic engineer. A Washington County Right-of-Way Permit will be required for the turn lane improvements.  The proposed access point along CSAH 14 is less than the county’s quarter mile access spacing guidelines. Klondike Avenue is just over ¼ mile away and should be their north and south access point. There should also be center, left, and right turn lanes for any new access on CSAH 14. Again, all improvements will need to be approved by the county traffic engineer.  The plans should identify trail connections within the site as well as along CSAH 17 and CSAH 14. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040 identifies the Central Greenway Regional Trail corridor along this section. The county will work with the city on those future efforts. Trails should connect to future subdivisions to the north as well as to the Old Village Center and Lake Elmo Elementary.  The plans do not reflect the regional pond as planned during the Downtown Lake Elmo/CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue improvement project.  The developer or the city must submit the drainage report and calculations to our office for review of any downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the drainage calculations, we will request written conclusions that show the volume and rate of stormwater run-off into the county right-of way will not increase as part of the project.  Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds. County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of county right-of-way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.  A Right-of-Way Permit will be required for any work within county highway right-of- way as it relates to the development. A plan set is required with the application and includes any grading, installation of culverts, installation of water and sewer services, left and right turn lanes on CSAH 17 and on CSAH 14, parallel trail June 3, 2020 Shiltgen property Page 3 of 3 development, signage and any landscaping and other improvements within county right-of-way.  All utility connections to county highway right-of-way for the development require Washington County Right-of-Way respective permits. Typically, these utility connection permits are the responsibility of the utility companies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this preliminary plat. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-430-4362 or Ann.Pung-Terwedo@co.washington.mn.us. For permit applications, please contact Carol Hanson at Carol.Hanson@co.washington.mn.us. Regards, Ann Pung-Terwedo Senior Planner Cc: Carol Hanson, Office Specialist R/Plat Reviews/City of Lake Elmo/Shiltgen20202 CSAH 14 C S A H 1 7 SOUTH SCHOOL ENTRANCE BROOKFIELD MALL ENTRANCE 39TH ST. N. 1 0 0 + 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 5 + 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 7 1 0 8 1 0 9 1 1 0 + 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 + 0 0 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 2 0 + 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 5 + 0 0 1 2 6 1 2 7 1 2 8 1 1 ' 1 5 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 '1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 11'13'13' 11' 11' 1 1' 1 4 ' 1 4 ' 11'13'11' 11' 12' 8 ' T R A I L 10' TRAIL 8 ' T R A I L 8 ' T R A I L 1 0 ' T R A I L 1 0 ' T R A I L 1 0 ' T R A I L 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 11' 50 SCALE IN FEET A A B C B C D D E E F F G H H I I J J K K L L C S A H 1 7 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY INTERSECTION OF CSAH 14 AND CSAH 17 SQUARED OFF INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ENGINEER: JOE GUSTAFSON DESIGN ENGINEER: FRANK TICKNOR DESIGNER: DAVID F. CHURCHICH 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' NORTH SCHOOL EXIT 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 3 ' 13' 13' 11' 13' 11' 11' 13' M M 13' 12' 1:50 1:15 6' S H L D 6' SHLD 1 : 5 6' SHLD 6' SHLD 6' SHLD 6' SHLD 8' BLVRD 8' SIDEWALK 6' SHLD 6' SHLD 1:15 10' SHLD10' SHLD 12' 12' 1:15 1:40 11'1:40 1:15 1:15 SITE POND POTENTIAL SITE POND POTENTIAL SITE POND POTENTIAL G JUNE 17, 2019 (TYPICALS FACE NORTH AND EAST) (TYPICALS ARE NOT TO SCALE) TYPICALS R:\\00Design\LakeElmoOptions\csah17andcsah14opt1.dgn 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 11' 3.9' 0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/' 0.06'/' 0.02'/' 1.5' { CSAH 17 INPLACE VAR. LEFT TURN THRU LANE INPLACE 9.0' SHOULDERTHRU LANE TRAIL INPLACE 10.0' SHLD. V A R . 8'8'2'6'2'2'6' B624 C@GB624 C@G B624 C@G 2 . 0 ' 11' B624 C@G MEDIAN A - A 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' 39TH ST. N. (NORTH OF INTERSECTION) LANE TURN RIGHT LANE TURN LEFT INPLACE 10.0' INPLACE 11.0' INPLACE 12.0' B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 0.015'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/'0.06 '/' 0.06'/' 1.5' { CSAH 17 INPLACE SHLD.TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1 :61:6 8'6'2'6'2'11'10'11' 11.5' INPLACE 2.5' 11.5' INPLACE RIGHT TURN 5' THRU LANE LEFT TURN THRU LANE 2' MEDIAN B - B B624 C@G B624 C@G C@G B624 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN LEFT SOUTH 39TH ST. N. (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION) 1.5' 0.02'/' 10' MIN. VAR. (8' MIN.) VAR. LANE TURN RIGHT 0.02'/' INPLACE 10.5' INPLACE 10.0' 0.02'/' B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 0.015'/'0.06'/'0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 1.5' { CSAH 17 INPLACE SHLD.TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1 :61:6 8'8'6'2'2'11'10' MIN. VAR. 10' 11.5' INPLACE 2.5' 11.5' INPLACE RIGHT TURNTHRU LANE LEFT TURN THRU LANE 2'11' THRU LANE MEDIAN C - C B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G BROOKFIELD MALL ENTERANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION) 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' INPLACE 10.0' LANE TURN RIGHT VAR. (6'-18') 10' INPLACE 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 11' 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/'0.06'/' 1.5' 8'2'2'(8' MIN.) VAR. 0.015'/' 1.5' 1 :6 TRAIL 10' 2.5' { CSAH 17 INPLACE 22' TO 135' 10'VAR.6'2' MEDIAN TAPER D - D B624 C@G B624 C@G 1:6 SCHOOL'S NORTH ENTRANCE (NORTH OF INTERSECTION) 0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT 6' SHLD B624 C@G B624 C@G THRU LANETHRU LANE INPLACE 10.0' 10' INPLACE RIGHT SHLD. 12' INPLACE12' INPLACE SHLD. B624 C@G 11' THRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/'0.06'/' 1.5' TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1.5' 1 :61:6 8'2'6'2'(8' MIN.) VAR. TYPICAL SECTION AT SCHOOL'S NORTH ENTRANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION) LEFT TURN LANE 11' THRU LANE 2.5' { CSAH 17 INPLACE 153' TO 212' MEDIAN E - E B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G (10' MIN.) VAR. 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 10'6' SHLD 6' SHLD 0.02'/' THRU LANETHRU LANE INPLACE 10.0' 10' INPLACE RIGHT SHLD. 12' INPLACE12' INPLACE SHLD. B624 C@G THRU LANE 11' TRAIL BLVD. 0.015'/' 0.06'/' 0.06'/'0.06 '/' 0.06'/' TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1.5' VAR. BLVD. 22' MIN. 1 :6 1:6 8'2'2'10' 2.7' { CSAH 17 INPLACE 211' 11' THRU LANEVAR. VAR 6' TO 17' MEDIAN 1.5' TAPER 6' F - F B624 C@G B624 C@G SCHOOLS SOUTH ENTRANCE (NORTH OF INTERSECTION) 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' 6' SHLDTRAIL 1.5' BLVD. (8' MIN.) VAR. 0-11' SHLD B624 C@G TAPER VAR. 0-11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 10' INPLACE RIGHT SHLD. 12' INPLACE12' INPLACEINPLACE VAR' TURN TAPER B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/'0.06'/' 1.5' 10' TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1.5' 1 :6 1:6 8'8'11'10'2'2'17' TO 6' 2.7' { CSAH 17 INPLACE 211' MEDIAN 11' THRU LANE 2' G - G B624 C@GB624 C@G B624 C@G SOUTH SCHOOL ENTRANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT 0.02'/' 6' TAPER VAR. SHLD/ 0-11' TAPER VAR. INPLACE 11' INPLACE 11' LANE TURN RIGHT LANE TURN LEFT THRU LANE RIGHT SHLD. INPLACE 12' INPLACE 10' B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 11'11' 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/'0.06'/' 1.5' V A R . 8'8'2'6'2'2' B624 C@G B624 C@G TRAIL 0.015'/' 10' 2.7' { CSAH 17 INPLACE 211' MEDIAN 1.5' H - H 1:6 1.5' TCSAH 14. (NORTH OF INTERSECTION) 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT LANE TURN LEFT 0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' (0' TO 11') VAR. LANE TURN RIGHT (10 MIN.) VAR. B624 C@G THRU LANE RIGHT SHLD. INPLACE 11' INPLACE 12' INPLACE 10' LANE TURN LEFT INPLACE 11' LANE TURN RIGHT B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE/ 11' BLVD.BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/'0.06'/' V A R . 8'2'6'2'2' B624 C@GB624 C@G 11' LEFT TURN LANEMEDIAN 8' LEFT TURN LANE I - I 11' BETWEEN GORMANS ENTRANCE AND CSAH 14) 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02/'0.02/'0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT B624 C@G B624 C@G 14' BLVD. 0.06'/' 0.06'/' BLVD. 0.06'/' 0.06'/' VAR.8' THRU LANE 14' J - J B624 C@G BETWEEN GORMANS ENTRANCE AND CUL-DE-SAC LANE RIGHT TURN THRU/ 0.02'/'0.02'/' 11' THRU LANE 0.06 '/ ' THRU LANE 10' BLVD. 0.06'/' 0.06'/' CSAH 14 EAST OF CSAH 17 SHLD.TRAIL 1.5' 0.015'/' 1.5' 0.06'/' 11'11' RIGHT TURN LANETRAIL 1.5' 0.015'/' 1:6 2'8'10'8'6'2' MEDIAN 2'11' LEFT TURN LANE VAR. TAPER K - K B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G 6' B624 C@G BLVD. 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' B624 C@G BLVD. 0.06'/' THRU LANESHLD. 10' 0.06'/' 11'11' RIGHT TURN LANEBLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 10' 1:6 CSAH 14 WEST OF CSAH 17 (TURN LANES) 6'2' MEDIAN 2'11' LEFT TURN LANE 11' THRU LANE B624 C@G B624 C@G L - L 6' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' B624 C@G B624 C@G 11' THRU LANE 0.06'/' 10' BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' SHLD.TRAIL 1.5' 0.015'/' 1.5' 0.06'/' TRAIL 1.5' 0.015'/' 1:6 8'10'8' SHLD. 6'2' MEDIAN 2' CSAH 14 WEST OF SOUTHEAST SCHOOL ENTRANCE 11' LEFT TURN LANE 11' THRU LANE VAR. TAPER M - M B624 C@G B624 C@G 6' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 6' SHLD B624 C@G SOUTH SCHOOL ENTRANCE GORMAN'S ENTRANCE NORTH SCHOOL EXIT 1 0 0 + 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 5 + 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 7 1 0 8 1 0 9 1 1 0 + 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 + 0 0 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 2 0 + 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 5 + 0 0 1 2 6 1 2 7 1 2 8 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 2 2 ' 11' 11'22' 22' 1 4 ' 1 4 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 11' 11' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 50 SCALE IN FEET C C D D E E F F G H H I J J I K K L L 1 1 ' C S A H 1 7 1:40 6' SHLD 1:15 11' 11'11' CSAH 14 6' SHLD 11' 11' 1:40 1 1 ' 22' 12'12' 1 1 ' C S A H 1 7 BROOKFIELD MALL ENTRANCE 39TH ST. N. 1 1 ' 1 5 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 8 ' T R A I L 8 ' T R A I L 1 0 ' T R A I L 1 1 'A A B B 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 : 1 5 1 : 4 0 1 : 1 5 1 : 1 5 1 : 1 5 TYPICALS G M M SITE POND SITE POND SITE POND N N R:\00Design\LakeElmoOptions\csah17andcsah14opt2.dgn TRAFFIC ENGINEER: JOE GUSTAFSON DESIGN ENGINEER: FRANK TICKNOR DESIGNER: DAVID F. CHURCHICH INTERSECTION OF CSAH 14 AND CSAH 17 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY AND BECOME POND AREAS EXISTING ROADS BETWEEN SCHOOL AND CSAH 17 ARE REMOVED ROUND ABOUT IS OFFSET FROM EXISTING ALIGNMENT JUNE 17, 2019 (TYPICALS FACE NORTH AND EAST) (TYPICALS ARE NOT TO SCALE) B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 0.015'/'0.06'/'0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 1.5' SHLD.TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1 :61:6 8'6'2'2'11'10' 11.5' INPLACE 11.5' INPLACE RIGHT TURNTHRU LANE THRU LANE 2'11' THRU LANE MEDIAN C - C B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G BROOKFIELD MALL ENTERANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION) 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' INPLACE 10.0' LANE TURN RIGHT VAR. (6'-17')(8' MIN.) VAR. (10' MIN.) VAR. 6' - 46' { CSAH 17 INPLACE INPLACE 10.0' LEFT TURN 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 11' 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/'0.06'/' 1.5' 8'2'2'(8' MIN.) VAR. 0.015'/' 1 :6 TRAIL 10'VAR.2' MEDIAN TAPER D - D B624 C@G B624 C@G 1:6 SCHOOL'S NORTH ENTRANCE (NORTH OF INTERSECTION) 0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT 6' SHLD B624 C@G B624 C@G (10' MIN.) VAR. (15'-17') VAR. 1.5' 0' TO 59' RIGHT TURN 2.5' THRU LANELEFT TURNTHRU LANE INPLACE 10.0' { CSAH 17 INPLACE 12' INPLACE 12' INPLACE 10' INPLACE B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 0.015'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/'0.06'/ ' 0.06'/' 1.5' { CSAH 17 INPLACE SHLD.TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1 :61:6 8'6'2'2'11'10'11' 11.5' INPLACE 2.5' 11.5' INPLACE RIGHT TURN 5' THRU LANE LEFT TURN THRU LANE 2' MEDIAN B - B B624 C@G B624 C@G C@G B624 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN LEFT SOUTH 39TH ST. N. (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION) 1.5' 0.02'/' 10' MIN. VAR. (8' MIN.) VAR. LANE TURN RIGHT 0.02'/' INPLACE 10.5' INPLACE 10.0' 0.02'/' (6'-11') VAR 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 11' 3.9' 0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/' 0.06'/' 0.02'/' 1.5' { CSAH 17 INPLACE VAR. LEFT TURN THRU LANE INPLACE 9.0' SHOULDERTHRU LANE TRAIL INPLACE 10.0' SHLD. VA R . 8'8'2'6'2'2'6' B624 C@GB624 C@G B624 C@G 2 . 0 ' 11' B624 C@G MEDIAN A - A 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' 39TH ST. N. (NORTH OF INTERSECTION) LANE TURN RIGHT LANE TURN LEFT INPLACE 10.0' INPLACE 11.0' INPLACE 12.0' B624 C@G 11' THRU LANE 11' TRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/'0.06'/' 1.5' TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1.5' 1 :61:6 8'2'6'2'1.5'(8' MIN.) VAR. TYPICAL SECTION AT SCHOOL'S NORTH ENTRANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION) 11' THRU LANE 2.5' { CSAH 17 INPLACE MEDIAN E - E B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 10'6' SHLD 6' SHLD 0.02'/' 59' 17' LANE TURN LEFT THRU LANETHRU LANE INPLACE 10.0' 10' INPLACE RIGHT SHLD. 12' INPLACE12' INPLACE SHLD. B624 C@G THRU LANE 11' TRAIL BLVD. 0.015'/' 0.06'/' 0.06'/'0.06'/ ' 0.06'/' TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1.5' VAR. BLVD. 22' MIN. 1 :6 1:6 8'2'2'10'11' THRU LANEVAR.MEDIAN 1.5' TAPER 6' F - F B624 C@G B624 C@G SCHOOLS SOUTH ENTRANCE (NORTH OF INTERSECTION) 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' 6' SHLDTRAIL 1.5' BLVD. (8' MIN.) VAR. 0-11' SHLD B624 C@G TAPER VAR. 0-11' RIGHT TURN 2.5' THRU LANE 10.5' INPLACE THRU LANE { CSAH 17 INPLACE 6' 59' - 60.5' THRU LANETHRU LANE 10' INPLACE RIGHT SHLD. 12' INPLACE12' INPLACE TURN TAPER B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/'0.06'/' 1.5' 10' TRAIL 0.015'/' 1.5' 1.5' 1 :61:6 8'8'11'10'2'2' MEDIAN 11' THRU LANE 2' G - G B624 C@G B624 C@G SOUTH SCHOOL ENTRANCE (SOUTH OF INTERSECTION 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT 0.02'/' 0-11' TAPER VAR. RIGHT TURNTHRU LANE { CSAH 17 INPLACE 6'2' 60.5' - 61.5' 10' INPLACE12' INPLACE 2.5' 11' INPLACEINPLACE 11' LANE TURN RIGHT LANE TURN LEFT B624 C@G 11' THRU LANETRAIL 1.5' BLVD.BLVD. 11'11' 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/' 0.015'/'0.06'/' 1.5' VA R . 8'8'2'2'2' B624 C@GB624 C@G TRAIL 0.015'/' 10' MEDIAN 1.5' H - H 1:6 1.5' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT 0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT (10 MIN.) VAR. 11' RIGHT TURN 11.5' INPLACE THRU LANELEFT TURN { CSAH 17 INPLACE 0' - 61.5' CSAH 14. (NORTH OF INTERSECTION) LANE THRU (6' MIN) VAR. B624 C@G INPLACE 10' INPLACE 12' LANE TURN RIGHT INPLACE 11' 11' THRU LANETHRU LANE 10' BLVD. 0.06'/' 0.06'/' CSAH 14 EAST OF CSAH 17 TRAIL 1.5' 0.015'/' 1.5' 0.06'/' 11'11' TRAIL 1.5' 0.015'/' 1:6 2'8'10'8'6'2' MEDIAN 2'11' I - I B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G B624 C@G BLVD. 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.06'/' 0.02'/' 11' LANE TURN LEFT LANE TURN LEFT LANE TURN RIGHT B624 C@G BLVD. 0.06'/' THRU LANESHLD. 10' 0.06'/' 11'11' BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 10' 1:6 CSAH 14 WEST OF CSAH 17 (TURN LANES) 6'2' MEDIAN 2'11' B624 C@G B624 C@G J - J 6' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' B624 C@G LANE TURN RIGHTTHRU LANE B624 C@G 11' THRU LANE 11' BLVD.BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 0.06'/'0.06'/' VA R . 8'2'6'2'2' B624 C@GB624 C@G MEDIAN 8'11' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02/'0.02'/'0.02'/' LANE TURN RIGHT K- K 0.02'/' 11' THRU LANE LANE TURN LEFT CSAH 17 BETWEEN GORMANS ENTRANCE AND CSAH 14 B624 C@G B624 C@G 14' BLVD. 0.06'/' 0.06'/' BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 8' THRU LANE 14' L - L B624 C@G BETWEEN GORMANS ENTRANCE AND CUL-DE-SAC LANE RIGHT TURN THRU/ 0.02'/'0.02'/' 8' B624 C@G 11' THRU LANE 0.06'/' 10' BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' SHLD.TRAIL 1.5' 0.015'/' 1.5' 0.06'/' TRAIL 1.5' 0.015'/' 1:6 8'10'8' SHLD. 6'2' MEDIAN 2' CSAH 14 WEST OF SOUTHEAST SCHOOL ENTRANCE 11' LEFT TURN LANE 11' THRU LANE VAR. TAPER M - M B624 C@G B624 C@G 6' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 0.02'/'0.02'/'0.02'/' 6' SHLD B624 C@G 12' 0.06'/' 0.06'/' BLVD. 0.06'/'0.06'/' 8' THRU LANE 12' B624 C@G 0.02'/'0.02'/' N - N CSAH 14 TIE TO INPLACE WEST OF CSAH 17 THRU LANE 0.02'/' SHLDSHLD 0.02'/' 0-10' 0-10' 0.02'/' 0-6' MEDIAN B624 C@G BLVD. 8'