Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#10 - Applewood Pointe1 STAFF REPORT DATE: 04/07/20 TO: City Council FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director AGENDA ITEM: Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo (Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard) REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner BACKGROUND: The City has received several land use requests from United Properties for the development of a new senior housing cooperative. These include: 1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment (land use plan change) for the project site from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use – business park); 2. A Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) for the project site from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use – business park); 3. A PUD Amendment for the Eagle Pointe Park PUD to allow a residential use on the proposed development site; and 4. A Preliminary Plat and the Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plans for a proposed 103 unit multi-family residential development to be called Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo. The applicant is proposing this project for a vacant 11.7-acre parcel on the northeast corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard in the Eagle Pointe Business Park. Please see the attached maps, plans and information from the applicant for more information about this proposal. The City Council reviewed and approved the concept plans for this PUD on October 1, 2019. This approval was documented in Resolution 2019-073 and was subject to 13 conditions of approval. On January 13, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing about this development proposal. The City received one no comment and there were no members of the public in attendance at this meeting wishing to speak about the proposal. After hearing the staff presentation and a discussion by the Commission members in attendance, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the City should approve the land use requests for the proposed Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo. On February 4, 2020, the City Council first considered this development proposal. After some discussion and review, the City Council tabled action on the development requests. The Council took this action to allow staff time to investigate the potential impact this development would have on housing numbers and housing densities in the City and what improvements or upgrades would need to occur to the City sanitary sewer system (including the nearby lift station) if this development was to proceed. 2 ISSUE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL: The Council is being asked to consider and approve several land use requests for the proposed Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo to be located on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: General Information. • Property Owner: United Properties, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Applicant: United Properties (Jennifer Mason) • Location: Outlot C, Eagle Point Business Park Second Addition PID Number 33.029.21.44.0009 • Requests: Planned Unit Development Revision, Preliminary PUD and Plan Review, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map change • Site Area: 11.7 gross acres • Existing Zoning: BP – Business Park • Existing Land Use: Platted but vacant parcel within Eagle Point Business Park • Surrounding Land Use: Business Park Office Buildings, High Pointe Medical Center • Surrounding Zoning: BP – Business Park • Comprehensive Plan: Existing: BP (Business Park) Proposed: MU-BP (Mixed Use Business Park) • Proposed Zoning: MU-BP (Mixed Use Business Park) • History: The preliminary development plans for the Eagle Point Business Park were approved in 1999 by the City of Lake Elmo. The 7th Addition was platted in 2006 which allowed for the development of two lots near the intersection of Eagle Point Boulevard and Inwood Avenue and created a larger outlot on which Intermediate School District 916 built a new school facility. • Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 11/25/2019 • 60 Day Deadline – 01/23/2020 • Extension Letter Mailed – Yes • 120 Day Deadline – 03/22/2020 (Extended until May 20, 2020 per applicant) • Applicable Regulations: 154.051 – BP Business Park Zoning District • 154.800 – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations • 2040 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan • City of Lake Elmo Design Standards Manual BACKGROUND The Eagle Point Business Park was initially conceived as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan update in 1992, and the official Business Park zoning for this area was adopted in 1997. Over the next three years, United Properties submitted applications for a general concept plan for a business park, a general development stage plan, and a final plat and final plans for what is now called the Eagle Point Business Park. Overall, the business park occupies approximately 120 acres in the extreme southwestern portion of Lake Elmo both north and south of Hudson Boulevard. Since approving the overall plans for the park, the City has been reviewing final development plans for each of the buildings/phases that have been constructed since then. 3 Reason for PUD Amendment/PUD History Eagle Point Business Park was approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the early 2000’s, and the City approved a concept plan and preliminary development plan for the entire site at that time. This approval included the adoption of development standards and regulations for the entire park, and all subsequent building is expected to conform to these standards. In terms of new building requests, the City has been requiring applicants to submit an updated preliminary plat and preliminary plans for each site, which is then followed by consideration of a final plat and plans. Since this lot is now platted as an outlot it will need City approval of a preliminary and final plat before construction may start. Most of necessary public infrastructure for this site, including the public roads and utilities, have been installed. In this case, however, the applicant is asking for City approval of a land use that the City has not approved the Eagle Pointe PUD – senior housing. This development and land use requires City-approval of a PUD amendment, a preliminary PUD and preliminary plat, a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning map change for the site. A more detailed description of the proposed use, including a site development summary and a housing demand assessment, have been provided by the applicant and are included as attachments to this report. The primary proposed use of the site (on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard) would be a 4-story, 103-unit senior (for those at least 62 years old) cooperative building with underground parking for 100 vehicles. The units would range in size from about 1,300 to 1,800 square feet and would for sale as part of the cooperative. The housing demand study provided by the applicant indicated there currently is an unmet cooperative housing demand of 397 units in the area and project that unmet demand to grow to 495 units by 2024. As proposed, the building would be located generally in the center of the site on the higher ground in between two wetlands. The development would wrap around an existing wetland to the east and would be to the east of the smaller wetland on the northern portion of the site near Eagle Point Boulevard. The latest plans show one driveway connecting the development to Eagle Point Boulevard with 79 surface parking spaces and 26-foot-wide access driveways wrapping around 3 sides of the building. The latest plan includes a total of 179 parking spaces. The attached plans provided by the applicant include a site survey, an existing conditions/wetlands map, a preliminary plat, utility plans and proposed building elevations. Most of the public and private infrastructure needed to serve the proposed building are already in place as there is public sanitary sewer and public water in the Hudson Boulevard right-of-way and available to the property. Consistent with other developments and City policy, the City will be requiring the developer to make improvements in the portion of the Hudson Boulevard corridor adjacent to their site. These changes are to convert that part of the road from a rural section (with ditches) to an urban section with curb and gutter, a bituminous trail and underground storm sewer facilities. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has designated this site Business Park (BP) in the land use plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies BP as “providing for a wide variety of professional businesses such as medical and research facilities, offices and corporate headquarters. Retail sales of goods and services are allowable uses by conditional use permit provided such uses are goods and services for employees of the permitted business use. This land use designation excludes any residential use.” For this development to proceed, the City would need to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the site to change the land use designation from BP to HDR (high density residential) or to MU-BP (mixed use business park). The HDR land use is for higher density residential development ranging from 8 to 15 units per acre. As an 11.7 acre property, this site could have up to 175 units – they are proposing 103 units (about 8.8 units per gross acre). 4 The MU-BP land use designation is a new land use included in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This land use “identifies where a mix of general business, business park and residential uses may benefit or be compatible due to proximity of uses. Business uses in this category include office and service uses such as, but not limited to, offices and agencies, warehouse/showroom, light manufacturing and live/work development. Land with this designation is assumed to develop with a minimum of 50 percent residential with a density ranging from 6 to 10 dwelling units per acre.” With 103 total units on 10.34 net acres, they are proposing 9.96 residential units per net acre. The decision to change or amend the Comprehensive Plan is a policy matter for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on to the City Council. The City should base any change to the Comprehensive Plan on findings and criteria to show that the change would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City. Such criteria may include that proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and would be beneficial to existing and future residents by providing a location for a housing option not currently available in the City. Additional Comprehensive Plan/Housing Density Information Since the City Council meeting on February 4, 2020 I asked Jennifer Haskamp, the City’s Planning consultant that prepared the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update, to review the proposed land use plan change for the Applewood Pointe proposal. She provided me with the following comments: o Generally, I would expect the Metropolitan Council to view the land use plan change favorably since the density of the housing is well above their preferred minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre. o While this parcel is not now planned for housing, if permitted to move forward, I would not recommend looking for other parcels where the City might offset or reduce density. Instead, for example, if the Met Council gives the City a hard time for any “bail outs” of existing lower density neighborhoods (such as OP developments), the City demonstrate that they have balanced it out with new residential developments such as Applewood Pointe. o Another example – if another BP-MU development is proposed that has no housing, the City could still consider it since the City would have provided housing units in the Applewood Pointe development. In my opinion, aside from finally getting a development on that parcel, the value in this project is that it may provide the City with additional flexibility in the future. Summary of the impact of the Applewood Pointe project on the City’s overall housing density: o The City’s overall density within the MUSA was about 2.2 units per acre prior to 2016. The Metropolitan Council requires cities to average 3.0 units per acre with the MUSA, therefore, the City was running a deficit in their 2030 Plan which was required to be accounted for within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. o The newly adopted future land use plan (in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan), guides enough land, at appropriate densities to meet and overall density of 3 dwelling units per acre in the City’s MUSA. o I recently updated the density calculation to incorporate known projects through January 2020 and the guided land uses. The overall density remains about 3 units per acres (specifically 2.99 units per acre). o If the City re-guides the 11.7-acre parcel for the Applewood Pointe project from BP to MU-BP and approves the development, then 103 housing units would be added to the MUSA. This change 5 would have a nominal effect on the city’s overall density, shifting the overall density slightly from 2.99 units per acre to a solid 3.0 dwelling units per acre. In summary, the re-guiding this site to allow this development is positive and more firmly aligns the City’s overall housing density with the required 3 units per acre; however, the 103 units are not enough to significantly impact the City’s overall housing density and therefore the density offsets on other parcels is likely not an option. Before submitting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to the Met Council for approval, a City must first submit the amendment for review by the Planning Commission, obtain local governing body (City Council) authorization for the amendment to be submitted to the Met Council for review, and give adjacent governmental units, affected special districts and affected school districts an opportunity to review the proposed amendment. Once they receive a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request, the Met Council has 15 days to determine if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is complete for review and 60 days to approve or deny the request. They also may extend the review period for an additional 60 days if needed and beyond 120 days if agreed to by the local government. City staff sent the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for adjacent agency review on November 26, 2019. Both the City of Oakdale and the City of Woodbury replied to staff that they had no comment about the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan for this site. As a condition of approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City should require the submission of the necessary Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the City receiving formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that they have completed their review and that they have approved the proposed plan amendment. Zoning Map Amendment. In order for this development to proceed, the City also will need to approve a zoning map amendment (rezoning) for the property from BP (business park) to HDR (urban high density residential) or to MU-BP (mixed use business park). According the Lake Elmo Zoning Code, the HDR district is to provide for moderate to high density attached and multi-family housing, designed to present an attractive appearance to neighboring street and adjacent uses, to include sufficient private and semi- private outdoor space and to be well-integrated into their surroundings. Development in this district may occur at densities in excess of seven dwelling units per acre, provided the overall densities are consistent with the net densities specified in the Comprehensive Plan. If the City supports this development plan and approves the required Comprehensive Plan Amendment, then City should change the zoning of the site to be consistent with the new land use designation. If the City approves the MU-BP land use designation for this site, then the City also should amend the City zoning map to MU-BP to be consistent with the new land use designation. The City Council approved the mixed use zoning district code amendment (including MU-BP zoning district) on February 19, 2019. I have included part of the MU-BP ordinance language below: A. MU-BP Mixed Use Business Park. The purpose of the mixed use business park district is to provide areas in the city that will have a mix of general business, business park and residential uses. Having a mixture of land uses within the district allows for better integration of uses and more flexibility to respond to market demands. The district promotes high standards of site design, spatial relationships, building architecture and landscape design that will foster compact developments with pedestrian convenience and human scale and will preserve and strengthen existing businesses and land uses. The placement and treatment of buildings, parking, signage, landscaping and pedestrian spaces are essential elements in creating a livable environment in a mixed-use area. The City will evaluate new development proposals for their consistency with this goal and the City may require developers to amend or change development proposals. The City 6 may deny proposals when the City finds them to be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City. The City allows light industrial and limited manufacturing in this district with the city approval of a conditional use permit. All business activities and storage in this district are to be conducted inside buildings that are of high quality and attractive. The city will require developers and builders in the district to provide open space, quality landscaping and berming as part of their projects. Development in this district shall incorporate creative design and buffering techniques to ensure smooth transitions between different types of development or different intensities of uses. At least 50 percent of the net developable area of a proposed mixed use business park development is to be residential, and residential development within these areas shall occur at a density range of 6-10 units per acre. PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN REVIEW PUD Review Process. The City Code for PUD’s requires several steps in the project review and approval process. Section 154.758 of the City Code (below) provides all the details about the review process and steps. The Planning Commission is to hold a public hearing about the preliminary plan and preliminary plat and report its findings and recommendations to the City Council. § 154.758 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. There are four stages to the PUD process: application conference, general concept plan, preliminary plan and final plan, as described below. A. Application Conference. Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Planning Director. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his or her proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this subchapter before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. B. General Concept Plan. The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing his or her basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan should include the following: overall density ranges, general location of residential and nonresidential land uses, their types and intensities, general location of streets, paths and open space, and approximate phasing of the development. C. Preliminary Plan. Following approval of the general concept plan, the applicant shall submit a preliminary plan application and preliminary plat, in accordance with the requirements described in § 153.07. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with the procedures in this subchapter for zoning changes. D. Final Plan. Following approval of the preliminary plan, the applicant shall submit a final plan application and final plat, in accordance with the requirements described in § 153.08. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with the procedures in this ordinance for zoning changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the preliminary plan and final plan may proceed simultaneously. E. Schedule for Plan Approval 1. Developer presents the general concept plan to the Planning Commission for their review and comment. 2. After verification by the Planning Director that the required plan and supporting data are adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, with public notice. 7 3. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. 4. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. 5. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within 60 days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the general concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. 6. Following approval of the General Concept Plan, the application may proceed to the preliminary plan phase. (This is now the review phase for this proposal.) PROPOSAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Site Plan. The proposed site plan includes one 4-story building with 103 residential units, 100 lower level parking spaces and 79 on-grade (surface) parking spaces. This plan also shows areas for community gardens, bocce ball, a deck over-looking the wetland and a gazebo for the residents of the building. With 103 units on an 11.7 gross acre site, the density for this proposal is 9.0 residential units a gross acre. With 1.36 acres of wetland on the property, the site is 10.34 net acres for calculating density. 103 residential units divided by 10.34 acres equals 9.96 residential units per net acre. Proposed Uses. The applicant’s project information dated July 31, 2019 indicated they would be including several elements and features in the common spaces of the building for use by the residents. These include a club room, community gardens, craft studio, conference room, fitness center, library and a great room. Staff is not aware if the building will have an office for management. Site and Design Changes. The applicant has made several changes to the proposed project plans in response to City comments about the Concept Plan and because they now have more information about the site. The most significant change to the plans are the proposed driveways and site access. The plans now show one 26-foot-wide driveway for access to and from Eagle Point Boulevard about 550 feet from Hudson Boulevard whereas the concept plan had two driveways for the site. The one proposed driveway would meet the City’s spacing requirement from Hudson Boulevard but not from the existing office park driveway whereas the plan with two driveways would not meet City requirements. The project plans also now show improvements in and along Hudson Boulevard including an 8-foot-wide trail and changes to convert the road into an urban section with curb and gutter. Site Character. The site is rolling with an elevation change of about 36 feet across the site – from an elevation of 962 near the sanitary sewer lift station along Hudson Boulevard to a high point of 998 in the north center of the site. There is a small ponding area labeled as a wetland (0.15 acre) near Eagle Point Boulevard and a larger wetland (1.36 acres) that the eastern property line of the site runs through. There are areas of trees on the slope facing Hudson Boulevard and around the edges of the larger wetland. Preliminary Plat. Since the site of the proposed development is now an Outlot (Outlot C of the Eagle Point Business Park Second Addition), the developer/applicant is asking the City to approve a preliminary plat as part of the PUD approval. The City Code does not allow building on an outlot – the owner must replat the property into a lot and block as the developer is requesting in this case. This platting process allows the City to ensure that all the necessary street right-of-way and easements are in place on the property. 8 Vehicular Access. The proposed concept plan showed two access driveways into the site from Eagle Pointe Boulevard. The spacing of the proposed driveways on the concept plan, in relation the existing driveway to the north of site, did not meet City standards. As noted above, the proposed preliminary PUD plans for this project now show one 26-foot-wide driveway on Eagle Point Boulevard. The City Engineer’s review memo (attached) provides more details about streets, transportation and access for this site. Traffic Study. The applicant had a traffic study prepared and submitted this information as part of their application. This study, dated November 8, 2019, noted that a senior housing building is a relatively low traffic generator and that for this proposal they expect it would generate a total of 390 daily vehicle trips. Of these trips, the study expects 21 total vehicle trips during the AM peak hour (morning rush hour) and 27 total vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (during the evening rush hour). In summary, the study showed this development would have minimal impacts on the operations of adjacent intersections in 2021 (after the opening of this building) and that it would not create enough additional traffic to warrant improvements at any of the nearby intersections. This study, however, did not make a determination if any improvements are needed to the public roads to mitigate potential traffic issues. The City Engineer is recommending that an additional transportation review be completed to provide additional information about the potential traffic impacts in the area. Trails and Pedestrian Access. There are currently no trails or sidewalks adjacent to this site. The City’s long-term plan for Hudson Boulevard is to have an 8-foot-wide trail along the north side of street from Inwood Avenue to Manning Avenue. It has been the practice of the City to have developers install the segments of this trail along their respective project sites as part of the development of their projects. In this case, that would be about 1000 feet of trail along Hudson Boulevard running from Eagle Point Boulevard past the City’s sanitary sewer lift station to the existing driveway serving the High Pointe Health Campus. The proposed project plans show an 8-foot-wide trail along Hudson Boulevard to meet this requirement. The project plans also show a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Eagle Point Boulevard from Hudson Boulevard to the proposed driveway of Applewood Pointe. This new sidewalk will provide an off-street pedestrian access from the new senior housing to the trail along Hudson Boulevard. Since Eagle Point Boulevard is a State-Aid road, there are specific design standards the new sidewalk must meet including width and having at least a 5-foot-setback from the curb. The City should require the developer to dedicate additional right-of-way along Eagle Point Boulevard for possible future road improvements and for the sidewalk. This right-of-way dedication would be to preserve a location to allow for possible street improvements and for the sidewalk installation to occur within a public right-of-way. Setbacks. The proposed site plan shows a site setback line around the perimeter of the property. The proposed location of the building should meet or exceed all City-required setbacks from the street rights- of-ways and the wetlands. Impervious Surfaces. As noted on the project plans, the proposed plan is 30 percent impervious, well below the maximum impervious surface standard of 75 percent in the HDR and MU-BP zoning districts. Storm Water Management and Erosion Control. The grading, drainage, and erosion control plans will need to conform to City of Lake Elmo and South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) requirements. A SWWD district permit also will be required. In order to comply with the City’s standards, the developer is showing a storm water infiltration basin and an underground storm water management area on the project plans. These storm water facilities are intended to be privately owned and managed, and therefore will not need to meet the same level of requirements for public systems. The City Engineer is recommending that the applicant enter into a storm water maintenance and easement agreement for these facilities to ensure that future property owners keep these infiltration and storm water management areas functioning properly. Easements. The City will require the applicant to dedicate 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along all property lines and 30-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for watermains and fire hydrants 9 as they will become public infrastructure. The City also may require other easements as the applicant refines their project plans – especially around the wetlands and the wetland buffers and in regards to the stormwater management system. Wetland and Buffers. The proposed development plans show two wetlands on or partially on the property. The wetland along the eastern property line has 1.36-acres on the site out of the 2.5-acres of wetland area and the plans show a 0.15- acre wetland adjacent to Eagle Point Boulevard. The South Washington Watershed District determined the 0.15-acre wetland is actually a constructed stormwater pond and therefore not considered a wetland for their purposes. The latest project plans show the applicant preserving both the wetlands and providing a 50-foot-wide and a 25-foot-wide buffer around the wetlands respectively. The City requires the applicant to put easements on the final plat to accommodate the wetland and the wetland buffer. Park Land Dedication. The City established an overall fee in lieu of land dedication for the business park at the time of general concept plan approval and in conjunction with the final plat for the initial construction phase within the park. It appears that a portion of this fee is being paid with each building permit that is issued within the Eagle Point Business Park. The proposed development does not propose a public park but does provide recreation for its residents through the gardens, bocce ball and open space. The proposed development consists of 11.7 acres, and the required parkland dedication for new development in residential and mixed use (with a residential component) zoning districts is 10%. The required amount of fees would be 10% of the purchase price or current market value of the property, which has yet to be determined. Parking. The City’s Zoning Code requires one off-street parking space per senior housing unit (regardless of size or number of bedrooms) and at least one visitor parking space per every four units. With 103 proposed senior housing units, the Code requires at 131 parking spaces for this development. In this case, the developer is proposing a total of 179 parking spaces – including 100 parking spaces in the proposed apartment building, 21 surface parking spaces near the front entrance of the building and 54 parking stalls along the driveways. The proposed width and length of parking stalls appear compliant with code, and the proposed width (shown to be 26 feet) is adequate for a 2-way vehicle movement on the driveways on the site, according to the Zoning Code. The plans also show eight parking spaces proposed to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible. Engineering Comments. The City Engineer has provided a detailed review memo (dated January 7, 2020) regarding the proposed preliminary PUD. This memo is attached for reference. Staff would like to highlight the following comments in summary: • Preliminary Plat and Easements o An additional 10-feet of right-of-way dedication, along with the standard 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easement, is recommended for the possible future expansion of Eagle Point Boulevard. o The proposed lot easement shown on the preliminary plans are not consistent. The site and project plans must all be updated to include all required and proposed easements. • Streets and Transportation o The applicant completed traffic impact study for the proposal. This study did not address all the concerns of the City Engineer, including access spacing and possible turning movement conflicts. He is recommending that a further transportation review be done to determine if any improvements are needed to mitigate potential traffic issues (including the possible need for turn lanes and additional right-of-way) and to review site access. 10 o No parking and construction staging, including the loading and unloading of materials and equipment will be allowed at any time on Hudson Boulevard or on Eagle Point Boulevard during the construction of the site improvements and building. o The City should require the applicant/developer to make improvements to Hudson Boulevard in accordance with the Hudson Boulevard design Standards. This includes having an Urban section (with curb and gutter and storm sewer) along the north boulevard and installing an 8-foot-wide bituminous trail along the length of the property. The preliminary plans that were submitted were incomplete and inconsistent. The preliminary plans must be revised and approved by City staff before the City will accept an application and plans for the final PUD/final plat. o The preliminary plans propose a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Eagle Point Boulevard from the proposed site access to Hudson Boulevard connecting to the Hudson Boulevard trail. The preliminary plans must be updated to include an Eagle Point Boulevard typical section to show the proposed improvements. Additional right-of-way appears to be needed to accommodate the sidewalk. • Municipal Sanitary Sewer o Sanitary sewer is available to the site. The applicant or developer will be responsible for connecting to the City sanitary sewer system and extending sanitary sewer in to the property at the applicant’s sole cost. o The applicant will be required to connect to the existing sanitary sewer along Hudson Boulevard, connecting to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe extending northwest form the existing I-94 lift station. The proposed plans propose a connection to this location as required. • Municipal Water Supply o The existing City water system is available to this site. The applicant will be required to extend municipal water into the development at its sole cost and will be required to construct a looped watermain network internal to the site with, at least a second connection point to the City watermain system. The preliminary plans propose a looped watermain as required; one connection to the existing 12-inch trunk watermain located in Eagle Point Boulevard and one connection to the existing 12-inch watermain located along Hudson Boulevard. o The existing water system appears to have sufficient capacity for the proposed high- density residential development without additional improvements to the water system. The applicant must provide the City domestic and fire suppression demand information for the facility with the updated preliminary plans so staff may verify the capacity and needs of the water system. To date this information has not been submitted. o The applicant will be responsible to place fire hydrants and water valves throughout the property at the direction of the Lake Elmo Public Works Director and the Fire Department. All fire hydrants shall be owned and maintained by the City. o Any watermain lines and fire hydrants placed within the development will require 30- foot-wide utility easements centered over the pipe/hydrants. These easements must be dedicated to the City and provided in the City’s standard form of easement agreement. • Stormwater Management o The proposed development is subject the construction of a storm water management plan and system that meets State, South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) and City rules. All stormwater facilities need to be designed and installed in accordance with City and South Washington Watershed District (VBWD) requirements. A permit will be required from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the SWWD. o Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan intended to meet State and SWWD permitting requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual. o Permitting requirement will require rate control from all points of discharge from the site and will require volume control (or infiltration). Overland emergency overflows or 11 outlets are required as part of the site plan for flood protection. The site plan will likely require the installation of additional storm water ponding or infiltration to satisfy all storm water regulations. o All stormwater facilities constructed for this development are to remain privately owned and maintained. The City will require the applicant or developer to execute and record of a Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement with the City in its standard form of agreement. o Even as privately owned and maintained facilities, the City requires the developer to provide maintenance access roads or drives that meet City engineering design standards for all storm water facilities. Maintenance access must be clearly shown on the grading plans including access from the public right-of-way and BMP maintenance access to all flared end sections and forebay. • Grading Plan o The grading plans are incomplete. The preliminary grading plans must be revised and approved by the City prior to the City receiving a submittal for final plan approval. Significant site changes may be required. o The grading plans must clearly show the wetland buffers. As presented the buffers are not legible. o The grading plans must clearly show all drainage and utility easements. Several easements are missing from the proposed plans. o The proposed grading plans along the Hudson Boulevard right-of-way are inconsistent with the required urbanized boulevard and the proposed typical sections shown on Sheet C401. • Landscape Plans o The preliminary landscape plans must be revised to relocate all trees outside of the proposed public easement areas including the proposed watermain easements and the property line drainage and utility easements. Utilities – Municipal Water Supply and Municipal Sanitary Sewer. The City Engineer’s review memo provides a review of the municipal sewer and water considerations for this development. Public water and sanitary sewer service are available in this area of Lake Elmo and the developer will be extending them into and through the site. He noted the following: The applicant will be responsible for extending municipal water into the development at its sole cost and will be required to construct a looped watermain network with multiple connection points. This includes a connection to the watermain in Hudson Boulevard and to Eagle Point Boulevard. The applicant will be responsible to place hydrants throughout the property at the direction of the Fire Department. All fire hydrants shall be owned and maintained by the City. All utility plans will be subject to the final approval of the City Engineer. Sanitary Sewer System Study The City engineering staff recently completed a study the sanitary sewer system in this part of Lake Elmo. This study involved updating the known and expected flow rates, the known and estimated REC unit counts and the design capacity of the existing sanitary sewer (including the nearby lift station and force main) that serves this part of Lake Elmo. This study, in summary, shows there will need to be upgrades to the sanitary sewer system to accommodate all the existing and expected development in the area. The study also noted that the proposed Applewood Pointe would have an increase in the REC units for their site (103 versus 50) than what the City had been planning for the sanitary sewer system. As such, this development would be contributing to the need for the sanitary sewer improvements. City staff has discussed the need for the sewer improvements and upgrades and the proportionate share of the cost of those upgrades because of Applewood Pointe with the developer’s representative. The developer has agreed to contribute $70,000 to the City toward the cost of the sanitary sewer 12 improvements. The $70,000 represents a proportionate share of the sewer system improvement costs based on the increased REC units Applewood Pointe would be bringing to the sanitary sewer system. Tree Removal and Preservation. The applicant submitted tree inventory, tree preservation and landscaping plans for this site. As shown on the aerial photos and on site map, there are two areas on the property that may have significant large trees – on the west side of the property on the slope along Hudson Boulevard and around the larger wetland. The applicant provided a complete tree inventory for the site that showed there are 201 significant trees with a total of 3,256 diameter inches as measured on the tree trunks on the subject property. Most of these trees are eastern cottonwood and red oaks with a few elm, willow and cherry trees as well. The City’s tree preservation ordinance allows for 30% removal of significant trees on a site and the City requires a tree mitigation plan showing how the developer will replace any removed trees. In this case, the developer is proposing to remove a total of 1,285 diameter inches (in common and hardwood trees) and they will be required to plant 155 diameter inches of replacement hardwood deciduous trees. Landscaping/Screening: As noted above, there are two areas on the property with significant large trees on the site. As shown on the proposed landscape plan, the developer/architect has designed the project to preserve as many of the existing trees on the property as possible. The City Code requires a screening/landscape barrier between a less intense land use and a more intense land use that is at least 90 percent opaque. This standard does not apply for the proposal as the land uses surrounding this site are commercial and not residential. The landscape ordinance requirements are as follows: 1 tree per 50 lineal feet of street frontage, plus 5 trees for every 1 acre of development. The required trees must be 25% deciduous, and 25% coniferous. Landscape requirements for the site are as follows: 1,640 lin. Ft. of street frontage/50 = 33 trees +11.7 acres x 5 = 59 trees = for a total of 92 trees plus those required for tree replacement The applicant’s proposed landscape plan show the planting of a mix of trees, shrubs and grasses as part of the development. As proposed, the trees the developer would be planting would include River Birch, Black Hills spruce, White Pine, maple, oak, aspen and linden. The City’s landscape architect has reviewed the proposed tree and landscape plans dated November 21, 2019. I have attached his review memo dated November 26, 2019 for your information. He has noted that the proposed plans do not meet all City requirements for tree replacement and plantings but that they are close to meeting all City standards. The most important changes needed to the plans include the required composition of the proposed trees and that there appears to be several trees that would be in conflict with utilities and that would be in located in easements. The City will require the applicant to submit detailed final landscape plans with their final PUD application and those plans will need to meet or exceed the requirements of the City’s Landscape Architect and the City’s tree replacement and Landscape Requirements. Landscape Wall. The applicant is proposing a large landscape (retaining) wall along the west edge of the driveway on the west side of the proposed building. The proposed grading plans shows this wall ranging in height from 6 feet to 22 feet with a guardrail. Any such wall that is taller than 4 feet requires a separate building permit from the City and must be designed by a licensed Minnesota engineer or architect. The color and materials of this wall shall be subject to City approval. 13 Building Official and Fire Chief Review. The Building Official and former Fire Chief reviewed the proposed concept plan and provided several comments. Specifically, the former Fire Chief noted: The following comments are very high level at this time as this is a concept review. More specific, detailed comments will be provided as necessary as this project progresses. • Ensure proper access to building, and second apparatus access road, per 2015 MN State Fire Code, more specifically, Section 503, FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS, Section 504 ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS NAD ROOFS. The City of Lake Elmo has adopted Appendix D, FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS. With the proposed 4 story building height, Section D105 may be applicable. • Ensure proper access throughout site and turning radius’s per review of City Engineer. • FIRE LANES and NO PARKING areas to be reviewed and determined by the Fire Chief and City Engineer. • Fire hydrant placement will be reviewed by the Fire Chief, City Engineer and Public Works Director. • FDC location to be approved by Fire Chief. • Lockbox location to be approved by Fire Chief • Provide final layout drawing of building to fire department for the purpose of Pre-Planning. • Project will be subject to all additional applicable fire codes in the 2015 MN State Fire Code. The City Building Official (Kevin Murphy) also provided me with comments about the concept plan. He noted the following: • Plans shall be prepared an Architect, Structural Engineer and Mechanical Engineer. • The plumbing plans shall be submitted to the State for review. • The elevator requires a permit issued by DOLI (Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry) • All fire suppression plans shall be submitted to the State Fire Marshall’s Division for review. Consistency with High Density Residential (HDR) and MU-BP (MU-BP) Zoning Districts. For comparison, staff reviewed the proposed preliminary PUD Site Plan against the standards including setbacks, impervious coverage, etc. of the HDR and MU-BP zoning districts, as shown below. Standard HDR Required MU-BP Required Proposed Impervious Surface Maximum 75% 75% 30% Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 60 feet 638 feet on Eagle Point Blvd. Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 87 feet Interior Side Yard 15 feet 7 feet 100 feet (estimated) Corner Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet 75 feet (estimated) Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 100 feet (estimated) Maximum Building Height 45 feet (by PUD) 50 feet 50 feet (estimated) Parking Not to be located in the front yard or between the front Parking is located in front of and around the proposed building, though much of the parking lot would be 14 façade and public street. screened from the street by grades and landscaping. Open space 200 square feet of common open space provided per unit. 300 square feet of common open space per unit. It appears there is at about 281,536 square feet of open space provided on site with the community garden areas, bocce ball and the open spaces along Hudson Boulevard and around the existing wetlands. For 105 units, the City requires at least 31,500 square feet of open space on the site. Proposed Design. The proposed design of the development is a 4-story (above-grade), 103-unit senior cooperative building with a mix of two bedroom units with sunrooms or dens with below grade parking for 100 vehicles. The elevations of the building show it will to have an exterior with a mix of modular brick, stone, cementitious board siding and trim (Hardi-plank) with a sloping asphalt shingle roof. The building design will need to meet the Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards for materials and colors. Building Height. The project plans submitted by the applicant show the building height to the top of the fourth floor at 44 feet. The City measures building height to the mid-point of the sloped roof which would make the total building height about 50 feet. In this location, with no other residential buildings nearby, the proposed style and height of the building would fit the character of the area and should not cause any negative affects to adjacent properties. Adherence to Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards. The proposed development will need to meet the standards of the Lake Elmo design guidelines. It appears that the project will meet the Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards in that: • The proposed structure are located and oriented in a manner that allows for pedestrian accessibility and provides visual interest from the public right-of-way. • The building is located as close to the public street as possible, easily accessible from the street; setbacks are varied slightly; recreational and common spaces are located at the interior or rear of the site. • Streetscapes provide for pedestrian accessibility and safety while offering aesthetically pleasing environments. With this proposed development, the City should require the developer to install a trail along Hudson Boulevard and a sidewalk along Eagle Point Boulevard to meet this City design standard. • The parking areas do not account for more than 50% of street frontage. • Examples of past developments adhere to building design requirements. It is a recommended condition of approval that the applicant include a detailed architectural plan proposal for the development. Consistency with Planned Unit Development Regulations. The applicant has requested City approval of a PUD amendment for this development because it would be a residential land use in previously approved business park PUD. Since this would be a new land use in an established PUD, staff has reviewed the proposed plan for its consistency with requirements of Article XVII: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations and has found the following: 15 • Intent. The intent of a PUD is to provide for flexibility in the use of land and the placement and size of buildings in order to better utilize site features and obtain a higher quality of development. A PUD amendment is required because the senior housing would be a land use not approved by the City for the original PUD. • Identified Objectives. When reviewing requests for PUDs, the City is to consider whether one or more objectives as outlined in Section 154.751: Identified Objectives of the Zoning Code will be served or is achieved. Staff has found that the proposed development would meet the following objectives: A. Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches. • The proposed development is not a typical, multi-story apartment building and instead proposes a design that fits the site while preserving the important natural features including slopes, trees and wetlands. B. Promotion of integrated land use, allowing a mixture of residential, commercial and public facilities. • The proposed senior housing development would add a residential land use to an area with offices, clinics and other commercial land uses. C. Provision of a more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques. • The proposed development is proposing a number of recreational amenities to residents within the PUD including gardens, gazebos and bocce ball. D. Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing. • The proposed senior housing development would provide additional housing opportunities within the City that would have convenient access to employment and commercial facilities. In addition there are currently very few multi-family or senior housing residential buildings within the City. E. Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities. • The proposed site plan for the senior housing building shows careful placement of the proposed building in that it will preserve many of the existing trees on the site and would keep the proposed building well away from the existing wetlands on the site. G. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses. • The design of the building should be compatible with those of the adjacent commercial properties to the north and east of the site. J. Higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development technique. • The City may impose design guidelines and standards on high density residential development such as this proposal. 16 a. Minimum Requirements. PUDs must meet the following minimum requirements: A. Lot Area. A PUD must include a minimum of 5 acres for undeveloped land or 2 acres for developed land within the approved development. • The proposed development meets this requirement as it is an 11.7-acre development. B. Open Space: For all PUDs, at least 20% of the project area not within street rights-of-way to be preserved as protected open space. Other public or site amenities may be approved as an alternative to this requirement. Any required open space must be available to the residents, tenants, or customers of the PUD for recreational purposes or similar benefit. Land reserved for storm water detention facilities and other required site improvements may be applied to this requirement. Open space shall be designed to meet the needs of residents of the PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods, to the extent practicable, for parks, playgrounds, playing fields and other recreational facilities. • The applicant indicated in the application letter that about 70 % of the proposed development area would be devoted to common open space (including the garden areas, green spaces, wetlands, bocce ball courts and landscaped areas). C. Street Layout… In newly developing areas, streets shall be designed to maximize connectivity in each cardinal direction, except where environmental or physical constraints make this infeasible. All streets shall terminate at other streets, at public land, or at a park or other community facility, except that local streets may terminate in stub streets when those will be connected to other streets in future phases of the development or adjacent developments. • The proposed development site is an existing lot of record with about 638 feet of frontage on Eagle Pointe Boulevard and about 1000 feet of frontage on Hudson Boulevard. The applicant is not proposing any new public streets but rather one private driveway from Eagle Pointe Boulevard to serve the development. It is a recommended condition of approval that the developer address all the comments outlined in the Engineering memo dated January 7, 2020 by providing the City with a revised set of preliminary project plans for review and approval by the City before submitting plans for a final plat and the final PUD plans for this site. Watering Ban. Due to a shortage of water, the City may need to implement severe watering restrictions in the City in the future. This could include limiting or prohibiting the use water outside including for vehicle washing and for watering grass and landscaping. This could affect future home builders, buyers and renters as there may be a limited supply of water available for outdoor uses. It may be wise for the City to put a condition on this PUD/plat to require the owner/developer to inform the buyers and owners of the units about the possible outdoor watering restrictions. Recommended Findings – Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff recommends the following findings: 1. That the applicant has submitted a request to the City of Lake Elmo to amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and the Lake Elmo City Code; and 2. That the request is to amend the Land Use Plan Map for the site of the proposed Applewood of Lake Elmo from BP (business park) to MU-BP (Mixed Use – Business Park); and 3. That the proposed land use change will positively impact the City’s average MUSA density as required by the Metropolitan Council by adding 103 housing units to the MUSA; and 4. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan; and 5. That the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be beneficial by providing a location for a housing option not currently available in Lake Elmo. 17 Staff recommends the following condition of approval: 1. Submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the receipt of formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that they have reviewed and approved the proposed amendment. Recommended Findings – Preliminary PUD. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary PUD Plan for the proposed Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo senior housing development as proposed by United Properties based on the following findings: 1. That if the City amends the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map to re-guide the site of this PUD from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park), the preliminary PUD plan would be consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map for the area. 2. That the preliminary PUD Plan will meet the general intent of the Mixed Use Business Park Land Use designation in the Comprehensive Plan (with a Comprehensive Plan amendment) and the Mixed Use Business Park (MU-BP) zoning district with PUD modifications. 3. That the preliminary PUD Plan generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations. 4. That the preliminary PUD Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated January 7, 2020. 5. That the preliminary PUD Plan meets the minimum requirement for a PUD including minimum lot area, open space and street layout. 6. That if the proposed preliminary PUD Plan has no more than 103 residential units, it will meet the allowed density requirement provided the City amends the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map to re-guide this site from Business Park (BP) to Mixed Use Business Park (MU-BP). 7. The preliminary PUD Plan meets more than one of the required PUD objectives identified in Section 154.751 including providing: innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches; provision of a more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques; accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing; coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses; and higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development technique. 8. That if the City approves the proposed PUD for Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo it will amend the Eagle Pointe Business Park PUD to allow for a residential development on this property (Outlot C, Eagle Point Business Park Second Addition – PIN 33-029-21-44-0009). Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary PUD and preliminary plat for the Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo Senior Living Development as proposed by United Properties with the following conditions: 1. That the City approves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the City’s Land Use Plan to re-guide the property from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park). 2. That the City approves a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the site from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park). 18 3. That the future final plat and final PUD plans would be for the parcel with the PID #33.029.21.44.0009. 4. That the applicant prepare any future final plat and final PUD plans showing all of the site perimeter property lines - including any revisions for the dedication of additional right-of-way or easements that may be needed for Hudson Boulevard or for Eagle Point Boulevard. 5. That the future final plat and final PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for flexibility from the Zoning Code. 6. That the applicant addresses all comments in the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated January 7, 2020 with the updated preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plan submittal. These include completing all necessary improvements in and along Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard, installing a public trail along Hudson Boulevard, the dedication of additional street right-of-way and managing all storm water on the site. 7. That the final Plat and final PUD Plans submittal include complete tree preservation/replanting and landscape plans to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect. The landscape plans must be revised to relocate all trees outside of the proposed public easement areas including the proposed watermain easements and the property line drainage and utility easements. 8. That the final Plat and final PUD Plans submittal include accurate open space and impervious surface calculations. 9. That the final plat show drainage and utility easements over the stormwater ponding areas, wetlands and the wetland buffers, including the 100-year high water level. 10. That the applicant/developer provide the City fees in lieu of park land dedication as required by 153.14 with future final plat. 11. That the final plat and final PUD Plans submittal include detailed architectural plans for the building. 12. The applicant receives a permit from the South Washington Watershed District for the construction of the proposed development. 13. That the applicant/developer install a 8-foot-wide trail along Hudson Boulevard and a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Eagle Point Boulevard as a part of the improvement of the site. 14. That the applicant/developer installs all the required improvements in and adjacent to Hudson Boulevard. 15. All storm water facilities internal to the site shall be privately owned and maintained. A storm water maintenance and easement agreement in a form acceptable to the City shall be executed and recorded with the final plat for all 100-year high water level areas and to protect all overland emergency flow paths. 16. The Preliminary Plat/Preliminary PUD approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all City standards and design requirements unless specifically addressed otherwise in these conditions. 17. That the PUD overlay zoning allow for the following: a. Setbacks: Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo - Minimum Building Setbacks Front (Eagle Point Boulevard). 20 ft. Interior Side 20 ft. b. The maximum building height shall be 50 feet. 19 18. The Final Plat/Final PUD shall include all necessary and additional public right-of-way and easements for Hudson Boulevard and for Eagle Point Boulevard. These shall include any drainage and utility easements, any additional street right-of-way and any necessary pedestrian easements for sidewalks or trails. 19. The Final Plat/Final PUD submittal must include a complete storm water management plan and construction plans that provide all design details for the proposed underground storage systems including details regarding building roof drainage connections. 20. That the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits including but not limited to all applicable City permits (building, grading, sign, etc.), NPDES/SWPPP permits and South Washington Watershed District approval before starting any grading or construction activities. 21. That the Final Plat/Final PUD include South Washington Watershed District preliminary review comments and that the applicant provide the City evidence that all conditions attached to a South Washington Watershed District permit will be met before the starting any grading activity on the site. 22. That before the City issues any grading or building permits, the developer shall delineate and identify all wetland buffers via staking, fencing and/or signage that is acceptable to the City. 23. That the developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed districts before the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. 24. If necessary, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of written permission for any off- site grading work and storm sewer discharges to adjacent properties before starting any site work, grading and as part of any final plat or final PUD application. 25. That the applicant or developer address all the comments of the Fire Chief and the Building Official with the final PUD, site and building plans including the placement of building and fire hydrants, street and driveway design, parking and emergency vehicle access within the site. 26. That the applicant shall be responsible to place fire hydrants and water valves throughout the property at the direction of the Lake Elmo Public Works Director and the Fire Department. All fire hydrants shall be owned and maintained by the City. 27. That the applicant revises the project plans to show watermain easements and effective maintenance areas with a minimum width of 30 feet with a minimum of 15 feet of clearance from the pipe centerline and easement agreements are included with the final plat and PUD application and plans. 28. That the applicant provide the City domestic and fire suppression demand information for the facility with the updated preliminary plans so City staff may verify the capacity and needs of the water system. 29. That there shall be no encroachments into drainage and utility easements and corridors other than those reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and upon execution of an easement encroachment agreement. Prohibited encroachments include, but are not limited to trees, landscaping, fences, retaining walls and buildings. 30. That the developer prepare exhibits for City staff approval that clearly identifies the property lines, easements, proposed locations of retaining walls and fences and the required and proposed setbacks for each building site within the development. 31. That the Applicant(s) or developer shall submit a photometric plan for the development for staff review and approval. All lighting must meet the requirements of Sections 150.035-150.038 of the City Code. 32. Before to the installation or construction of any subdivision identification signs or neighborhood markers within the development, the developer shall submit sign plans to the City for review and obtain a sign permit from the City. 33. That the applicant provides the City a detailed construction and staging plan with the construction plans and final plat for the development. These plans are to clearly indicate the phasing of the site grading, the phasing of the construction of each public infrastructure component and shall address access to that phase of the development for construction purposes and for residents. The City may require temporary cul-de-sacs at the end the private driveways. 20 34. Before the execution and recording of a final plat for the development, the developer or applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement or a Site Work Agreement with the City. Such an Agreement must be approved by the City Attorney and by the City Council. The Agreement shall delineate who is responsible for the design, construction and payment for the required improvements with financial guarantees therefore. 35. The applicant or developer shall enter into a separate grading agreement with the City before starting any grading activity in advance of final plat of PUD approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat or final PUD, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 36. That if the City amends the land use plan to BP-MU for this site, the maximum density of this development shall not exceed 10 dwelling units per net acre. With 10.34 net acres, the maximum number of residential units allowed on this site with a BP-MU land use designation is 103 residential units. 37. That the applicant/owner notify all buyers and owners that the City may impose restrictions or limits on outdoor water use including no vehicle washing and no watering of grass, sod or landscaping. 38. That the applicant/owner provide the Fire Department and the Sheriff’s Department with keys, key cards or other acceptable methods of entry for quick access into the building for emergency service calls. 39. That the City does not allow any parking and construction staging, including the loading and unloading of materials and equipment at any time on Hudson Boulevard or on Eagle Point Boulevard during the construction of the site improvements and building. 40. That the applicant shall submit revised preliminary plat and project plans meeting all conditions of approval for City review and approval. The revised applicant/developer project plans shall meet all of the above conditions before the City will accept a final plat or Final PUD application for the development and before the start of any clearing or grading activity on the site. 41. The Developer shall contribute $70,000 to the City for their proportionate share of the costs for the necessary improvements to the sanitary sewer system. 42. That the City’s preliminary plat/preliminary PUD approval is good for one year from the date of City Council action, unless the applicant requests and the City Council approves a time extension. FISCAL IMPACT: There would be no fiscal impact to the City at this time. Concept Plan approval did not afford the applicant development rights. When the property develops, it will have urban services and will pay sewer and water connection charges, building permit fees and the like that the developer and/or contractors will pay. RECOMMENDATIONS: City staff is recommending the City Council take the following actions for the proposed Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park) for the site of proposed Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo with the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution 2020 –013 approving an amendment to the Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan for the site of the Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard. This land use plan change would be from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park), is based on the findings listed in the staff report and is subject to the condition listed in the staff report. 21 Zoning Map Amendment Staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment (rezoning) of the site of the proposed Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park) with the following motion: “Move to adopt Ordinance Number 08-08-234 approving the rezoning of site of the Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park). This approval is subject to the City amending the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this site to MU-BP and is based on the findings listed in the staff report.” Preliminary PUD/Preliminary Plat Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary PUD Plan and preliminary plat for the proposed Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo development for property on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard with the following motion: “Motion to adopt Resolution 2020 – 014 approving the preliminary PUD Plan and preliminary plat as requested by Jennifer Mason (of United Properties) for PID# 33.029.21.44.0009 for the project to be known as Applewood Pointe Senior Living to be located on the corner of Eagle Point Boulevard and Hudson Boulevard. This approval also amends the Eagle Pointe Business Park PUD to allow this residential use and is subject to recommended conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report.” ATTACHMENTS: • Applicant’s Letter dated January 28, 2020 • Project Information dated July 31, 2019 (12 pages) • Housing Demand Assessment dated November 12, 2019 (17 pages) • 2040 Land Use Plan Map (Existing) • Address Map • Aerial Photo • Applicant’s Site Survey/Analysis dated July 31, 2019 • Site Survey – Existing Conditions dated 12-3-2019 • Preliminary Plat dated 12-3-2019 • Site Development Plans dated 11-21-2019 (13 pages) • Proposed Building Elevations dated 12-30-19 (10 pages) • City Engineer review memo dated January 7, 2020 (4 pages) • City Landscape Architect Review dated November 26, 2019 (6 pages) • Traffic Study dated November 8, 2019 (45 pages) • Resolution 2020 - 013 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) • Ordinance No. 08 - 234 (Zoning Map Amendment) • Resolution 2020 - 014 (Preliminary Plat and PUD) January 28, 2020 Ken Roberts Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3880 Laverne Avenue North Suite 100 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Mr. Roberts, United Properties is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the City of Lake Elmo. The office market has changed significantly from when the PUD was originally approved. Although we have aggressively marketed this site for many years for an office use, we have concluded that due to the reduced demand for office space, and the attributes of this specific site, that this location is much better suited for residential land uses. We are proposing a use that aligns with current market demand. The same attributes including the existing wetlands and grades that make for a challenging office location, represent positive attributes for an Applewood Pointe community. We have worked closely with our architect to respect the existing wetlands and corresponding setbacks as well as the grades to create a plan that we feel is ideal for this site. We feel that we’re putting a very challenging site into use, which will serve the longtime residents of Lake Elmo and neighboring communities, with low traffic impact relative to other alternative uses while generating significant taxes. By proceeding with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from BP (business park) MU- BP (mixed use business park) to allow for medium to high density residential development on this parcel, we firmly believe this would provide an opportunity to incorporate a low traffic generating residential land use in this area that is in high demand. A demand study dated 11/12/19 indicated that Lake Elmo and surrounding areas have an unmet cooperative housing demand of 397 units growing to 495 units by 2024. Five of our last six senior cooperatives have been sold out prior to construction completion. We are confident that Lake Elmo’s reputation along with the local amenities and nearby retail options will make this a very popular location for an Applewood Pointe Cooperative development. For comparison purposes, we have worked with LSE Architects to compare the impacts of a 30,000± SF office building compared to our proposed Applewood Pointe project. In our research it was determined that the anticipated tax revenue for Applewood Pointe is anticipated to generate approximately 38%-49% more tax revenue than an office building, as illustrated in Table 1 below. In addition, our traffic consultant provided a similar comparison showing the traffic impacts of an Applewood Pointe compared to a 30,000± SF office building and they concluded that an office building would add an additional 14 AM peak trips and 8 PM trips compared to our proposed Applewood Pointe. Lastly, Applewood Pointe is proposing 50% less surface parking spaces that would be required for an office building, greatly reducing the impacts of an already challenging site in terms of stormwater management. TABLE 1: TAX REVENUE COMPARISON PROPERTY SQUARE FOOTAGE ESTIMATED VALUE NET TAX AMOUNT AWP SITE Vacant Land $1,322,800 $67,236 8519 EAGLE POINT BLVD 32,000 $4,090,900 $132,150 8550 HUDSON BLVD N 30,000 $5,577,400 $171,572 AWP LAKE ELMO 267,000 $43,803,263 $350,000 Best Regards, Jennifer Mason Development Manager Initial Demand Assessment for Senior Cooperative Housing in Lake Elmo, Minnesota Subject site Location: Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard, Lake Elmo, Minnesota Prepared for: United Properties Prepared by: Viewpoint Consulting Group Date: November 12, 2019 Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. / 6931 87th Lane / Greenfield, MN 55373 P. 763-273-4303 / www.viewpointconsult.com Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. / 6931 87th Lane / Greenfield, MN 55373P. 763-273-4303 / www.viewpointconsult.com November 12, 2019 To: Alex Hall United Properties From: Jay Thompson Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. RE: Initial Demand Assessment for Senior Cooperative Housing in Lake Elmo, Minnesota Introduction This memorandum provides an initial assessment of the demand for cooperative senior housing in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. As we understand, the proposed development is an Applewood Pointe and it would be located on Eagle Point Boulevard, north of Hudson Boulevard. The proposed Applewood Pointe Cooperative would be age-restricted to seniors ages 62 and over. The purpose of this initial assessment is to broadly assess the depth of demand for cooperative senior living in the local area to determine if potential exists to support a new development. A calculation is presented for demand based on analysis of the income/asset-qualified target market for senior cooperative housing and the supply of competitive units serving the primary market area. The ability of the subject development to capture unmet market area demand is also discussed in this assessment. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 3 November 12, 2019 Primary Market Area Definition The subject site (“Site”) for the proposed senior housing development is a parcel in Lake Elmo, near the intersection of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard. This location is less than a half mile from Interstate 94’s intersection with Inwood Avenue. Lake Elmo is a suburban community of 10,673 people (2019 estimate) in Washington County. While lower-density, Lake Elmo is surrounded by larger neighbors. To the northeast is Stillwater (population 19,750) and Oak Park Heights (4,740). On the south is Woodbury (69,500) and on the west is Oakdale (28,100). Based on community orientation, travel patterns, proximity to other senior housing cooperatives in the surrounding suburbs, and our knowledge of senior housing draw areas, it is estimated that a senior cooperative development on the subject Site in Lake Elmo would draw approximately 75% of its residents from a draw area (Primary Market Area, or “PMA”) that includes the following communities Afton Landfall Woodbury Oakdale Lakeland St. Mary’s Point Lakeland Shores West Lakeland Twp. Lake St. Croix Beach Woodbury The remaining portion of demand (25%) would come from outside the PMA. This demand would include some seniors currently living just outside the PMA in the eastern Metro Area as well as other seniors who would travel from farther away to live close to their adult children . Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 4 November 12, 2019 Primary Market Area Site Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 5 November 12, 2019 Senior Demographic Analysis Tables 1 through 6 show key economic and demographic variables related to the demand for senior housing in the PMA (age distribution of the senior population and household base, senior household income, senior homeownership rates, home values , and net worth). The demographic and home value data is from ESRI, a national demographics firm. The key senior demographic and economic findings are summarized on the following pages. Senior Population and Household Trends  The total population in the PMA was 108,552 in 2010. The population increased last decade by 19.9%, as new housing resulted in 7,125 households being added. While the overall population in the PMA grew by 19.9% last decade, the senior population (age 65+) grew by 64.6%, increasing from 6,257 in 2000 to 10,297 in 2010. A target market for senior cooperative housing is seniors ages 75+. This age group increased by 63.6% in the PMA last decade.  Since 2010, the overall population in the PMA has grown to 123,227, a 13.5% increase in nine years. The PMA’s age 65+ population has grown by 55.8% so far this decade.  Between 2019 and 2024, all senior age groups above 60 in the PMA are projected to experience growth. The population ages 75 to 79 is projected to experience the greatest growth rate as the first baby boomers begin turning 75 in 2021. The age group 75 and o ver is projected to add 1,892 seniors between 2019 and 2024 (+33.4%). This growth should lead to increased demand for senior housing, including cooperatives. Senior Household Incomes  Incomes in the PMA are above average compared to the Twin Cities Metro A rea, meaning an above average percentage of seniors would likely be able to afford market rate housing. The estimated median income of age 75+ households in the PMA in 2019 is $51,418, compared to the Metro Area’s median of $40,783 for this age group.  A target market for senior cooperative housing is senior households age 75 and older with incomes of at least $50,000 (plus some lower-income senior homeowners). In 2019, an estimated 1,907 households age 75 and older have incomes of at least $50,000. When factoring in inflation, households would generally need incomes of at least $55,000 to afford senior cooperative housing. The number of households age 75+ with incomes over $55,000 in 2024 is projected to be about 2,545. Households age 65 to 74 also comprise a portion of the demand for senior cooperative housing. The number of households in this age group with qualifying incomes is projected to grow from 4,800 in 2019 to 5,800 in 2024. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 6 November 12, 2019 Senior Household Tenure  Seniors who own their homes have an additional source of income through the sale of their home that can be utilized for alternative housing. Upon the sale of their home, the proceeds can be used dollar for dollar to purchase shares in cooperative housing. Some proceeds can also be invested and used as supplemental income to pay for monthly fees. As Table 4 illustrates, as of 2010, a high percentage of seniors up to age 84 in the PMA are homeowners. Home Value Trends  Seniors often use the proceeds from the sale of their existing home to off-set the cost of purchasing cooperative housing. Table 5 shows that as of 2019, the median home value in the PMA is estimated at $308,195. This is higher than the estimated median in the Twin Cities Metro Area ($277,120). Home values in Lake Elmo are particularly high – the median is estimated at $426,817. Net Worth Profile  Net worth is total household wealth minus debt. Net worth includes home equity, equity in pension plans, net equity in vehicles, IRAs, business equity, stocks, etc. Seniors in the PMA have incomes and home values above the Twin Cities Metro Area average. Thus, they also have a higher than average net worth. The average net worth of age 75+ households in the PMA in 2019 is estimated at $1.6 million, or higher than the Twin Cities Metro Area’s average of $1.4 million for this age group. The average net worth among senior households in the PMA indicates that an above average proportion of seniors in the PMA should be able to afford cooperative senior housing when compared to the Metro Area as a whole. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 7 November 12, 2019 Table 1 Senior Population Growth Trends and Projections Primary Market Area 2000 to 2024 Table 2 Senior Household Growth Trends and Projections Primary Market Area 2000 to 2024 Age 2000 2010 2019 2024 No.Pct. 55 to 59 4,115 7,115 9,325 8,198 -1,127 -12.1% 60 to 64 2,763 5,554 7,957 8,660 703 8.8% 65 to 69 2,061 3,572 6,076 7,324 1,248 20.5% 70 to 74 1,605 2,487 4,296 5,499 1,203 28.0% 75 to 79 1,196 1,866 2,596 3,751 1,155 44.5% 80 to 84 750 1,264 1,588 2,068 480 30.2% 85+645 1,108 1,483 1,740 257 17.3% Total 65+6,257 10,297 16,039 20,382 4,343 27.1% Total 75+2,591 4,238 5,667 7,559 1,892 33.4% Total Population 90,553 108,552 123,227 131,071 7,844 6.4% Lake Elmo 6,863 8,043 10,673 12,184 1,511 14.2% Washington County 201,130 238,136 263,039 277,943 14,904 5.7% Twin Cities Metro Area 2,642,062 2,849,567 3,116,507 3,273,942 157,435 5.1% Sources: ESRI; Census Bureau; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Change, 2019 to 2024 Age 2000 2010 2019 2024 No.Pct. 55 to 64 4,162 7,480 9,723 9,261 -462 -4.8% 65 to 74 2,271 3,759 6,148 7,376 1,228 20.0% 75+1,556 2,847 3,627 4,666 1,039 28.6% Total 65+3,827 6,606 9,775 12,042 2,267 23.2% Total Households 33,230 40,355 45,439 48,228 2,789 6.1% Lake Elmo 2,347 2,770 3,663 4,188 525 14.3% Washington County 71,462 87,859 96,987 102,485 5,498 5.7% Twin Cities Metro Area 1,021,456 1,117,749 1,215,258 1,274,179 58,921 4.8% Sources: ESRI; Census Bureau; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Change, 2019 to 2024 Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 8 November 12, 2019 Table 3 Household Incomes by Age of Householder Primary Market Area 2019 and 2024 Income 55 - 64 65-74 75+ <$15,000 216 165 262 $15,000 to $24,999 280 321 401 $25,000 to $34,999 247 286 404 $35,000 to $49,999 512 576 653 $50,000 to $74,999 1,580 1,397 987 $75,000 to $99,999 1,499 1,186 244 $100,000 to $149,999 2,138 1,080 401 $150,000+3,251 1,137 275 Total 9,723 6,148 3,627 Median HH Income $108,616 $80,299 $51,418 Lake Elmo Median HH Income $142,488 $85,087 $52,313 Washington County Median HH Income $102,368 $78,254 $49,242 Twin Cities Metro Median HH Income $89,037 $68,721 $40,783 Income 55 - 64 65-74 75+ <$15,000 133 137 266 $15,000 to $24,999 198 297 393 $25,000 to $34,999 180 286 453 $35,000 to $49,999 366 548 751 $50,000 to $74,999 1,309 1,528 1,290 $75,000 to $99,999 1,288 1,347 340 $100,000 to $149,999 2,082 1,450 663 $150,000+3,705 1,783 510 Total 9,261 7,376 4,666 Median HH Income $122,473 $89,694 $56,414 Lake Elmo Median HH Income $157,095 $91,523 $54,725 Washington County Median HH Income $114,819 $87,838 $54,599 Twin Cities Metro Median HH Income $102,892 $79,226 $47,962 Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. 2019 Households by Age 2024 Households by Age Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 9 November 12, 2019 Table 4 Tenure by Age of Householder Primary Market Area 2010 Table 5 Estimated Home Values Primary Market Area 2019 Households No.Pct.No.Pct. Age 55 to 64 6,791 90.8%689 9.2% Age 65 to 74 3,407 90.6%352 9.4% Age 75 to 84 1,685 80.7%403 19.3% Age 85+394 51.9%365 48.1% Total 12,277 87.2%1,809 12.8% Total Age 65+5,486 83.0%1,120 17.0% Total Age 75+2,079 73.0%768 27.0% Twin Cities Metro Area Age 65+75.8%24.2% Age 75+68.6%31.4% Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Owners Renters Median Average Home Value Home Value PMA $308,195 $349,999 Lake Elmo $426,817 $450,609 Washington County $299,646 $345,594 Twin Cities Metro Area $277,120 $329,500 Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 10 November 12, 2019 Table 6 Net Worth Profile Primary Market Area 2019 Income 55 - 64 65-74 75+ <$15,000 311 174 133 $15,000 to $34,999 122 109 68 $35,000 to $49,999 108 61 38 $50,000 to $74,999 152 99 120 $75,000 to $99,999 185 146 102 $100,000 to $149,999 395 273 162 $150,000 to $249,999 672 469 285 $250,000 to $499,999 1,398 993 633 $500,000 to $999,999 1,405 1,297 732 $1,000,000+4,972 2,526 1,355 Total 9,720 6,147 3,628 Average Net Worth $2,614,550 $2,056,644 $1,622,077 Lake Elmo Average Net Worth $3,917,304 $2,355,717 $2,026,233 Twin Cities Metro Area Average Net Worth $1,935,063 $1,643,227 $1,408,972 Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. --- Age of Householder --- Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 11 November 12, 2019 Senior Housing Supply Senior Cooperative Housing Defined Senior housing encompasses a wide variety of product types, from adult properties for active seniors to assisted living and memory care properties that offer a high level of services to frail residents. Cooperative housing generally falls into the category of adu lt properties. Adult properties offer virtually no support services or health care, but restrict tenancy to those age 55 and over. Adult properties can be rental or owner-occupied (attached or detached townhomes, condominiums and cooperatives). In a cooperative, the building and land is owned by a corporation. The stock in the corporation is owned by the residents (“members”) prorated in value to the size of their homes. The stock may be sold and equity returned to members or their family. Appreciation is often limited by the cooperative to ensure that units remain affordable. This practice is referred to as “limited equity” and experience demonstrates that as units become more affordable over time, the waiting list builds, thereby encouraging timely resale. Members of a cooperative have occupancy rights to a specific unit as long as they own their stock and make their monthly dues payments. The monthly payments typically pay for operating expenses, real estate taxes, and debt service on any master mortgage. Most cooperatives limit all units to households with one member age 62 or older, although under the law, only 80% of the homes must be occupied by households with one member age 62 or older. Members living in a cooperative run the cooperative. They set the by-laws for the cooperative and also elect, from among themselves, a board of directors which makes all policy decisions for the cooperative. Cooperatives have been a successful senior housing product type in the seven-county Twin Cities Metro Area. There are 49 senior housing cooperatives in the Metro Area, totaling about 4,500 units. The concept is relatively young, as all but four of these cooperatives are less than 25 years old (built after 1993). The vacancy rate is very low among cooperatives, and most units that become available are sold to persons on waiting lists. Building a sense of community with fellow residents is a significant benefit of cooperative housing. Among the other benefits are pride of ownership, including tax benefits (r eal estate taxes and mortgage interest deductions), freedom from lawn care, snow shoveling and g eneral upkeep, building security, social activities, and home equity. According to the Senior Cooperative Foundation, the age range of residents in cooperatives is 56 to 92, with the median age being 73 to 74. Residents are independent and mobile, with most moving out of single- family homes located within five miles of their cooperative. Most residents use the equity from the single-family home they had lived in for many years to pay the cooperative’s share price. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 12 November 12, 2019 Competitive Senior Housing Properties Table 7 shows the inventory of senior cooperative properties that would provide competition to a new development on the Site in Lake Elmo. For each competitive property, Table 7 provides information on location, year built, total number of units, whether or not it is located in the PMA, its distance from the Site, its estimated competitiveness and its total competitive units. The competitive percentage is a measure of draw area overlap and is estimated based on a property’s distance from the Site, its location within or near the PMA, its community orientation (i.e., its estimated primary draw area), and unique characteristics of the property.  A total of three competitive senior housing cooperatives were identified in and near the PMA. These three properties combine for 172 total units. However, only two of the properties are in the PMA and overall, they range in distance of 2.8 to 5.2 miles from the Site. Accounting for draw area overlap, the three properties supply the PMA with 129 competitive housing units.  The closest competitive property to the Site is Cardinal Pointe in Oakdale. It has 55 units and is located 2.8 miles west of the Site, west of Interstate 694. Based on its location, it is estimated to be 90% competitive to account for draw area overlap.  After Cardinal Pointe, the next closest cooperative in the PMA is Applewood Pointe of Woodbury. It is west of Interstate 494, 5.2 miles from the Site. Accounting for draw area overlap, Cardinal Pointe is estimated to be 90% competitive with the Site and Applewood Pointe is estimated to be 85% competitive.  Along with the two competitive cooperatives in the PMA, Summerhill of Maplewood would be partially competitive when accounting for draw area overlap. It is 4.2 miles from the Site and is estimated to be 40% competitive with the Site.  The three competitive properties were built between 2005 and 2007 . Hence, no new competitive cooperative properties have been added in 12 years.  As of November 2019, Cardinal Pointe and Applewood Pointe do not have any units available. Summerhill of Maplewood has one unit for sale. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 13 November 12, 2019 Table 7 Competitive Senior Cooperative Housing Supply Primary Market Area November 2019 Besides cooperatives, there are other age-restricted housing types in the PMA. These include market rate and subsidized properties, properties with no services and some with services. The properties that provide meals and services cater to a target market that is generally less independent than the target market for cooperative housing. In Lake Elmo, one such housing with services buildings exists – Arbor Glen Senior Living. The closest housing with services building to the Site is Oak Meadows in Oakdale. These buildings would not be competitive with cooperative housing. The rental properties that do not offer services in the PMA all have income-limits. They include Legends of Woodbury (which opened in 2019), The Glen Valley Creek, Cobble Hill, and Echo Ridge. Overall, none of these other housing types would be competitive with a senior cooperative. Miles Percent Year Number In the from Comp-Compet- Property Name Location Built of Units PMA Site etitive1 itive Units Cardinal Pointe Oakdale 2007 55 Yes 2.8 90%50 Applewood Pointe Woodbury 2005 73 Yes 5.2 85%62 Summerhill of Maplewood Maplewood 2006 44 No 4.2 40%18 Total 172 129 Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. 1 Percent Competitive is estimated by the researcher based on the competitive property's distance from the subect Site, location within/near the PMA, its community orientation, and specific characteristics unique to the property. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 14 November 12, 2019 Competitive Senior Housing Cooperatives SITE Zvago Stillwater (UC) Applewood Pointe of Woodbury Cardinal Pointe of Oakdale Summerhill of Maplewood Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 15 November 12, 2019 Senior Housing Development Construction Pipeline One pending senior housing cooperative that would add to the PMA’s competitive supply was identified. Other pending developments are housing with services and therefore would not be competitive with cooperative housing. The following are summaries of senior housing properties in the development pipeline. 1. Construction on Zvago Stillwater began in September 2019. Zvago Stillwater will have 60 units that will be an estimated 20% competitive with the subject development when accounting for draw area overlap. It is outside the PMA, about 10 miles northeast of the subject Site. At 20% competitive, 12 of its units are subtracted from demand calculations presented later in this assessment. 2. Construction is nearing completion on Artis Senior Living in Woodbury. It will be a 72-unit memory care property on Afton Road. Since it is memory care, it would not be competitive with cooperative housing. 3. Construction began this fall on Trinity Vincent’s 95-unit senior housing development in Lake Elmo called Boulder Ponds Assisted living. Since it is assisted living, it would not be competitive with cooperative housing. 4. Peaceful Lodge is an existing 57-unit assisted living property in Oakdale. The developer – JB Vang – has been approved for a 33-unit addition that includes 19 assisted living units and 14 memory care units. Since it is assisted living and memory care, it would not be competitive with cooperative housing. 5. Arbor Glen is an existing senior housing with services property in Lake Elmo. The developer (Frisbie Properties LLC) has received approvals for a second phase that would include 42 senior rental apartments and 18 rental townhomes. Because these units are rental and on a campus with housing with services, they would not be competitive with cooperative housing. 6. SilverCrest Properties is pursuing a development at 10470 Hudson Road in Woodbury that would contain approximately 200 units of independent, assisted, living, and memory care units. Since it would be housing with services, it would not be competitive with cooperative housing. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 16 November 12, 2019 Senior Cooperative Housing Demand Calculations Table 8 provides a demand calculation for the number of senior cooperative housing units that can be supported in the PMA in 2019 and 2024, along with an estimate on the number of units that can be supported on the Site in Lake Elmo. As shown in Table 8, unmet demand for cooperative housing on the Site is calculated for 149 units in 2024. The following points summarize the demand methodology. The target market for senior cooperative housing is senior households age 65+ with incomes of $50,000 or more plus households with incomes between $35,000 and $50,000 who would qualify with the proceeds from a home sale. There would also be some limited demand from seniors ages 62 to 65. These seniors are the “age/income-qualified base.” A capture rate – or “penetration rate” – is applied to the income-qualified base of younger and older seniors. The penetration rates are based on the current penetration rates of cooperative senior housing in the local area and Twin Cities Metro Area. Applying the penetration rates to the age/income- qualified base results in demand for 389 cooperative units in 2019, growing to 473 units in 2024. Lake Elmo is an appealing residential location as it is easily accessible from the surrounding area and has an abundance of retail and services. It is estimated that 25% of the total demand for cooperative senior housing in Lake Elmo would come from seniors currently residing outside the PMA. This demand from outside the PMA increases total demand to 519 units in 2019 growing to 630 units in 2024. Next, the competitive supply is subtracted from total PMA demand. There are 129 competitive units in three properties in and near the PMA. Subtracting the competitive units, minus a 5% vacancy factor, results in unmet demand for 397 units in the PMA in 2019. One pending development near the PMA (Zvago Stillwater) was identified that would increase the competitive supply by 2024. Unmet demand in the PMA is calculated for 495 units in 2024. No single site can capture all the demand in a PMA. Based on the geographic size of the PMA and the Site’s location within the PMA, it is estimated that the Site can capture 30% of the unmet demand potential. This results in unmet demand on the Site for 119 cooperative units in 2019 growing to 149 units in 2024. As noted in the introduction of this report, the purpose of this initial assessment is to broadly assess the depth of demand for senior cooperative housing in the local area to determine if potential exists to support a new development. Thus, the findings are preliminary and should be viewed in that light. Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Lake Elmo, MN Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 17 November 12, 2019 Table 8 Senior Cooperative Housing Demand Calculation Primary Market Area 2019 and 2024 2019 2024 A Age 62 to 64 Households in the PMA 2,917 2,778 B Percent income-qualified*89%90% C Potential capture rate of cooperative housing 1.0%1.0% D Potential demand from 62-64 households in the PMA (A x B x C)26 25 E Age 65 to 74 Households in the PMA 6,148 7,376 F Percent income-qualified*82%82% G Potential capture rate of cooperative housing 4.0%4.0% H Potential demand from 65-74 households in the PMA (E x F x G)202 242 I Age 75+ Households in the PMA 3,627 4,666 J Percent income-qualified*59%59% K Potential capture rate of cooperative housing 7.5%7.5% L Potential demand from75+ households in the PMA (I x J x K)161 206 M Total potential market in the PMA (D + H + L)389 473 N Estimated percent of demand from outside the PMA 25%25% O Total demand for cooperative units in the PMA (M /(1- N))519 630 P Competitive cooperative housing supply**123 135 Q Unmet cooperative housing demand in the PMA (O - P)397 495 R Estimated percent of unmet demand capturable by Site 30%30% S Cooperative housing demand at Site (Q x R)119 149 ** Competitive units minus a 5% vacancy factor Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. * Income-qualified households are those with incomes above $50,000 plus homeowners with incomes between $35,000 and $50,000. This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C0-COVER SHEET.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:00pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORCOVER SHEETC000APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PEXX/XX/XXXX45790DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNBAWBAWWDMNORTH VICINITY N.T.S. LAKE ELMO, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MN 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE SITE MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS INCLUDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.IF REPRODUCED, THE SCALES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON A Previous paper size (34.00 x 22.00 Inches) SHEET. 3.ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICES COMPANIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANNOUNCED BUILDING POSSESSION AND THE FINAL CONNECTION OF SERVICES. 4.ALL GENERAL CONTRACTOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED (EARTHWORK, FINAL UTILITIES, AND FINAL GRADING) BY THE MILESTONE DATE IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS. NOTES: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BRAUN INTERTEC 11001 HAMPSHIRE AVE S, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 TELEPHONE: (952) 995-200 PROJECT TEAM: SURVEYOR E.G.RUD & SONS, INC. 6776 LAKE DRIVE NE, SUITE 110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 TELEPHONE: (651) 361-8701 FAX:(651) 361-8701 CONTACT: JASON RUDD ENGINEER & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY: WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PE MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLA 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE (651) 645-4197 OWNER / DEVELOPER UNITED PROPERTIES 651 NICOLLET MALL, SUITE 450 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 TELEPHONE: (952) 835-5300 CONTACT: APPLEWOOD POINTE OF LAKE ELMO SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 29N, RANGE 21W FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call ARCHITECT LSE ARCHITECTS 100 PORTLAND AVE. S, SUITE 100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN TELEPHONE: (612) 343-1010 CONTACT: MOHAMMED LAWAL SITE EAGLE POINT RD HUDSON BLVD DRAWING INDEX SHEET NO.SHEET TITLE C000 COVER SHEET C001 EXISTING SURVEY C100 GENERAL NOTES C200 DEMO PLAN C400 SITE PLAN C500 GRADING PLAN C501 GRADING DETAILS C600 UTILITY PLAN L100 LANDSCAPE PLAN L101 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L200 TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN L201 TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C1-GENERAL NOTES.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:01pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORGENERAL NOTESC100APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PEXX/XX/XXXX45790DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNBAWBAWWDMGENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1.THE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE MN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" (LATEST EDITION) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM AS APPLICABLE TO THESE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING ALL MATERIAL AND LABOR TO CONSTRUCT THE FACILITY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE APPROVING AUTHORITIES, SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB ALL AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, REMOVING TREES, STUMPS, ROOTS, MUCK, EXISTING PAVEMENT AND ALL OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. 3.THE EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS QUALITY LEVEL "D" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ACSE 38/02, ENTITLED STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF SUBSURFACE QUALITY DATA BY THE FHA. EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER. GUARANTEE IS NOT MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN OR THAT THE LOCATION OF THOSE SHOWN ARE ENTIRELY ACCURATE. FINDING THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AND SHALL BE DONE BEFORE COMMENCING ANY WORK IN THE VICINITY. FURTHERMORE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE OWNER OR ENGINEER WILL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES SUSTAINED OR COST INCURRED BECAUSE OF THE OPERATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, NOR FOR TEMPORARY BRACING AND SHORING OF SAME. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO SHORE, BRACE, SWING OR RELOCATE A UTILITY, THE UTILITY COMPANY OR DEPARTMENT AFFECTED SHALL BE CONTACTED AND THEIR PERMISSION OBTAINED REGARDING THE METHOD TO USE FOR SUCH WORK. 4.IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES WHICH MAY HAVE BURIED OR AERIAL UTILITIES WITHIN OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION AREA BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 48 HOURS MINIMUM NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND BONDS IF REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES ONE COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS INCLUDING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND COPIES OF ANY REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. 7.ANY DISCREPANCIES ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER AND ENGINEER BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. NO FIELD CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND NOTIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER. 8.ALL COPIES OF COMPACTION, CONCRETE AND OTHER REQUIRED TEST RESULTS ARE TO BE SENT TO THE OWNER DIRECTLY FROM THE TESTING AGENCY. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOCUMENTING AND MAINTAINING AS-BUILT INFORMATION WHICH SHALL BE RECORDED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES OR AT THE COMPLETION OF APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION INTERVALS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AS-BUILT DRAWINGS TO THE OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CERTIFICATION TO JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES AS REQUIRED. ALL AS-BUILT DATA SHALL BE COLLECTED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR WHOSE SERVICES ARE ENGAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 10.ANY WELLS DISCOVERED ON SITE THAT WILL HAVE NO USE MUST BE PLUGGED BY A LICENSED WELL DRILLING CONTRACTOR IN A MANNER APPROVED BY ALL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY WELL ABANDONMENT PERMITS REQUIRED. 11.ANY WELL DISCOVERED DURING EARTH MOVING OR EXCAVATION SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER DISCOVERY IS MADE. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY KNOWN EXISTING OR OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. IF ANY CONFLICTS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PORTION OF THE SITE WORK THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED. FAILURE TO NOTIFY OWNER OF AN IDENTIFIABLE CONFLICT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH INSTALLATION RELIEVES OWNER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR A RELATED CHANGE ORDER. 13.SHOULD CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTER ANY DEBRIS LADEN SOIL, STRUCTURES NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS, OR OTHER SOURCE OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION, THEY SHALL IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. TYPICAL OWNER/ENGINEER OBSERVATIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: - PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING, SUBGRADE PREPARATION, BASE INSTALLATION ASPHALT INSTALLATION, UNDERGROUND PIPING AND UTILITIES INSTALLATION, INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES, CHECK VALVES, HYDRANTS, METERS, ETC., SIDEWALK INSTALLATION, CONNECTIONS TO WATER AND SEWER MAINS, TESTS OF UTILITIES 3RD PARTY TEST REPORTS REQ'D TEST REPORTS REQUIRED FOR CLOSE OUT INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: - DENSITY TEST REPORTS - BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS OF WATER SYSTEM - PRESSURE TEST OF WATER/SEWER - LEAK TESTS ON SEWER SYSTEM AND GREASE TRAPS - ANY OTHER TESTING REQUIRED BY THE AGENCY/MUNICIPALITY WATER STORM SEWER & SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT GRAVITY SEWER LATERALS, MANHOLES, GRAVITY SEWER LINES, AND DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, TOOLS, MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AND LABOR NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN FULL AND COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH THE SHOWN, DESCRIBED AND REASONABLY INTENDED REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 2.ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY LOCATION AND COORDINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTES CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SECTION OF THIS SHEET. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL DISTURBED VEGETATION IN KIND, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. 4.DEFLECTION OF PIPE JOINTS AND CURVATURE OF PIPE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SECURELY CLOSE ALL OPEN ENDS OF PIPE AND FITTINGS WITH A WATERTIGHT PLUG WHEN WORK IS NOT IN PROGRESS. THE INTERIOR OF ALL PIPES SHALL BE CLEAN AND JOINT SURFACES WIPED CLEAN AND DRY AFTER THE PIPE HAS BEEN LOWERED INTO THE TRENCH. VALVES SHALL BE PLUMB AND LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS. 5.ALL PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE CAREFULLY STORED FOLLOWING MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE COATING OR LINING IN ANY D.I. PIPE FITTINGS. ANY PIPE OR FITTING WHICH IS DAMAGED OR WHICH HAS FLAWS OR IMPERFECTIONS WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER OR OWNER, RENDERS IT UNFIT FOR USE, SHALL NOT BE USED. ANY PIPE NOT SATISFACTORY FOR USE SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AND IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE JOB SITE, AND SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 6.WATER FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COMBUSTIBLES BEING BROUGHT ON SITE. 7.ALL UTILITY AND STORM DRAIN TRENCHES LOCATED UNDER AREAS TO RECEIVE PAVING SHALL BE COMPLETELY BACK FILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNING JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY'S SPECIFICATIONS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 8.UNDERGROUND LINES SHALL BE SURVEYED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR PRIOR TO BACK FILLING. 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, ANY AND ALL TESTS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR ANY AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION. THESE TESTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO, INFILTRATION AND EXFILTRATION, TELEVISION INSPECTION AND A MANDREL TEST ON GRAVITY SEWER. A COPY OF THE TEST RESULTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE UTILITY PROVIDER, OWNER AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE OF 10' AND A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 18" BETWEEN WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES AND LINES. 11.IF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS NECESSARY TO RETURN IT TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OR BETTER. 12.ALL STORM PIPE ENTERING STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUTED TO ASSURE CONNECTION AT STRUCTURE IS WATERTIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED BY CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 13.UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ALL STORM SEWER MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT, AND SHALL HAVE TRAFFIC BEARING RING & COVERS. MANHOLES IN UNPAVED AREAS SHALL BE 6" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. LIDS SHALL BE LABELED "STORM SEWER". EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THESE CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE. 14.TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY LAND SURVEYORS. IF THE CONTRACTOR DOES NOT ACCEPT EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY, AT THEIR EXPENSE, A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW. 15.CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED TO SAME. 16.ALL STORM STRUCTURES SHALL HAVE A SMOOTH UNIFORM POURED MORTAR FROM INVERT IN TO INVERT OUT. 17.ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO STORM SEWER BY PREFABRICATED WYES OR AT STORM STRUCTURES. ROOF DRAINS AND TRUCK WELL DRAIN SHALL RUN AT A MINIMUM 1% SLOPE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, AND TIE IN AT THE CENTERLINE OF THE STORM MAIN. 18.ALL ROOF AND SANITARY SEWER DRAINS SHALL BE INSULATED IF 7' OF COVER CANNOT BE PROVIDED. 19.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THAT ARE TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 20.THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND OTHER ABOVE AND BELOW-GRADE IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AS SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATIONS OF EACH PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 21.A MINIMUM OF 5' SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN UTILITIES AND TREES UNLESS A ROOT BARRIER IS UTILIZED. 22.GAS, PHONE AND ELECTRIC SERVICES SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. DRY UTILITY COMPANIES MAY ALTER THE DESIGN LAYOUT DURING THEIR REVIEW. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE FINAL DESIGN AND INSTALLATION WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 23.COORDINATE UTILITY INSTALLATION WITH IRRIGATION DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. 24.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FLOW LINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PERIMETER WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO INSIDE WALL FACE. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT WALL WIDTH AND SPECIFICATIONS. 25.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS). FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS, AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS. 26.REFERENCE M.E.P. PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR ROOF DRAINAGE AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 27.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE STRUCTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR FOUNDATIONS, STOOPS, RETAINING WALLS, AND OTHER STRUCTURAL FEATURES. 28.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE M.E.P PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR ELECTRICAL AND LIGHT PLANS. GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES 1.GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS INCLUDING GRADES AND DIMENSIONS BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE TO THE ELEVATIONS INDICATED AND SHALL ADJUST BMP'S AS NECESSARY AND REGRADE WASHOUTS WHERE THEY OCCUR AFTER EVERY RAINFALL UNTIL A GRASS STAND IS WELL ESTABLISHED OR ADEQUATE STABILIZATION OCCURS. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THERE IS POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS SO THAT SURFACE RUNOFF WILL DRAIN BY GRAVITY TO NEW OR EXISTING DRAINAGE OUTLETS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE NO PONDING OCCURS IN PAVED AREAS AND SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IF ANY GRADING DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND IN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT OR UTILITIES. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL MANHOLE COVERS, VALVE COVERS, VAULT LIDS, FIRE HYDRANTS, POWER POLES, GUY WIRES, AND TELEPHONE BOXES THAT ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES TO REMAIN SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADES. 5.BACKFILL FOR UTILITY LINES SHALL BE PLACED PER DETAILS, STANDARDS, AND SPECIFICATIONS SO THAT THE UTILITY WILL BE STABLE. WHERE UTILITY LINES CROSS THE PARKING LOT, THE TOP 6 INCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED SIMILARLY TO THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT. UTILITY DITCHES SHALL BE VISUALLY INSPECTED DURING THE EXCAVATION PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT UNDESIRABLE FILL IS NOT USED. 6.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 4" OF TOPSOIL AT COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL UNPAVED AREAS IN EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REGRADED AND SODDED. 7.AFTER PLACEMENT OF SUBGRADE AND PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST AND OBSERVE PAVEMENT AREAS FOR EVIDENCE OF PONDING. ALL AREAS SHALL ADEQUATELY DRAIN TOWARDS THE INTENDED STRUCTURE TO CONVEY STORM RUNOFF. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY OWNER AND ENGINEER IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE DISCOVERED. 8.WHERE EXISTING PAVEMENT IS INDICATED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAW CUT FULL DEPTH FOR A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT JOINT AND REPLACE THE PAVEMENT WITH THE SAME TYPE AND DEPTH OF MATERIAL AS EXISTING OR AS INDICATED. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PROTECTION OVER ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT BY THE OWNER. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AS REQUIRED DURING AND AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FLOWS. 10.IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ANY APPLICABLE REQUIRED PERMITS. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 11.FIELD DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN AT INTERVALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY OR TO MN/DOT STANDARDS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 12.ALL SLOPES AND AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE GRADED AS PER PLANS. THE AREAS SHALL THEN BE SODDED OR SEEDED AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS, FERTILIZED, MULCHED, WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL HARDY GRASS GROWTH IS ESTABLISHED IN ALL AREAS. ANY AREAS DISTURBED FOR ANY REASON PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOB SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. ALL EARTHEN AREAS WILL BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND MULCHED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTROL OF DUST AND DIRT RISING AND SCATTERING IN THE AIR DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROVIDE WATER SPRINKLING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHODS OF CONTROL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL GOVERNING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 14.SOD, WHERE CALLED FOR, MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED ON EXPOSED SLOPES WITHIN 48 HOURS OF COMPLETING FINAL GRADING, AND AT ANY OTHER TIME AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT EROSION, SEDIMENTATION OR TURBID DISCHARGES. 15.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT LANDSCAPE ISLAND PLANTING AREAS AND OTHER PLANTING AREAS ARE NOT COMPACTED AND DO NOT CONTAIN ROAD BASE MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO EXCAVATE AND REMOVE ALL UNDESIRABLE MATERIAL FROM ALL AREAS ON THE SITE TO BE PLANTED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. 16.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL UNDERGROUND STORM WATER PIPING PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND MN/DOT SPECIFICATION. 17.ALL CONCRETE/ASPHALT SHALL BE INSTALLED PER GEOTECH REPORT, CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. 18.SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FLOWLINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 19.LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE TO THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. 20.IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE OWNER ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 21.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING EXISTING UTILITIES, AND SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES THAT OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT COMPENSATION. 22.BLEND NEW EARTHWORK SMOOTHLY TO TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING GRADE. 23.ALL PROPOSED GRADES ONSITE SHALL BE 3:1 OR FLATTER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. ANY SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4:1 REQUIRE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BLANKET. 24.ADHERE TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS NECESSARY IN THE GENERAL N.P.D.E.S. PERMIT AND STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 25.ADJUST AND/OR CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE A SMOOTH FIT AND CONTINUOUS GRADE. 26.CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE MINIMUM GRADES ARE MET WITHIN PAVED AREAS, 1.2% FOR ASPHALT PAVING AND 0.6% FOR CONCRETE PAVING. EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1.THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ("SWPPP") IS COMPRISED OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN, THE STANDARD DETAILS, THE PLAN NARRATIVE, ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SWPPP, PLUS THE PERMIT AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. 2.ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND THE STATE OF MN NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT (NPDES PERMIT) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THEIR CONTENTS. 3.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) AND CONTROLS SHALL CONFORM TO FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS OR MANUAL OF PRACTICE, AS APPLICABLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL CONTROLS AS DIRECTED BY THE PERMITTING AGENCY OR OWNER. 4.SITE ENTRY AND EXIT LOCATIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT THE TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO A PUBLIC ROADWAY, IT SHALL BE DONE IN AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT BASIN. ALL FINES IMPOSED FOR DISCHARGING SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC AREAS SHALL BE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5.TEMPORARY SEEDING OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS OF STABILIZATION SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THE LAST DISTURBANCE ON ANY AREA OF THE SITE. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE CLEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL OR AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PERMIT. 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL DENOTE ON PLAN THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA WHICH SHALL ALSO BE USED AS THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING AREA, EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA, AND AREA FOR LOCATING PORTABLE FACILITIES, OFFICE TRAILERS, AND TOILET FACILITIES. 8.ALL WASH WATER (CONCRETE TRUCKS, VEHICLE CLEANING, EQUIPMENT CLEANING, ETC.) SHALL BE DETAINED AND PROPERLY TREATED OR DISPOSED. 9.SUFFICIENT OIL AND GREASE ABSORBING MATERIALS AND FLOTATION BOOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE OR READILY AVAILABLE TO CONTAIN AND CLEAN-UP FUEL OR CHEMICAL SPILLS AND LEAKS. 10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL ON SITE. THE USE OF MOTOR OILS AND OTHER PETROLEUM BASED OR TOXIC LIQUIDS FOR DUST SUPPRESSION OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED. 11.RUBBISH, TRASH, GARBAGE, LITTER, OR OTHER SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO SEALED CONTAINERS. MATERIALS SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THE PREMISES THROUGH THE ACTION OF WIND OR STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO DRAINAGE DITCHES OR WATERS OF THE STATE. 12.ALL STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES PRESENTED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOON AS IS PRACTICABLE. 13.ALL STAGING AREAS, STOCKPILES, SPOILS, ETC. SHALL BE LOCATED SUCH THAT THEY WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT STORM WATER QUALITY. OTHERWISE, COVERING OR ENCIRCLING THESE AREAS WITH SOME PROTECTIVE MEASURE WILL BE NECESSARY. 14.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RE-ESTABLISHING ANY EROSION CONTROL DEVICE WHICH THEY DISTURB. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE ESTABLISHED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES THAT MAY LEAD TO UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE OR STORM WATER POLLUTION, SEDIMENTATION, OR OTHER POLLUTANTS. UNAUTHORIZED POLLUTANTS INCLUDE (BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO) EXCESS CONCRETE DUMPING OR CONCRETE RESIDUE, PAINTS, SOLVENTS, GREASES, FUEL AND LUBRICANT OIL, PESTICIDES, AND ANY SOLID WASTE MATERIALS. 15.EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ON THE PROJECT. 16.ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. CHANGES ARE TO BE APPROVED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO ENGINEERING DIVISION. 17.IF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AS APPROVED CANNOT CONTROL EROSION AND OFF-SITE SEDIMENTATION FROM THE PROJECT, THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE REVISED AND/OR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES WILL BE REQUIRED ON SITE. ANY REVISIONS TO THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE ALL MEASURES STATED ON THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, AND IN THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN FULLY FUNCTIONAL CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY ALL JURISDICTIONS UNTIL NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETED PHASE OF WORK OR FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CHECKED BY A CERTIFIED PERSON AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF A 0.5" RAINFALL EVENT, AND CLEANED AND REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: INLET PROTECTION DEVICES AND BARRIERS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED IF THEY SHOW SIGNS OF UNDERMINING, OR DETERIORATION. 1.ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO SEE THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAINED. AREAS SHOULD BE FERTILIZED, WATERED AND RESEEDED AS NEEDED. FOR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS REFER TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2.SILT FENCES SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IF DAMAGED. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SILT FENCES WHEN IT REACHES ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. 3.THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S) SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 4.THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD CONDITION (SUITABLE FOR PARKING AND STORAGE). THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE TEMPORARY PARKING AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 5.ALL MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS SHALL BE DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 2 CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING THE INSPECTION. PAVING AND STRIPING NOTES 1.ALL PAVING, CONSTRUCTION, MATERIALS, AND WORKMANSHIP WITHIN JURISDICTION'S RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL OR COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) OR MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) IF NOT COVERED BY LOCAL OR COUNTY REGULATIONS. 2.ALL SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (M.U.T.C.D) AND CITY STANDARDS. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR FIRE LANES, ROADWAY LANES, PARKING STALLS, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOLS, ACCESS AISLES, STOP BARS AND SIGNS, AND MISCELLANEOUS STRIPING WITHIN THE PARKING LOT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 4.ALL EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL EXTEND THROUGH THE CURB. 5.THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF OFFSET JOINTS AT RADIUS POINTS SHALL BE 2 FEET. 6.ALL JOINTS, INCLUDING EXPANSION JOINTS WITH REMOVABLE TACK STRIPS, SHALL BE SEALED WITH JOINT SEALANT. 7.THE MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES OF ALL CONCRETE SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS IN THE A.C.I. (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE) MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE. 8.CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY A SECOND COATING OVER ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER FOLLOWED BY A COAT OF GLASS BEADS AS APPLICABLE PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 9.ANY EXISTING PAVEMENT, CURBS AND/OR SIDEWALKS DAMAGED OR REMOVED WILL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. 10.BEFORE PLACING PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SUITABLE ACCESSIBLE ROUTES (PER A.D.A). GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 11.MAXIMUM JOINT SPACING IS TWICE THE DEPTH OF THE CONCRETE PAVEMENT IN FEET. CSSI G N A G E INV.=977.74LIFTSTATION1233 981.70 TCCB 958.76INVCMP84LIFTSTATIONINV.=964.47(NE)INV.=963.91(NW)INV.=956.43(NW&SE)PAVEMENT STRIPES (TYP.)PAVEMENT STRIPES (TYP.)APPROXIMATELOCATIONAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE LOCATION CONNECT TO EX. SSWR MH IE: ±956.27 8" SANITARY 18" RCP FES IE: 965.60 18" RCP FES IE: 966.85 84" CMP FES IE:958.76 10" SANITARY 12" DIP WATERMAIN SSWR DROP MH RIM: 968.32 IE (16" SE): 959.05 IE (8" NW): 954.17 IE (16" NE): 952.88 EXIST. SSWR LIFT STATION 16" DIP SANITARY 8" FORCEMAIN 84" CMP STRM SEWER 12" DIP WATERMAIN 12" DIP WATERMAIN EXIST. 8" DIP STUB 36" RCP CLIII 36" RCP FES INV. 974.0 EXISTING WETLAND NWL: 974.0 HWL: 976.3 SWWD 25' WETLAND MANAGE 2 SETBACK SWWD 50' WETLAND MANAGE 2 SETBACK 36" RCP CLIII 8" SANITARY 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 18" RCP FES INV. 976.13 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 18" RCP FES INV. 972.92 30" RCP STORMA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B C GENERATORA ELECTRICA RIGHT TURN LANE SPEED LIMIT 40D D PROPOSED HUDSON BLVD OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS; RECONSTRUCT WEST BOUND LANES AND MILL AND OVERLAY EAST BOUND LANES; REFER TO TYPICAL SECTIONS SHEET C401 18" RCP FES IE: 967.93 E 970 970975971971972972973973974974976977978 97 9 30" RCP FES IE: 965.27 E REMOVE 13 LF 30" RCP REMOVE 8 LF 18" RCP CEN T E R LI N E O F EXIS TI N G C R E E K 25' S H O R E L A N D IMPA C T Z O N E SHO R E L A N D B UI L DI N G SETB A C K ORDI N A R Y HI G H W A T E R LEV E L A S D E LI N E A T E D 1 1/ 2 0 1 9 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C2-DEMO PLAN.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:01pm©BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORDEMO PLANC200APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PEXX/XX/XXXX45790DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNBAWBAWWDM1.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL (IN A LOCATION APPROVED BY ALL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES) ALL STRUCTURES, PADS, WALLS, FLUMES, FOUNDATIONS, PARKING, DRIVES, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, ETC. SUCH THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PLANS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. ALL FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 2.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFUL MANNER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE PERMIT AND RECEIPTS OF DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS TO THE OWNER AND OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL UTILITY SERVICES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT ALL TIMES. UTILITY SERVICES SHALL NOT BE INTERRUPTED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND COORDINATION WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND/OR THE CITY. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY CONCERNING PORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY'S FORCES AND ANY FEES WHICH ARE TO BE PAID TO THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL FEES AND CHARGES. 5.THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND ARE GIVEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY. PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY DEMOLITION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ALL AREAS OF PROPOSED WORK. 6.ALL EXISTING SEWERS, PIPING AND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS THE EXACT LOCATION, OR AS ANY OBSTACLES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE SITE. VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROCEED WITH CAUTION AROUND ANY ANTICIPATED FEATURES. GIVE NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES REGARDING DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND CAP ALL LINES BEFORE PRECEDING WITH THE WORK. 7.ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE, CABLE, WATER, FIBER OPTIC, AND/OR GAS LINES NEEDING TO BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY. ADEQUATE TIME SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR RELOCATION AND CLOSE COORDINATION WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION IN UTILITY SERVICE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ANY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. 8.CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES WITH FENCING, BARRICADES, ENCLOSURES, ETC. (AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AS APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE COORDINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAKE ELMO, WASHINGTON COUNTY AND MN/DOT. 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTIES IF ACCESS WILL BE INTERRUPTED OR ALTERED AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10.PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OCCURRING, ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED. 11.CONTRACTOR MAY LIMIT SAW-CUT AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL TO ONLY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS BUT IF ANY DAMAGE IS INCURRED ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PAVEMENT, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WATER MAIN WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPT. AND THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT TO PLAN PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ENSURE ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION IS CONSTANTLY AVAILABLE TO THE SITE THROUGHOUT THIS SPECIFIC WORK AND THROUGH ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING/PROVIDING ANY REQUIRED WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL BE PROVIDED. 13.REFER TO SURVEY FOR ALL EXISTING INVERT AND RIM ELEVATIONS. 14.ALL UTILITIES SHOWN ARE EXISTING UTILITIES. 15.IN THE EVENT A WELL IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY. ALL WELLS SHALL BE SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE OF MN REQUIREMENTS. 16.IN THE EVENT THAT UNKNOWN CONTAINERS OR TANKS ARE ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER AND/OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. ALL CONTAINERS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT A PERMITTED LANDFILL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 17.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF ANY EXISTING DRAINTILE IS ENCOUNTERED ON SITE. NO ACTIVE DRAINTILE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. DEMOLITION PLAN NOTES KEYNOTE LEGEND PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITY REMOVE EXISTING TREE (TYP.) PROTECT EXISTING TREE (TYP.) REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING SIGN REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING FES A B C D E LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE MILL EXISTING BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE TREE, REFERENCE L200-201 FOR TREE INVENTORY REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE UTILITY LINES PROPERTY LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING GAS MAIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SIGN EXISTING FLARED END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM CATCHBASIN EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING METAL COVER EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING CABLE BOX EXISTING GUY WIRE EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING TREE CLEARING & GRUBBING EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER LEGEND FULL DEPTH SAWCUT NORTH N90°00'00"W110.70N27° 3 4' 2 7 " W 2 5 8. 4 3 N 3 4 ° 2 3 ' 2 9 " E 1 7 1 . 1 9 S86°38'35"E133.86290.00 228.44362.50 992.45FNDIP164561000.36SETIP41578983.58FNDIP15480977.57FNDIP15480973.00SETIP41578970.57FNDIP.5969.94SETIP41578969.20FNDIP8612968.81FNDIP16456976.20FNDIP16456979.83FNDIP16456984.21FNDIP16456982.87SETIP41578986.52SETIP41578983.28FNDIP16456963.64FNDIP8612962.35FNDIP15480E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N GGENERATOREDGE OF WATEREDGE OF WATERCENTERLINE CREEKBRIDGEABUTTMENTC.BRG .=N62°21 '47"ECHORD=267.14C.BRG.=S47°01'01"E CHORD=342.57C.BRG.=N83°51'07"ECHORD=122.39(WATER ELEV. = 978.2 AS OF 7/11/19)DASHED PAVEMENT STRIPE18.0'26.0'9.0'SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING LEVEL 1: ±994.0 LEVEL B: ±984.25 7.0' PROPOSED WATER FEATURE (BY OTHERS) MAIN ENTRANCE PROPOSED COMMUNITY GARDEN AREA PROPOSED BOCCE BALL (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED ±20' RETAINING WALL WITH GUARDRAIL; SEE SHEET C500 CEN T E R LI N E O F EXIS TI N G C R E E K EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND SSWD 50' WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED PLAZA 16.0' 6.0' 6.0'9.0'3 . 7 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 6 . 0 ' 1 6 . 0 '29.0'9.0'2 6 . 0 '5.0'26.0'6.0'60.8'50.0'5 0 . 0 '26.0 ' 26 . 0 ' 18 . 0 ' 6. 0 ' 8 1 . 7 ' 1 8 . 0 '26.0'6.0'18.0'9. 0 ' 87.6'47.3'26.0'22.0'55.0'20.0'30.2' 28.0'15.1'15.5 '29.6'15.1 ' 2 9 . 7 '17.0'20 19 15 17 4 4 4 7 . 9 ' A A A A A A A B BC C C C A A 6.0 ' PROPOSED GAZEBO (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED PLAZA E E E F F G G G EG G G G G G E J J K K K K N H H H H H I I I I I L PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA: SURFACE INFILTRATION BASIN PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA: UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION PIPE 5. 0 ' 8. 0 ' 2. 0 ' PROPOSED 30' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED 30' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED 30' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED 30' UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING LIFT STATION PROPOSED HUDSON BLVD OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS; RECONSTRUCT WEST BOUND LANES AND MILL AND OVERLAY EAST BOUND LANES; CONTRACTOR TO RE-STRIPE HUDSON BLVD POST CONSTRUCTION; SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS SHEET C401 25' S H O R E L A N D IMPA C T Z O N E SHO R E L A N D B UI L DI N G SETB A C K SWWD 25' WETLAND MANAGE 2 SETBACK SWWD 50' WETLAND MANAGE 2 SETBACK 8.0 ' EXISTING WETLAND NWL: 974.0 HWL: 976.3 L L O O O O O O O O O O O OP P P P P PPP P P Q D D D D M M M M M M M M M M M 8 - 6" STEPS R "SPEED LIMIT 40" R RIGHT TURN LANE 1 4 . 0 ' 1 2 . 0 ' 1 2 . 0 '12.0 '16.0 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 1 2 . 0 ' 0+0 0 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+0 0 7+008+009+009+88HUDSON BLVD 100.0 '50.0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' PROPOSED 10' UTILITY EASEMSENT 1 0 . 0 ' PROPOSED 10' UTILITY EASEMSENT10.0 '30.0'S S S T U T U T U V W W ORDI N A R Y HI G H W A T E R LEV E L A S D E LI N E A T E D 11/2 0 1 9 PREPARED FORSITE PLANC400APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PEXX/XX/XXXX45790DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNLECLECWDMBUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 508,702 SF (11.68 AC) BUILDING AREA 52,961 SF (10.4% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING 105 SPACES @ 1.0 SPACE PER DWELLING PROPOSED SURFACE PARKING 79 SPACES PROPOSED GARAGE PARKING SEE ARCH PLANS ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 6 STALLS / 6 STALLS PROPERTY SUMMARY APPLEWOOD POINTE OF LAKE ELMO TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 508,702 SF (11.68 AC) TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA 281,536 SF (6.46 AC) EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 0 SF (0.00 AC) EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA 529,788 SF (12.16 AC) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 150,718 SF (3.46 AC) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 379,070 SF (8.70 AC) TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 320,898 SF (7.37 AC) ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING BP-PUD PARKING SETBACKS SIDE/REAR = 0' ROAD = 0' BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT = 0' SIDE = 0' REAR = 0' PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED FENCE SETBACK LINE RETAINING WALL WITH GUARD RAIL PROPOSED CONCRETE LEGEND This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C4-SITE PLAN.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:01pm©BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONNORTHPROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT KEYNOTE LEGEND CONCRETE SIDEWALK MATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTER B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT FLAT CURB MOUNTABLE CURB ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2' O.C. HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT SITE SIGNAGE - SEE ARCH PLANS LANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRON PROPOSED DECK, SEE ARCH PLANS PROPOSED PATIO, SEE SHEET C500 AND ARCH PLANS PROPOSED PLANTER, SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS REPLACE EXISTING SIGN B624 CURB AND GUTTER HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PER CITY STANDARD PAVEMENT SECTION; SEE SHEET C401 FOR DETAIL MILL AND OVERLAY ASPHALT PROPOSED RE-STRIPING PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKING A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED MILL AND OVERLAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TRAIL This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C4-SITE DETAILS.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:01pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORTYPICALSECTIONSC401APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PEXX/XX/XXXX45790DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNLECLECWDM SI G N A G E E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N GGENERATOREDGE OF WATEREDGE OF WATERCENTERLINE CREEKBRIDGEABUTTMENTINV.=977.74LIFTSTATION(WATER ELEV. = 978.2 AS OF 7/11/19)958.76INVCMP84LIFTSTATIONINV.=964.47(NE)INV.=963.91(NW)INV.=956.43(NW&SE)APPROXIMATE LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE LOCATION D D DDD DDDD970970 975975 9 8 0971971972972973973974974976976977977 978978 9 7 9 979 9 8 1 9 8 2 9839 9 5 99 3 99 4 996997100099899910011002980980 985985 9909909959959951000979979981981982982983983984984986986 987 98798 8 988989989991991991992992992993993993994994994996996996997997997998999 1001 980 978 979 981982983983970975975966967968969971 972 973974974976976977977 960 965 965 970970961 962 963 964 966966 967967 968968 969969 971971972972965970975980985 990 961 962 963 964966967968969971972973974976977978979981982983 984 986 987 988 989 9759759 8 0 9 8 5 99 0 995 9 9 5 9 7 6 9 7 7 9 7 8 9 7 9 9 8 1 9 8 2 9 8 3 9 8 4 9 8 6 9 8 7 9 8 8 9 8 9 99 1 9 9 1 99 2 99299 3 99399 4 994996996997997980985 979981982983984986 987 988989970 975 980 985 971 972 973 974 976 977 978 979 981 982 983 984 986 985984986987988 970 970 970 970975967 967 968 968 969 969 971971972972973973974974976977978 979975 97 6 97 7 978 979990987 9 8 7988989991992992992993994SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING LEVEL 1: ±995.0 LEVEL B: ±985.25 987990990986987987988988989989991991990995986987988989991992993994 985 9 8 6 985 990 981982983984 986 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 991 992 99 2 993 9939959939949 9 2993992993994 995.00 995.00 995.00 1.28% 3.65% 4. 8 9 %2.01%2.13%3.69%4.68% 4.98%4.31%2.14% 3 . 0 3%2.07%3.69% 1.1 9 % 1. 0 6 %4.13%0.83%4.46 % 3.03 %4:1 4 : 1 3:14:15 :1 4:14:14:18 : 1 4 : 1 5:14 : 1 2.06 % EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND4.23%4.63%4.73%995.00 990988988989 991992993994990 988 989 991992993 9 9 0 9 9 1 992990 988 989 991 992 98498 4 990 988 989 991 9 9 0 988 98 9 985 981982 983 984 986 987 9889859909869879889899919919929929939939 8 5 9 8 5 9 8 6 987 987988 988988 989 CENTERLINE OF STEAM APPROXIMATE 25' SHORELINE IMPACT ZONE APPROXIMATE 50' BUILDING SETBACK EXIST. 36" RCP CLIII EXIST. 36" RCP FES INV. 974.0 EXISTING WETLAND NWL: 974.0 HWL: 976.3 SWWD 25' WETLAND MANAGE 2 SETBACK SWWD 50' WETLAND MANAGE 2 SETBACK PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN TOTAL VOLUME: 35,444 CF WATER QUALITY VOLUME: 8,815 CF BASIN BOTTOM: 981.0 WATER QUALITY ELEVATION: 981.80 100 YR HWL: 983.35 PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA MC-3500 CHAMBERS (OR APPROVED EQUAL) TOTAL VOLUME: 20,680 CF TOTAL WATER QUALITY VOLUME: 4,110 CF TOP OF STONE: 985.75 TOP OF CHAMBER: 984.75 WATER QUALITY IE: 981.8 BOTTOM OF CHAMBER: 981.0 STONE IE: 980.25 EXIST. 36" RCP CLIII EXIST. 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 EXIST. 18" RCP FES INV. 976.13 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 EXIST. 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 EXIST. 18" RCP FES INV. 972.92 EXIST. 30" RCP STORM EXIST. 18" RCP FES IE: 965.60 EXIST. 18" RCP FES IE: 966.85 EXIST. 84" CMP FES IE:958.76 EXIST. 84" CMP STRM SEWER STRM 204 STMH 48" DIA. RE:994.76 IE:984.04 W IE:984.04 N IE:984.04 S STRM 402 CBMH 48" DIA. 3' SUMP RE:991.40 IE:982.08 E IE:982.08 SW STRM 404 STMH 48" DIA. RE:990.74 IE:983.78 E IE:982.08 S IE:982.66 W STRM 207 CBMH 48" DIA. RE:991.03 IE:985.03 S STRM 201 STMH 48" DIA. 3' SUMP RE:989.48 IE:982.42 N IE:982.42 W IE:982.42 E STRM 407 CBMH 48" DIA. RE:987.95 IE:984.50 NW STRM 600 STMH 48" DIA. (CIR.) CONNECT TO UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM RE:988.28 IE:981.00 NW STRM 406 CBMH 48" DIA. RE:987.35 IE:984.21 SE IE:984.21 W STRM 101 CBMH 48" DIA. 3' SUMP RE:985.89 IE:981.14 NW IE:981.14 S STRM 501 CBMH 48" DIA. RE:985.87 IE:981.65 NE STRM 102 CBMH 48" DIA. 3' SUMP RE:983.84 IE:981.69 NE IE:981.69 SE STRM 400 STMH 48" DIA (CIR.) CONNECT TO UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM RE:992.42 IE:981.00 NE STRM 200 FES 24" RE:983.16 IE:981.00 W STRM 300 OCS CBMH 48" DIA. (CIR.) RE:981.80 IE:980.50 N STRM 500 STMH 48" DIA. (CIR.) CONNECT TO UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM RE:986.99 IE:981.00 SW IE:981.00 SE STRM 100 FES 15" RE:982.39 IE:981.00 N STRM 603 FES 18" RE:981.65 IE:980.00 SE STRM 301 FES 12" RE:981.25 IE:980.00 S 137 LF - 15" HDPE @ 0.40% 35 LF - 15" HDPE @ 0.40% 40 LF - 12" RCP @ 1.25% 33 LF - 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 108 LF - 24" HDPE @ 0.50% 69 LF - 24" HDPE @ 2.05% 57 LF - 12" HDPE @ 0.50% 87 LF - 12" HDPE @ 0.50% 51 LF - 15" HDPE @ 2.13% 13 LF - 18" HDPE @ 1.72% 16 LF - 8" TRENCH DRAIN @ 1.00% 117 LF - 15" HDPE @ 0.50%82 LF - 8" HDPE @ 1.85% 5.8 2 %11.21%14 : 1 8:114: 16:1 2 : 1 5:137 LF - 12" HDPE @ 1.75% STRM 601 OCS RE:983.17 IE:980.77 SE IE:980.77 NW 43 LF - 18" HDPE @ 1.80% 50 LF - 12" HDPE @ 2.00% STRM 103 12" ROOF DRAIN IE:982.70 SW 16 LF - 8" TRENCH DRIAIN @ 1.00% 40 LF - 12" HDPE @ 2.94% 28 LF - 12" HDPE @ 2.00% STRM 205 12" ROOF DRAIN IE:984.60 E 59 LF - 12" HDPE @ 2.00% STRM 403 12" ROOF DRAIN IE:982.19 NW STRM 206 CBMH 48" DIA. RE:991.85 IE:984.86 N IE:984.86 S 164 LF - 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 4:1 4:1 4:14:13:1 BW:985.00 TW:985.66 BW:974.62 TW:989.00 TW:988.00 TW:988.00 TW:987.00 TW:991.00 TW:992.00 TW:993.00 TW:992.00 TW:991.00TW:990.00TW:989.00 TW:988.00TW:987.00 TW:985.00 TW:985.00 BW:973.46 BW:972.79 BW:972.00 BW:972.00 BW:972.00 BW:970.23 BW:970.00 BW:972.00 BW:970.57 BW:971.40 BW:976.82 BW:978.23 BW:981.19 STRM 202 STMH 48" DIA. RE:993.00 IE:982.89 NW IE:982.89 S STRM 203 STMH 48" DIA. RE:988.34 IE:983.50 N IE:983.50 SE 123 LF - 24" HDPE @ 0.50% 93 LF - 24" HDPE @ 0.50% PRETREATMENT FOREBAY TOTAL VOLUME: 10,600 CF 984.85 984.90 985.25 986.90 986.05 986.17 985.90 986.85 986.38 987.96 988.30 989.00 989.00 988.72 990.42 992.38 992.79 990.17 988.95 987.15 985.58 985.26 984.00 984.52 985.64 985.08 986.73 987.30 985.03 986.12 993.43 993.50 992.69 989.03 989.60 988.00 988.58 987.65 986.42 986.88 986.09 985.98 989.11 995.00 992.73 992.50 ME: ±988.70 ME: ±990.22 992.46 990.34 990.00 990.57 987.57 987.78 988.00 987.83 987.82 988.69 988.59 986.70 985.86 985.86 986.44 986.55 984.70 985.25 992.32 992.85 991.80 992.37 991.24 991.35 992.20 992.86 994.00 993.20 993.69 994.00 994.21 993.46 993.28 993.50 993.28 992.00 991.00 992.50 994.81 994.65 994.58 994.17 993.90 995.00 994.51994.75 994.76 994.46 993.35 993.30 993.83 993.84 990.88 992.86 992.71 0.60% 4 . 5 0%1.72% 1. 2 1% 1. 7 6 % 7.90%4.47%1.39% 990.93 991.13 991.25 991.51 991.74 992.22 991.24 990.84 989.69 990.82990.35 991.43 991.31 988.23 8 - SIX INCH STEPS 9859819829839849863:13:1 4:13 : 1 983982984 986 985 984983 982981 987984982980985 9 8 5 9 8 3 9 8 1 98898798398 4 985981987STRM 705 REPLACE EXIST. 30" FES IE:967.71 SW 26 LF - 30" RCP @ 9.55% STRM 700 CBMH 60" DIA. CONNECT TO EXIST. 30" STORM RE:969.77 IE:965.20 NW IE:965.27 NE 119 LF - 15" RCP @ 1.00% STRM 701 CBMH 48" DIA. RE:969.56 IE:966.39 SE STRM 702 CBMH 48" DIA. RE:972.57 IE:968.30 NW 98 LF - 15" RCP @ 0.30% 24 LF - 18" RCP @ 7.12% STRM 704 REPLACE EXIST. 18" FES IE:969.66 SW STRM 703 CBMH 48" DIA. CONNECT TO EXIST. 18" STORM RE:970.92 IE:968.00 SE IE:967.97 NE 970 970975 971 972972 973973 974 976 9779 7 7 977 97 8 9 7 9 968 970 971 9729739 75 976980 981 982 983 984 986 985 988 9 9 2971975 980981 983 984 98 4 9 8 3 98 2 981 973 972 971 970 971 972 973 PROPOSED HUDSON BLVD OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS; SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS SHEET C401; PROPOSED STORM SEWER TO BE CONFIRMED/REVISED AFTER FURTHER ANALYSIS AND FINAL DESIGN 1 . 4 8% 4 : 1 1.80%4:1 4 : 1 5 : 1 97 7 2 . 5 0% 4 . 0 0% 1 . 7 9% 0+0 0 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+0 0 7+008+009+009+88HUDSON BLVD 9. 0 3 % ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL AS DELINEATED 11/2019 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C5-GRADING PLAN.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:01pm©BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORGRADING PLANC500APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PEXX/XX/XXXX45790DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNLECLECWDMGRADING PLAN NOTES 1.ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2.CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. 3.STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76 HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252 HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306 PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034 STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443 HDPE PER ASTM 3212 PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 4.CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5.SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8.GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9.ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10.REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12.INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <4" CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13.UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <4" OF TOPSOIL>. 14.ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15.GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 16.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. 18.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION100.00 LEGEND 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION CO D NORTH This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C5-GRADING DETAILS.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:01pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORGRADING DETAILSC501APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PEXX/XX/XXXX45790DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNLECLECWDMALL JOINTS IN MANHOLE TO HAVE "O" RING RUBBER GASKET PLAN OUTLET FLOW MANHOLE STEPS, 16" O.C. PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE BASE PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTION 48" DIA. SECTION A-A INFILTRATION BASIN OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE (STRM-300) PIPE SHALL BE CUT FLUSH WITH INSIDE FACE OF WALL 5" 48" DIA. FLOW 12" OUTLET RIM ELEV. CULVERT IE: 980.50 983.0 SKIMMER COVER RIM ELEV.=981.80 DROP IN GRATE OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE STRM 601 N.T.S. PLAN 48" 6" PRE-CAST BASE WITH 2" LEAN GROUT OR 8" POURED SLAB 16" O.C. 18" HDPE PIPE, IE=981.0 MANHOLE MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS 18" HDPE PIPE PRECAST 48" DIAM. MANHOLE 18" RCP PIPE TOP OF WEIR WATER QUALITY ELEVATION IE=984.4 SEE GRADING PLAN FOR RIM ELEVATION TOP OF WEIR IE: 984.4 18" HDPE PIPE, IE=981.0 6" ORIFICE, MULT. 3 IE=981.80 12" PVC RISER PIPE 1.5"-3" CLEAN DRAIN ROCK SUBGRADE 992.45FNDIP164561000.36SETIP41578983.58FNDIP15480977.57FNDIP15480973.00SETIP41578970.57FNDIP.5969.94SETIP41578969.20FNDIP8612968.81FNDIP16456976.20FNDIP16456979.83FNDIP16456984.21FNDIP16456982.87SETIP41578986.52SETIP41578CSSI G N A G E 983.28FNDIP16456963.64FNDIP8612962.35FNDIP15480GENERATORLIFTSTATION958.76INVCMP84LIFTSTATIONAPPROXIMATELOCATIONAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE LOCATION D DD DDD DDDSSWR MH IE: 959.37(NW) IE: 955.12(SE) 8" SANITARY 18" RCP FES IE: 965.60 18" RCP FES IE: 966.85 84" CMP FES IE:958.76 10" SANITARY 12" DIP WATERMAIN SSWR DROP MH RIM: 968.32 IE (16" SE): 959.05 IE (8" NW): 954.17 IE (16" NE): 952.88 EXIST. SSWR LIFT STATION 16" DIP SANITARY 8" FORCEMAIN 84" CMP STRM SEWER 12" DIP WATERMAIN 12" DIP WATERMAIN CONNECT TO EXIST. 8" DIP STUB. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION 36" RCP CLIII 36" RCP FES INV. 974.0 EXISTING WETLAND NWL: 974.0 HWL: 976.3 SWWD 25' WETLAND MANAGE 2 SETBACK SWWD 50' WETLAND MANAGE 2 SETBACK PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA 36" RCP CLIII 8" SANITARY 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 18" RCP FES INV. 976.13 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 18" RCP FES INV. 982.58 18" RCP FES INV. 972.92 SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING LEVEL 1: ±995.0 LEVEL B: ±985.25 30" RCP STORM B 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE 6" FIRE SERVICE CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" WATERMAIN WITH 12"x8" TAPPING SLEEVE AND 8" VALVE PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT STORM/WATER CROSSING, MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A PROPOSED 30' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED 30' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED 30' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED 30' UTILITY EASEMENT EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND SSWD 50' WETLAND BUFFER CEN T E R LI N E O F EXIS TI N G C R E E K APP R O XI M A T E 2 5' SHO R E L A N D I M P A C T Z O N E APP R O XI M A T E S H O R E L A N D BUIL DI N G S E T B A C K PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT F BCC H C C C C C C C C G E C CC D D PROPOSED 6" WATER MAIN STORM/WATER CROSSING, MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION STORM/WATER CROSSING, MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION STORM/WATER CROSSING, MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION STORM/WATER CROSSING, MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION STORM/WATER CROSSING, MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION STORM/WATER CROSSING, MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION SSWR/WATER CROSSING, MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION COORDINATE ALL UTILITY CONNECTIONS WITH MEP PLANS PROPOSED 10' UTILITY EASEMSENT 1 0 . 0 ' PROPOSED 10' UTILITY EASEMSENT10.0 ' SS-3 48" SSWR MH RE:967.56 IE:960.07 E IE:960.07 SW SS-1 SANITARY SERVICE RE:994.82 IE:983.00 W SS-2 PROPOSED SSWR DROP MH RE:992.83 IE:981.16 E IE:961.00 W 25 LF - 8" PVC @ 3.81% 46 LF - 8" PVC @ 4.00% 133 LF - 8" PVC @ 3.81% SS-4 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVER EX. SANITARY SEWER RE:970.16 IE:955.00 NE IE:954.83 NW IE:954.83 SE I ORDI N A R Y HI G H W A T E R LEV E L A S D E LI N E A T E D 1 1/ 2 0 1 9 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C6-UTILITY PLAN.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:01pm©BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORUTILITY PLANC600APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.WILLIAM D. MATZEK, PEXX/XX/XXXX45790DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNBAWBAWWDMUTILITY PLAN NOTES 1.ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2.SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP 6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-3034 DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3.WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241 CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 150 4" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PER ANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4.MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5.ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6.ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. 8.IN THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9.LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10.TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11.ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12.EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13.REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19.BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20.ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21.ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING.NORTHKEYNOTE LEGEND PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITY 8"X8" TEE AND 8" GATEVALVE 8" WATERMAIN BEND FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, PROVIDE 8"X6" TEE, 6" WATERMAIN AND 6" GATE VALVE FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY, PROVIDE 6" BEND, AND 6" WATERMAIN 8"X6" TEE AND 6" GATE VALVE 6" WATERMAIN BEND 8"X8" TEE 8" GATEVALVE A B C D E F G H I SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER LEGEND CO SANITARY CLEANOUTCO EXISTING PROPOSED 25' S H O R E L A N D I M P A C T ZON E SHO R E L A N D B UI L DI N G SETB A C K LANDSCAPE LEGEND EXISTING TREE (TYP.) EDGER (TYP.) SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BED (TYP.) STORMWATER SEED MIX 33-261 WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS 992.451000.36SETIP41578983.58FNDIP15480977.57FNDIP15480973.00SETIP41578970.57FNDIP.5969.94SETIP41578969.20FNDIP8612968.81FNDIP16456976.20FNDIP16456979.83FNDIP16456984.21FNDIP16456982.87SETIP41578986.52SETIP41578983.28FNDIP16456963.64FNDIP8612962.35FNDIP15480958.76INVCMP846 - RML 2 - RDB 1 - ABM 6 - SWO 3 - SMP 3 - SWO 6 - RVB 3 - SWO 6 - BHS 2 - SWO 2 - SWO 5 - SWO 13 - QAP 3 - RVB 3 - SMP 6 - WHP 4 - SWO 2 - RML 3 - QAP 3 - RVB 2 - RDB 3 - SMP 2 - HOK 2 - ABM 3 - RDB 3 - CHL 2 - ABM 3 - HOK 3 - ABS 3 - ABM 3 - ABS 2 - RDB 3 - WHP 7 - CHL 7 - WHP 7 - BHS 1 - ABM 6 - QAP 1 - SMP 1 - HOK 3 - ABS 5 - SMP 6 - SMP 1 - ABM 11 - QAP 1 - ABM 3 - RML 4 - RML A C B A C B AC B B A C 3 - ABM PROPOSED WATER FEATURE (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED COMMUNITY GARDEN AREA (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BOCCE BALL (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED GAZEBO (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED PLANTER BOXES (TYPE TBD) MONUMENT SIGN (BY OTHERS) A LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES EDGER (TYP.) DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) SOD (TYP.) B C This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\L1-LANDSCAPE PLAN.DWG November 22, 2019 - 12:01pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORLANDSCAPE PLANL100APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLAXX/XX/XXXX56522DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNMPIMPIMGC1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE AT 811 OR CALL811.COM TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTS OR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 2.ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. 3.NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 4.ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND/OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S OR OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 6.ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA-GROWN AND/OR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADE SHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3. 7.PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. 8.PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES. 9.PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL-IN MATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY. 10.PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 11.OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. 12.PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES. 13.WRAP ALL SMOOTH-BARKED TREES - FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST. 14.STAKING OF TREES AS REQUIRED; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 15.THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEED OF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS. 16.BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN/DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. MINIMUM 4" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR ALL LAWN GRASS AREAS AND 12" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR TREE, SHRUBS, AND PERENNIALS. 17.MULCH TO BE AT ALL TREE, SHRUB, PERENNIAL, AND MAINTENANCE AREAS. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL PLANTS WITHIN TURF AREAS. PERENNIAL AND ORNAMENTAL GRASS BEDS SHALL HAVE 2" DEPTH DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH TO BE FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. ROCK MULCH TYPE TO BE DETERMINED, 1 1/2" TO 3" DIAMETER, AT MINIMUM 3" DEPTH, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE ON COMMERCIAL GRADE FILTER FABRIC, BY TYPAR, OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH NO EXPOSURE. MULCH AND FABRIC TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 18.EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE STEEL EDGING OR SPADED EDGE, AS INDICATED. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDGING WHERE POSSIBLE. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V-SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TO CREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. INDIVIDUAL TREE, SHRUB, OR RAIN-GARDEN BEDS TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 19.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX, FREE OF LAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED. SEED AS SPECIFIED AND PER MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. IF NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 20.PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL PLANTED AND SODDED AREAS ON SITE. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN/BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE IRRIGATION PLAN AND SHOP DRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OPERATION MANUALS, AS-BUILT PLANS, AND NORMAL PROGRAMMING. SYSTEM SHALL BE WINTERIZED AND HAVE SPRING STARTUP DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. SYSTEM SHALL HAVE TWO-YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PARTS AND LABOR. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 21.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL. OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. 22.REPAIR, REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD/SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 23.REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO OWNER. 24.SEE SHEET L101 FOR PLANT SCHEDULE AND DETAILS LANDSCAPE NOTES LANDSCAPE SUMMARY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1,640 LIN. FT./50 = 33 TREES 11.7 ACRES X 5 = 59 TREES 92 TREES TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 151 CAL. IN. / 2.5 CAL. IN.61 TREES TOTAL TREES REQUIRED 92 TREES + 53 TREES 153 TREES PROPOSED TREES OVERSTORY TREES + CONIFEROUS TREES 153 TREES NORTH UNDERSTORY TREE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL ABS 9 AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMN BRILLANCE`AUTUMN BRILLANCE SERVICEBERRY B & B, CLUMP 6` HT. RDB 9 CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD B & B, CLUMP 6` HT. RVB 12 BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH B & B, CLUMP 6` HT. CONIFEROUS TREE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL BHS 13 PICEA GLAUCA `DENSATA`BLACK HILLS SPRUCE B & B 6` HT. CHL 10 TSUGA CANADENSIS CANADIAN HEMLOCK B & B 6` HT. WHP 16 PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE B & B 6` HT. OVERSTORY TREE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL ABM 14 ACER X FREEMANII `AUTUMN BLAZE`AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE B & B 2.5" CAL. HOK 6 QUERCUS X MACDANIELLI `CLEMONS`HERITAGE OAK B & B 2.5" CAL. QAP 33 POPULUS TREMULOIDES QUAKING ASPEN B & B 2.5" CAL. RML 15 TILIA AMERICANA `REDMOND`REDMOND LINDEN B & B 2.5" CAL. SMP 21 ACER SACCHARUM `FALL FIESTA`SUGAR MAPLE B & B 2.5" CAL. SWO 25 QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK B & B 2.5" CAL. PLANT SCHEDULE PERENNIALS AND GRASSES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING BES RUDBECKIA X `LITTLE GOLD STAR`LITTLE GOLD STAR BLACK-EYED SUSAN #1 CONT. BFS ARUNCUS DIOICUS BRIDE`S FEATHERS #1 CONT. BIB AMSONIA X `BLUE ICE`BLUE ICE BLUESTAR #1 CONT. BLB SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM `BLAZE`BLAZE LITTLE BLUESTEM #1 CONT. CAB ASTILBE CHINENSIS `VISION IN WHITE`CHINESE ASTILBE #1 CONT. KRG CALAMAGROSTIS BRACHYTRICHA KOREAN FEATHER REED GRASS #1 CONT. PCF ECHINACEA PURPUREA PURPLE CONEFLOWER #1 CONT. PDB MONARDA DIDYMA `PETITE DELIGHT`PETITE DELIGHT BEE BALM #1 CONT. PDS SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS `TARA`PRAIRIE DROPSEED #1 CONT. PWC ECHINACEA PURPUREA `POWWOW WHITE`POWWOW WHITE CONEFLOWER #1 CONT. RRD HEMEROCALLIS X `ROSY RETURNS`ROSY RETURNS DAYLILY #1 CONT. SGF LIATRIS SPICATA `KOBOLD`SPIKE GAYFEATHER #1 CONT. SWR GALIUM ODORATUM SWEET WOODRUFF #1 CONT. WLC NEPETA X FAASSENII `WALKERS LOW`WALKERS LOW CATMINT #1 CONT. WPA ASTER DUMOSUS `WOOD`S PURPLE`WOOD`S PURPLE ASTER #1 CONT. CONIFEROUS SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING BCJ JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS `BLUE CHIP`BLUE CHIP JUNIPER #5 CONT.5` O.C. TTY TAXUS X MEDIA `TAUNTONII`TAUTON YEW #5 CONT.5` O.C. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING AFD CORNUS STOLONIFERA `FARROW`ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOOD #5 CONT.3` O.C. ANH HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS `ANNABELLE`ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA #5 CONT.4` O.C. BLC ARONIA MELANOCARPA `IROQUOIS BEAUTY` TM IROQUOIS BEAUTY BLACK CHOKEBERRY #5 CONT.4` O.C. CAV VIBURNUM TRILOBUM `BAILEY COMPACT`COMPACT AMERICAN VIBURNUM #5 CONT.5` O.C. DBH DIERVILLA LONICERA DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE #5 CONT.3` O.C. DKL SYRINGA MEYERI `PALIBIN`DWARF KOREAN LILAC #5 CONT.5` O.C. GLS RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW`GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #5 CONT.4` O.C.This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\L1-LANDSCAPE DETAILS.DWG November 22, 2019 - 12:02pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORLANDSCAPEDETAILSL101APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLAXX/XX/XXXX56522DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNMPIMPIMGCDOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH NOTES: 2X ROOT BALL WIDTH SOD 4" TOPSOIL PREPARED PLANTING BED AND BACKFILL SOIL (THOROUGHLY LOOSENED) NOTES: 1.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2.PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING OF TOP AND ROOT. 3.REMOVE CONTAINER AND SCORE OUTSIDE OF SOIL MASS TO REDIRECT AND PREVENT CIRCLING FIBROUS ROOTS. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 4.PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL. 5.WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 6.BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 7.PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 8.MIX IN 3-4" OF ORGANIC COMPOST. 1.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2.PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING. 3.SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED PLANTING SOIL. INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. 4.SLIT REMAINING TREATED BURLAP AT 6" INTERVALS. 5.BACKFILL TO WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL, THEN WATER PLANT. REMOVE THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 6.PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL. 7.WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 8.BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 9.PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 10.FINAL LOCATION OF TREE TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER. PLANTING SOIL ON CENTER SPACING AS STATED ON PLAN. EXTEND HOLE EXCAVATION WIDTH A MINIMUM OF 6" BEYOND THE PLANTS ROOT SYSTEM. FINISHED GRADE EDGER, AS SPECIFIED TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1011 SHRUB / PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1012 MULCH 3/16" X 4" STEEL EDGER 12" STEEL EDGER SPIKE TURF/SOD SUBGRADE 12" STEEL EDGER SPIKE 3/16" X 4" STEEL EDGER4'MULCH TURF/SOD TOP OF EDGER TO BE FLUSH WITH SOD PLANSECTION STEEL EDGER DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1014SPADED EDGE DETAIL SCALE: 1-1/2"=1'L1013 MULCH AT PLANTING AREA SPADED EDGE "V" SHAPED, 4" WIDTH, 4" DEPTH, MORE VERTICAL ON LAWN SIDE LAWN GRASS FINISHED GRADE N90°00'00"W110.70N27° 3 4' 2 7 " W 2 5 8. 4 3 N 3 4 ° 2 3 ' 2 9 " E 1 7 1 . 1 9 S86°38'35"E133.86290.00 228.44362.50 CSC.BRG .=N62°21 '47"ECHORD=267.14C.BRG.=S47°01'01"E CHORD=342.57C.BRG.=N83°51'07"ECHORD=122.39958.76INVCMP84B A BA A A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 3132 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 6970 71 72 7374 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 8384 85 86 87 88 8990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112113 114 115 116 117 118 119120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176178 179180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 177 D D This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\L1-TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:02pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORTREE INVENTORYANDPRESERVATIONPLANL200APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLAXX/XX/XXXX56522DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNMPIMPIMGCLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TREE TO BE REMOVED PROPERTY LINE TREE TO BE SAVED LEGEND TREE PROTECTION SIGN FURNISH AND INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCE AT THE TREE'S DRIPLINE OR CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SPECIFIED, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. WHEN POSSIBLE PLACE FENCE 25 FEET BEYOND THE DRIP LINE. PLACE PROTECTION SIGNS ALONG FENCE AT 20' INTERVALS. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS DRIP LINE SIGNIFICANT TREES TOTAL:3,256 DIA. INCHES 30 PERCENT REMOVAL CREDIT: 976 DIA. INCHES TOTAL TREE REMOVALS: COMMON TREE: 920 DIA. INCHES HARDWOOD DECIDUOUS: 365 DIA. INCHES TOTAL 1,285 DIA. INCHES - 30 PERCENT REMOVAL CREDIT: 976 DIA. INCHES EXCESS HARDWOOD REMOVAL: 309 DIA. INCHES *REQUIRED TREE REPLACEMENT RATE FOR EXCESS HARDWOOD REMOVAL IS 1/2* REQUIRED TREE REPLACEMENT: COMMON TREES 0 DIA. INCHES *HARDWOOD DECIDUOUS TREES:155 DIA. INCHES TREE MITIGATION DATA 1.PRUNING WILL BE DONE BY PROFESSIONALS DURING APPROPRIATE PRUNING SEASON. 2.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS, OPERATION OF MACHINERY, OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY SORT WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE FENCE-LINE WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM CITY. 3.SITE GRADING TO BE DONE ONLY AFTER PROTECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN, CITY HAS APPROVED FENCING LOCATIONS, AND ALL CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN BREIFED ON TREE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES. 4.EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN OR REMOVED TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED, WITHIN DISTURBANCE LIMITS AND 10' OUTSIDE OF THE DISTURBANCE LIMITS. 5.TREE PRESERVATION TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER AND PER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. TREE PROTECTION NOTES TEMPORARY TREE PROTECTION FENCE PLACEMENT SCALE: N.T.S.1 KEYNOTE LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED (TYP.) EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) TREE PROTECTION FENCE (SEE DETAIL) (TYP.) A B C D TREE PROTECTION FENCE EXISTING VEGETATION EDGE NORTH This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\L1-TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN.dwg November 22, 2019 - 12:02pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORTREE INVENTORYANDPRESERVATIONPLANL201APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLAXX/XX/XXXX56522DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNLECLECWDML201NORTHNOTE: ONLY SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN ON PLAN/ INVENTORY. TREE INVENTORY SCHEDULE A400 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A400 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR VIEWS VIEW AT MAIN ENTRY SCALE: N.T.S. 1 A400 VIEW AT NORTHEAST CORNER SCALE: N.T.S. 2 A400 VIEW AT ENTRY DRIVE SCALE: N.T.S. 3 A400 VIEW AT BACK ENTRY SCALE: N.T.S. 4 A400 VIEW AT SOUTHWEST CORNER SCALE: N.T.S. 5 A400 VIEW SOUTHEAST AERIAL SCALE: N.T.S. 6 A400 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VIEW AT ENTRY DRIVE EAST ELEVATION - VIEW NORTH VIEW AT SOUTHWEST CORNER AERIAL VIEW NORTHWEST VIEW AT NORTHEAST CORNERVIEW AT MAIN ENTRY URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) PREFINISHED TRIM & SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (TYP) CEMENT BOARD TRIM & PANEL CULTURED STONE VENEER BOARD & BATTEN SIDING HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/STONE BASE UTILITY BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE HEADERS GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/STONE BASE CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT W/ ALUMINUM RAILINGS (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) UTILITY BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE HEADERS CEMENT BOARD TRIM & PANEL VINYL WINDOWS (TYP) BOARD & BATTEN SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF (TYP) CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAP & BALCONY SKIRT (TYP AT BALCONIES) UTILITY BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE HEADERS ROCK FACE CMU FOUNDATION WALL (TYP) LOUVER CEMENT BOARD TRIM & PANEL ROCK FACE CMU FOUNDATION WALL (TYP) HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING BOARD & BATTEN SIDING VINYL WINDOWS (TYP) UTILITY BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE HEADERS CEMENT BOARD TRIM & PANEL A401 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND 2/A4011/A401 4/A401 3/A401OVERALL ELEVATION - EAST SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 A401 OVERALL ELEVATION - WEST SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 4 A401 OVERALL ELEVATION - NORTH SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 2 A401 OVERALL ELEVATION - SOUTH SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 3 A401 ROOF = 141'-6" LEVEL 4 FFE = 133'-0" LEVEL 3 FFE = 122'-0" LEVEL 2 FFE = 111'-0" LEVEL 1 FFE = 100'-0" GARAGE = 90'-3" ROOF = 141'-6" LEVEL 4 FFE = 133'-0" LEVEL 3 FFE = 122'-0" LEVEL 2 FFE = 111'-0" LEVEL 1 FFE = 100'-0" GARAGE = 90'-3" ROOF = 141'-6" LEVEL 4 FFE = 133'-0" LEVEL 3 FFE = 122'-0" LEVEL 2 FFE = 111'-0" LEVEL 1 FFE = 100'-0" GARAGE = 90'-3" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A402 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND 1/A4022/A4023/A402EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 A402 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A403 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A403 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND 2/A4031/A4033/A403EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A403 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 A403 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A403 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A404 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A404 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND 2/A404 1/A404 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A404 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A404 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A405 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A405 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND 2/A4051/A405EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A405 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A405 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A406 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A406 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND 2/A4061/A406EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A406 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A406 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A407 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A407 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND 1/A407 2/A407EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A407 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A407 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A408 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A408 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND 2/A4081/A408 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A408 EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A408 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A409 LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.338.2280 fax www.lse-architects.com Key Plan A409 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Key Plan 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF 2 PREFINISHED TRIM & FASCIA 3 URETHANE ROOF BRACKETS (TYP) 4 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 5 CEMENT BOARD PANEL & TRIM 6 CULTURED STONE VENEER 7 ALUMINUM BALCONY RAILINGS 8 VINYL WINDOW (TYPICAL) 9 LOUVER (TYPICAL) 10 HORIZONTAL STEEL SIDING 11 KING BRICK VENEER W/ SOLDIER COURSE WINDOW HEADERS 12 CEMENT BOARD COLUMN WRAPS & BALCONY SKIRT (TYPICAL AT BALCONIES) 13 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ STONE BASE 14 GLU-LAM COLUMN & BEAM W/ ROCK FACE BASE 15 ROCK-FACE CMU MASONRY FOUNDATION (TYPICAL) MATERIAL LEGEND NORTH EAST AXON SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 1 A409 SOUTH WEST AXON SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 2 A409 3D AXON VIEWS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION     PAGE 1 of 4  MEMORANDUM           Date:  January 7, 2020      To:  Ken Roberts, Planner Director  Re:  Applewood Pointe at Lake Elmo (United Properties)  Cc:  Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer    Preliminary PUD Plan Review  From:  Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer          An  engineering  review  has  been  completed  for  the  Applewood  Pointe  Preliminary  PUD  Plans.  The  review  consisted of the following documentation received on December 3, 2019:   Applewood Pointe Site Development Plans dated November 21, 2019.   Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat dated December 3, 2019.   Existing Conditions Survey dated December 3, 2019.   Stormwater Management Report dated November 8, 2019.   Traffic Impact Analysis dated November 8, 2019.      STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering has prepared the following review comments based on the plans submitted.  Preliminary  Plat/Plan  approval  should  be  contingent  upon  the  applicant  revising  and  resubmitting  revised  preliminary plans for city staff review and approval prior to the city accepting an application for final plat/plans.  The revised plans must address all conditions of preliminary plat approval.      PRELIMINARY PLAT AND EASEMENTS   An additional 10‐feet of right‐of‐way dedication along with the standard 10‐foot drainage and utility  easement is recommended for the future expansion of Eagle Point Boulevard. The additional right‐of‐way  should be dedicated from the corner of Eagle Point Boulevard with  the  private  driveway,  extending  approximately 280 feet along Eagle Point Boulevard to the existing jog in the right‐of‐way.   Additional right‐of‐way dedication is required to accommodate the installation of sidewalk along Eagle  Point Boulevard to provide a minimum 5‐foot boulevard from the back of curb.    Proposed lot easements shown on the preliminary plans and site plans are no consistent. The site plans  must all be updated to include all proposed easements.    STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION     Site Access. The preliminary plan proposes a single access that is located along Eagle Point Boulevard,  approximately 200 feet southwest from the existing Eagle Point business condominium private driveway.  This appears to be the most favorable access location for this development, however, the access spacing  of 200 feet does not meet the minimum spacing guidelines of 330 feet for Collector Roadways. The close  proximity of the two access locations may result in turning movement conflicts. The Traffic Impact Study  submitted by the applicant does not address this concern.   A  transportation  review  should  be  completed  to  determine  if  any  improvements  are  needed  to  mitigate potential traffic issues.  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.  651.300.4285      PAGE 2 of 4   At a minimum, additional right‐of‐way dedication is recommended along Eagle Point Boulevard to  accommodate  any  proposed  or  potential  future  improvements  for  the  roadway  corridor  (see  comments above under Preliminary Plat/Easements).   Hudson  Boulevard  Improvements.  Hudson  Boulevard  Improvements  are  required  as  part  of  the  Subdivision in accordance with the Hudson Boulevard Design Standards, with an Urban section along the  north boulevard and bituminous trail. The proposed preliminary plans provide typical sections on sheet  C401 that are consistent with the required improvements. However, the remaining design elements in the  preliminary  plans  are  inconsistent  with  an  urbanized  boulevard.  The  design  remains  incomplete  and  inconsistent  as  proposed.  The  Hudson  Boulevard  preliminary  plans  do  not  address  storm  sewer  improvements necessary for a completed design. The preliminary plans must be revised and approved by  city staff prior to the city accepting an application for final plans.   Pedestrian  Connectivity.  The  preliminary  plans  propose  a  6‐foot  concrete  sidewalk  along  Eagle  Point  Boulevard from the proposed Site Access location to Hudson Boulevard, connecting to the proposed  Hudson  Boulevard  trail.  The  sidewalk  design,  as  proposed,  does not  meet  city  and  state  aid  design  requirements. A minimum 5‐foot boulevard must be provided between the curb and sidewalk to provide  adequate snow storage. The preliminary plans must be updated to include an Eagle Point Boulevard  Typical section for the proposed improvements.  Additional right‐of‐way dedication appears to be needed  to accommodate the sidewalk.   Private Streets. The streets interior to the development are proposed to remain privately owned and  maintained. Interior street design may require revisions to provide adequate fire lanes and safety access,  subject  to  review  from  the  Lake  Elmo  Fire  Department.  Turning  templates  must  be  provided  to  demonstrate adequate turning movements for emergency vehicles throughout the site.    MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER   The proposed site is guided in the city’s Comprehensive Plan for Phase I of the Regional Sewer Staging  Plan and would discharge to the MCES WONE Interceptor.    Sanitary sewer service is available to the site. The applicant will be responsible to connect to the city  sanitary sewer system and extend sanitary sewer into the property at applicant’s sole cost.    The preliminary plans are proposing 105 REC units for a site that was originally planned for 50 REC units.  The proposed sewer connection point has the capacity available to accommodate this increase, however,  lift station pump upgrades will be required sooner than was originally planned by the city due to the  increased capacity demands from this site.   The  applicant  will  be  required  to  connect  to  the  existing  sanitary  sewer  along  Hudson  Boulevard,  connecting to an existing 8‐inch sanitary sewer pipe extending northwest from the I94 Lift Station site.  The preliminary plans propose a connection to this location as required.   The preliminary and final plans must identify the proposed sewer manhole SS‐4 as publicly owned and  maintain. The 8‐inch sewer and subsequent manholes extending into the site will be privately owned and  maintained and must be labeled on the plans as private sanitary sewer service. The proposed sanitary  sewer easements do not need to be provided for the private sewer service components.     MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY   Municipal water service is available to the site. The applicant will be responsible to extend municipal  water into the development at its cost and will be required to construct a looped watermain network  internal  to  the  site  with,  at  least,  a  second  City  watermain  connection  point.  The  preliminary  plans  propose a looped watermain with two connection points as required; one connection to the existing 12‐ inch trunk watermain located along Eagle Point Boulevard, and one connection to the existing 12‐inch  trunk watermain located along Hudson Boulevard.   The applicant will be responsible to place hydrants and water system valves as determined by the Lake  Elmo Public Works Director and Fire Department.  The project proposes  three  hydrants.  Additional  hydrants may be required. All fire hydrants shall be owned and maintained by the city.       PAGE 3 of 4   Any watermain lines and hydrants placed within the development will remain city owned and operated.  Therefore, minimum 30‐foot easements centered over the pipe/hydrant is required. Easements must be  dedicated to the city and be provided in the City’s standard form of easement agreement. Easements  have been shown on the plans as required, however, the proposed retaining wall/grading plan must be  revised to remove the retaining wall encroachments to the utility easement.   The preliminary plans are proposing 105 REC units for a site that was originally planned for 50 REC units.  The existing water system appears to have sufficient capacity available to accommodate the increased  water demands. The applicant must submit domestic and fire suppression demands for the facility with  preliminary plans so that staff may verify adequate water system capacity. To date this information has  not been submitted.   No watermain pipe oversizing is anticipated at this time.     STORMWATER MANAGEMENT   The proposed development is subject to a storm water management  plan  meeting  State,  South  Washington Watershed District (SWWD) and City rules. A permit will be required from the Minnesota  Pollution Control Agency and SWWD.    Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State and SWWD permitting requirements  must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual.   The Stormwater Management Report (SWMR) must be revised to determine if rate and volume control  requirements are met for all points of discharge from the site. Rate control must also be checked for the  10‐day 100‐year snowmelt condition. The proposed drainage exhibit must be revised to clearly show and  label all points of discharge from the site. The rate control tables must reference each discharge location.   Soil borings are required to verify in place soils in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards  Manual. The soil assumptions stated within the SWMR are not acceptable for an approved design.   The  storm  water  facilities  constructed  for  this  development  should  remain  privately  owned  and  maintained. The applicant will be required to execute and record  a  Stormwater  Maintenance  and  Easement Agreement in the City’s standard form of agreement.   Even as privately owned and maintain facilities, maintenance access roads meeting the City engineering  design standards must be provided for all storm water facilities. Maintenance access must be clearly  shown on the grading plans including access from the public right‐of‐way, and BMP maintenance access  to all flared end sections and forebay.    GRADING PLANS   The grading plans remain incomplete. The preliminary grading plans must be revised and approved by the  city prior to receiving submittal for final plan. Significant site design changes may be required. The grading  plans should be submitted at no greater than 1:20 scale to better detail the complex site.   The grading plans must provide both the existing and the proposed normal water level (NWL) and 100‐ year high water level (HWL) for both wetlands and all proposed storm water BMPs including the forebay.  The 100‐year HWL contour must be clearly shown on the plans.   The grading plans must clearly show the 100‐year HWL for the existing creek, including the 100‐year HWL  contours.   The grading plans must clearly show the wetland buffers. As presented the buffers are not legible.   The grading plans must clearly show all drainage and utility easements. Several easements are missing  from the proposed plans.   Forebay  elevation  grades  must  be  increased  to  prevent  the  100‐year  HWL  overflow  to  the  Hudson  Boulevard right‐of‐way.   Overland emergency overflows or outlets must be clearly identified on the grading plans.   The proposed grading plans along the Hudson Boulevard right‐of‐way are inconsistent with the required  urbanized boulevard and the proposed typical sections shown on sheet C401.        PAGE 4 of 4  EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY   Additional plan information is needed to facilitate a complete review by city staff. Provide missing utility  pipe  size  and  materials  for  all  storm  sewer,  sanitary  sewer  and watermain pipe. Provide missing  watermain valves and hydrants from record plans. Provide missing existing outfall flared end sections and  invert information for storm sewer systems discharging from the site.     LANDSCAPE PLANS   The preliminary and final landscape plans must show all proposed utilities and all easements on the  property. The proposed preliminary plans are incomplete in the presentation of the required easements.   The preliminary landscape plans must be revised to relocate all trees to reside outside of the proposed  public easement areas including the proposed watermain easements and the property line drainage and  utility easements.                                          Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com To: Ken Roberts, City of Lake Elmo Planning Director From: Lucius Jonett, Wenck Landscape Architect Date: November 26, 2019 Subject: City of Lake Elmo Landscape Plan Review Applewood Pointe, Review #1 Submittals  Tree Preservation Plan, dated November 21, 2019, received November 25, 2019.  Landscape Plans, dated November 21, 2019, received November 25, 2019. Location: Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Hudson Boulevard & Eagle Point Boulevard, Lake Elmo, MN Land Use Category: Business Park - PUD Surrounding Land Use Concerns: None. Special landscape provisions in addition to the zoning code: None. Ken Roberts Planning Director City of Lake Elmo November 26, 2018 2 T:\6443 Lake Elmo\27 Applewood Pointe\01 Preliminary Plat\01 Plan Review\2019-11-25\2019-11-25 Applewood Pointe Landscape Plan Review.docx Tree Preservation: A tree survey/preservation plan has been submitted, including a tree inventory showing individual trees that are exempt, removed and saved. The allowable tree removal limit is exceeded, therefore a mitigation plan or replacement trees are required. A. A tree preservation plan has been submitted that does not meet all requirements. 1. Signature of the person(s) preparing the plan. Total Caliper Inches of Significant Trees On-Site: 3,234.0 Cal Inches Common Trees 250 Conifer/Evergreen Trees 0 Hardwood Trees 1,475 Nuisance Trees 1,509 Significant Inches Removed On-Site 1,264 Cal Inches Common Trees 94 Conifer/Evergreen Trees 0 Hardwood Trees 365 Nuisance Trees 805 30% Tree Removal Limits (Cal. Inches) Allowed Proposed Subtract Common Tree Removals 28.2 94 Subtract Conifer/Evergreen Tree Removals 0 0 Subtract Hardwood Tree Removals 109.5 365 Removals in excess of 30% allowances Removals in excess of 30% allowances 321.3 Cal Inches Common Removals in Excess of 30% Allowance 65.8 Conifer Removals in Excess of 30% Allowance 0.0 Hardwood Removals in Excess of 30% Allowance 255.5 Common Tree Replacement Needed (1/4 the dia inches removed) 16.5 Cal Inches Conifer Tree Replacement Needed (1/2 the dia inches removed) 0.0 Cal Inches Hardwood Tree Replacement Needed (1/2 the dia inches removed) 127.8 Cal Inches Common Tree Replacement Required @ 2.5" per Tree 7 # Trees Conifer Tree Replacement Required @ 3" per 6' Tall Tree 0 # Trees Hardwood Tree Replacement Required @ 2.5" per Tree 64 # Trees B. There are 5 specimen trees identified in the tree inventory. The following tree ID numbers are defined as specimen, 81, 88, 89, 184, 196. All specimen trees will be preserved. C. Tree replacement is required because more than thirty (30) percent of the diameter inches of significant trees surveyed will be removed. Ken Roberts Planning Director City of Lake Elmo November 26, 2018 3 T:\6443 Lake Elmo\27 Applewood Pointe\01 Preliminary Plat\01 Plan Review\2019-11-25\2019-11-25 Applewood Pointe Landscape Plan Review.docx D. Tree replacement calculations does not follow the required procedure; however this did not impact the overall site total. 1. It appears that nuisance trees were included with the common trees, so the submitted calculations were slightly off. Nuisance trees do not need to be mitigated. Please review the above table and the below definitions. i. Common Trees: Ash, Aspen, Basswood, Catalpa, Elm, Hackberry, Locust, Poplar, Silver Maple, Willow and any other tree not defined as a hardwood deciduous tree or a coniferous/evergreen tree. ii. Nuisance Tree: (1) Any living or standing tree or part thereof infected to any degree with a shade tree disease (See Shade Tree Disease Below) or shade tree pest; (2) Any logs, stumps, branches, firewood or other part of dead or dying tree(s) infected with a shade tree disease or shade tree pest unless properly treated; and (3) Any standing dead trees or limbs which may threaten human health or property. Also included, are noxious or invasive trees such as buckthorn, boxelder, and cottonwood. E. This project is residential development; therefore, mitigation replacement trees shall be in addition to landscape required tree counts. Landscape Requirements: The landscape plan meets the code required number of trees. The proposed plans show more than the code required tree quantities. Master Plan Master Plan (Code Required) Proposed Street frontage 1,688 Lineal Feet Lake Shore 0 Lineal Feet Stream Frontage 0 Lineal Feet Total Linear Feet 1,640 Lineal Feet /50 Feet = Required Frontage Trees 33 Trees Development or Disturbed Area - SF Development or Disturbed Area 11.7 Acres *5 = Required Development Trees 59 Trees Interior Parking Lot Spaces* 79 Spaces /10 = Required Parking Lot Trees 8 Trees Perimeter Parking Lot Frontage Length 450 Lineal Feet /50 = Required Frontage Strip Trees 9 Trees Required Mitigation Trees 71 Required Number of Trees* 180 Total Trees to Date 183 * Residential development - mitigation replacement trees are in addition to landscape required tree counts. Ken Roberts Planning Director City of Lake Elmo November 26, 2018 4 T:\6443 Lake Elmo\27 Applewood Pointe\01 Preliminary Plat\01 Plan Review\2019-11-25\2019-11-25 Applewood Pointe Landscape Plan Review.docx The landscape plans do not meet the minimum compositions of required trees: • At least 25% of the required number of trees shall be coniferous trees • Up to 15% of the required number of trees may be ornamental tree Master Plan Qty % Composition Deciduous Shade Trees 114 62% >25% required Coniferous Trees 39 21% >25% required Ornamental Trees 30 16% <15% required Tree Count 183 The landscape plans do include the required mitigation tree types and quantities: Required Proposed Onsite Common Trees 7 48 Conifers 0 39 Hardwood Trees 64 66 A. A landscape plan has been submitted that does not include all requirements: 1. The landscape plan does not include required City standard notes and details. B. The landscape plan does not include the landscape layout requirements: • No utility conflicts; Prefer that the trunk of trees shall be 10 feet from the nearest utility, including water and sewer service stubs to each lot. C. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping – The development does include interior parking lots. 1. At least 5% of the interior area of parking lots with more than 30 parking spaces is devoted to landscape planting areas. The parking lot is measured at approximatively 36,581 square feet and a planting bed measuring approximately 27,151 square feet separates the parking lot from the circle drive/drop-off area. The planting area is approximately 74% of the interior of the parking lot area. 2. The planting area includes 13 shade trees satisfying the minimum required tree planting requirements for interior parking lots. D. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping – The development does include perimeter parking lots and meets landscape requirements. E. Screening – The landscape plan does meet screening requirements. Ken Roberts Planning Director City of Lake Elmo November 26, 2018 5 T:\6443 Lake Elmo\27 Applewood Pointe\01 Preliminary Plat\01 Plan Review\2019-11-25\2019-11-25 Applewood Pointe Landscape Plan Review.docx Findings: 1. A signature on the tree preservation plan is needed. 2. Tree mitigation calculations need to be revisited. Calculate the trees removed that are common and hardwood to find the appropriate number of trees needed for mitigation. Nuisance trees do not need to be mitigated. a. Ultimately, the way the proposed landscape was calculated was incorrect, but in this instance, the proposal covers the total required landscape needed. By breaking down removed trees to be mitigated into common and hardwood – removing the nuisance trees – in future proposals, mitigation numbers will be more accurate. b. Including interior and perimeter parking lot landscape requirements will also help ensure that planting numbers are more accurate moving forward. 3. Up to 15% of required trees may be ornamental per city code. 25% of required trees must be coniferous per city code. Please review and revise tree composition. 4. City standard landscape details must be included in the plan submittal. 5. Five trees conflict with utilities. Please refer to the attached figure. Recommendation: It is recommended that conditions of approval include: 1. Submit a revised landscape plan. 2. Submit a revised landscape details and notes sheet. Sincerely, Lucius Jonett, PLA (MN) Wenck Associates, Inc. City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect LANDSCAPE LEGEND EXISTING TREE (TYP.) EDGER (TYP.) SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BED (TYP.) STORMWATER SEED MIX 33-261 WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS 992.451000.36SETIP41578983.58FNDIP15480977.57FNDIP15480973.00SETIP41578970.57FNDIP.5969.94SETIP41578969.20FNDIP8612968.81FNDIP16456976.20FNDIP16456979.83FNDIP16456984.21FNDIP16456982.87SETIP41578986.52SETIP41578983.28FNDIP16456963.64FNDIP8612962.35FNDIP15480958.76INVCMP846 - RML 2 - RDB 1 - ABM 6 - SWO 3 - SMP 3 - SWO 6 - RVB 3 - SWO 6 - BHS 2 - SWO 2 - SWO 5 - SWO 13 - QAP 3 - RVB 3 - SMP 6 - WHP 4 - SWO 2 - RML 3 - QAP 3 - RVB 2 - RDB 3 - SMP 2 - HOK 2 - ABM 3 - RDB 3 - CHL 2 - ABM 3 - HOK 3 - ABS 3 - ABM 3 - ABS 2 - RDB 3 - WHP 7 - CHL 7 - WHP 7 - BHS 1 - ABM 6 - QAP 1 - SMP 1 - HOK 3 - ABS 5 - SMP 6 - SMP 1 - ABM 11 - QAP 1 - ABM 3 - RML 4 - RML A C B A C B AC B B A C 3 - ABM PROPOSED WATER FEATURE (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED COMMUNITY GARDEN AREA (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BOCCE BALL (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED GAZEBO (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED PLANTER BOXES (TYPE TBD) MONUMENT SIGN (BY OTHERS) A LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES EDGER (TYP.) DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) SOD (TYP.) B C This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\LSE Architects\Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\L1-LANDSCAPE PLAN.DWG November 22, 2019 - 12:01pmBYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPREPARED FORLANDSCAPE PLANL100APPLEWOOD POINTEOF LAKE ELMOUNITEDPROPERTIESLAKE ELMOMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLAXX/XX/XXXX56522DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006700111/21/2019AS SHOWNMPIMPIMGC1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE AT 811 OR CALL811.COM TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTS OR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 2.ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. 3.NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 4.ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND/OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S OR OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 6.ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA-GROWN AND/OR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADE SHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3. 7.PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. 8.PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES. 9.PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL-IN MATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY. 10.PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 11.OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. 12.PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES. 13.WRAP ALL SMOOTH-BARKED TREES - FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST. 14.STAKING OF TREES AS REQUIRED; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 15.THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEED OF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS. 16.BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN/DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. MINIMUM 4" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR ALL LAWN GRASS AREAS AND 12" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR TREE, SHRUBS, AND PERENNIALS. 17.MULCH TO BE AT ALL TREE, SHRUB, PERENNIAL, AND MAINTENANCE AREAS. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL PLANTS WITHIN TURF AREAS. PERENNIAL AND ORNAMENTAL GRASS BEDS SHALL HAVE 2" DEPTH DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH TO BE FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. ROCK MULCH TYPE TO BE DETERMINED, 1 1/2" TO 3" DIAMETER, AT MINIMUM 3" DEPTH, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE ON COMMERCIAL GRADE FILTER FABRIC, BY TYPAR, OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH NO EXPOSURE. MULCH AND FABRIC TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 18.EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE STEEL EDGING OR SPADED EDGE, AS INDICATED. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDGING WHERE POSSIBLE. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V-SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TO CREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. INDIVIDUAL TREE, SHRUB, OR RAIN-GARDEN BEDS TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 19.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX, FREE OF LAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED. SEED AS SPECIFIED AND PER MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. IF NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 20.PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL PLANTED AND SODDED AREAS ON SITE. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN/BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE IRRIGATION PLAN AND SHOP DRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OPERATION MANUALS, AS-BUILT PLANS, AND NORMAL PROGRAMMING. SYSTEM SHALL BE WINTERIZED AND HAVE SPRING STARTUP DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. SYSTEM SHALL HAVE TWO-YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PARTS AND LABOR. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 21.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL. OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. 22.REPAIR, REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD/SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 23.REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO OWNER. 24.SEE SHEET L101 FOR PLANT SCHEDULE AND DETAILS LANDSCAPE NOTES LANDSCAPE SUMMARY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1,640 LIN. FT./50 = 33 TREES 11.7 ACRES X 5 = 59 TREES 92 TREES TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 151 CAL. IN. / 2.5 CAL. IN.61 TREES TOTAL TREES REQUIRED 92 TREES + 53 TREES 153 TREES PROPOSED TREES OVERSTORY TREES + CONIFEROUS TREES 153 TREES NORTH MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2019 To: Alex Hall and Jennifer Mason United Properties From: Jacob Rojer, P.E. Subject: Applewood Pointe – Traffic Impact Analysis Lake Elmo, Minnesota Introduction LSE Architects and United Properties are proposing to develop a +/- 11.7-acre site located on the northeast corner of Eagle Point Boulevard and Hudson Boulevard in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Exhibit 1, in Appendix A, shows the site plan and study area. The site will be developed as a new Applewood Pointe senior housing development with 105 units. As part of the development process, a traffic impact analysis has been requested by the City of Lake Elmo to quantify any impacts that the proposed development may have on Eagle Point Boulevard, Hudson Boulevard, and Inwood Avenue. Operations for the Existing Conditions (2019), Background Conditions (2021), and Build Conditions (2021) were analyzed. This document includes analysis for the intersections of Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard, Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue, and the proposed site driveway. The analyses focused on level of service, delay, and vehicle queuing at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Existing Conditions The proposed development will have direct access via Eagle Point Boulevard. Traffic will also utilize Hudson Boulevard and Inwood Avenue to enter and exit the site. The following provides more information about the pertinent roadways that provide site access:  Eagle Point Boulevard is classified as a Minor Collector in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The undivided two-lane local roadway connects Inwood Avenue and Hudson Boulevard to local businesses and developments. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour, and the most recent Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) (2017) was 1,650 vehicles per day.  Hudson Boulevard is an east-west undivided two-lane local roadway that primarily serves as a frontage road for Interstate 94. It is classified as a Major Collector in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. The most recent AADT on Hudson Boulevard was 6,600 vehicles per day in 2017.  Inwood Avenue is a north-south four-lane divided County Sate Aid Highway classified as a Minor Expander in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour, and the most recent ADT (2018) was 14,200 vehicles per day north of Hudson Boulevard and 20,500 vehicles per day south of Hudson Boulevard. Existing lane geometry and intersection control is provided in Exhibit 2, in Appendix A. Weekday AM and PM peak period turning movement counts were collected by Kimley-Horn on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at the intersections of Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard and Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue. Exhibit 3, in Appendix A, provides a summary of the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts. The turning movement counts are provided in Appendix B. Proposed Development The site is proposed to become an Applewood Pointe senior living development with 105 units with an opening date anticipated to occur within two years (2021). Access to the site is proposed through one driveway connected to Eagle Point Boulevard. The driveway access is proposed to allow for all movements entering and exiting the site. Site Access The site has one proposed access on Eagle Point Boulevard. With Eagle Point Boulevard being classified as a minor collector, typical access spacing would be 300 feet. The proposed access is approximately 550 feet from Hudson Boulevard to the south and approximately 200 feet from the business park access to the north. Parking Lake Elmo Zoning Code requires one off street parking space per unit and one visitor parking space per four units. With 105 proposed units on site, the Code requires 105 resident parking spaces and 27 visitor parking spaces for a total of 132 parking spaces. The proposed parking on site will include 100 underground parking spaces and 79 surface lot parking spaces for a total of 179 parking spaces. This satisfies the City’s parking requirements. Pedestrian Connectivity The proposed site will provide sidewalks around the building and parking. In addition to the on-site sidewalks, new sidewalks will be constructed along Eagle Pointe Boulevard and Hudson Boulevard for the entire length of the property. There are no existing sidewalks in the area to connect to. Site Trip Generation The trip generation for the proposed development has been prepared based on information provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition. For this study, the average rate for the peak hour of the adjacent street of the proposed land use was used. Trips related to the proposed site were generated using Land Use Code (LUC) 252, Senior Adult Housing-Attached. Table 1 provides a summary of the trip generation calculation. The proposed development is anticipated to generate 21 net new trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 27 net new trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Table 1 – Proposed Site Trip Generation Land Use Description Intensity Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Senior Adult Housing- Attached (ITE 252) 105 Units 390 7 14 21 15 12 27 Trip Distribution and Assignment The directional distribution was based on the current traffic patterns in the area, the location of the proposed site access, and the anticipated routes that will provide site users with the fastest and most convenient path to and from the site. It should be noted that Inwood Avenue south of Hudson Boulevard provides access to Interstate 94 which is where most of the site traffic is anticipated to come from. The estimated trip distribution for the site-generated traffic is illustrated in Exhibit 4, in Appendix A, and is provided below:  To/from the south on Inwood Avenue – 80%  To/from the north on Inwood Avenue – 10%  To/from the east on Hudson Boulevard – 10% In accordance with the estimated site trip generation and distribution, weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour site traffic volumes were assigned to each of the study intersections. The resulting trip assignment of the project site traffic is presented in Exhibit 5, in Appendix A. Volume Development Existing (2019) turning movement volumes were collected in October 2019 at the study intersections during the AM and PM peaks. The peak hours were determined from the collected data. The AM peak hour is from 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM and the PM peak hour is from 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM. The peak hour turning movement counts are provided in Exhibit 3. Raw count data in provided in Appendix B. Background (2021) turning movement volumes for the weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour at the study intersections were developed based on historic growth and traffic projections from city and county comprehensive plans. Based on a review of historic traffic volumes along the study roadways, there has been moderate growth in the area with the last 5 to 10 years averaging around 3% annually. The traffic projections in the Comprehensive Plans show a much more conservative growth rate for the area averaging around 1% annually. For this analysis the more conservative growth rate of 3% was applied to existing volumes. Exhibit 6, in Appendix A, provides the weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour turning movement volumes for Background Conditions (2021). Build (2021) turning movement volumes were developed by adding the project traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 5 to the background turning movement volumes provided in Exhibit 6. Build (2021) turning movement volumes are provided in Exhibit 7, in Appendix A. Intersection Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections to quantify Existing (2019) operating conditions, as well as Background (2021) and Build (2021) future conditions. The purpose of the analysis is to determine possible impacts the site may have on the surrounding roadway network. The analyses were performed for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The analyses focused on level of service (LOS), delay (reported in seconds per vehicle), and queueing (reported in feet). The analyses were performed using Synchro/SimTraffic which is based on the Highway Capacity Manual. LOS is a quantitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the operations of an intersection. It ranges from A to F, with A being the best and F being the worst level of operation. LOS A conditions are characterized by minimal vehicle delay and free-flow conditions, while LOS F is characterized by long vehicle delay – usually when demand exceeds available roadway capacity. LOS D or better is generally considered acceptable operating conditions. Table 2 provides level of service information for both unsignalized and signalized intersections. Table 2 – Level of Service Information LOS Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description A 0-10 (Unsignalized); 0-10 (Signalized) Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within traffic stream. B >10-15 (Unsignalized); >10-20 (Signalized) Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream. C >15-25 (Unsignalized); >20-35 (Signalized) Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B; formation of queues contributes to lower average travel speeds. D >25-35 (Unsignalized); >35-55 (Signalized) Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow; average travel speeds continue to decrease. E >35-50 (Unsignalized); >55-80 (Signalized) High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed. F >50 (Unsignalized); >80 (Signalized) Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly restricted traffic flow. A queuing analysis was also conducted for the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the study intersections for existing and future conditions. Queuing results from the analysis were reviewed to determine if the capacity of storage bays and auxiliary lanes for turning traffic is enough so turning traffic will not interfere with through traffic flows. Specific consideration was given to the southbound right turn lane at Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard because it has been reported that the turn lane is overcapacity. Additional site observations were taken for this movement to calibrate the model and ensure accurate results. Existing (2019) Analysis Capacity and queuing analyses were performed to quantify existing operating conditions during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour at the intersections of Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard and Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue. The analyses were based on existing lane geometries and signal timings observed in the field. Tables 3 and 4 provide a summary of the capacity analysis for the Existing (2019) weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on the analysis, the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The southbound left turn at Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue operates at LOS E during the PM peak, however this is a minor movement and the queues do not extend beyond the turn lane storage capacity. The remaining individual movements all operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours. The SimTraffic reports are attached in Appendix C. Table 3. Existing (2019) Capacity Analysis Summary (AM Peak Hour) Intersection Approach / Movement Left Through Right Overall Intersection Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Eaglewood Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard EB 3.3 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 1.2 A WB 1.4 A 0.7 A 0.3 A NB 6.9 A 5.9 A 2.4 A SB 6.7 A 7.6 A 3.1 A Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue EB 52.8 D 53.5 D 7.9 A 18.9 B WB 48.3 D 39.7 D 3.9 A NB 41.9 D 8.0 A 2.1 A SB 47.0 D 16.2 B 3.9 A Table 4. Existing (2019) Capacity Analysis Summary (PM Peak Hour) Intersection Approach / Movement Left Through Right Overall Intersection Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Eaglewood Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard EB 3.6 A 2.5 A 1.1 A 3.4 A WB 0.0 A 0.6 A 0.0 A NB 7.8 A 6.1 A 4.1 A SB 7.8 A 5.4 A 3.1 A Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue EB 52.3 D 46.4 D 44.7 D 34.2 C WB 52.3 D 40.8 D 6.0 A NB 44.8 D 17.6 B 2.7 A SB 64.8 E 34.6 C 4.9 A Based on the SimTraffic analysis, vehicle queues at the study intersections are accommodated by the current turn-lane storage and do not extend upstream to adjacent intersections. The 95th percentile queues are provided in the SimTraffic reports that are attached in Appendix C. Additionally, the model results for the southbound right turn at Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard were compared to site observations due to capacity concerns. The 95th percentile queue modeled for existing conditions for this movement were 14 feet and 51 feet during the AM and PM Peak hours, respectively. This is consistent with observations and confirms the existing 500-foot turn lane has adequate capacity. Background Conditions (2021) Analysis Background Conditions (2021) capacity and queuing analyses were performed at the intersections of Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard and Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue to provide a basis of operations in the 2021 Build year. Tables 7 and 8 provide a summary of the capacity analysis for the Background Conditions (2021) weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on the capacity analysis, the study intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS during the weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour. The analysis results are similar to the existing peak hours. During the PM peak hour, Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Drive went from LOS C in the existing condition to LOS D in the 2021 background condition. However, the actual difference in intersection delay is around 2 seconds. The SimTraffic reports are attached in Appendix C. Table 7. Background Conditions (2021) Capacity Analysis Summary (AM Peak Hour) Intersection Approach / Movement Left Through Right Overall Intersection Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Eaglewood Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard EB 3.3 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 1.2 A WB 1.3 A 0.6 A 0.3 A NB 8.1 A 7.4 A 2.4 A SB 8.2 A 6.5 A 2.3 A Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue EB 53.5 D 43.8 D 8.0 A 18.0 B WB 48.1 D 36.9 D 4.2 A NB 40.6 D 7.4 A 2.4 A SB 52.7 D 15.3 B 5.0 A Table 8. Background Conditions (2021) Capacity Analysis Summary (PM Peak Hour) Intersection Approach / Movement Left Through Right Overall Intersection Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Eaglewood Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard EB 4.6 A 2.6 A 1.2 A 3.6 A WB 1.2 A 0.6 A 0.1 A NB 7.7 A 8.2 A 5.0 A SB 9.2 A 13.1 B 3.5 A Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue EB 49.4 D 46.1 D 49.0 D 36.5 D WB 53.6 D 47.7 D 6.9 A NB 50.4 D 20.7 C 3.3 A SB 69.2 E 35.9 D 5.6 A Based on the SimTraffic analysis, vehicle queues at the study intersections are anticipated to be accommodated by the current turn-lane storage. The 95th percentile queue for the southbound right turn lane at Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard is 18 feet in the AM peak hour and 54 feet in the PM peak hour. The 95th percentile queues are provided in the SimTraffic reports that are attached in Appendix C. Build Conditions (2021) Analysis Build Conditions (2021) capacity and queuing analyses were performed at the intersections of Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard and Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue as well as the site driveway to determine the operations once project traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. Existing intersection/roadway geometrics were used for these analyses. It was assumed that the site access would be side street stop controlled. Tables 11 and 12 provide a summary of the capacity analysis for the Build Conditions (2021) weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on the analysis, the study intersections and site access driveways are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour, the proposed senior living has minimal impact on the study intersections. The SimTraffic reports are attached in Appendix C. Table 11. Build Conditions (2021) Capacity Analysis Summary (AM Peak Hour) Intersection Approach / Movement Left Through Right Overall Intersection Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Eaglewood Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard EB 3.5 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 1.3 A WB 1.6 A 0.8 A 0.3 A NB 6.4 A 7.4 A 3.3 A SB 9.5 A 5.2 A 3.1 A Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue EB 51.2 D 54.7 D 8.9 A 20.2 C WB 44.3 D 38.6 D 4.1 A NB 42.5 D 9.1 A 2.4 A SB 56.8 E 18.8 B 4.6 A Eagle Point Boulevard & Site Driveway WB 5.4 A 0.0 A 0.7 A NB 0.4 A 0.4 A SB 0.0 A 0.0 A Table 12. Build Conditions (2021) Capacity Analysis Summary (PM Peak Hour) Intersection Approach / Movement Left Through Right Overall Intersection Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Eaglewood Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard EB 3.7 A 2.6 A 1.8 A 3.6 A WB 0.9 A 0.8 A 0.0 A NB 8.5 A 8.9 A 4.1 A SB 7.7 A 4.8 A 3.7 A Hudson Boulevard & Inwood Avenue EB 54.5 D 41.5 D 50.6 D 36.9 D WB 53.9 D 44.3 D 6.1 A NB 51.2 D 20.9 C 2.9 A SB 65.8 E 35.4 D 5.6 A Eagle Point Boulevard & Site Driveway WB 5.3 A 0.0 A 0.5 A NB 0.4 A 0.3 A SB 2.9 A 0.2 A Based on the SimTraffic analysis, vehicle queues at the study intersections are anticipated to be accommodated by the current turn-lane storage. The site access does not need dedicated turn lanes entering the site and a single outbound lane at the access will be sufficient. The 95 th percentile queue for the southbound right turn lane at Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard is 27 feet in the AM peak hour and 61 feet in the PM peak hour. The 95th percentile queues are provided in the SimTraffic reports in Appendix C. Conclusions and Recommendations LSE Architects and United Properties are proposing a 105-unit senior housing development at the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard in Lake Elmo, MN. At the request of City of Lake Elmo, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed to quantify operating conditions along Eagle Pointe Boulevard, Hudson Boulevard, and Inwood Avenue for Existing Conditions (2019), Background Conditions (2021), and Build Conditions (2021) as well as potential mitigation. The development is expected to generate 390 daily trips, 21 total trips in the AM peak hour, and 27 total trips in the PM Peak hour. The site will have a single access point on Eagle Point Boulevard. The proposed access is approximately 550 feet from Hudson Boulevard to the south and approximately 200 feet from the business park access to the north. Based on the capacity analysis, the study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the weekday AM peak hour and weekday PM peak hour with the addition of the proposed development traffic. The proposed senior housing development will have minimal impacts on the operations of the adjacent intersections. Operationally, no turn lanes are required at the site access. The site driveway is anticipated to operate at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. A single outbound lane that is stop controlled is adequate. The queueing analysis showed that the existing provided turn lane storage at all the study intersections is anticipated to accommodate the 95th percentile queue for Build Conditions (2021) in the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, the southbound right turn lane at Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard had model queues similar to those observed in the field, which were within the capacity of the turn lane for all analysis scenarios. APPENDIX A: EXHIBITS NOT TO SCALE Hudson Boulevard EXHIBIT 1 SITE PLAN AND STUDY AREA APPLEWOOD POINTE - LAKE ELMO, MN LEGEND Study Intersections Proposed Site Driveways NOT TO SCALE Hudson Boulevard EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL APPLEWOOD POINTE - LAKE ELMO, MN LEGEND Project Site Location Study Intersections Existing Stop Control Existing Signal Control NOT TO SCALE Hudson Boulevard EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING (2019) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPLEWOOD POINTE - LAKE ELMO, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Weekday Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE Hudson Boulevard EXHIBIT 4 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION APPLEWOOD POINTE - LAKE ELMO, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location Study Intersection Proposed Site Driveway Site Traffic Distribution Inbound Site Traffic Outbound Site Traffic NOT TO SCALE Hudson Boulevard EXHIBIT 5 PROJECT TRAFFIC APPLEWOOD POINTE - LAKE ELMO, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Weekday Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE Hudson Boulevard EXHIBIT 6 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPLEWOOD POINTE - LAKE ELMO, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Weekday Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) NOT TO SCALE Hudson Boulevard EXHIBIT 7 BUILD CONDITIONS (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPLEWOOD POINTE - LAKE ELMO, MN LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Weekday Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X) APPENDIX B: TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Hudson Blvd & Eagle PointBlvd/Eagle Point CirSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeHudson BoulevardHudson BoulevardEagle Point BoulevardEagle Point CircleWestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalInt. Total7:00 AM07190801016413111103000001147:15 AM3711709111122104410102000001377:30 AM2471806711141914511002000001147:45 AM640260722920310801010220002156Hourly Total11229700310616275220042309200025218:00 AM332180532810804610304200021058:15 AM129170472820505330205010011068:30 AM0261303921271206032308000001078:45 AM32812043202012153602603200000128Hourly Total711560018297773712121323404921003446*** BREAK ***---------------------4:00 PM035303824900511602704328050331654:15 PM0280028245004712018030602081134:30 PM028102934200452203605821170291614:45 PM0241025554016018023041802010136Hourly Total01155012012190012036801040172631160805755:00 PM0311032355206024042066410051635:15 PM0200020148004911019030301041035:30 PM180091331035501301840004665:45 PM020002022510288040122000262Hourly Total17910817161401724807801261311015394Grand Total1953813606931774901164787133421903568031701001936Approach %2.777.619.60.0-22.562.314.70.5-37.41.161.50.0-80.03.017.00.0--Total %1.027.87.00.035.89.125.36.00.240.76.90.211.30.018.44.10.20.90.05.2-Lights1953213506861724821164774127421303448031701001904% Lights100.098.999.3-99.097.298.4100.0100.098.395.5100.097.3-96.6100.0100.0100.0-100.098.3Mediums031045600116060120000027% Mediums0.00.60.7-0.62.81.20.00.01.44.50.02.7-3.40.00.00.0-0.01.4Articulated Trucks030030200200000000005% Articulated Trucks0.00.60.0-0.40.00.40.00.00.30.00.00.0-0.00.00.00.0-0.00.3 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Hudson Blvd & Eagle PointBlvd/Eagle Point CirSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 210/22/2019 7:00 AMEnding At10/22/2019 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksEagle Point Boulevard [N]OutInTotal31034465461218000316356672213412706060000021941330RTLU640 2 12 626 Out 693 3 4 686 In 1333 5 16 1312 Total Hudson Boulevard [E] R 136 0 1 135 T 538 3 3 532 L 19 0 0 19 U 0 0 0 0 139100239000000139100239OutInTotalEagle Point Circle [S]ULTR08031700000000080317Hudson Boulevard [W]Total16032051628In774112787Out829938414004U17250177L48262490T11600116RTurning Movement Data Plot Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Hudson Blvd & Eagle PointBlvd/Eagle Point CirSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)Start TimeHudson BoulevardHudson BoulevardEagle Point BoulevardEagle Point CircleWestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalInt. Total7:00 AM07190801016413111103000001147:15 AM3711709111122104410102000001377:30 AM2471806711141914511002000001147:45 AM640260722920310801010220002156Total1122970031061627522004230920002521Approach %3.573.922.60.0-30.531.037.51.0-44.422.233.30.0-100.00.00.00.0--Total %2.144.013.40.059.511.711.914.40.438.40.80.40.60.01.70.40.00.00.00.4-PHF0.4580.8060.6730.0000.8520.5260.7750.6050.5000.6251.0000.5000.7500.0000.7500.2500.0000.0000.0000.2500.835Lights1122670030760597521963230820002513% Lights100.098.7100.0-99.098.495.2100.0100.098.075.0100.0100.0-88.9100.0---100.098.5Mediums010011200310001000005% Mediums0.00.40.0-0.31.63.20.00.01.525.00.00.0-11.10.0---0.01.0Articulated Trucks020020100100000000003% Articulated Trucks0.00.90.0-0.60.01.60.00.00.50.00.00.0-0.00.0---0.00.6 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Hudson Blvd & Eagle PointBlvd/Eagle Point CirSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 4Peak Hour Data10/22/2019 7:00 AMEnding At10/22/2019 8:00 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksEagle Point Boulevard [N]OutInTotal130813811200013191403230001000003240RTLU66 1 3 62 Out 310 2 1 307 In 376 3 4 369 Total Hudson Boulevard [E] R 70 0 0 70 T 229 2 1 226 L 11 0 0 11 U 0 0 0 0 8829000000088290OutInTotalEagle Point Circle [S]ULTR0200000000000200Hudson Boulevard [W]Total42943436In19631200Out233122362002U601061L592162T750075RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Hudson Blvd & Eagle PointBlvd/Eagle Point CirSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimeHudson BoulevardHudson BoulevardEagle Point BoulevardEagle Point CircleWestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnApp. TotalInt. Total4:00 PM035303824900511602704328050331654:15 PM0280028245004712018030602081134:30 PM028102934200452203605821170291614:45 PM0241025554016018023041802010136Total0115501201219001203680104017263116080575Approach %0.095.84.20.0-5.993.60.00.5-39.50.060.50.0-78.81.320.00.0--Total %0.020.00.90.020.92.133.00.00.235.311.80.018.10.029.911.00.22.80.013.9-PHF0.0000.8210.4170.0000.7890.6000.8800.0000.2500.8460.7730.0000.7220.0000.7410.5630.2500.5710.0000.6060.871Lights0113501181118801200680103017163116080569% Lights-98.3100.0-98.391.798.9-100.098.5100.0-99.0-99.4100.0100.0100.0-100.099.0Mediums010011200300101000005% Mediums-0.90.0-0.88.31.1-0.01.50.0-1.0-0.60.00.00.0-0.00.9Articulated Trucks010010000000000000001% Articulated Trucks-0.90.0-0.80.00.0-0.00.00.0-0.0-0.00.00.00.0-0.00.2 Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Hudson Blvd & Eagle PointBlvd/Eagle Point CirSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 6Peak Hour Data10/22/2019 4:00 PMEnding At10/22/2019 5:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksEagle Point Boulevard [N]OutInTotal17171188112000181721901030680100000001040680RTLU274 0 2 272 Out 120 1 1 118 In 394 1 3 390 Total Hudson Boulevard [E] R 5 0 0 5 T 115 1 1 113 L 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0808000000008080OutInTotalEagle Point Circle [S]ULTR06311600000000063116Hudson Boulevard [W]Total48051486In20030203Out280212831001U111012L18820190T0000RTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd/4th StSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeHudson Boulevard4th StreetInwood AvenueInwood AvenueWestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total7:00 AM2143500691532003861112000137367327001363807:15 AM27339006924350041111302200163499740001864597:30 AM18255004855480058111761600203527839001694787:45 AM9243003647490060131591500187711027100244527Hourly Total7512522002221221164001974157673006902083501770073518448:00 AM12175003450480053513413001526710353002234628:15 AM1810400324650006051419001554810057002054528:30 AM171520034610440060101206001362610954001894198:45 AM4312600615360006861561100173391015300193495Hourly Total90541700161201920200241265513900616180413217008101828*** BREAK ***-------------------------4:00 PM84142100119202111501156514811001644915027002266654:15 PM48870063122110300136320210002153018630002466604:30 PM879140011018351390019262027002155316218002337504:45 PM665160087162893001379207700223701553110257704Hourly Total28536580037966105450016212375935008172026531061096227795:00 PM7514140010323421350020071995002113715514002067205:15 PM5284006416221080014671905002025415819002316435:30 PM31230036914960111962037012164915216002175885:45 PM28950042161773001063155800166441292510199513Hourly Total18633260024564954120157123747250179518459474108532464Grand Total6362481230010071622401228021630113263317201291877420105742033608915Approach %63.224.612.20.0--9.914.775.30.0--3.990.25.90.0--23.059.817.10.1---Total %7.12.81.40.0-11.31.82.713.80.0-18.31.329.51.90.0-32.78.722.56.40.0-37.7-Lights6272471210-99515823712140-160911126081690-288874619845682-33008792% Lights98.699.698.4--98.897.598.898.9--98.798.299.198.3--99.096.498.799.0100.0-98.298.6Mediums6120-932130-1811830-22182260-4695% Mediums0.90.41.6--0.91.90.81.1--1.10.90.71.7--0.82.31.11.00.0-1.41.1Articulated Trucks3000-31110-31700-810400-1428% ArticulatedTrucks0.50.00.0--0.30.60.40.1--0.20.90.30.0--0.31.30.20.00.0-0.40.3Bicycles onCrosswalk----0-----0-----0-----0--% Bicycles onCrosswalk----------0.0-----0.0--------Pedestrians----0-----2-----1-----0--% Pedestrians----------100.0-----100.0-------- Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd/4th StSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 210/22/2019 7:00 AMEnding At10/22/2019 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansInwood Avenue [N]OutInTotal2263288851512722495813000000229529185213169260811100318100071000000000001172263311301RTLUP927 0 0 2 9 916 Out 1007 0 0 3 9 995 In 1934 0 0 5 18 1911 Total Hudson Boulevard [E] R 123 0 0 0 2 121 T 248 0 0 0 1 247 L 636 0 0 3 6 627 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 445133007751374683111425000000449933607859OutInTotalInwood Avenue [S]ULTRP274619845680018226001040000000000002774201057404th Street [W]Total27714013002824In1609183001630Out11622210001194000000U1583100162L2372100240T1214131001228R000022PTurning Movement Data Plot Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd/4th StSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)Start TimeHudson Boulevard4th StreetInwood AvenueInwood AvenueWestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total7:15 AM27339006924350041111302200163499740001864597:30 AM18255004855480058111761600203527839001694787:45 AM92430036474900601315915001877110271002445278:00 AM1217500345048005351341300152671035300223462Total66992200187161618000212405996600705239380203008221926Approach %35.352.911.80.0--7.57.584.90.0--5.785.09.40.0--29.146.224.70.0---Total %3.45.11.10.0-9.70.80.89.30.0-11.02.131.13.40.0-36.612.419.710.50.0-42.7-PHF0.6110.7500.6110.000-0.6780.8000.5710.9180.000-0.8830.7690.8510.7500.000-0.8680.8420.9220.7150.000-0.8420.914Lights6498200-18214151740-20340594660-7002313742000-8051890% Lights97.099.090.9--97.387.593.896.7--95.8100.099.2100.0--99.396.798.498.5--97.998.1Mediums0120-32160-90200-25530-1327% Mediums0.01.09.1--1.612.56.33.3--4.20.00.30.0--0.32.11.31.5--1.61.4Articulated Trucks2000-20000-00300-33100-49% ArticulatedTrucks3.00.00.0--1.10.00.00.0--0.00.00.50.0--0.41.30.30.0--0.50.5Bicycles onCrosswalk----0-----0-----0-----0--% Bicycles onCrosswalk-------------------------Pedestrians----0-----0-----0-----0--% Pedestrians------------------------- Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd/4th StSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 4Peak Hour Data10/22/2019 7:15 AMEnding At10/22/2019 8:15 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansInwood Avenue [N]OutInTotal40870011089211134000000418705112366594400002000030000000000000665994000RTLUP259 0 0 0 4 255 Out 187 0 0 2 3 182 In 446 0 0 2 7 437 Total Hudson Boulevard [E] R 22 0 0 0 2 20 T 99 0 0 0 1 98 L 66 0 0 2 0 64 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 8328051637813215490000008458221667OutInTotalInwood Avenue [S]ULTRP0231374200005530031000000000000023938020304th Street [W]Total59815300616In2039000212Out3956300404000000U14200016L15100016T1746000180R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd/4th StSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)Start TimeHudson Boulevard4th StreetInwood AvenueInwood AvenueWestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalLeftThruRightU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total4:15 PM48870063122110300136320210002153018630002466604:30 PM879140011018351390019262027002155316218002337504:45 PM6651600871628930013792077002237015531102577045:00 PM751414001032342135002007199500211371551400206720Total276365100363691264700066525810290086419065893109422834Approach %76.09.914.00.0--10.418.970.70.0--2.993.83.40.0--20.269.99.90.1---Total %9.71.31.80.0-12.82.44.416.60.0-23.50.928.61.00.0-30.56.723.23.30.0-33.2-PHF0.7930.6430.7970.000-0.8250.7500.7500.8450.000-0.8310.6940.9780.7250.000-0.9690.6790.8840.7500.250-0.9160.945Lights27336510-360691264690-66423808280-859185652911-9292812% Lights98.9100.0100.0--99.2100.0100.099.8--99.892.099.896.6--99.497.499.197.8100.0-98.699.2Mediums2000-20010-11110-34520-1117% Mediums0.70.00.0--0.60.00.00.2--0.24.00.13.4--0.32.10.82.20.0-1.20.6Articulated Trucks1000-10000-01100-21100-25% ArticulatedTrucks0.40.00.0--0.30.00.00.0--0.04.00.10.0--0.20.50.20.00.0-0.20.2Bicycles onCrosswalk----0-----0-----0-----0--% Bicycles onCrosswalk-------------------------Pedestrians----0-----0-----0-----0--% Pedestrians------------------------- Kimley-Horn : Lisle (IL)1001 Warrenville Road, Suite 350Lisle, Illinois, United States 60532331.481.7332 jack.olsson@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd/4th StSite Code:Start Date: 10/22/2019Page No: 6Peak Hour Data10/22/2019 4:15 PMEnding At10/22/2019 5:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansInwood Avenue [N]OutInTotal7728591631538123000000778864164228808230011100011000000000000298102500RTLUP244 0 0 1 3 240 Out 363 0 0 1 2 360 In 607 0 0 2 5 600 Total Hudson Boulevard [E] R 51 0 0 0 0 51 T 36 0 0 0 0 36 L 276 0 0 1 2 273 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 155192924804111522400000015579422499OutInTotalInwood Avenue [S]ULTRP11856529100452001100000000000011906589304th Street [W]Total9136100920In6641000665Out2495100255000000U69000069L1260000126T4691000470R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) APPENDIX C: SIMTRAFFIC REPORTS SimTraffic Performance Report Applewood Pointe Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 3.6 0.1 0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.3 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.3 6.8 5.9 2.4 6.7 7.6 3.1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.2 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 3.0 3.1 0.2 3.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 52.8 53.5 7.9 48.3 39.7 3.9 41.9 8.0 2.1 47.0 16.2 3.9 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 18.9 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 460.9 Queuing and Blocking Report Applewood Pointe Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT R LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 48 25 2 31 25 22 18 Average Queue (ft) 13 1 0 6 2 2 3 95th Queue (ft) 35 13 1 25 13 13 14 Link Distance (ft) 978 368 499 499 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 300 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 47 58 109 64 97 183 48 187 236 126 110 81 Average Queue (ft) 13 13 46 16 41 81 13 62 129 52 28 24 95th Queue (ft) 38 41 82 46 81 148 37 160 205 102 74 54 Link Distance (ft) 523 523 979 760 760 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 250 250 225 225 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 102 235 191 58 Average Queue (ft) 35 130 77 13 95th Queue (ft) 78 210 167 39 Link Distance (ft) 764 764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1 SimTraffic Performance Report Applewood Pointe Existing Conditions 2019 - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.6 0.2 0.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.6 2.5 1.1 0.6 0.0 7.8 6.1 4.1 7.8 5.4 3.1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.4 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 4.6 1.9 1.8 1.1 0.2 1.4 2.8 0.3 2.8 3.0 0.2 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 52.3 46.4 44.7 52.3 40.8 6.0 44.8 17.6 2.7 64.8 34.6 4.9 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 34.2 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 1372.2 Queuing and Blocking Report Applewood Pointe Existing Conditions 2019 - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 14 79 60 79 71 Average Queue (ft) 0 27 13 28 27 95th Queue (ft) 5 58 44 58 51 Link Distance (ft) 368 499 499 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 117 330 460 223 250 90 68 175 201 238 219 58 Average Queue (ft) 52 106 255 106 124 27 24 49 112 136 102 17 95th Queue (ft) 107 270 459 185 203 70 55 142 182 217 182 42 Link Distance (ft) 523 523 979 760 760 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 250 250 225 225 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 1 0 Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 73 398 349 46 Average Queue (ft) 22 247 209 10 95th Queue (ft) 59 355 310 32 Link Distance (ft) 764 764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 8 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 4 SimTraffic Performance Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Background Conditions 2021 - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 3.5 0.1 0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.3 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.3 8.1 7.4 2.4 8.2 6.5 2.3 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.2 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.3 2.9 2.9 0.2 3.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 53.5 43.8 8.0 48.1 36.9 4.2 40.6 7.4 2.4 52.7 15.3 5.0 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 18.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 488.7 Queuing and Blocking Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Background Conditions 2021 - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R LT R LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 46 0 24 5 31 31 27 18 Average Queue (ft) 14 0 1 0 7 2 5 3 95th Queue (ft) 35 0 10 2 29 13 21 14 Link Distance (ft) 979 978 368 499 499 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 300 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 64 50 106 69 95 152 52 178 217 153 110 68 Average Queue (ft) 14 13 50 18 38 74 13 71 133 51 30 25 95th Queue (ft) 42 38 87 50 77 129 39 174 203 112 80 54 Link Distance (ft) 523 523 979 760 760 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 250 250 225 225 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 95 237 208 67 Average Queue (ft) 34 131 85 17 95th Queue (ft) 75 211 177 46 Link Distance (ft) 764 764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Background Conditions 2021 - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 3.8 0.2 0.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.6 2.6 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.1 7.7 8.2 5.0 9.2 13.1 3.5 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.6 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.0 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.2 1.2 2.7 0.3 2.6 2.8 0.2 2.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 49.4 46.1 49.0 53.6 47.7 6.9 50.4 20.7 3.3 69.2 35.9 5.6 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 36.5 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 1414.5 Queuing and Blocking Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Background Conditions 2021 - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 28 3 56 56 72 63 Average Queue (ft) 2 0 24 12 31 30 95th Queue (ft) 14 2 52 41 60 53 Link Distance (ft) 978 368 499 499 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 167 374 513 213 231 96 62 175 224 266 240 62 Average Queue (ft) 55 110 281 116 130 33 27 61 127 163 124 19 95th Queue (ft) 117 273 502 184 193 78 55 161 205 253 228 45 Link Distance (ft) 523 523 979 760 760 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 250 250 225 225 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 138 411 369 45 Average Queue (ft) 29 274 234 9 95th Queue (ft) 89 384 348 32 Link Distance (ft) 764 764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 1 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 9 SimTraffic Performance Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Build Conditions 2021 - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 3.5 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.5 0.7 0.7 1.6 0.8 0.3 6.4 7.4 3.3 9.5 5.2 3.1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.3 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 2.9 2.9 0.2 2.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 51.2 54.7 8.9 44.3 38.6 4.1 42.5 9.1 2.4 56.8 18.8 4.6 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 20.2 11: Eagle Point Boulevard Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 21.2 Queuing and Blocking Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Build Conditions 2021 - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT R LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 57 34 5 31 31 22 41 Average Queue (ft) 14 1 0 6 2 5 9 95th Queue (ft) 37 14 2 25 15 19 27 Link Distance (ft) 978 368 499 499 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 300 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 73 68 149 83 102 174 51 204 242 159 114 64 Average Queue (ft) 18 15 51 22 49 73 15 74 140 55 33 25 95th Queue (ft) 51 46 102 58 88 135 41 187 219 118 85 48 Link Distance (ft) 523 523 979 760 760 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 250 250 225 225 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 111 263 226 45 Average Queue (ft) 35 152 105 15 95th Queue (ft) 77 232 199 38 Link Distance (ft) 764 764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Build Conditions 2021 - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 11: Eagle Point Boulevard Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 Average Queue (ft) 12 95th Queue (ft) 37 Link Distance (ft) 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 SimTraffic Performance Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Build Conditions 2021 - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.9 0.2 0.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.7 2.6 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.0 8.5 8.9 4.1 7.7 4.8 3.7 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.6 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.1 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.1 1.1 2.7 0.3 2.7 2.8 0.2 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 54.5 41.5 50.6 53.9 44.3 6.1 51.2 20.9 2.9 65.8 35.4 5.6 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 36.9 11: Eagle Point Boulevard Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.3 0.4 0.3 2.9 0.2 0.5 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 38.9 Queuing and Blocking Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Build Conditions 2021 - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Eagle Point Boulevard & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 18 69 60 62 93 Average Queue (ft) 2 28 13 27 35 95th Queue (ft) 10 59 43 50 67 Link Distance (ft) 368 499 499 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 136 541 544 256 258 137 78 186 218 249 255 58 Average Queue (ft) 58 106 298 118 136 37 27 73 134 155 127 21 95th Queue (ft) 107 263 502 201 213 93 59 172 204 237 220 45 Link Distance (ft) 523 523 979 760 760 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 250 250 250 225 225 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Intersection: 2: Inwood Avenue & Hudson Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 92 413 389 41 Average Queue (ft) 27 268 227 8 95th Queue (ft) 68 369 330 27 Link Distance (ft) 764 764 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 11 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Applewood Pointe Opening Year Build Conditions 2021 - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 11: Eagle Point Boulevard Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 50 Average Queue (ft) 11 95th Queue (ft) 37 Link Distance (ft) 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 7 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2020-014 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE UNITED PROPERTIES APPLEWOOD POINTE OF LAKE ELMO SENIOR HOUSING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PUD PLANS WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Jennifer Mason, representing United Properties, submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan for a 103 unit, senior housing residential planned unit development on a 11.7 acre site on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard to be known as Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Planning Department; and WHEREAS, notice was published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.102; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on January 13, 2020 to review and consider the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD approval request; and WHEREAS, the consensus of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission was to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD subject to 41 conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Director submitted a report and recommendation about the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD as part of a memorandum to the City Council for the February 4, 2020 and April 7, 2020 City Council Meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD application for the Applewood of Lake Elmo Senior Housing at its meetings held on February 4, 2020 and on April 7, 2020 and made the following findings of fact: 1. That if the City amends the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map to re-guide the site of this PUD from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park), the preliminary PUD plan would be consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map for the area. 2. That the preliminary PUD Plan will meet the general intent of the Mixed Use Business Park Land Use designation in the Comprehensive Plan (with a Comprehensive Plan amendment) and the Mixed Use Business Park (MU-BP) zoning district with PUD modifications. 3. That the preliminary PUD Plan generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations. 4. That the preliminary PUD Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated January 7, 2020. 5. That the preliminary PUD Plan meets the minimum requirement for a PUD including minimum lot area, open space and street layout. 6. That if the proposed preliminary PUD Plan has no more than 103 residential units, it will meet the allowed density requirement provided the City amends the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map to re-guide this site from Business Park (BP) to Mixed Use Business Park (MU-BP). 7. The preliminary PUD Plan meets more than one of the required PUD objectives identified in Section 154.751 including providing: innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches; provision of a more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques; accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing; coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses; and higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development technique. 8. That if the City approves the proposed PUD for Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo it will amend the Eagle Pointe Business Park PUD to allow for a residential development on this property (Outlot C, Eagle Point Business Park Second Addition – PIN 33-029-21-44-0009). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Preliminary Plan and Preliminary PUD Plans for the Applewood of Lake Elmo Senior Housing development as submitted by United Properties (to be located on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard) subject to the following conditions: 1. That the City approves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the City’s Land Use Plan to re-guide the property from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park). 2. That the City approves a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the site from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park). 3. That the future final plat and final PUD plans would be for the parcel with the PID #33.029.21.44.0009. 4. That the applicant prepare any future final plat and final PUD plans showing all of the site perimeter property lines - including any revisions for the dedication of additional right-of- way or easements that may be needed for Hudson Boulevard or for Eagle Point Boulevard. 5. That the future final plat and final PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for flexibility from the Zoning Code. 6. That the applicant addresses all comments in the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated January 7, 2020 with the updated preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plan submittal. These include completing all necessary improvements in and along Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard, installing a public trail along Hudson Boulevard, the dedication of additional street right-of-way and managing all storm water on the site. 7. That the final Plat and final PUD Plans submittal include complete tree preservation/replanting and landscape plans to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect. The landscape plans must be revised to relocate all trees outside of the proposed public easement areas including the proposed watermain easements and the property line drainage and utility easements. 8. That the final Plat and final PUD Plans submittal include accurate open space and impervious surface calculations. 9. That the final plat show drainage and utility easements over the stormwater ponding areas, wetlands and the wetland buffers, including the 100-year high water level. 10. That the applicant/developer provide the City fees in lieu of park land dedication as required by 153.14 with future final plat. 11. That the final plat and final PUD Plans submittal include detailed architectural plans for the building. 12. The applicant receives a permit from the South Washington Watershed District for the construction of the proposed development. 13. That the applicant/developer install a 8-foot-wide trail along Hudson Boulevard and a 6- foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Eagle Point Boulevard as a part of the improvement of the site. 14. That the applicant/developer installs all the required improvements in and adjacent to Hudson Boulevard. 15. All storm water facilities internal to the site shall be privately owned and maintained. A storm water maintenance and easement agreement in a form acceptable to the City shall be executed and recorded with the final plat for all 100-year high water level areas and to protect all overland emergency flow paths. 16. The Preliminary Plat/Preliminary PUD approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all City standards and design requirements unless specifically addressed otherwise in these conditions. 17. That the PUD overlay zoning allow for the following: a. Setbacks: Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo - Minimum Building Setbacks Front (Eagle Point Boulevard). 20 ft. Interior Side 20 ft. Rear (south property line) 50 ft. b. The maximum building height shall be 50 feet. 18. The Final Plat/Final PUD shall include all necessary and additional public right-of-way and easements for Hudson Boulevard and for Eagle Point Boulevard. These shall include any drainage and utility easements, any additional street right-of-way and any necessary pedestrian easements for sidewalks or trails. 19. The Final Plat/Final PUD submittal must include a complete storm water management plan and construction plans that provide all design details for the proposed underground storage systems including details regarding building roof drainage connections. 20. That the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits including but not limited to all applicable City permits (building, grading, sign, etc.), NPDES/SWPPP permits and South Washington Watershed District approval before starting any grading or construction activities. 21. That the Final Plat/Final PUD include South Washington Watershed District preliminary review comments and that the applicant provide the City evidence that all conditions attached to a South Washington Watershed District permit will be met before the starting any grading activity on the site. 22. That before the City issues any grading or building permits, the developer shall delineate and identify all wetland buffers via staking, fencing and/or signage that are acceptable to the City. 23. That the developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed districts before the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. 24. If necessary, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of written permission for any off-site grading work and storm sewer discharges to adjacent properties before starting any site work, grading and as part of any final plat or final PUD application. 25. That the applicant or developer address all the comments of the Fire Chief and the Building Official with the final PUD, site and building plans including the placement of building and fire hydrants, street and driveway design, parking and emergency vehicle access within the site. 26. That the applicant revises the project plans to show watermain easements and effective maintenance areas with a minimum width of 30 feet with a minimum of 15 feet of clearance from the pipe centerline and easement agreements are included with the final plat and PUD application and plans. 27. That the applicant provide the City domestic and fire suppression demand information for the facility with the updated preliminary plans so City staff may verify the capacity and needs of the water system. 28. That the applicant shall be responsible to place fire hydrants and water valves throughout the property at the direction of the Lake Elmo Public Works Director and the Fire Department. All fire hydrants shall be owned and maintained by the City. 29. That there shall be no encroachments into drainage and utility easements and corridors other than those reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and upon execution of an easement encroachment agreement. Prohibited encroachments include, but are not limited to trees, landscaping, fences, retaining walls and buildings. 30. That the developer prepare exhibits for City staff approval that clearly identifies the property lines, easements, proposed locations of retaining walls and fences and the required and proposed setbacks for each building site within the development. 31. That the Applicant(s) or developer shall submit a photometric plan for the development for staff review and approval. All lighting must meet the requirements of Sections 150.035- 150.038 of the City Code. 32. Before to the installation or construction of any subdivision identification signs or neighborhood markers within the development, the developer shall submit sign plans to the City for review and obtain a sign permit from the City. 33. That the applicant provides the City a detailed construction and staging plan with the construction plans and final plat for the development. These plans are to clearly indicate the phasing of the site grading, the phasing of the construction of each public infrastructure component and shall address access to that phase of the development for construction purposes and for residents. The City may require temporary cul-de-sacs at the end the private driveways. 34. Before the execution and recording of a final plat for the development, the developer or applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement or a Site Work Agreement with the City. Such an Agreement must be approved by the City Attorney and by the City Council. The Agreement shall delineate who is responsible for the design, construction and payment for the required improvements with financial guarantees therefore. 35. The applicant or developer shall enter into a separate grading agreement with the City before starting any grading activity in advance of final plat of PUD approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat or final PUD, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 36. That if the City amends the land use plan to BP-MU for this site, the maximum density of this development shall not exceed 10 dwelling units per net acre. With 10.34 net acres, the maximum number of residential units allowed on this site with a BP-MU land use designation is 103 residential units. 37. That the applicant/owner notify all buyers and owners that the City may impose restrictions or limits on outdoor water use including no vehicle washing and no watering of grass, sod or landscaping. 38. That the applicant/owner provide the Fire Department and the Sheriff’s Department with keys, key cards or other acceptable methods of entry for quick access into the building for emergency service calls. 39. That the City does not allow any parking and construction staging, including the loading and unloading of materials and equipment at any time on Hudson Boulevard or on Eagle Point Boulevard during the construction of the site improvements and building. 40. That the applicant shall submit revised preliminary plat and project plans meeting all conditions of approval for City review and approval. The revised applicant/developer project plans shall meet all of the above conditions before the City will accept a final plat or Final PUD application for the development and before the start of any clearing or grading activity on the site. 41. The Developer shall contribute $70,000 to the City for their proportionate share of the costs for the necessary improvements to the sanitary sewer system. 42. That the City’s preliminary plat/preliminary PUD approval is good for one year from the date of City Council action, unless the applicant requests and the City Council approves a time extension. Passed and duly adopted this 7th day of April, 2020 by the Lake Elmo Minnesota City Council. ____________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2020- 013 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE SITE OF THE APPLEWOOD POINTE OF LAKE ELMO SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, The City of Lake Elmo has established a Comprehensive Plan that includes background data, policy statements, standards, and maps that help to guide the future physical, social, and economic development of the City; and WHEREAS, United Properties (the Applicant) have requested the City amend the land use plan for an 11.7-acre site to allow the construction of a senior housing development: and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a request to the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan along with a preliminary Planned Unit Development plan for a proposed senior housing development to be known as Applewood Pointe of Lake Elmo to be located on the vacant property located on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the proposed land use plan change would be from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park) for the 11.7-acre property on the northeast corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109, and MN State Statute 473.858; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing about the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on January 13, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its recommendation of approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the said matter at its February 4, 2020 and April 7, 2020 meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and believes that it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and that it would be beneficial by providing a location for a housing option not currently available in Lake Elmo. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and the information received, the City makes the following: FINDINGS 1. That the Applicant has submitted a request to amend the Land use designation in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan for the development site in accordance with the procedures as established by state statute and the City Code. 2. That the request is to amend the Land Use Plan Map for the site of the proposed Applewood of Lake Elmo from BP (business park) to MU-BP (Mixed Use – Business Park). 3. That the proposed land use plan change will positively impact the City’s average MUSA density as required by the Metropolitan Council by adding 103 housing units in the MUSA. 4. That the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. That the proposed land use plan change would allow for the development of a housing option not currently available in Lake Elmo. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the foregoing, the Lake Elmo City Council does hereby approve the proposed amendment to the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from BP (business park) to MU-BP (mixed use business park) for the site of the proposed Applewood Point Senior housing development (on the corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard), subject to and contingent upon the following: 1. The Metropolitan Council’s approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on this ____ day of April, 2020. _____________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-234 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo ordains that Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.032 Zoning District Map, of the Municipal Code, shall be amended by adding Ordinance No. 08-234, as follows: SECTION 1. The following property(s), recognized by its current legal description and PID and affiliated with the Eagle Point Business Park Second Addition, is hereby rezoned from BP (Business Park) to MU-BP (Mixed Use Business Park): OUTLOT C, EAGLE POINTE BUSINESS PARK SECOND ADDITION, 33.029.21.44.0009 SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo also hereby ordains that the Planning Department shall make the applicable changes to the official Zoning Map of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 4. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-___ was adopted on this ______ day of April 2020, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL _________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk