HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-5-22 CCMP Full
NOTICE OF MEETING
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, April 5, 2022 7:00 P.M.
City of Lake Elmo | 3800 Laverne Avenue North
AGENDA
A. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
B. Approval of Agenda
C. Approval of Minutes
1. March 8, 2021 & March 15, 2021 D. Public Comments/Inquiries E. Presentations
• Proclamation for Sydney Peterson
• Arbor Day Proclamation
F. Consent Agenda
2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll
3. Approve Contract with Matrix Consulting
4. Approve Ordinance Amendments: Fire Department Organization and Open Burning – Ordinance 2022-01, Resolution 2022-029
5. Approve Easement and ROE Agreements, and Pay Request #1 for the CSAH13 Phase 2 Improvements
6. Accept Bids and Award a Contract for the Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements – Resolution 2022-031
7. Approve 2nd Amendment to Northpoint Purchase Agreement
8. Approve Step Increase for Building Official
9. Approve Purchase of Building Department Vehicle
10. Approve Hire of Assistant Public Works Director
G. Regular Agenda
11. One Energy Solar Conditional Use Permit for the Construction and Operation of a Solar Farm on the Property Located at 10755 50th Street N (PID#1102921110003) – Resolution 2022-030
12. Public Hearing - Interim Ordinance – Ordinance 2022-03
13. Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Cyphers Logistics Park – Resolution 2022-033
14. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and MUSA Amendment for Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove – Resolution 2022-035
15. Crossroads East Development Agreement 1st Amendment – Resolution 2022-034
16. Zoning Text Amendment - Medium Density Residential District (MDR) and High Density Residential
District (HDR) Minimum Lot Area and Density- Ordinance 2022-02, Resolution 2022-032
H. Council Reports
I. Staff Reports
J. Adjourn
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a
Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership with our Community.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES MARCH 8, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
Called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. PRESENT: Mayor Cadenhead, Councilmembers Katrina Beckstrom, Dale Dorschner, Jeff Holtz and Lisa McGinn. Staff present: City Administrator Handt, Assistant Administrator Dickson, Finance Director Magureanu, Planning Director Just and City Clerk Johnson.
Washington County-Manning Ave and 30th St. Stoplight
Eden Rogers, Washington County, presented the project details and city cost participation estimates. Rogers also requested a resolution of support from the City Council.
Interviews for Admin and Finance Audit
Clifton Larson Allen LLP and Matrix Consulting Group presented their proposals and answered questions.
Time Capsule Project
City Administrator Handt proposed a time capsule event sponsored by the city in conjunction
with the new city center project. Discussion was held concerning items to include and potential
timeline.
Water Supply Concerns and Possible Responses
Planning Director Just reviewed the low pressure area associated with the City’s water tower #3 that will is expected to be operational in September 2023. Just presented options for addressing demand for new development in the low pressure area prior to the new well becoming
operational and resolution of the White Bear Lake water issue.
Items for Future Agenda
Councilmember McGinn requested a discussion of availability for City Council or staff to use technology to attend meetings remotely.
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST: ______________________________ Charles Cadenhead, Mayor _______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 15, 2022
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Cadenhead called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. PRESENT: Mayor Charles Cadenhead and Councilmembers Katrina Beckstrom, Dale Dorschner,
Jeff Holtz and Lisa McGinn. Staff present: Administrator Handt, City Attorney Sonsalla, City Engineer Griffin, Public Works Director Powers, Planning Director Just, Fire Chief Kalis, Finance Director Magureanu and City Clerk Johnson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Dorschner, seconded by Councilmember Holtz, moved TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Motion passed 5 – 0.
ACCEPT MINUTES Councilmember Dorschner, seconded by Councilmember Holtz, moved TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 1, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS PRESENTED. Motion passed 5 – 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES None
PRESENTATIONS
None CONSENT AGENDA
2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll
3. Approve Redistricting Resolution – Resolution 2022-028
4. Approve Resolution of Support - Manning Ave (CSAH15) and 30th St. Intersection
Improvements – Resolution 2022-024
5. Authorize Engineering Services for Well No. 1 Abandonment and Pumphouse
Demolition
6. Approve Change Order No. 1 for Whistling Valley Street and Utility Improvements
7. Approve UPRR Drainage Encroachment Agreement and Fee for the Old Village Phase 5
and 6 Improvements
8. Accept 4th Quarter 2021 Financials
9. Approve Step Increase for Planning Director
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 15, 2022
Page 2 of 4
10. Approve Fire Relief Bylaws
11. Approve Hire of Firefighters
12. Approve Promotion of 3 Probationary Firefighters
13. Approve National Night Out Special Event Permit
14. Approve 2022 Labor Agreement with Local 49ers
15. Approve Cable Caster Agreement
16. Approve Wildflower 4th Addition Final Plat Time Extension
Councilmember Dorschner, seconded by Councilmember Holtz, moved TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Motion passed 5 - 0. ITEM 17: Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements City Engineer Griffin presented the scope of the proposed improvements, project schedule, assessable properties and proposed assessments. Discussion was held concerning curbs and no parking areas.
Councilmember Dorschner, seconded by Councilmember McGinn, moved TO OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING. Motion passed 5 – 0. Mayor Cadenhead summarized written comments submitted by: Brad & Barb Sahr, 9170 15th
St. N in favor of project; Cardinal Ridge HOA list of issues; Rick & Jean Rolando, 1583 Ivory Ave. N. in favor of project; Mark and Barb Klosner, 1827 Ivory Ave. N. in support of project; Paul Mencke, 1532 15th St. Ct. N. in favor or project but would like to keep his well for outdoor watering; and Cindy Zehrer, 1696 Ivy Ave. N. with questions regarding debris clean up, erosion, plowing at the north end of Ivy Ave. N. and an easement change to her property.
Brian Conners, 1625 Ivy Avenue N., commented on the timeline for getting contractors to get the project completed and no parking signage. Steve Adamsky, 1535 Ivory Court, spoke in favor of the project.
Don Jeske, 8996 15th St. N., commented on commercial traffic on 15th Street, the location of the watermain, alternatives for residents with deeper wells and assessment amounts.
Terry Moody, 1535 15th Street Court N., asked about his cul de sac, timing of the project and
water pressure. Bert Snider, 1636 Ivory Avenue N., spoke in support of the project and commented on watering bans and water pressure.
Councilmember Holtz, seconded by Councilmember Dorschner, moved TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING. Motion passed 5 – 0.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 15, 2022
Page 3 of 4
Councilmember McGinn, seconded by Councilmember Dorschner, moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-025 ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PARKVIEW-CARDINAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AS OUTLINED IN THE FEASIBILITY REPORT APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 15, 2022.
Motion passed 5 – 0. ITEM 18: One Energy Solar CUP for Operation of a Solar Farm at 10755 50th St. N.
Planning Director Just presented the request for a conditional use permit for the construction and
operation of a solar farm, noting zoning code requirements for this type of use. Kate Larkin, One Energy Renewables, presented an overview of the project and answered questions from the councilmembers.
Tony Manzara, property owner, stated that the property is in a trust and the income from the solar farm would be used to support the Sally Manzara Nature Center in Sunfish Lake Park. George Crocker, 5093 Keats Avenue N., spoke in favor of the project.
Councilmember Holtz, seconded by Councilmember McGinn, moved TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 2022-026, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) AS REQUESTED BY CEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A SOLAR FARM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10755 50TH STREET N WITH THE LISTED CONDITIONS BASED ON
THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Councilmember Holtz, seconded by Mayor Cadenhead, moved TO AMEND THE PRIMARY MOTION TO TABLE THE CURRENT AGENDA ITEM TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO ADDRESS CONCERNS.
Discussion was held regarding concerns that a solar garden would look industrial and not be a good fit for the site. The applicant agreed to an extension to April 5, 2022 for Council decision. Motion passed 3 – 2.
ITEM 19: Well #4 Repairs Public Works Director Powers reviewed scheduled maintenance planned for well #4 and bids
received.
Councilmember Dorschner, seconded by Councilmember Holtz, moved TO APPROVE MCCARTHY WELL TO COMPLETE THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF WELL #4 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000. Motion passed 5 – 0.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 15, 2022
Page 4 of 4
ITEM 20: 2023 Budget Calendar Finance Director Magureanu presented the proposed 2023 budget calendar.
Councilmember McGinn, seconded by Councilmember Beckstrom, moved TO APPROVE
THE 2023 BUDGET CALENDAR. Motion passed 5 – 0. ITEM 21: Resolution Supporting Legislative Efforts to Ensure a Sustainable, Safe and Reliable Water Supply
City Administrator Handt reviewed the status of proposed legislation to address the White Bear Lake lake level issue. Discussion was held regarding participation by other cities and affected users and permit holders.
Councilmember Dorschner, seconded by Councilmember Holtz, moved TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 2022-027 SUPPORTING LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO ENSURE A SUSTAINABLE, SAFE AND RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY. Motion passed 5 – 0.
STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Administrator Handt: Announced groundbreaking for the new city center project on April 30th at 9:00 a.m.
Finance Director Magureanu: Reported that the city has received a financing reporting award and noted that credit card payment for building and planning permits is available now.
Fire Chief Kalis: Reminded residents to change batteries in smoke and carbon monoxide
alarms.
Public Works Director Powers: Announced road restrictions beginning and pothole repairs.
Planning Director Just: New City Planner starting April 4th.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: ______________________________
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor _______________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022
CONSENT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Contract with Matrix Consulting
SUBMITTED BY: Jake Dickson, Assistant City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
On January 18 the City Council authorized advertising a request for proposals for an
operational audit of the Administration and Finance departments. The request for proposals
was advertised from January 19 to February 18. The city received 8 proposals which were
reviewed by the City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator. At the March 8 workshop the City Council interviewed 2 firms and selected Matrix Consulting Group.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the City Council award a contract to Matrix Consulting Group to perform an operational audit of the Administration and Finance departments?
FISCAL IMPACT: Included in the proposal is a total project cost of $27,750 which is in line with the 2022 budget.
PROPOSAL: Included in your packet is a Professional Services Agreement and Matrix Consulting Group's proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
If removed from Consent Agenda:
“Motion to approve a Professional Services Agreement with Matrix Consulting Group to perform an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments.”
ATTACHMENTS:
•Professional Services Agreement
AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement for Professional Services (this “Agreement”), made this ____ day of _______________, 2022, by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation with its principal office located at 3800 Laverne Ave N., Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (the “City”), and Matrix Consulting Group, Inc.,a California corporation with its principal office
located at 1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 213, San Mateo, CA 94402 (“Contractor”). I. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. Contractor will provide operational audit services to the City for the City’s Administration
and Finance Departments, as more particularly described in Contractor’s scope of work which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A (the “Services”). All Services provided by Contractor under this Agreement shall be provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants currently providing similar services.
II. COST OF SERVICES. A. Contractor shall perform the Services outlined in this Agreement and its proposal at the rates set forth in Exhibit A at a not to exceed cost of $27,750 (the “Professional Fees”). Contractor shall invoice the City on a monthly basis for the Services performed by Contractor.
The invoice must include the number of hours and a description of the Services performed by Contractor. Payment to Contractor by the City shall be due within 30 days of the date of the invoice.
B. The City shall not be responsible for payment for any additional costs or work
performed by Contractor that are outside the scope of this Agreement that are not expressly pre-approved by the City. III. CITY’S REPONSIBLITIES.
Upon request, the City shall provide Contractor with all available relevant materials pertaining to completion of the Services. IV. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.
The term of this Agreement shall commence, and Contractor shall commence performing the Services on ______________, 2022. This Agreement shall terminate, and Contractor shall complete all Services to be performed under this Agreement no later than _____________, 2022. This Agreement may be terminated earlier by either party by giving 30 days’ written notice to the
other party. Upon termination, Contractor shall be paid by the City for all Services rendered by
Contractor and all other pre-approved costs incurred by Contractor as of the date of the termination for which Contractor has not yet been compensated.
V. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
All Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by Contractor as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City for any purpose. Any and all officers, employees, subcontractors, and agents of Contractor, or any other person engaged by Contractor in the performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement, shall not be considered employees
of the City. Any and all actions which arise as a consequence of any act or omission on the part
of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or other persons engaged by Contractor in the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement, shall not be the obligation or responsibility of the City. Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents shall not be entitled to any of the rights, privileges, or benefits of the City’s employees, except as otherwise stated in
this Agreement.
VI. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor, and subcontractors, of Contractor, shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless
the City and its officials, employees, contractors and agents from claims, losses, liabilities, and
expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation) caused by any negligent act or omission by Contractor, engaged by Contractor in the performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement. Likewise, the City agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Contractor, and its employees, subcontractors, and agents of Contractor against any and all claims,
losses, liabilities, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation),
which the Contractor may hereafter sustain, incur, or be required to pay arising out of the actions of the City pursuant to this Agreement. VII. INSURANCE.
Contractor agrees to maintain, at its expense, statutory workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Contractor also agrees to maintain, at its expense, general liability insurance coverage insuring Contractor against claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage arising out of Contractor’s general business activities (including automobile use). The liability insurance policy
shall provide coverage for each occurrence in the minimum amount of $1,500,000. Upon request of
the City, Contractor shall provide the City with certificates of insurance, showing evidence of the required coverage and listing the City as an additional insured. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and Contractor and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the City and Contractor. This Agreement
can only be modified in writing signed by the City and Contractor.
B. Data Practices Act Compliance.
Data provided, produced or obtained under this Agreement shall be administered in
accordance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Contractor will immediately report to the City any requests from third parties for information relating to this Agreement. Contractor agrees to promptly respond to inquiries from the City concerning data requests.
C. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising under this Agreement shall be heard in
the state or federal courts of Minnesota and the parties waive any objections to jurisdiction.
D. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party.
E. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall exercise due professional care to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations in performing the Services under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their
duly authorized officials, this Agreement in duplicate on the respective dates indicated below.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: _____________________________
Charles Cadenhead Its: Mayor
By: _____________________________
Julie Johnson Its: City Clerk
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
By: ____________________________ Its: ____________________________
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work
• Review Department staffing levels against comparable communities and industry
standards, as well as future staffing needs.
o Identify staffing needs compared to Department workloads and analyze potential
for Department growth.
o Identify likely future service demands.
o Identify recruitment opportunities and potential for Planning and Building
Department staff.
o Identify alternatives to existing Planning and Building Department staffing model.
o Identify professional development and training needs.
o Analyze department staffing using capability and maturity modeling.
• Analyze fees charged for development and building and evaluate fees compared to similar
municipalities in Minnesota, as well as the cost to provide Planning and Building Services.
• Analysis of development review, land use and building permit issuance, and inspections
processes to determine whether these functions are optimally managed, coordinated,
and integrated.
o Identify options and processes for improving internal and external
communications to streamline the development, permitting, and inspections
processes.
• Review of technology and provide recommendations on the improvement thereof.
o Analyze potential for digital permitting, plan review, and developmental review.
o Identify specific services and software that can be incorporated into Planning and
Building Department processes that can be implemented to enhance productivity,
efficiency, transparency and level of services provided.
o Identify opportunities to incorporate field technologies into the permitting and
inspections processes to reduce delays.
o Analyze internal and external communication systems and opportunities for
implementation of communication technology.
• Review Code Enforcement process and provide recommendations and opportunities for
efficiency and effectiveness.
• Analyze Service and Communications provided to residents, developers, contractors and
other stakeholders.
o Review and analyze internal and external communications related to residential,
commercial and institutional matters handled by the departments.
o Identify public and private market perceptions that are obstacles to achieving both
a friendly reputation and the City’s desired development standards and
objectives.
• Identify emerging community development trends.
• Analyze short-term, mid-term and long-range cost implications to any recommendations.
EXHIBIT B
Contractor’s Proposal
Proposal to Conduct an Operational Audit of the
Administration and Finance Departments
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
February 17, 2022
Table of Contents
Cover Letter i
Firm Overview and Qualifications 1
Project Team 4
Project Approach, Work Plan and Schedule
7
References 17
Cost Proposal 19
10
1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 213 • San Mateo, CA 94402 • 650.858.0507
SF Bay Area (Headquarters), Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Irvine, Portland, St. Louis
February 17, 2022
Mr. Jake Dickson
Assistant City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Ave N, Suite 100
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Mr. Dickson:
The Matrix Consulting Group is pleased to submit our proposal to conduct an Operational
Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments in the City of Lake Elmo (the City)
in response to the issued RFP. Our proposal is based on our review of the City’s RFP and
our extensive experience conducting organizational and operational assessments of
governmental finance and administration departments throughout the country.
The Matrix Consulting Group was created by experienced consultants in order to provide
a consulting service in which the senior people actually complete the work in a low
overhead environment. Our firm’s history and composition are summarized below:
• Focus on Local Government: Our only market and service focus is management,
staffing and operations analysis of local government and authorities. While the
Matrix Consulting Group is a national company, we are headquartered in California
along with regional offices throughout the country. We are also registered in
Minnesota.
• Client accessibility: We are committed to serving our clients by providing a
personal, hands-on approach with detailed and implementable recommendations.
• Project team qualifications: We are proposing a highly qualified team, that
includes former local government practitioners and members who have been
involved in most of our finance department evaluations. Our Project Manager,
Alan Pennington, has extensive experience conducting similar studies throughout
the country. Additionally, he was a former Assistant City Manager responsible for
finance and administration functions.
matrix
consulting group
• Experience: Since our founding 20 years ago, our firm has served more than 1,400
clients nationwide. Our recent dedicated studies in Finance and Administrative
services area include:
Albany, California
Broward County, Florida
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Greeley, Colorado
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
Irvine, California
La Cañada Flintridge, California
Los Angeles County, California
Niles, Illinois
Pasadena, California
Peoria, Arizona
Reno-Washoe County, Utah
Riverside, California
Salt Lake City, Utah
Santa Monica, California
Recently, our experience has included organization-wide studies for the following diverse
group of agencies, all of which have included evaluation of Administration and Finance
functions as part of the study:
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Augusta, Georgia
Avon, Connecticut
Bloomfield, Connecticut
Brattleboro, Vermont
Carroll County, New Hampshire
DeKalb County, Georgia
Deltona, Florida
Franklin Township, NJ
Fort Morgan, Colorado
Gulf Shores, Alabama
Half Moon Bay, California
Johnson County, Kansas
Monroe County, Michigan
Monrovia, California
Montpelier, Vermont
Orland Park, Illinois
Orleans, Massachusetts
Orting, Washington
Portage, Michigan
Rancho Mirage, California
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Roseville, California
Schertz, Texas
St. Cloud, Florida
Sunnyvale, California
Tigard, Oregon
Tinley Park, Illinois
Waxhaw, North Carolina
WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
We are also evaluating City Administration and Finance Department operations as part of
two organization-wide studies we are conducting for Coventry (RI) and Takoma Park
(MD).
As President of the firm, I am authorized to negotiate and sign an agreement to commit
the firm for this engagement.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 650.858.0507 or via e-
mail at rbrady@matrixcg.net. Alan Pennington, a Vice President with the firm, will be
assigned as Project Manager. He can be reached at apennington@matrixcg.net or
618.795.1995.
Richard P. Brady
Matrix Consulting Group
President
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 1
1 Firm Overview and Qualifications
This section of the proposal provides background information regarding the Matrix
Consulting Group and our experience evaluating administration and finance operations
for local governments.
1. Information About the Firm
The Matrix Consulting Group’s only business focus is the provision of organization,
staffing and management analytical services to the public sector. The following points
provide specific information regarding the firm’s background, focus and composition:
• The legal name of our firm is the Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. We are an
independent organization and not a subsidiary of any firm.
• The firm is domestically incorporated in California and has offices in San Mateo
(headquarters) and Irvine. In addition, we have regional offices in Illinois, Oregon,
Florida, North Carolina, and Texas.
• We currently have 22 full-time and four (4) per-diem staff.
• While we provide a wide variety of services to our local government clients,
Administrative and Financial services are a core service area of the firm.
• We work together as one team on our consulting engagements and do not
generally utilize subcontractors. Each team member has extensive experience in
their assigned areas of responsibilities.
We are proud of our track record in providing analytical assistance to local governments
in general, and to administrative functions specifically.
2. Guiding Principles
The Matrix Consulting Group takes a clearly-defined, client-centered project approach to
each study we conduct. Key elements of our philosophy and approach to providing
consulting services include the following:
• A principal of the firm is involved in every project, providing oversight, quality
control and management assistance to all of our studies. As the leader of our
community development practice the Vice President of the firm, Alan Pennington,
will act in this capacity.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 2
• We are objective and data driven. We do not base our recommendations on
opinions or simple comparative measures. We ensure that our analysis is based
on a comprehensive understanding of our client’s unique service level goals,
workloads, risks, and operating environment.
• Our projects are approached with a firm grounding in analytical methodology. Our
clients receive detailed analysis of their specific issues. All impacts are identified
and analyzed in detail to ensure that recommendations can be implemented and
our clients can understand the reason for change.
• Our projects are characterized by extensive interaction between consultants and
clients, including both the executive management and policy makers, as well as
supervisory and line-level staff.
• We prioritize formal project management to ensure clear communication, timely
task completion, and thorough analysis of issues. We take pride in delivering our
work on time, on budget, and at a level of quality which exceeds expectations.
These five pillars guide our work and have resulted in hundreds of successful projects
and satisfied clients, as illustrated in the following descriptions of our experience.
3. Experience Conducting Administration and Finance Department
Studies
The Matrix Consulting Group is a national leader in the provision of local government
management consulting services. We have extensive experience evaluating
administration and finance department operations including dedicated studies for the
following clients:
Administration and Finance Department Studies
Albany, California
Broward County, Florida
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Greeley, Colorado
Hilton Head, South Carolina
Irvine, California
La Cañada Flintridge, California
Los Angeles County, California
Niles, Illinois
Pasadena, California
Peoria, Arizona
Reno-Washoe County, Utah
Riverside, California (2 studies)
Salt Lake City, Utah
Santa Monica, California
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 3
These studies have included assessments of all major operational areas of local
government finance operations including administration, policy and procedure oversight,
accounting, accounts payables / receivables, cash management, debt, financial reporting,
purchasing, revenue management, utility billing, and other areas. Other administrative
service areas evaluated include City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager’s Office.
Additionally, we have worked with clients with a variety of ERP systems providing us with
a strong understanding of the capabilities, strengths and challenges associated with
most municipal software systems.
This background enables us to fully understand the ability to streamline and automate
financial and administrative practices and procedures.
4. Experience Conducting Organization-wide Studies that Included
Evaluations of Administration and Finance Operations.
In addition to our experience conducting dedicated studies, we have also conducted over
90 organization-wide studies since our founding. Each of these included an evaluation of
the Finance and Administration Department operations. Selected clients include:
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Avon, Connecticut
Barstow, California
Brattleboro, Vermont
Carroll County, New Hampshire
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
DeKalb County, Georgia
Deltona, Florida
Franklin Township, NJ
Fort Morgan, Colorado
Goodyear, Arizona
Gulf Shores, Alabama
Half Moon Bay, California
Johnson County, Kansas
Monroe County, Michigan
Monrovia, California
Montgomery College
Montgomery County, MD
Montpelier, Vermont
Orland Park, Illinois
Orleans, Massachusetts
Orting, Washington
Palos Verdes Estates, CA
Rancho Mirage, California
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Raymore, Missouri
Roseville, California
Salt Lake County, Utah
St. Cloud, Florida
Sunnyvale, California
Tigard, Oregon
Tinley Park, Illinois
University at Albany, SUNY
WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Warrenville, Illinois
Waxhaw, North Carolina
We are currently conducting organization-wide studies for Takoma Park (MD) and
Coventry (RI) that include evaluation of the Administration and Finance Departments.
Our long and extensive experience in evaluating administration and financial operations
nationally provides us a strong foundation for this engagement and providing
recommendations that will enable the City to strengthen and enhance the services
provided to the overall organization.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 4
2 Project Team
We have proposed a very qualified and experienced project team for this engagement
including our most senior consultants and individuals with significant prior
Administration and Finance Department evaluation experience.
The following organizational chart shows the project team members for this
engagement.
The following table provides biographical summaries for the proposed project team,
followed by resumes for our senior staff. We are not proposing the use of any
subcontractors.
Team Member Project Role
Alan Pennington
Edwardsville, IL
Mr. Pennington will serve as the Project Manger on this
engagement and will oversee all aspects of the project. He will
coordinate the project, oversee communication with the
steering committee, actively participate in the analysis and
review all deliverables for quality control. He will serve as Lead
Analyst for the Administration Department component.
Khushboo Hussain
Irvine, CA
Ms. Hussain will serve as the Lead Analyst on this engagement
and will principally be responsible for the Finance Department
assessment. She will also develop cost analysis related to
each recommendation.
Cody Brem
Omaha, NE
Mr. Brem will provide analytical support on this project and
assist in conducting project interviews, evaluating processes
and workload, and evaluating workload requirements in
support of the senior team members. He will lead the
comparative survey effort.
More detailed resumes for our senior staff members are provided on the following pages.
Alan Pennington
Project Manager
Khushboo Hussain
Senior Analyst
Cody Brem
Analyst
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 5
ALAN PENNINGTON
VICE PRESIDENT, MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
Alan Pennington leads our General Consulting Practice which
includes organization-wide assessment. He has served as the Project
Manager or Lead Analyst on over 300 local government studies since
joining the firm including many for smaller organizations.
Alan’s relevant experience include:
• Completed over 300 local government assessments including
almost two dozen organization-wide assessments.
• Extensive experience leading benchmarking efforts to understand
how municipalities compare to peer local governments in staffing,
operational practices, and service delivery approach.
• Extensive experience evaluating finance and administrative
services for municipal organizations.
Experience Highlights
Riverside, CA: Alan was the Project Manager on this engagement,
which evaluated both the organizational structure and operational
practices of the Finance Department and on a separate project
evaluating the City Manager’s Office.
• Review of current workflows and development of more effective
processes including an assessment of technology utilization.
• Assessment of workload, current and projected, and required
staffing and organizational structure.
These studies also included an assessment of the department’s
compliance with financial and other operational policies and
procedures.
Albany, CA: Alan was the Project Manager and Lead Analyst on this
project which evaluated the organizational and operational aspects of
the City of Albany’s Finance Department. This was a comprehensive
evaluation of the internal operations of the department including
assessments of organizational structure, staffing levels, internal
financial processes, services provided to the organization and
technology evaluation. Key recommendations included modifications
to the staffing allocations, changes in position duties to more
effectively utilize assigned resources, modifications to financial
processes, and enhanced use of technology.
Role on This Engagement:
Alan will serve as a project manager.
Relevant Clients:
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
FL
GA
IL
IL
IL
MA
MI
MO
NC
NC
NJ
OR
PA
TX
VT
WA
Albany
Irvine
La Cañada Flintridge
Rancho Mirage
Rancho Palos Verdes
Riverside
Greeley
St. Cloud
DeKalb County
Niles
Orland Park
Tinley Park
Orleans
Portage
Raymore
Cabarrus County
Charlotte
Franklin Township
Tigard
Mt. Lebanon
Schertz
Montpelier
Orting
Years of Consulting
Experience: 14
Years of Government
Experience: 13
Education:
B.A., University of Maine,
Public Management.
M.P.A., University of Maine
Professional Association:
Association of Local
Government Auditors
(ALGA)
Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA)
International City-County
Management Association
(ICMA)
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 6
KHUSHBOO HUSSAIN
SENIOR MANAGER, MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
Ms. Hussain is a Senior Manager who manages cost allocation plan,
user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements.
Her experience with the firm also includes participation in operational
audit engagements focusing on reviewing organizational, staffing,
and internal processes to enhance development services.
Khushboo’s relevant experience include:
• Completed over 100 cost of service studies for clients across the
United States.
• Analysis focuses on process flows, staffing structure, workload
review, and policy development for planning, building, engineering,
and fire prevention services.
• Expertise also includes development of fiscal policies and
procedures relating to deposit-based fees and deferred revenues.
Experience Highlights
Albany, CA: Khushboo was the lead analyst on this project which
evaluated the organizational and operational aspects of the City of
Albany’s Finance Department. This was a comprehensive evaluation
of the internal operations of the department including assessments
of organizational structure, staffing levels, internal financial
processes, services provided to the organization and technology
evaluation. Key recommendations included modifications to the
staffing allocations, changes in position duties to more effectively
utilize assigned resources, modifications to financial processes, and
enhanced use of technology.
Riverside, CA: Khushboo served as a lead analyst on this
engagement, which evaluated both the organizational structure and
operational efficiencies of the Finance Department.
• Review of current workflows and development of more effective
processes including an assessment of technology utilization.
• Assessment of workload, current and projected, and required
staffing and organizational structure necessary to provide services
efficiently and effectively.
This study also included an assessment of the department’s
compliance with financial and other operational policies and
procedures.
Role on This Engagement:
Khushboo will serve as an analyst on this engagement focused on
general government operations.
Relevant Clients:
AL
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
FL
FL
HI
NC
OR
TX
TX
TX
WA
WA
Gulf Shores
Albany
Brea
Downey
Fresno
Milpitas
Mountain View
Irvine
Pasadena
San Clemente
San Mateo
South San Francisco
Fort Lauderdale
Miami Beach
Maui County
Asheville
Ashland
Austin
Dallas
Garland
Bellevue
Seattle
Years of Experience: 9
Education:
B.A., University of
California – San Diego,
International Economics
M.A., University of
California – San Diego,
International Affairs
Professional Association /
Certification:
California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers
Government Finance
Officers Association
Revenue Enhancement
Best Practices
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 7
3 Project Approach, Work Plan and Schedule
This section of our proposal presents an overview of our approach to conducting the
engagement, the proposed work plan, project team composition, and the information
needed from the City to facilitate the assessment.
1. Project Understanding
The City of Lake Elmo is seeking to conduct an assessment of the Administration (City
Manager, City Clerk and Human Resources) and Finance Departments including
operational evaluation, services provided and identification of core services and future
services necessary, staffing levels and organizational structure, technology utilization,
internal and external communication, policy review, and policy and procedure review.
These two functions are critical service areas of the City for overall effectiveness of the
City organization and support both internal and external customers.
2. Project Management
We believe very strongly in the science of our craft, which utilizes formal project
management techniques in our studies. These techniques include:
• All project work activities are defined in advance and tied to each project team
member, deliverables, the schedule and the budget.
• The project manager briefs each project team member on their roles and
expectations. This is accomplished in writing and in person. Additionally, the
project manager will work closely with the City to ensure the successful
implementation of our proposed project approach and maintain the schedule.
• Internal (project team) and external (client) expectations and results are managed
on a weekly basis. Formal project schedules and accountability reporting
mechanisms are used to accomplish this.
• The project manager personally reviews all interim and final products before they
are delivered to the client.
• We have frequent client review meetings to discuss the quality and direction of
the project through interim deliverables.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 8
These project management approaches have resulted in all our projects being delivered
at a high level of quality, on time and on budget. Virtually all the time allocated in Task 1
relating to development of the current state assessment would be conducted onsite.
During following tasks, we will utilize a combination of on-site and off-site work
approaches with periodic reviews conducted to review interim deliverables.
3. Project Approach
We believe that we should stress several aspects of our overall management plan. Our
intent is not merely to describe what methodology we will utilize to provide these services,
but also how we will produce results that are accurate and concrete, substantive,
defensible and can be implemented. These aspects are described below.
• Information Gathering. Important to the success of the project are the methods
that we will use to collect, analyze, and present information to formulate findings
and develop and assure acceptance of recommendations. The Matrix Consulting
Group has developed and fine-tuned over the years, several information gathering
tools and techniques.
• Interviews. Interviews are a staple of our consulting approach. In this study, we
will interview the appropriate individuals managing and carrying out the work in
the Finance and Administration Departments and from operating departments to
understand their service needs and expectations. Given the Covid19 environment
we are experienced and prepared to conduct these interviews virtually, if needed,
or on-site if the City is conducting business in person.
• Data Analysis and Performance Metrics. The Matrix Consulting Group uses “best
management practices” against which to assess the services provided in the City.
The analysis of best practices for services, efficiency and effectiveness has been
increasingly utilized in the public sector to evaluate organizations. This approach
would be useful in this study to assess the current approaches to the delivery of
services by the Finance and Administration Departments. We will utilize a list of
quantitative and qualitative best practices that have been developed by the Matrix
Consulting Group or by professional associations to benchmark finance.
• An Inclusive Stakeholder-Oriented Approach. Stakeholder involvement is a
critical component of this study. We propose to conduct individual interviews with
each of the Finance and Administration Department, managers and supervisors,
as well as a representative number of line staff, in both individual and group
interviews. During these interviews, we would explain the purpose of the study,
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 9
and request information regarding the targeted and actual service levels provided
to the City. Additionally, we will interview selected other City employees to
understand their perspective on the services provided and needed from the
Finance and Administration Departments.
We recommend the creation of a project committee to work with us in this project. This
committee’s role would be to review and critique our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations as they are developed. We would prepare progress reports periodically
throughout the study to report progress to date, problems or obstacles encountered, and
planned project activities over the next several weeks.
4. Information Needed from the City
Our consultants enter each interview with interview guides that assure that we cover all
relevant topics, and that also ensure that interviewees have opportunities to express the
issues that they believe should be addressed in the assessment. We would need
assistant from the City in making staff available for interviews and to discuss existing
processes and workload. Our interviews are structured to note the duties and
responsibilities of all positions, issues for further analysis, and data that our consultants
will need to obtain to thoroughly complete our analyses.
Our initial data requests are extensive and tailored to each organization. However, the
data can be summarized as follows:
• General Departmental Information. This includes such items as organizational
charts, job descriptions, compensation, policies and procedures, budgets,
historical staffing levels. We would also request copies of all financial policies and
procedures and any available workflow / process diagrams.
• Prior Studies. We would request any prior studies of the Finance and
Administration Departments, as well as any previous customer satisfaction
surveys that may have been performed.
• Workload Data. This includes division-specific work completed where available to
enable us to understand the full scope of the workload for each position.
• Technology. Descriptions of the technology utilized and the modules of the
financial system that have been implemented and those that may not have been.
• Performance Metrics. This includes any metrics that indicate the efficiency and
effectiveness with which services are accomplished.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 10
A more detailed data collection listing and plan will be developed following our initial set
of interviews with Finance and Administration staff.
4. Task Plan
The following task plan will enable us to develop a comprehensive evaluation of the City
of Lake Elmo’s Administration and Finance Departments and address each element of
the City’s scope of work contained in the RFP.
Task 1 Develop a Current State Assessment of the Finance and
Administration Departments.
It is important that the project team fundamentally understand how the City of Lake Elmo
currently provides financial and administrative services including staff allocations and
duties, policies and procedures, service levels, and workload. To develop this
understanding, we will accomplish the following work steps:
• Conduct interviews of all staff in the Administration and Finance Departments to:
– Collect and document basic operational data;
– Understand operational practices and financial policies and procedures;
– Document the allocation of all functions, programs and services; and
– Document the staffing levels and responsibilities for staff in each function.
In addition to staff interviews in the Administration and Finance Departments, we
would conduct interviews with key department heads to understand how the
services provided meet the organization’s need and the existing levels of
collaboration and working relationships.
• Data documentation will be an important part of this Task. Representative data to
be collected to perform this task includes:
– The organizational structure and span of control for each functional area
– Staffing levels of each functional unit
– Inter-relationship with other departments and how they coordinate work
– Job responsibilities for management, supervisory and operational staff.
– The primary technology and software employed.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 11
• Develop an understanding of the major management systems for financial
reporting and budgeting and those systems used to plan, schedule, monitor and
adjust approaches to service delivery, including:
– Policies and procedures that have been established governing key
operational practices
– Financial reporting and budgeting systems
– Organizational business processes and procedures
– Use and capabilities of the financial information system utilized
– Extent of centralization / decentralization of each financial process
• Identify workload and service levels for each of the major financial functions.
• Develop an understanding of key performance indicators.
• Document all key programs and operations including:
– Program scope and content
– Workload data
– Financial and related transactional data
– Basic service levels
– The extent of contracted services
Once these initial data collection activities have been completed, the project team will
prepare a descriptive profile that presents our understanding of the current organizational
areas under study to include staffing, inter-relationships, operations and costs. This
profile will be circulated to ensure the accuracy of our understanding. Once completed
and reviewed, the profile information will provide the basis for financial and performance
analysis conducted and completed in subsequent study tasks.
TASK RESULT
Current state assessment outlining existing Administration and Finance
Departments’ operations, programs, staffing, organizational structure, service
levels, technology and workload.
Task 2 Benchmark the Finance and Administration Departments Against
Best Management Practices and Comparable Communities
The purpose of this task is to evaluate the Finance and Administration Departments in
the context of best management practices in the profession and against comparable
public sector entities. The Matrix Consulting Group would evaluate operations in the
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 12
context of best management practices for public sector financial and administration
operations and identify existing strengths and opportunities for improvement within
operations. This assessment would focus both on quantitative and qualitative measures
for each of the department’s service areas. This product would be utilized to identify
those areas in which service level targets are being met, and where gaps may exist in
service efficiency or effectiveness.
The best management practices assessment will also use a capability and maturity
modeling framework to complete the organizational assessment and identify gaps
needing to be addressed to move the organization to a higher level of performance. The
best practices assessment would also include an assessment of key policies and
procedures, such as records management, recruitment and retention practices,
contracting and purchasing policies, personnel regulations, against industry standards to
identify gaps in existing policies that should be addressed.
Additionally, we would compare Lake Elmo’s Administration and Finance Departments
against several comparable communities to assess: (1) organizational structure and
staffing levels, (2) major policies and procedures, (3) technology utilization, and (4) major
operating practices employed. This comparative assessment will identify how the City
compares to selected peer entities in Minnesota.
The use of both the best practices assessment in conjunction with the comparative
assessment will provide a holistic framework for evaluating alternatives and ensuring
recommendations are implementable.
TASK RESULT
The deliverable of this task would be an evaluation of the actual finance practices in
comparison to best management practices and benchmarking key elements of the
department against those of comparable public sector entities
Task 3 Evaluate the Work Practices, Operational Practices, Technology
Utilization and Service Levels of the Departments.
During this task, the project team would evaluate organizational structure, policies and
procedures that guide financial and administrative service provision and the operating
practices of the departments. High priority focus will be placed on those issues identified
from prior tasks.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 13
Examples of the types of analytical activities the project team would perform to address
the scope of work area are listed below.
• Evaluate opportunities to implement best practices that are not currently being
met.
• Analyze current City processes and policies for each functional areas of the
Administration and Finance Departments to determine if new policies should be
recommended for implementation or modified to enhance efficiency or
effectiveness.
• Evaluate the levels of service delivered and interactions with other departments.
• Evaluate the adequacy of major financial work practices for each service provided
by the department.
• Evaluate the adequacy of records management practices.
• Evaluate the sufficiency of human resources policies and procedures, specifically
related to recruitment and retention and personnel policy administration.
• Evaluate the productivity and staffing levels against work output guidelines and
applicable regulatory requirements that may impact staffing levels and evaluate
the appropriateness of spans of control and supervisory oversight. The staffing
assessment will also utilize maturity modeling to identify gaps to address to
improve overall performance.
• Evaluate Information Technology utilized to provide services and the impact on
staffing and operational practices and recommend ways to better utilize existing
systems (or new systems) to streamline operations. Recommend opportunities
to address identified technology gaps.
• Evaluate whether appropriate internal controls are in place for financial
transactions.
• Evaluate existing and develop recommended performance metrics for each
component unit of the Administration and Finance Departments.
During this task we will evaluate the major financial processes and recommend
approaches to streamline the process (for both financial staff and end users) while
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 14
maintaining appropriate internal controls and oversight. This task will result in the
detailed analysis of operations and performance leading to the specific
recommendations for improvement to be contained in the final report.
TASK RESULT
The deliverable of this task will be improvement opportunities and proposed
adjustments in work practices, service levels, technology utilization, and customer
service, etc.
Task 4 Evaluate the Staffing Allocations and Plan of Organization of the
Administration and Finance Departments.
The purpose of this task is to evaluate the appropriate staffing allocations for the
Administration and Finance Departments and the appropriateness of the organizational
structure. In getting to these recommendations, we will address the following key issues
and questions:
• What is the appropriate staffing allocation (including duties of specific positions
and number of staff required to perform duties at appropriate service levels) for
each of the department’s divisions and functional areas?
• Is the organization structure too tiered or too flat?
• Are functions placed too high or too low in the department in regard to their
importance in meeting operating and service objectives?
• Are there any overlapping or duplicated functions? Are functions appropriately
centralized or decentralized? Are there functions that should be reallocated to or
from the enterprise service departments?
• Is there a team approach both within the Administration and Finance Departments
and among City departments to achieve the most effective approaches to finance
functions?
• Are staff appropriately cross-trained to ensure continuity of services to the
Administration and Finance Departments?
• Is the relationship between the various levels of staff within the Departments and
their reporting structure and authority appropriate? What changes would enhance
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 15
the efficiency of the Departments?
• Determine the appropriate organizational location for an organizational
development function.
Based on the above, the project team would develop recommendations to improve the
organization of the Administration and Finance Departments. The recommendations
would include identification of specific management modifications required and the
impact of those modifications.
TASK RESULT
The product of this task would be the preliminary findings regarding staffing
allocations and alternative plans of organization for the Department.
Task 5 Prepare a Draft and Final Report and Provide Detailed Plans for
Implementing Identified Improvement Opportunities
Upon conclusion of the prior tasks, we will prepare a detailed report that summarizes the
results of each of the previous work tasks described above. This report will include the
following:
• An executive summary of all key findings and recommendations.
• An evaluation of key Administration and Finance Departments service areas
focused on identifying the appropriate organizational structure (including
recommendations to centralize, decentralize or consolidated to enhance service
delivery), supervisory structure, staff allocation of positions (current and
projected), and modification to policies, procedures, or operational practices to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness.
• Identification of policies or procedures that should be updated, modified or
implemented to improve financial operations.
• A comparative benchmarking analysis demonstrating how the City compares to
peer municipal organizations and against best practices to identify opportunities
to enhance the department and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the
services provided.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 16
• Summary outlining the impact the implementation of recommendations will have
on the organization’s capability and maturity assessment.
• An implementation plan covering all recommended improvements consisting of
specific implementation work steps, suggested responsibility for implementation,
as well as cost and/or savings associated with implementation.
The draft report will be reviewed with the City prior to finalization. Once finalized, we
would be happy to present findings to the City elected officials in a public meeting.
TASK RESULT
The deliverable of this task will be a draft and final report and a presentation.
5. Project Schedule
We propose a 12-week timeline for conducting the study as shown in the following table.
Week
Task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Current State Assessment
Benchmarking and Best Practices
Analysis of Operational Practices
Organizational Structure and Staffing
Draft and Final Report
We are available to begin work within two weeks of a notice to proceed.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 17
4 References
We are providing the following three references which cover studies conducted by the
project team evaluating Administration and/or Finance Department studies.
Client Project Summary
Albany, California
Finance Department Review
Nicole Almaguer
City Manager
510.528.5710
nalmaguer@albanyca.org
For this study, we conducted a full review of the
Finance Department operations including staffing,
operational policies and organizational structure.
Key recommendations included staffing and
operational modifications to enhance efficiency and
effectiveness of service delivery and to provide
clarity in position roles while providing opportunities
for cross-training and enhanced succession
planning. In addition to staffing and operational
recommendations, we recommended modifications
to staffing and operational processes to increase
efficiency and effectiveness.
Tigard, Oregon
Performance Audit Review
Marty Wine, was City Manager,
now CM in Monmouth, OR
503.751.0146
mwine@ci.monmouth.or.us
This study focused on evaluating staffing levels,
operational practices, and performance
management for the entire City. This study was
conducted to provide the City Council and staff input
regarding opportunities to enhance operational
practices, efficiency and effectiveness of services.
Key recommendations in addition to staffing
modifications, included the development of a set of
recommended performance measures for the entire
organization and the annual workplans for each
department. Specifically related to financial
operations, we recommended changes in staffing
allocation, increased staffing related to CIP
management and enhanced operational practices to
address internal controls issues.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 18
Client Project Summary
Irvine, California
Administrative Services Study
Grace Leung, formerly ACM Irvine.
Now, Newport Beach CM
949.644.3001
gleung@newportbeachca.gov
This study involved an overall operational
assessment of the Administrative Services
Department including finance and human resources
functions. The assessment included an evaluation
of operational practices, policies and procedures,
internal controls and processes, technology
utilization, customer service levels, and staffing and
organization structure issues.
Key recommendations included development of a
new organizational structure, modifications to
policies and procedures, implementation of
performance metrics for key service areas, staffing
modifications, and process changes to enhance
service delivery.
We have also provided a copy of the final report developed for the Finance Department
assessment for the City of Albany, CA to demonstrate the quality, depth and overall end-
product that the City can expect to receive at the conclusion of this study. While each
report is based upon client needs, this demonstrates the general approach we take to
documenting and supporting our recommendations. You can access the report through
this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nCP7ClN1cAIK1CSZYG2-14Oe7nLmjKVe/view?usp=sharing
We would be happy to provide additional reference or work product examples upon
request.
Proposal for an Operational Audit of the Administration and Finance Departments Lake Elmo, MN
Matrix Consulting Group 19
5 Cost Proposal
We are proposing to conduct this engagement for a total not-to-exceed cost of $27,750
as shown in the following table, which includes estimated hours by task for each
classification of consultant.
Project
Manager
Senior
Analyst Analyst Total
Hours
Current State Assessment 4 12 16 32
Benchmarking and Best Practices 4 8 16 28
Analysis of Operational Practices 8 16 8 32
Organizational Structure and Staffing 4 8 8 20
Draft and Final Report 8 16 8 32
Total Hours 28 60 56 144
Hourly Rate $250 $185 $110
Total Professional Fees $7,000 $11,100 $6,160 $ 24,260
Project Expenses $ 3,490
Total Project Cost
$ 27,750
We would be happy to enter into a fixed price contact for this engagement.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2021
CONSENT
TO: City Council
FROM: Dustin Kalis, Fire Chief
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Proposed Text Amendments of Lake Elmo’s City Code, Chapter 3.12
and Chapter 5.12
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
Fire department staff have identified two code amendments that align with the current
operational direction and code enforcement policy of the fire department. These ordinances
address the organization of the fire department and open burning, including recreational fires,
in the city.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the City Council approve the amended City Code as presented by the Fire Department?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
The updated 3.12 Fire Department code amendment provides code direction for the purpose
and direction of the fire department. During the June 2, 2020 city council meeting, city code
sections 32.055 – 32.067 related to the fire department were repealed. The 2020 operational
audit of the fire department noted inconsistencies in these code sections related to the fire
department and other city policies and practices. This updated amendment will allow the fire
department to be more adaptable in our policy structure as the fire service industry continues
to change.
The updated 5.12 Open Burning code amendment will allow the fire department to regulate
open burning within the City of Lake Elmo with the purpose of protecting the public health,
safety and welfare of our residents. The ordinance language is based on Minnesota DNR
regulations, state statutes and the Minnesota State Fire Code. This update will allow for better
enforcement and oversight in our already established Open Bunging Permit program.
The updated code language provides definitions of specific terms related to open burning and
recreational fires, include a definition for portable fireplaces, expanded guidelines for
recreational fires for enforcement and to reduce the potential of nuisance fires, language for
the open burning permit application procedure, fee, denial and revocation of permits.
The ordinance is more restrictive that the Minnesota State Fire Code because the state code
does not contain regulations for immediate extinguishment if smoke from a recreational fire
becomes a nuisance to adjoining properties and if wind speeds exceed 10 miles an hour. Also,
additional language has been added to better define terms and explain our regulations.
The goal of these updated code amendments is to provide a more comprehensive code section
regarding recreational fires to support code compliance, enforcement and education for
residents.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal impacts.
RECOMMEDNATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve, as part of the Consent Agenda, the
proposed text amendments to Lake Elmo’s City Code, Chapter 3.12 Fire Department and Chapter
5.12 Open Burning.
If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Motion to adopt Ordinance 2022-01 approving the proposed text amendments to Lake Elmo’s
City Code, Chapter 3.12 Fire Department and Chapter 5.12 Open Burning and Resolution 2022-
029 authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 2022-01.”
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Ordinance amendments
B: Resolution Authorizing Summary Publication
CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2022-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3.12 AND CHAPTER 5.12 RELATING TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE LAKE ELMO FIRE DEPARTMENT AND OPEN BURNING
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Chapter 3.12 and Chapter 5.12; (Amended language is underlined to represent added language and strikethrough represents deleted language):
CHAPTER 3.12 – III FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.12.290 Organization
The fire department shall consist of one chief, one assistant chief at each fire station, and up to 28
firefighters between the ages of 18 to 65 years of age who are approved by the council. 3.12 .290 Establishment There is hereby established a city fire department, which shall consist of a combination staffing
model of full-time and part-time firefighters.
3.12.300 Purpose The department shall be responsible for the prevention and suppression of fires, the protection of life and property against fire, and the enforcement of all state and city fire code provisions.
3.12.310 Personnel The council shall determine the number of persons serving in the department as full-time and part-time firefighters.
3.12.320 Fire Chief
The department shall be under the direction and supervision of a fire chief, subject to the general supervision of the city administrator. 3.12.330 Firefighters relief association.
There is hereby continued in the city a firefighter’s relief association, whose function is to manage a
service pension benefit for firefighters, which are authorized under state statutes, and to provide other services to firefighters of the city fire department as deemed appropriate by members of the association. (a) Any proposed change to the association's bylaws or articles of incorporation which will
affect the benefits paid from the association's special fund shall not be effective until ratified
by the city council.
5.12-IV OPEN FIRES PROHIBITED
5.12.320 Adoption By Reference
The ambient air quality standards, air pollution control regulations of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), and the Open Burning Restrictions and Permitting Regulations of the
state department of natural resources (DNR) are adopted by reference, and have the same force and
effect as if they were reproduced in their entirety.
5.12.330 Permits
Open fires are prohibited, provided that a recreational fire is allowed upon issuance of a permit by
the city fire chief or the fire chief's designee.
5.12 –IV OPEN BURNING 5.12.320 City may be more restrictive than state law.
The council is authorized to impose, and has imposed in this article, additional restrictions on open
burning within its limits beyond those contained in Minn. Stat. ch. 88, as it may be amended from time to time. 5.12.330 Adoption By Reference
The ambient air quality standards, air pollution control regulations of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), and the Open Burning Restrictions and Permitting Regulations of the state department of natural resources (DNR) are adopted by reference, and have the same force and effect as if they were reproduced in their entirety.
5.12.340 Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to regulate open burning within the City of Lake Elmo, to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Through passage of this article, the designated fire official is hereby authorized to adopt and impose burning restrictions to aid in the prevention of wildfire and to consult with the department of natural resources (DNR), division of forestry to develop any
restrictions or other criteria.
5.12.350 Definitions. For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning:
Fire code official means the city’s fire chief or their authorized representative. Open burning means the burning of any matter if the resulting combustion products are emitted directly into the atmosphere without passing through a stack, duct or chimney, except a recreational
or camp fire as defined herein. Mobile cooking devices such as charcoal grills, wood smokers,
manufactured hibachis, and propane or natural gas devices are not considered open burning devices. Portable outdoor fireplace means a portable, outdoor, solid-fuel-burning fireplace that may be constructed of steel, concrete, clay or other noncombustible material. A portable outdoor fireplace
may be open in design, or may be equipped with a small hearth opening and a short chimney or chimney opening in the top. Recreational fire means a fire no more than three feet in diameter contained within a recreational
fire site: using dry, clean wood, producing little detectable smoke, odor or soot beyond the property
line; conducted with an adult tending the fire at all times; for recreational, ceremonial, or social food preparation; extinguished completely before quitting the occasion; and respecting weather conditions, neighbors, burning bans, and air quality requirements so that nuisance, health or safety hazards will not be created. No more than one recreational fire is allowed on any property at one
time.
Recreational fire site means an area of no more than a three-foot diameter circle (as measured from the inside of the fire ring or border); completely surrounded by non-combustible and non-smoke or odor producing material, either natural rock, cement, brick, tile, blocks or ferrous metal. Burning
barrels are not a recreational fire site as defined herein. Recreational fire sites shall not be located
closer than 25 feet to any structure or combustible material. Running fire means an attended fire allowed to spread through surface vegetative matter under controlled conditions for the purpose of vegetative management, forest management, game habitat
management, or agricultural improvement.
Starter fuels means dry, untreated, unpainted, kindling, branches or charcoal fire starter. Paraffin candles are permitted as a starter fuel and an aid to ignition only. Propane gas torches or other clean gas burning devices causing minimal pollution may be used to start an open burn.
Vegetative materials means dry leaves, dry grass clippings, twigs, branches, tree limbs, and other similar materials. Paper and cardboard are not considered vegetative materials. Wood means dry, clean fuels, twigs, branches, limbs, manufactured fireplace logs, charcoal, or cord
wood. "Wood" does not include wood or wood based products that is green with leaves or needles,
rotten, wet, oil soaked, treated or manufactured with paint, glue, preservatives or other chemicals. 5.12.360 Recreational fires. (a) Recreational fires are allowed without a permit under the following guidelines:
(1) Only clean, dry, wood can be burned.
(2) The fire shall not exceed three feet in diameter with a flame height of three feet maximum. (3) The fire shall take place on the owner's property and shall be a minimum of 15 feet from property lines.
(4) The fire shall not be conducted within 25 feet of a structure or combustible material.
(5) Portable outdoor fireplaces shall be used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and shall not be operated within 15 feet of a structure or combustible material. (6) The fire shall not be conducted if the wind speed exceeds ten miles per hour. (7) The use of flammable or combustible liquid accelerants is not permitted.
(8) The fire must be constantly attended and supervised by an adult until the fire has been
completely extinguished. (9) A connected garden hose or other means to extinguish the fire must be readily available.
(10) Any person planning to have a recreational fire must be aware of local burning bans that have been issued by the state department of natural resources. If a burning ban is in effect, all recreational fires are prohibited. (11) The fire must be extinguished if it becomes a nuisance to others or if not under adult
supervision
5.12.370 Prohibited materials. (a) No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of dimensional lumber, oils, petroleum fuels, rubber, plastic, chemically treated materials, or other materials that
produce excessive or noxious smoke such as, but not limited to: tires; railroad ties;
treated, painted or glued wood composite shingles; tar paper; insulation; composition board; sheet rock; wiring; or paint and paint filters. (b) No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of: hazardous waste or
materials from salvage operations; solid waste generated from an industrial or
manufactured process; materials from a service or commercial establishment; or building materials generated from construction and/or demolition of commercial or institutional structures.
(c) No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of discarded materials
resulting from the handling, processing, storage, preparation, serving or consumption of food. (d) No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of any leaves or grass
clippings.
(e) No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of any wood or other vegetative materials through the use of a burner, as described in Minn. Stat. § 88.16, within the city's jurisdiction.
(f) No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of any materials that have been hauled onto the site. (g) No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning on any commercial property
within the City of Lake Elmo.
5.12.380 Open burning prohibited except by permit. No person shall start or allow any open burning on any property in the city without first having obtained an open burning permit. A permit is not required for any fire which is a recreational/camp
fire as defined in section 5.12.350.
5.12.390 Permitted open burning; special circumstances. (a) Under special or extraordinary circumstances, open burning permits may be issued by the city or by a DNR forestry official for:
(1) Elimination of health hazard that cannot be abated by other practical means, as determined by the commissioner of health or the local health authority.
(2) Ground thawing for utility repair and construction. (3) Running fires (prairie restoration).
(4) Disposal of diseased trees generated on-site, diseased or infected nursery stock, or diseased bee hives. (b) Fire training permits may only be issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR).
(c) Permits for the operation of a permanent tree and brush burning sites may only be issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
5.12.400 Open Burn Permit Application Procedure.
(a) The applicant must submit a completed Open Burn Permit application and fire service fee will
be charged in accordance with the city’s fee schedule
(b) Schedule a preliminary site inspection to locate the proposed burn site.
(c) No burning shall take place without first having obtained an open burn permit.
(d) An extended length of the burn permit shall be determined by the fire chief or designee of the
fire chief.
5.12.410 Denial.
If established criteria for the issuance of an open burning permit are not met, or during review of
said application, it is determined that a practical alternative method of disposal of the material
exists, or a pollution or nuisance condition would result, then the fire chief, or designee of the fire
chief may deny the open burning permit application.
5.12.420 Revocation.
The open burning permit is subject to revocation at the discretion of the city fire chief, or designee
of the fire chief. Reasons for revocation include, but are not limited to: a fire hazard existing or
developing during the course of the burn, any of the conditions of the permit being violated during
the course of the burn, pollution or nuisance conditions developing during the course of the burn, or
a fire smoldering with no flame present.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 2022-01 was adopted on this ______ day of ___ 2022, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
________________________________
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-029 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 2022-01 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No.2022-01, an ordinance amending the City Code of Ordinances by amending the City’s provisions related to the Lake Elmo Fire Department; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance is lengthy; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, subdivision 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No.2022-01 to be published in
the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 2022-01 which amends
Chapter 3.12 related to the purpose and direction of the Fire Department, and Chapter 5.12 related
to open burning.
The full text of Ordinance No. 2022-01 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City Administrator keep a copy of the Ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a copy be placed for public inspection at the Lake Elmo Public Library.
Dated: April 5, 2022.
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor ATTEST:
Julie Johnson, City Clerk (SEAL)
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022
CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Easement and Right-of-Entry Agreements, and Approve
Payment No. 1 for CSAH-13 Phase 2 Improvements
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Marty Powers, Public Works Director
Sam Magureanu, Finance Director Chad Isakson, Assistance City Engineer
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the drainage and utility easement agreements, right-of-entry agreement, and Payment No. 1 for the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 13 Phase 2 Improvements (the Project)? BACKGROUND: On August 17, 2021, the City of Lake Elmo entered into Cooperative Agreement No. 14179 with Washington County for the cost share in the CSAH-13 Phase 2 Improvements, between the City of Lake Elmo, City of Oakdale and Washington County. The project will be constructed in 2022.
The Project includes the reconstruction of Ideal Avenue (CSAH 13) from 800 feet north of 34th Street North (CSAH-14) to 44th Street North. The improvements include new turn lanes and intersection improvements at 36th Street (Lake Elmo Public Works entrance roadway), 38th Street, 39th Street, Lake Jane Trail, and Hidden Bay Trail; together with a center median from 36th Street to Lake Jane Trail, and the realignment of 40th Street in Oakdale to align with the existing Lake Jane Trail intersection. The
improvements also include the construction of a new bituminous trail on the west side of Ideal Avenue along the length of the project. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: As part of the improvements Washington County is acquiring two separate permanent drainage and utility easements from the City of Lake Elmo to construct stormwater management basins, identified as BMP #1 and BMP#2 in the easement agreements. A cost share credit in the amount of $65,100 was negotiated and is addressed in the signed Cooperative Cost Share Agreement and the ongoing ownership and maintenance of the stormwater basins by Washington County was addressed in the Cooperative Maintenance Agreement previously executed by the City and County. In addition, the County is seeking to obtain a right-of-entry (ROE) agreement from the City to provide
temporary construction easement and access within portions of three separate Lake Elmo owned parcels (see parcel exhibits in the attached ROE Agreement). The agreement allows the County to perform clearing and grading operations within the defined ROE areas to construct the project in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications. The agreement requires the County to restore any disturbed areas and fully establish the turf at the completion of the work.
On February 15, 2022, the City approved a Resolution concurring with Washington County to award a Construction Contract for the Project. Following the contract award the initial invoice for the City’s share in the Project cost is invoiced to the City in accordance with the payment schedule provisions of the
Cooperative Agreement. Washington County has submitted the initial invoice for the Project. The amount
invoiced reflects 10% of the City’s share of the total estimated construction cost; and 10% of the City’s share of the total design engineering, construction engineering, and right-of-way costs. The amount due has been credited against the $65,100 BMP credit to the city, resulting in no payment due at this time. The
invoice in the amount of $44,257.48 results in the Credit to the City being reduced from $65,100 down to $20,842.52. The invoice has been reviewed and approval of the invoice is recommended as presented. FISCAL IMPACT: No additional fiscal impact. Payment is proposed in accordance with Cooperative Agreement No. 14179 with Washington County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve, as part of the consent agenda, the drainage and utility easements and right-of-entry agreement for the CSAH-13 Phase 2 Improvements, thereby authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreements, and approving Pay Request #1 for the Project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motions for these actions are as follows:
“Move to approve the drainage and utility easements for BMP #1 and BMP #2, and the right-of-entry agreement for the CSAH 13 Phase 2 Improvements, thereby authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreements.”
And
“Move to approve the initial payment request in the amount of $44,257.48 to Washington County for the CSAH 13 Phase 2 Improvements in accordance Cooperative Agreement No. 14179, resulting in a reduction in the City’s BMP credit from $65,100 down to $20,842.52.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Drainage and Utility Easement for BMP#1 (Northern Parcel).
2. Drainage and Utility Easement for BMP#2 (Southern Parcel).
3. Right of Entry Agreement for Parcels 1602921240002, 1602921230003, and 0902921330004.
4. Washington County Project Invoice per Cooperative Agreement No. 14179.
DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT
Date: ________________________
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the City of Lake Elmo, a body corporate and politic under the laws of
Minnesota, Grantor, hereby conveys to Washington County, a body corporate and politic under the laws
of Minnesota, Grantee, a drainage and utility easement over, under, and across that part of land located
in Washington County, Minnesota, legally described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
Said easement to be in perpetuity, or until the County Board of Commissioners releases said easement.
And said Grantor does hereby agree not to interfere with the drainage within the described easement.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: ____________________________________
Its: ____________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
: ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of _____ , 20____, by
____________________________ the ______________________________ of the City of Lake Elmo, a body
corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota, Grantor.
Notarial Stamp or Seal
Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Washington County Attorney's Office and Washington County Public Works 11660 Myeron Road North
Stillwater, MN 55082
EXHIBIT A
DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
All that part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 29 North, Range 21
West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 89
degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds East, bearings are based on the Washington County Coordinate System
NAD83/1986 Adjustment, along the north line of said South Half, a distance of 60.00 feet to a point on
the east line of the West 60.00 feet of said South Half, and the point of beginning; thence South 00
degrees 03 minutes 54 seconds West, along said east line, a distance of 270.00 feet; thence North 89
degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds East, parallel with the north line of said South Half, a distance of 166.00
feet; thence North 00 degrees 03 minutes 54 seconds West, parallel with the west line of said South
Half, a distance of 167.00 feet; thence North 10 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 47.00
feet; thence North 55 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 35.00 feet; thence South 89
degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds West, parallel with the north line of said South Half, a distance of 78.00
feet; thence North 33 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 43.24 feet to a point on the
north line of said South Half; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds West, along the north line
of said South Half, a distance of 27.74 feet to the point of beginning.
ExistingR/W Line
PropertyBoundary
NewNewRight of WayRight of Way= 39,572 SF= 39,572 SF
Right of EntryRight of Entry
GlWX
ConstructionLimitsIDEAL AVE. N.IDEAL AVE. N.BORDNER'S GARNERBORDNER'S GARNERFARMETTESFARMETTES24
Existing Right of Way = 18,970 SFExisting Right of Way = 18,970 SFRight of EntryRight of Entry
EXISTING ROW 18,970 SFTOTAL NEW ROW 39,572 SF
Bernstetter
C.S.A.H. 13Easement Acquistion
City of Lake Elmo Property
1602921230003Total Parcel +/- 7.65 Ac
±
Washington County Public Works DepartmentSurvey Division
prepared by:
0 10050
Feet
DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT
Date: ________________________
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the City of Lake Elmo, a body corporate and politic under the laws of
Minnesota, Grantor, hereby conveys to Washington County, a body corporate and politic under the laws
of Minnesota, Grantee, a drainage and utility easement over, under, and across that part of land located
in Washington County, Minnesota, legally described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
Said easement to be in perpetuity, or until the County Board of Commissioners releases said easement.
And said Grantor does hereby agree not to interfere with the drainage within the described easement.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: ____________________________________
Its: ____________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
: ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of _____ , 20____, by
____________________________ the ______________________________ of the City of Lake Elmo, a body
corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota, Grantor.
Notarial Stamp or Seal
Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Washington County Attorney's Office and Washington County Public Works 11660 Myeron Road North
Stillwater, MN 55082
EXHIBIT A
DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
All that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16,
Township 29 north, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of the said Northwest Quarter of Section 16;
thence North 00 degrees 03 minutes 54 seconds West, bearing are based on the
Washington County Coordinate System NAD83 1986 Adjustment, along the west line of
said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 440.12 feet; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes
06 seconds East a distance of 75.00 feet to a point on the east line of the West 75.00
feet of said Northwest Quarter; said point being the northwest corner of a perpetual
public drainage and utility easement recorded as Document No. 943067, and the point
of beginning; thence continuing North 89 degrees 56 minutes 06 seconds East, along
the northerly line of said drainage and utility easement, a distance of 20.78 feet; thence
North 14 degrees 56 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 209.49 feet; thence North 25
degrees 03 minutes 54 seconds West a distance of 30.00 feet; thence North 55 degrees
03 minutes 54 seconds West a distance of 25.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 56
minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 25.75 feet; thence South 61 degrees 23 minutes
55 seconds West a distance of 18.31 feet to a point on said east line of the West 75.00
feet of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 03 minutes 54 seconds East,
along said east line, a distance of 245.13 feet to the point of beginning.
ExistingR/W Line
PropertyBoundary
DrainageDrainage& Utility& UtilityEasementEasement= 12,984 SF= 12,984 SF
RightRightof Entryof Entry
GlWX
ConstructionLimits
IDEAL AVE. N.IDEAL AVE. N.24
Existing Right of Way = 62,922 SFExisting Right of Way = 62,922 SFGnWX
EXISTING ROW 62,922 SFTOTAL D&U EASE 12,984 SF
Bernstetter
C.S.A.H. 13Easement Acquistion
City of Lake Elmo Propertypart of 1602921240002Total Parcel +/- 95.97 Ac
±
Washington County Public Works DepartmentSurvey Division
prepared by:
0 100 20050Feet
RIGHT OF ENTRY
Dated: _____________ Property Information:
Parcel ID Number Property Owner Property Address 16.029.21.24.0002 & 16.029.21.23.0003 &
09.029.21.33.0004
City of Lake Elmo n/a
By signing this agreement, The above hereby grants and permits WASHINGTON COUNTY AND ITS DESIGNATED AGENTS, the right to enter upon the above described property (3 maps are attached and show the specified Right of Entry areas in green) for the sole purposes of:
• Clearing and grading the areas as a part of the County Highway 13 Roadway Improvement Project.
• After the work is complete, the disturbed areas will be regraded and restored with topsoil and a natural grass seed mix; as stated in the approved project construction plans.
All parties acknowledge that:
• This work will be done and paid for as a part of the County Highway 13 Roadway Improvement Project.
• This work may disturb grassy areas within the Right of Entry area on the attached maps. Restoration of
any disturbed area will be done as an expense of the above-mentioned project.
• It is property owner’s responsibility to take care of and maintain the Right of Entry area (on attached maps) after the work has been completed and turf establishment has been fully achieved. The right of entry begins the date above indicated and expires at the completion of the work stated above or
July 31, 2023 whichever comes first. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: _____________________________
Its: _____________________________
ExistingR/W Line
PropertyBoundary
DrainageDrainage& Utility& UtilityEasementEasement= 12,984 SF= 12,984 SF
RightRightof Entryof Entry
GlWX
ConstructionLimits
IDEAL AVE. N.IDEAL AVE. N.24
Existing Right of Way = 62,922 SFExisting Right of Way = 62,922 SFGnWX
EXISTING ROW 62,922 SFTOTAL D&U EASE 12,984 SF
Bernstetter
C.S.A.H. 13Easement Acquistion
City of Lake Elmo Propertypart of 1602921240002Total Parcel +/- 95.97 Ac
±
Washington County Public Works DepartmentSurvey Division
prepared by:
0 100 20050Feet
ExistingR/W Line
PropertyBoundary
NewNewRight of WayRight of Way= 39,572 SF= 39,572 SF
Right of EntryRight of Entry
GlWX
ConstructionLimitsIDEAL AVE. N.IDEAL AVE. N.BORDNER'S GARNERBORDNER'S GARNERFARMETTESFARMETTES24
Existing Right of Way = 18,970 SFExisting Right of Way = 18,970 SFRight of EntryRight of Entry
EXISTING ROW 18,970 SFTOTAL NEW ROW 39,572 SF
Bernstetter
C.S.A.H. 13Easement Acquistion
City of Lake Elmo Property
1602921230003Total Parcel +/- 7.65 Ac
±
Washington County Public Works DepartmentSurvey Division
prepared by:
0 10050
Feet
40TH ST. N.40TH ST. N.
ExistingR/W Line PropertyBoundary
Right of EntryRight of Entry
GlWX
ConstructionLimitsIDEAL AVE. N.IDEAL AVE. N.Costello
C.S.A.H. 13Easement Acquistion
City of Lake Elmo Property0902921330004Total Parcel +/- 18.33 Ac
±
Washington County Public Works DepartmentSurvey Division
prepared by:
0 15075Feet
CSAH 13-CSAH 14 to 44th Ph II
City of Lake Elmo
County/City Cooperative Agreement #14179
Initial Billing
2/22/2022
Estimated Cost Share
(Post Bid)Initial Invoice Previously Paid
Current Amount
Due
Construction 652,335.03$
Design Engineering 106,330.00$
Construction Engineering/Contract Administration 52,186.80$
Right of Way 195,000.00$
Total Combined Cities Cost Share 1,005,851.83$
Cities Agreement - Lake Elmo 44% of total 442,574.80$ 44,257.48$ -$ 44,257.48$
BMP Credit (65,100.00)$ (65,100.00)$ -$ (65,100.00)$
TOTAL 377,474.80$ (20,842.52)$ -$ (20,842.52)$
BMP Credit exceeds the County's invoice of the City's 10 percent. Remaining amount of BMP Credit will be applied to the next partial estimate.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022
CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM: Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Marty Powers, Public Works Director Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council accept bids and award a contract for the Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements? BACKGROUND: On February 15, 2022, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements and authorized staff to advertise the
project for bids. The Project was advertised on QuestCDN.com and in the Stillwater Gazette in accordance with the Minnesota Competitive Bidding requirements.
The City of Lake Elmo was approved to receive grant funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under the 2018 3M Settlement Agreement as an expedited project to extend municipal water and connect each of the 62 properties. The grant is in the amount of $5,200,000 and includes the
public and private water system improvements, and the street and drainage improvements. The terms of the grant are outlined in the Grant Agreement between the City of Lake Elmo and the MPCA dated April 2, 2021. The neighborhood is located in a Special Well Construction Area (SWCA) as designated by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) after the discovery of PFAS groundwater contamination. Forty-seven (47) well advisories have been issued. The Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements includes the extension of public watermain from Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) into and throughout the Parkview Estates, Cardinal Ridge and Cardinal View subdivisions, and along 15th Street North to provide clean drinking water to 62 properties. Watermain will be installed through directional drilling to minimize impacts to the streets and boulevards. Individual water service stubs will be installed to the edge of right-of-way at each of the 62 properties. The
project will include grant funding and administrative processes for encouraging each property to complete the private service connection from the right-of-way to each home, including water meter installation, removal of granular activated carbon treatment systems (if applicable), sealing of any private well, and all
permitting and connection fees. The private water connection and well sealing improvements will be contracted separately by each property owner.
Following the watermain installation, street and drainage improvements will be completed along the public streets located in the project area, including Ivory Avenue, Ivory Court, 16th Street, Ivy Avenue, 15th Street Court and 15th Street. The street improvements will include a full-depth reclamation of the existing bituminous pavement to a depth of 9-inches and a new bituminous surface will be paved over the recycled aggregate base. The street reclamation will be completed to restore each street to its approximate existing width to control costs and minimize impacts to the adjacent properties. D418 concrete curb and gutter will be installed to replace the existing bituminous curb along the urban section roadways. Concrete ribbon curb will be installed along the existing rural section streets within a residential neighborhood, including Ivory
Avenue and Ivory Court. A 24-inch gravel shoulder will be restored along the existing rural section of 15th
Street north (non-residential roadway). PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: A public improvement hearing was held on March 15, 2022 and
property owners were provided the opportunity to address the City Council regarding the proposed improvements. Following the hearing the council adopted a Resolution to Order the Improvements. Bids were received and opened electronically on March 16, 2022. The City received 4 bids for this project, with
T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. providing the lowest bid in the amount of $3,309,523.20. Contractor references for T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc were reviewed by the City’s engineering consultant for the project and a letter recommending the award of the project is attached as part of this agenda item. The City Engineer and his consultant are therefore recommending that the Council award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc as outlined in the attached letter. As a part of this award staff is requesting Council to provide the City Administrator authorization to enter into a material testing contract for the geotechnical construction phase services for the project in the not-to-exceed amount of $42,000. Staff has requested proposals from Braun Intertec and AET, Inc. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this resolution commits the council to enter into a construction contract
for the project. The total estimated Post-bid project cost is $5,200,000.00. This includes $2,286,432 for the public watermain improvements, $1,877,793 for the street and drainage improvements, and $1,035,775 for the private water service connections/well sealing improvements. All improvements will be funded through
a grant from the MPCA under the 2018 3M Settlement Agreement as an expedited project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve, as part of the consent
agenda, a resolution accepting bids and awarding a contract to T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. in the low bid amount of $3,309,523.20 for the Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve Resolution No. 2022–XXX, accepting bids and awarding a contract to T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $3,309,523.20 for the Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements.” Staff is also recommending that the City Council authorize, as part of the consent agenda, the City Administrator to enter into a material testing contract for geotechnical construction phase services for the project, in the not-to-exceed amount of $42,000. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to authorize the City Administrator to enter into a material testing contract for geotechnical
construction phase services in the not-to-exceed amount of $42,000 for the Parkview-Cardinal
Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements.”
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding a Contract for the Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood
Street and Utility Improvements. 2. Letter of Award Recommendation and Tabulation of Bids. 3. Project Schedule.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-031 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PARKVIEW-CARDINAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and bids were received complying with the advertisement; and WHEREAS, bids were tabulated, checked and summarized to verify that all
requirements of the submittal were met; and WHEREAS, the project engineer reviewed the bids and has provided a letter recommending the award of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc., for the bid amount of $3,309,523.20.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Contract in the accordance with the above ordered Project, in the amount of the Contractor’s
lowest responsible bid, and according to the plans and specifications thereof approved by the City Council. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the
next two lowest bidders shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, 2022.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: __________________________
Charles Cadenhead (Seal) Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________
Julie Johnson City Clerk
h:\lkelmn\0n1125134\6_plans-specs\b_bid documents\125134 award ltr.docx
March 25, 2022
Jack Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Avenue N Suite 100
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
RE: Parkview-Cardinal Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements
City of Lake Elmo, MN
City Project No. 2020.121
BMI Project No. 0N1.125134
Dear Mr. Griffin,
Attached is the bid abstract for the project referenced above. Bids were received at 10:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, March 16, 2022. The following is a summary of the bids received:
Bidder Total Bid
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. $3,309,523.20
Bituminous Roadways Inc. $3,445,081.80
A-1 Excavating Inc. $3,566,217.00
Northdale Construction Company, Inc. $3,586,047.66
We have reviewed the bids and recommend awarding this bid to T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. in the
amount of $3,309,523.20.
Sincerely,
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Michael R. Warner, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Enclosure
ABSTRACT OF BIDSPARKVIEW-CARDINAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCITY PROJECT NO. 2020.121CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MNBID DATE: MARCH 16, 2022 AT 10:00 AM1234NO. ITEMUNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICEBASE BID1 MOBILIZATIONLS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $66,000.00 $66,000.00 $188,000.00 $188,000.00 $95,657.50 $95,657.502 TRAFFIC CONTROLLS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $12,000.00$12,000.00 $3,465.00 $3,465.003 CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTIONEA 10 $125.00 $1,250.00 $200.00 $2,000.00 $240.00 $2,400.00$200.00 $2,000.004 CULVERT INLET PROTECTIONEA 33 $125.00 $4,125.00 $150.00 $4,950.00 $90.00 $2,970.00 $200.00 $6,600.005 SILT FENCE, MACHINE SLICEDLF 500 $3.00 $1,500.00 $2.40 $1,200.00 $4.00 $2,000.00 $5.00 $2,500.006 CLEARINGEA 4 $468.00 $1,872.00 $370.00 $1,480.00 $400.00 $1,600.00 $472.50 $1,890.007 GRUBBINGEA 4 $104.00 $416.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $270.00 $1,080.00 $105.00 $420.008 CLEAR BRUSH AT STRUCTURE / END SECTIONEA 6 $780.00 $4,680.00 $260.00 $1,560.00 $100.00 $600.00 $787.50 $4,725.009 CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATERMAINEA 2 $962.00 $1,924.00 $4,100.00 $8,200.00 $3,200.00 $6,400.00 $11,862.28 $23,724.5610 HYDRANTEA 21 $7,855.12 $164,957.52 $7,700.00 $161,700.00 $6,900.00 $144,900.00 $6,599.68 $138,593.2811 HYDRANT EXTENSIONLF 11 $1,034.80 $11,382.80 $1,300.00 $14,300.00 $1,200.00$13,200.00 $1,283.88 $14,122.6812 CONCRETE HYDRANT SPLASH PADSF 76 $72.80 $5,532.80 $69.40 $5,274.40 $68.00 $5,168.00 $68.78 $5,227.2813 6" GATE VALVE AND BOXEA 21 $4,160.00 $87,360.00 $3,500.00 $73,500.00 $1,975.00 $41,475.00 $4,482.13 $94,124.7314 8" GATE VALVE AND BOXEA 17 $4,784.00 $81,328.00 $4,000.00 $68,000.00 $2,800.00 $47,600.00 $5,117.45 $86,996.6515 VALVE BOX EXTENSIONLF 38 $80.08 $3,043.04 $140.00 $5,320.00 $140.00 $5,320.00$273.10 $10,377.8016 1" CORPORATION STOP W/ SADDLEEA 41 $435.76 $17,866.16 $790.00 $32,390.00 $510.00 $20,910.00 $584.28 $23,955.4817 1.5" CORPORATION STOP W/ SADDLEEA 22 $612.56 $13,476.32 $920.00 $20,240.00 $770.00 $16,940.00 $833.23 $18,331.0618 1" CURB STOP & BOXEA 41 $395.20 $16,203.20 $850.00 $34,850.00 $770.00 $31,570.00 $647.25 $26,537.2519 1.5" CURB STOP & BOXEA 22 $635.44 $13,979.68 $1,100.00 $24,200.00 $990.00 $21,780.00 $952.58 $20,956.7620 CURB BOX CASTINGEA 1 $616.72 $616.72 $310.00 $310.00 $400.00 $400.00 $688.13$688.1321 1" TYPE "K" COPPER WATER SERVICELF 1,930 $45.76 $88,316.80 $41.50 $80,095.00 $59.00 $113,870.00 $48.13 $92,890.9022 1.5" TYPE "K" COPPER WATER SERVICELF 770 $54.08 $41,641.60 $54.20 $41,734.00 $69.00 $53,130.00 $53.94 $41,533.8023 1.5" TYPE "K" COPPER WATER SERVICE, DIRECTIONAL DRILL LF630 $41.60 $26,208.00 $63.80 $40,194.00 $62.00 $39,060.00$53.94 $33,982.2024 6" DIP, CL. 52 WATERMAIN, INCL POLY WRAPLF 250 $67.60 $16,900.00 $69.10 $17,275.00 $84.00 $21,000.00 $76.49 $19,122.5025 10" HDPE WATERMAIN, DIRECTIONAL DRILLLF 11,950 $74.88 $894,816.00 $79.70 $952,415.00 $86.00 $1,027,700.00 $74.08 $885,256.0026 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGSLB 2,800 $7.28 $20,384.00 $11.70 $32,760.00 $14.00 $39,200.00 $16.79 $47,012.0027 10" HDPE TO 8" DIP TRANSITION FITTINGEA 55 $826.80 $45,474.00 $1,500.00 $82,500.00 $1,880.00 $103,400.00 $2,243.75 $123,406.2528 4" INSULATIONSY 22 $82.16 $1,807.52 $43.60 $959.20 $60.00 $1,320.00 $65.52 $1,441.44T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC. BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC. A-1 EXCAVATING INC. NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
ABSTRACT OF BIDSPARKVIEW-CARDINAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCITY PROJECT NO. 2020.121CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MNBID DATE: MARCH 16, 2022 AT 10:00 AM1234NO. ITEMUNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICET.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC. BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC. A-1 EXCAVATING INC. NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.29 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE LF 7 $75.92 $531.44 $12.80 $89.60 $40.00 $280.00 $30.00 $210.0030 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER STRUCTURE EA 1 $764.40 $764.40 $530.00 $530.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.0031 CONNECT EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE TO NEW STRUCTURE EA 3 $1,560.00 $4,680.00 $850.00 $2,550.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 $1,916.67 $5,750.0132 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPEEA 2 $587.60 $1,175.20 $690.00 $1,380.00 $1,300.00 $2,600.00 $1,437.50 $2,875.0033 2'X3' CATCH BASIN WITH CASTING PER DETAIL 404 EA 1 $2,704.00 $2,704.00 $3,100.00 $3,100.00 $4,100.00 $4,100.00 $3,924.12 $3,924.1234 4' DIA CBMH WITH CASTING PER DETAIL 406EA 1 $3,744.00 $3,744.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $5,650.00 $5,650.00 $4,295.00 $4,295.0035 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL 18" RCP FLARED END SECTION EA 2 $346.32 $692.64 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $768.75$1,537.5036 18" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5LF 40 $126.88 $5,075.20 $76.50 $3,060.00 $95.00 $3,800.00 $83.63 $3,345.2037 PATCH DOGHOUSE/INVERTEA 5 $1,118.00 $5,590.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.0038 REMOVE AND REPLACE RIPRAP (CL III WITH FABRIC) CY 40 $166.40 $6,656.00 $120.00 $4,800.00 $80.00 $3,200.00 $200.00$8,000.0039 RIPRAP, CLASS IIICY 2 $166.40 $332.80 $190.00 $380.00 $200.00 $400.00 $250.00 $500.0040 JET / CLEAN STORM PIPELF 630 $5.20 $3,276.00 $12.60 $7,938.00 $5.00 $3,150.00 $9.58 $6,035.4041 CLEAN OUT (VACUUM) SUMPEA 8 $114.40 $915.20 $420.00 $3,360.00 $250.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 $4,000.0042 DITCH GRADINGLF 310 $15.00 $4,650.00 $10.10 $3,131.00 $20.00 $6,200.00 $25.00 $7,750.0043 REMOVE AND REPLACE CASTING AND RINGS (R-3015-L) EA 8 $1,200.00 $9,600.00 $1,300.00 $10,400.00 $1,525.00 $12,200.00 $1,988.42 $15,907.3644 REMOVE AND REPLACE CASTING AND RINGS (R-3067-VB) EA 3 $1,100.00 $3,300.00 $1,100.00 $3,300.00 $1,225.00 $3,675.00$1,701.54 $5,104.6245 REMOVE AND REPLACE CASTING AND RINGS (R-3067-V) EA 2 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 $1,225.00 $2,450.00 $1,701.39 $3,402.7846 REMOVE AND REPLACE CASTING AND RINGS (R-1642-B) EA 1 $1,275.00 $1,275.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,025.00 $1,025.00 $1,533.69 $1,533.6947 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL CASTING W/ NEW RINGS EA 1 $925.00 $925.00 $990.00 $990.00 $400.00 $400.00 $1,163.88 $1,163.8848 SALVAGE & REINSTALL MAILBOXEA 56 $100.00 $5,600.00 $210.00 $11,760.00 $210.00 $11,760.00 $210.00 $11,760.0049 TEMPORARY MAILBOXEA 63 $25.00 $1,575.00 $78.90 $4,970.70 $70.00 $4,410.00 $78.75 $4,961.2550 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTLF 750 $1.87 $1,402.50 $1.90 $1,425.00 $4.00 $3,000.00 $1.89 $1,417.5051 SAWCUT CONCRETE PAVEMENTLF 610 $5.15 $3,141.50 $4.20 $2,562.00 $6.00 $3,660.00 $5.20 $3,172.0052 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY / TRAIL) SY 490 $5.00 $2,450.00 $9.20 $4,508.00 $8.00 $3,920.00 $10.00 $4,900.0053 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY) SY 420 $10.00 $4,200.00 $17.00 $7,140.00 $10.00 $4,200.00 $12.50 $5,250.0054 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 130 $8.00 $1,040.00 $13.00 $1,690.00 $6.00 $780.00 $10.00 $1,300.0055 RECLAIM EXISTING BITUMINOUS AND BASE MATERIAL SY 35,590$4.00 $142,360.00 $1.00 $35,590.00 $2.50 $88,975.00 $2.96$105,346.4056 HAUL EXCESS RECLAIMED MATERIAL OFF-SITE (LV) CY 3,680 $0.01 $36.80 $23.50 $86,480.00 $12.00 $44,160.00 $20.00 $73,600.0057 COMMON EXCAVATION - WIDENING AREASCY 110 $0.01 $1.10 $48.80 $5,368.00 $30.00 $3,300.00 $50.00$5,500.00
ABSTRACT OF BIDSPARKVIEW-CARDINAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCITY PROJECT NO. 2020.121CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MNBID DATE: MARCH 16, 2022 AT 10:00 AM1234NO. ITEMUNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICET.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC. BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC. A-1 EXCAVATING INC. NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.58 SELECT GRANULAR BORROWTN 140 $0.01 $1.40 $11.30 $1,582.00 $21.00 $2,940.00 $35.80$5,012.0059 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL RECLAIM MATERIAL (CV) CY 130 $0.01$1.30 $13.80 $1,794.00 $20.00 $2,600.00 $20.00 $2,600.0060 AGGREGATE SHOULDER, CLASS 2TN 390 $25.00 $9,750.00 $34.40 $13,416.00 $30.00 $11,700.00 $33.27 $12,975.3061 PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAYTN 40 $25.00 $1,000.00 $36.30 $1,452.00 $30.00 $1,200.00 $31.45 $1,258.0062 CORE DRILL 4" DRAIN TILE CONNECTION INTO EXISTING CATCH BASIN EA 12 $1,700.00 $20,400.00 $990.00 $11,880.00 $400.00 $4,800.00 $500.00 $6,000.0063 4" PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAIN W/ BACKFILL & WRAP LF 800 $27.00 $21,600.00 $33.00 $26,400.00 $35.00 $28,000.00 $58.04 $46,432.0064 DRAIN TILE CLEANOUTEA 16 $250.00 $4,000.00 $800.00 $12,800.00 $785.00 $12,560.00 $325.25 $5,204.0065 SUBGRADE CORRECTION (EV)CY 1,250 $0.01 $12.50 $42.10 $52,625.00 $25.00 $31,250.00 $50.00 $62,500.0066 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE RS 104 $325.00$33,800.00 $230.00 $23,920.00 $160.00 $16,640.00 $400.00$41,600.0067SALVAGE, STOCKPILE, AND RESPREAD RECLAIMED MATERIAL (UTILITY TRENCHES)LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $17,500.00 $17,500.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $11,500.00 $11,500.0068 TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,C) [SPWEA230C] TN 3,220 $82.95 $267,099.00 $91.60 $294,952.00 $85.00 $273,700.00 $83.95 $270,319.0069TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,C) [SPNWB230C]TN 4,290 $81.90 $351,351.00 $82.40 $353,496.00 $77.00 $330,330.00 $75.44 $323,637.6070 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COATGAL 2,380 $0.01 $23.80 $3.10 $7,378.00 $3.15 $7,497.00 $3.64 $8,663.2071 PATCH BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY / TRAILSY 410 $28.00 $11,480.00 $32.60 $13,366.00 $45.00 $18,450.00 $60.23 $24,694.3072 B418 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLF 8,420 $15.24 $128,320.80 $14.40 $121,248.00 $14.55 $122,511.00 $14.33 $120,658.6073 B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERLF 630 $19.86 $12,511.80 $19.10 $12,033.00 $19.25 $12,127.50 $19.01 $11,976.3074 D312 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERLF 210 $22.88 $4,804.80 $21.80 $4,578.00 $22.00 $4,620.00 $21.79 $4,575.9075 SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 160 $27.04 $4,326.40 $27.30 $4,368.00 $27.50 $4,400.00 $27.20 $4,352.0076 RIBBON CONCRETE CURBLF 7,900 $11.18 $88,322.00 $10.30 $81,370.00 $10.40 $82,160.00 $10.24 $80,896.0077 CONCRETE MATURITY TESTINGLS 1 $2,340.00 $2,340.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,362.50 $2,362.5078 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALKSF 80 $9.36 $748.80 $8.40 $672.00 $9.00 $720.00 $12.98 $1,038.4079 6" CONCRETE FLUMESF 120 $12.48 $1,497.60 $11.10 $1,332.00 $11.50 $1,380.00 $15.61 $1,873.2080 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTSY 420 $96.72 $40,622.40 $99.80 $41,916.00 $105.00 $44,100.00 $125.60 $52,752.0081 CONCRETE APPROACH NOSESY 20 $150.80 $3,016.00 $150.00 $3,000.00 $153.00 $3,060.00 $175.01 $3,500.2082 6" CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMPSF 610 $21.84 $13,322.40 $17.50 $10,675.00 $18.00 $10,980.00 $47.06 $28,706.6083 TRUNCATED DOME PANELSSF 112 $48.88 $5,474.56 $49.50 $5,544.00 $50.00 $5,600.00 $54.35 $6,087.2084 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL PAVERSSF 100 $5.00 $500.00 $28.10 $2,810.00 $30.00 $3,000.00 $28.90 $2,890.0085 ADJUST VALVE BOXEA 5 $425.00 $2,125.00 $380.00 $1,900.00 $200.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $2,500.0086 REMOVE SIGN AND POSTEA 17 $26.00 $442.00 $26.30 $447.10 $30.00 $510.00 $42.00 $714.00
ABSTRACT OF BIDSPARKVIEW-CARDINAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCITY PROJECT NO. 2020.121CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MNBID DATE: MARCH 16, 2022 AT 10:00 AM1234NO. ITEMUNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICET.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC. BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC. A-1 EXCAVATING INC. NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.87 REMOVE BARRICADEEA 1 $36.40 $36.40 $36.80 $36.80 $40.00 $40.00 $63.00 $63.0088 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGNEA 4 $119.60 $478.40 $120.00 $480.00 $125.00 $500.00 $315.00$1,260.0089 SIGN PANELS TYPE CSF 100 $93.60 $9,360.00 $94.70 $9,470.00 $100.00 $10,000.00 $110.25 $11,025.0090 STREET NAME BLADEEA 8 $98.80 $790.40 $100.00 $800.00 $105.00 $840.00 $168.00 $1,344.0091 PERMANENT BARRICADEEA 3 $364.00 $1,092.00 $370.00 $1,110.00 $380.00 $1,140.00 $472.50 $1,417.5092 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)CY 3,950 $0.01 $39.50 $47.00 $185,650.00 $31.00 $122,450.00 $45.00 $177,750.0093 SEED MIXTURE 25-131 & EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SY 14,110 $5.72 $80,709.20 $2.00 $28,220.00 $4.00 $56,440.00 $2.02 $28,502.2094 SODSY 13,390 $10.92 $146,218.80 $6.80 $91,052.00 $7.65 $102,433.50 $6.67 $89,311.3095 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICK UP BROOMHR 30 $165.00 $4,950.00 $170.00 $5,100.00 $165.00 $4,950.00 $133.88 $4,016.40TOTAL BASE BID$3,309,523.20 $3,445,081.80 $3,566,217.00 $3,586,047.66
PROJECT SCHEDULE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
PARKVIEW‐CARDINAL NEIGHBORHOOD
STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 2020.121
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
APRIL 6, 2021 Council Approves MPCA Grant Agreement.
JULY 20, 2021 Council orders preparation of Feasibility Report and Design Phase Services.
FEBRUARY 15, 2022 Presentation of Feasibility Report. Council accepts Report and calls for
Improvement Hearing. Council approves Plans and Specifications and orders
Advertisement for Bids.
MARCH 15, 2022 Public Improvement Hearing. Council Orders the Improvement (4/5th Vote).
MARCH 16, 2022 Project Bid Date: Receive contractor bids.
APRIL 5, 2022 Council accepts Bids and awards Contract.
APRIL/MAY, 2022 Conduct Pre‐Construction Meeting and issue Notice to Proceed.
OCTOBER 14, 2022 Substantial Completion.
NOVEMBER 25, 2022 Final Completion.
*Final Assessment Hearing Schedule TBD (2023)
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022
CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM: NorthPoint Purchase Agreement Amendment #2
SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND: At the June 15, 2021 Council meeting, council approved a purchase agreement with NorthPoint Development for the 77 acres south of CSAH 14 and east of Ideal Ave. Amendment #1 was approved in October. Driven by timeline concerns and sewer obligations, staff worked with NorthPoint on another
amendment. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the Council approve Amendment #2 to the purchase agreement approved June 15, 2021 with NorthPoint Development? PROPOSAL: This amendment deletes language that requires the City to have sewer available by October 15, 2022 (though we still intend to move forward with the sewer project) in exchange for removing the language requiring NorthPoint to be responsible for any costs incurred for canceling the sewer contract should NorthPoint not move forward with the purchase.
The approvals period was set to expire in July. Due to the inability to get final plat by that time, the approvals period is pushed out to August 19, 2022 and includes the rezoning, preliminary plat and PUD
and final plat and PUD. If the following timeline is adhered to, this date can be met:
Application: Original Schedule Modified
Schedule
Concept Plan Submittal 11/29/2021 11/29/2021
Staff return comments 1/14/2022 01/16/2022
Preliminary Plat and PUD and Rezoning Submittal 1/28/2022 04/08/2022
Planning Commission Hearing on above 2/28/2022 05/09/2022
City Council consideration of above 3/15/2021 06/07/2022
Final Plat and PUD Submittal 3/25/2022 06/24/2022
Planning Commission consideration above 4/25/2022 07/25/2022
City Council consideration of above 5/17/2022 08/16/2022
Development Agreement Council Approval 5/17 or 6/7 08/16/2022
OPTIONS: 1) Approve Amendment #2 2) Do not approve amendment #2
RECOMMENDATION: If removed from the consent agenda: “Motion to approve Amendment #2 to the Purchase Agreement with NorthPoint Development.”
ATTACHMENT:
• Amendment #2
1
LA515-94-788229.v2
SECOND AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE SALE CONTRACT
THIS SECOND AMENDEMENT TO REAL ESTATE SALE CONTRACT (this
“Amendment”) is entered into this ___ day of April, 2022, by and between NorthPoint
Development, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company, or assigns (“Buyer”) and City of Lake
Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Seller”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller entered into that certain Real Estate Sale Contract dated
June 17, 2021, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Real Estate Contract dated
October 5, 2021 (the “First Amendment”) (collectively, the “Contract”), pursuant to which
Buyer agreed to purchase certain real property located at Ideal Ave., South of CSAH 14, Lake
Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota (a portion of Tax ID 16.029.21.24.0002), as more
particularly described therein; and
WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller desire to amend the Contract as more specifically set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and
obligations contained in this Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by and between Buyer and Seller
as follows:
1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning
given to such terms in the Contract.
2. Due Diligence Period; Approvals Period. Section 7 of the Contract is hereby
deleted and replaced with the following:
3. Due Diligence Period; Approvals Period.
a. Buyer shall have until 11:59 p.m. (Lake Elmo, Minnesota local time) on
the date occurring ninety (90) days following the later of (i) the Effective
Date, and (ii) the date upon which all Due Diligence Materials are delivered to
Buyer (the “Due Diligence Period”) to inspect the legal and physical condition
of the Property, conduct such due diligence activities and inspections, pursue
such governmental approvals, and conduct such other activities and reviews
with respect to the Property and Buyer’s intended use thereof as Buyer shall
deem appropriate. During the term of this Contract, Seller shall cooperate
with Buyer in connection with such due diligence activities, including,
without limitation, authorizing and executing the submittal of zoning,
planning, and platting applications, and applications or petitions in connection
with any financial incentives sought by Buyer in connection with the Property.
Buyer shall be responsible for the costs of said applications and petitions,
including the costs to prepare said applications and petitions.
2
LA515-94-788229.v2
b. If Buyer determines for any or no reason, in its sole and absolute discretion,
that it does not desire to purchase the Property, Buyer shall have the right to
terminate this Contract by giving written notice to Seller on or before the
expiration of the Due Diligence Period, in which event the entire Earnest
Deposit shall be returned to Buyer, and the parties shall have no further
obligations to one another.
c. Buyer shall have from the expiration of the Due Diligence Period until 11:59
p.m. (Lake Elmo, Minnesota local time) on August 19, 2022 (the “Approvals
Period”) to continue pursuing the following governmental approvals,
rezoning, preliminary plat/preliminary planned unit development plan and
final plat/final planned unit development plan (collectively, the “Approvals”).
d. If Buyer is unable to obtain, or reasonably believes that it will be unable to
obtain, any and all Approvals on or prior to the expiration of the Approvals
Period, Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Contract by giving written
notice to Seller on or before the expiration of the Approvals Period. In the
event that Buyer terminates this Contract pursuant to this Section 7(d), the
entire Earnest Deposit shall be returned to Buyer, and the parties shall have no
further obligations to one another.
4. Sewer Line Extension and Installation. Section 29 of the Contract (as inserted
pursuant to the First Amendment) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
29. Sewer Line Extension and Installation. Seller shall be responsible for designing and
constructing that certain sewer line extension depicted as “Route A” on Exhibit B (the
“Route A Extension”), for the benefit of Buyer’s proposed industrial warehouse
development, by constructing the existing sewer line from the City of Oakdale’s lift
station to 31st Street along the portion of the southern boundary of the Property, as
generally depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto.
Buyer will be responsible for the cost of permitting and the sewer line installation from
the center portion of the southern boundary of the Property under Union Pacific's rail line
to the northern parcel as depicted as “Route B” on Exhibit B (the “Route B Extension”)
attached hereto (together, the Route A Extension and the Route B Extension constitute
the “Sewer Line Extension”). Seller shall reasonably assist Buyer during the permitting
process of the Sewer Line Extension, which may include acting as the applicant on any
necessary permits, as may be deemed required by Buyer, and such assistance shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Seller and Buyer assume the Sewer Line Extension shall remain a
public utility.
Seller hereby gives Buyer the right to coordinate with the City of Oakdale, from time to
time, on the design and construction of the that certain lift station expansion for the
benefit of Buyer’s proposed industrial warehouse development.
This Section shall survive Closing.
3
LA515-94-788229.v2
5. Closing Conditions. Section 8(d) of the Contract (as inserted pursuant to the First
Amendment) is hereby deleted in its entirety.
6. Amendment Controls; Ratification and Affirmation. In the event that the terms of
this Amendment and the Contract are held to be inconsistent, the terms of this Amendment shall
control. The parties each agree and warrant that, in all other respects, the Contract is
unmodified, in full force and effect, and each party hereby ratifies and affirms the Contract and
any terms contained therein not otherwise modified by this Amendment.
7. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same
instrument. Each party may rely upon facsimile or electronic mail counterparts of this
Amendment signed by the other party with the same effect as if such party had received an
original counterpart signed by such other party.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
4
LA515-94-788229.v2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first
written above.
BUYER:
NorthPoint Development, LLC, a Missouri
limited liability company
By:
Nathaniel Hagedorn, Manager
SELLER:
City of Lake Elmo
By:
Charles Cadenhead
Its: Mayor
By:
Julie Johnson
Its: City Clerk
5
LA515-94-788229.v2
EXHIBIT B
Sewer Line Extension
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022 CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM: Step Increase, Building Official John Taylor
SUBMITTED BY: Jake Dickson, Assistant City Administrator
BACKGROUND: Per the city’s Compensation Policy, “A probationary employee may advance to the next pay step after satisfactorily completing six months of employment which meets performance expectations, subject to approval of the City Council… Determination of satisfactory performance must be recommended by the immediate supervisor on forms prescribed by the City Administrator.” John Taylor was hired as Building Official effective October 4, 2021. His probationary period ended April 4, 2022. A probationary performance review was completed, discussed by the employee and city administrator. The discussion included a review of performance as it relates to the Building Official essential functions and sets out goals for the next review period. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the Council approve a step increase for Taylor? PROPOSAL: Staff recommends Taylor receive one step increase effective April 4, 2022. H was hired at step 3 and would move to step 4 in the non-represented pay plan. Step 4 is a biweekly pay rate of $3,668.
FISCAL IMPACT: Employee wage adjustments consistent with the Compensation Policy and Pay Plan were included in the 2022 budget. RECOMMENDATION: If removed from the consent agenda:
“Motion to approve a step increase to $3,668 biweekly for John Taylor effective April 4, 2022.” ATTACHMENTS:
• None
TIil, .CITY OF _lt\.KE ELMO TO: City Council From: John Taylor, Building Official STAFF REPORT DATE:
CONSENT
ITEM#:
March 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Purchase CIP Project B-003 -2022 Chevy Equinox LS replacement and use
this to retire 2015 Jeep that was deferred from 2021 and keep the 2017
Equinox for another year. REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Sam Magureanu, Finance Director
BACKGROUND: The Building Department is requesting to purchase a vehicle as part of the department's vehicle replacement program. The 2022-2026 Capital Improvement Plan included the replacement of the B-003 2017 Equinox. I would like to use this funding to replace the B-002 Jeep and move the B-003 Equinox to be replaced in a later year. Due to increase staffing the 2015 Jeep will be used as a backup until the new vehicle has arrived and then held for possible trade-in for a 2023 vehicle or sold at public auction.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the purchase of a 2022 Chevy Equinox as recommended by staff, as outlined in the 2022 Capital Improvement Plan?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ ANALYSIS: The City of Lake Elmo Building Department uses city owned vehicles to provide inspection services to its residents and contractors. With the growth of the community and increase in daily workloads, the City of Lake Elmo has recently hired new staff in Planning Department that shares vehicles with the Building Department to help accomplish these daily tasks. The Building Department replaces its vehicles every 5 years but this has been deferred due to previous staffing issues.
The Building Department is submitting two quotes for 2022 Equinox LS and one quote for the door graphics ($205.00). The graphics place has done previous vehicles for Lake Elmo. Stillwater Motors quote is for a White 2022 Equinox LS ($26,935.50) and Merit Chevrolet quote is for a Blue 2022 Equinox LS ($28,347 after taxes deducted). There is a possibility that both these vehicles might not be available at the time of motion acceptance. Dealers are having supply shortages. The Building Department is asking that the motion allow the Building Official to be allowed to purchase an available vehicle with the City Administrator's approval if these vehicles are not available. FISCAL IMP ACT: The cost of this vehicle and decals is not to exceed $30,000 and will be funded through the vehicle
replacement fund as identified in the 2022 CIP.
OPTIONS: -Approve purchase of the 2022 Chevy EquinoxDo not approve purchase.
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion: "To approve the purchase of 2022 CIP Project B-003 2022 Chevy Equinox or an available vehicle at a cost not to exceed $30,000"
ATTACHMENTS: •Stillwater Motors cost quote.
•Merit Chevrolet•Advanced Graphics quote.
Page 2
If removed from the consent agenda:
Still water Motors '22/3/23
Stock#: C220343
Buyer Name: (last) CITY OF LAKE ELMO
STILLWATER MOTOR COMPANY 5900 Stillwater Blvd N Box 337 Stlllwaler, MN 55082
(651)439-4333
Date: 03/23122 Salesperson: JAMES BOENING NIA
(Flrst):.:Ni:;.A:_ __________ IMlddle) .cN/c.Ac_ ________ _
Co-Buyer Name: '(last) :.:N:.:IA.:..._ _____________ (First) N:.:i:;.A:.....�----------(Middkl) Ncc/c.A:._ _________ _
Addre,s•. 3880 LAVERNE AVE N Clty: __ :=LA.::K.::E::E::L:::M::.:O:..__ State: __:M:.:N.:...... County: _�Wc.A::Sc.H:::IN:..:G:.:Tc..:Oc.N:....._ Zip: 55042-962
Homa Phone: (651)770-5006 Bus Phone: __ (,::6::_51:J.):.:77c:6:;.·1:.:1::_37:__suyer DOB: ___ .:,N:::/A-'-'----co.-BuyerDOB: ___ c_N:::./A.:..... __
Buyer D.L #: NIA Go•Bu11or 0,L, #: N/A
Buyers tnst.irance Co./Po!/cy fl-:N/A NIA
PLEASE ENTER MY ORD EA FOR: New@ used 0 Demo□Lease□Purchase I&!
YEAR lMAKE. !MOOEl. 1aoov Tfi'ANSMISSION ·1COL.OR 2022 'CHEVROLET EQUINOX AW0-4DR LSW/1LS NIA SUMMIT WHITE VIN� T.-ie.1t I TAB EXP. DATf: ·1 STATE 3GNAXSEVXNS 165061 NIA MN
Buyer Email: NIA
Co Duyer _Emall:N/A
NIA
'
N/A
undefined undefined undefined
YSAR NIA VIN/I. NIA
71o1AK!:;
�!��OlOER'S NiA
ADORl;'.SS
TRADE-IN DATA
NIA lMOO!;l NIA I BODY STYLE NIA
�1EA��s; NIA UCENSI: STATE MN l "" OATEN/A
���AGE NIA TAAN$MISSION NIA
DOF.$ YOUR TflAOf:.IN MAVE A UllANOEO VE$0 TITLE OR-INSURANCE SALVAGE HISTORY?
fS IHE POU..lJTKlN CONTROL EQUIPMENT ON YOUR VES0 illAOE•IN INTACT AND IN OPEHAit<<.¼ CONDITIOtll?
Dealer1s D/sclalmer of Warranty
NOD
NOCi
Unless the vehicle Is sold with a $spa.rate written dealer warranty or the dealer entei's into a service contract with thee buyer, lhe veh_fcle Is sold "AS is�. Dealer expressly disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including the [mptied warranties of merchantablfity and fitness tor a part'lcular purpose. The entire risk of !he quality and performance of the vehicle Is with the buyer. Important: A mnnufactvrer warranty rna_y apply,
CASH PRICE OF VEHICLE
FREIGHT
DEALER INSTALLED OPTIONS;
N/A
k-,JIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
IN/A
!REBATE
TOTAL
REGISTRATION TAX /A LESS TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE (-1
PLATE FEE 15 60 TRADE DIFFERENCE
PUBLIC SAFETY 350 N/A -VEHICLE FEE
TRANSFER TAX 10 00 MOTOR VEHICLE SALES TAX TITLE/fRANSf:EA FEE 8 25 NIA STATE/�EPUTY FILNG FEE 11 00 SERVICE CONTRACT
LIEN RECORDING FEE I IA MAJNTENANCE CONTRACT WHEElAGE TAX 20 00 OTHER STATE & LOCAL SALES TAXES
TMNSITTAX 20 00
TITLE TECH FEE 2 25 uuCUMENT ADMINISTRATION FEE OPTIONAL ELECTRONIC TRANSFER FEE
TOTAL LICENSE & FEES
SUBTOTAL
LESS AMOUNT SUBMITTED WITH ORDER 1-)
PLUS BALANCE OWING TO LEINHOLDER ON TRADE IN(+)
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ON DELIVERY
INTC:AIOf1 MEO ASH GRAY MILEA/lE 5
26,720 00
I IA
IA
I/A
IA
IA
/A
/A
/A
26,720 00
I/A
26,720 bo
�A
/A
IA
IA
I IA
/A
125 00
IA
9050
26,935 50
/A
/A
26,935 50
lhe front and back .of this CONTRACT comprise the entire CONTRACT affec.:ll_ng lhls purchase. The DEALER will not recognize any vGrbal agree men I, or any othar agreement or understanding ot any nature. You certify that you are ·1a years of age or older and-acknowledge recehllng a copy of thls oontract.
The terms o1 thfs CONTRACT were agrood.upon and the CONTRACT signed In the dealership on the date noled al top of form. IMPORTANT: THIS MAY BE A BINDING CONTRACT AND YOU MAY LOSE ANY DEPOSITS IF YOU DO NOT PERFORM ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS.
tMOA 13-16•13 @Copyri\lht MAOASEllWICES, INC, 5900 Stillwater Jllvd N Ftl)l.l'liarrorm MADA SERVICES, INC. 200 lotMnb�tl!Ave., w. SI.Paul, MN 5�118 • (6&!) 2!JM!400 • [BOO) 652-00211 I
BUSINESS NAME The City of Lake Elmo
Date:
Salesperson:
Manager:
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
3/23/2022
Jerry Mathison
Chad Dubois
Home Phone: (651) 747-3910
CONTACT John Taylor _3_8_0:-'.0:-'.L-a�v-e_rn_e_a_v ____________________________________ _
Address:
E-Mail:
VEHICLE
Stock#:
Vehicle:
Type :
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
WASHINGTON CO
jtaylor@lakeelmo.org
New/ Used:
Market Value Selling Price
Discount
Adjusted Price
Doc Fee
Tax
Non Tax Fees
Cash Deposit
Balance
Work Phone:
Cell Phone:
New VIN: Mileage:
Color:
28,275.00
500.00
27,775.00
125.00
,t-, 1,805.38 ...,..., 447.00
.00
30,152.38
Customer Approval: ===::-:-=:-:-==cc-rr:-::;-;-;::-:--:=-=--:==::.-c===� Management Approval: By signing this authorization farm, you certify that the above personal information is correct and accurate, and authorize the release of credit and employment information. By signing above, I provide to the dealership and its affiliates consent to communicate with me about my vehicle or any future vehicles using electronic, verbal and written communicalions including but not limited to eMail, text messaging, SMS, phone calls and direct mail. Terms and Conditions subject to credit approval. For Information Only. This is not an offer or contract for sale.
f I V '? li.J I I/
(ei (/lc/,.-� /rN CAIi (2
d Jtl,luj
MERIT CHEVROLET CO.
JERRY MATHISON
New & Pre-Owned Vehicle Sales
T (612) 280-9871 jmathison@maritchev.com
TXT (612) 280-9871
CHE\/ROLET
,i,1�::if ,j'E.r::.ELLEr,JCE AWARD WINNER
2695 BROOKVIEW DR MAPLEWOOD, MN 55119
2022 EQUINOX LS FWD
GHT BLUE Gl:.OW METALLIC
HCB MEDIUM A$il GRAY
/L4Q
Rli:NAISSANCE cmNmER
ORDER NO, BJGWZV/TRE S?OCK NO, DETROIT MI 48243-1114
VIN 2GN l\XHE Vl N6133178 VEHICLE Il<VOICE 10□27444016
*****************************************************6904******13*04564S
MODEL & FACTORY OPTIONS
1XP26 EQUI�OX LS FWD
a26 DRIVER CONFIDENCS II PACKAGE:
*lU!lAR CROSS TAAFiIC ALERT
*REAR PAP.K ASSIST
*LANE CHANGE A!.ERi W:tTa
SIDE SLINO ZONE ALERT
MSRP
25800.00
395.00
li'El9 SO-STATE mMISSIONS N/C
K05 mNQINm BLOCK HmATmR 100.00
LYX ENGINE, l,5L TURBO DOHC 4-CYL N/C
w,
MNH TRANSMlSSlON1 6-SPD AUTOMATlC N/C
PCR LS COlWENIENCE PACKAGE: 785,00
*SEAT ADJUSTER, DRIVER B-WAY
POWEi\ W/ 2-WAY POWER LUMBAR
*GLASS, DEIP-TINTEDr REAR
•DRIVER INFO - COLO'.R. DISPJ.Ji.Y
INV AMT RETAIL -STOCK
24613.20 INVOICE 03/08/22
359,45 SHIPPED 03/08/22
EXP I/T 03/25/22
INT COM 03/25/22
PRC EFF 03/08/22
KEYS XXXXX XXXXX
N/C wrP-S QTR OPT-1
91,00 BANK: GM ll'INANCIA
N/C CHG-TO 04-564
N/C SHIP WT: 3281
714.35 HP: 13.5
GVWR: 4464
GAWR,ll'T: 2590
GAWR,RR: 2645
lllMPLOY: 26241, 88
SUPPLR: 27273.00
NT!\.:
DAN: l'..Sll'Wll
l!MPINC: 1409.30
SUPINC: 378, 18
TOTAL MODEL lil OP'11IONS
DESTINATION CHARGE
PElu!Jm IJ.m CONTRIBUTION
LMA . GROUP CON'l'RIBU'l'ION
27080,00 25778.00 ACT 237 26160,60
1195.00 1195,00 H/B 261 812,40
270.80 l\DV 261 270,80
270.80 EXP 65A 270.80 -
TOTAL �275,00 27514.60 PAY 310 27514.60
MEMO: 'l'OTAL LESS HOl,l)'.BACK AND �
APPROX WHOLESALE FINANCE CREDIT 26212,00
INVOICm DOES NOT REFLECT DEALER 1 S ULTIMATE COST B�CAOSE OF WANUFACTURER
REBATBS, ALLOWANCES, INC�N'l'IVES, HOLD:aACK, Ii'INMCl!l CREDIT AND lU!l'J,'tmN TO
DEA.Lim OF AOVE�TISING MONIES, ALL OF WHtCH MAY APPLY TO 'VEHICLE. ***********************************************************************
MERIT CHEVROLE'r CO.
ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC 3600 LABORE ROAD SUITE 3 QUOTE NO: 032222(
VADNAIS HEIGHTS, MN 55110
651-490-3221 FAX 651-490-3193
www.advancedqraphix.com
DATE: March 22, 2022
TO
QUANTITY
1.00
1.00
LAKE ELMO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
JOHN TAYLOR
651-747-3910
DESCRIPTION
2022 WHITE CHEVY EQUINOX
jtaylor@lakeelmo.org
COMPLETE NONREFLECTIVE CUSTOM GRAPHIC KIT
APPLICATION
UNIT PRICE
130.00
75.00
Comments: TAXES ARE NOT INCLUDED SUBTOTAL
SALES TAX
SHIPPING
Quotation prepared by. Sally Knoche Email. sally@advancedgraph1x.com TOTAL
To accept this quotation please sign & date below fax back to 651-490-3193 or email Sally
�M-/ �,i, Date·. 3-22-2022Signature: ___ -r/-,4------.�-------------
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
QUOTE
LINE TOTAL
130.00
75.00
s 205.00
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022
CONSENT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
AGENDA ITEM: Hiring Assistant Public Works Director
SUBMITTED BY: Jake Dickson, Assistant City Administrator
BACKGROUND: The City Council authorized the job description and approved advertisement for the Assistant Public Works Director position at the February 2 meeting. Staff advertised the position from February 3 to February 25 and received 10 applications. Staff held 2 rounds of interviews and reached an agreement
with Adam Swanepoel. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should Adam Swanepoel be hired as Assistant Public Works Director at the terms described below? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Staff is recommending the Council hire Adam Swanepoel as Assistant Public Works Director, contingent on drug and background screening. Staff is further recommending a wage of $3,024 bi-weekly.
FISCAL IMPACT: Assistant Public Works Director wages and benefits are included in the 2022 budget.
OPTIONS: 1) Hire Swanepoel at the terms described above
2) Offer the job to Swanepoel under different terms
3) Offer position to another candidate
4) Re-advertise the position
RECOMMENDATION:
If removed from the consent agenda: “Motion to hire Adam Swanepoel as Assistant Public Works Director at a wage of $3,024 bi-weekly
contingent upon passing a background check and drug screen.”
ATTACHMENTS: None
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 4/5/22
TO: City Council FROM: Molly Just, Planning Director
ITEM: CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar Garden – Conditional Use Permit
BACKGROUND
CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th Street N (PID#1102921110003). The proposed solar photovoltaic (“PV”) project has a maximum size of 1,000 kilowatts (“KW”)
alternating current (“AC”). The Applicant has a Solar Energy Option Agreement to lease up to 10 acres with the Manzara family to enable construction and operations of the project.
On November 22, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request. The Planning Commission received the City Staff report, asked questions of City staff and the applicant’s representative and made a recommendation of approval with conditions to the City Council for the
requested PUD. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant work to address some of the staff and neighbor concerns about setbacks, landscaping, buffering, and screening prior to City Council action on the application. The applicant worked diligently to do so.
At the March 15, 2022 meeting, the City Council discussed the proposal. Council members asked
questions about how the project would look, how it would be taxed, and how the solar contracts would impact solar subscribers. Council members were concerned about the impact of the project on the existing neighborhood. The applicant has proposed screening for the solar farm but due to the topography of the surrounding area and the height of the equipment, despite the screening, the equipment on the property would still be largely visible from the public right-of-way and the
surrounding properties. Due to the large size of the solar farm and the amount of equipment that would be installed, it would be unlikely that the solar farm would be compatible with the existing the neighborhood which consists of single-family homes, farms, and a cemetery.
The applicant provided a written response to the questions from council members (dated March 28, 2022 and attached). The applicant has proposed additional frontage screening for the solar
farm and has provided images of the likely view of the project from the roadway.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS
Applicant: CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC
Property Owners: Anthony P. Manzara Rev Trust
Location: 10755 50th Street N
Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a solar farm
Site Area: 10.9 acres
Existing Land Use: Single family residential and agricultural
2
Existing Zoning: Rural Residential
Surrounding: North – 50th Street N and single family homes zoned RR West – single family home zoned RR
South – single family home zoned RR East – Lake Elmo Avenue and agricultural land zoned RR Comprehensive Plan: Rural Area Development (RAD)
History: The existing single family home on this site was built in 1986. To the best
of our knowledge, no other development applications have been filed for this property in the past. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 10/22/2021 60 Day Deadline – 12/21/2021 Extension Letter Mailed – 11/30/2022
120 Day Deadline – 2/19/2022 Extended Deadline (applicant signed waiver) – 3/31/2022 At the March 15, 2022 City Council meeting the applicant agreed to an extended deadline to April 5, 2022
Regulations: 105.12.110 – Zoning Use Types and Classifications Article XI – Rural Districts 105.12.480 – Landscaping Requirements 105.12.560 – Standards for Alternative Energy
105.04.220 – Solar Energy Systems 105.12.1470 – Solar Farms
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
Based on the additional information provided by the applicant, should the proposed solar garden to be located at 10755 50th Street North be approved?
PROJECT ANALYSIS
A solar farm is defined as a “commercial facility that converts sunlight into electricity, whether by photovoltaic (PV), concentrating solar thermal devices (CST), or other conversion technology, for the principal purpose of sales of generated electricity to off-site customers.”
Solar farms are a conditional use in the RR district and thus require approval of a conditional use
permit. The proposed solar farm is a 1-megawatt photovoltaic (PV) facility which will utilize approximately 7 acres of the 10.9 acre site. The applicant proposes to install approximately 2,250
PV modules arranged in north-south rows spaced approximately 15 feet apart. The PV modules
are glass with anti-reflective coating (not mirror design) and are 9 feet in height, as shown on the attached plans. The proposed facility includes inverters and switch gear located on the north side of the site on 7’ by 12’ concrete pads, and up to 3 new utility poles. The site will be secured by a 9’ galvanized wire mesh fence. The facility has an expected life of 25-30 years.
3
Access to this site is via a 16’ wide gravel drive off of 50th Street North. There is no permanent
off-site parking located on the site.
During construction, there will be approximately 10-15 employees on site from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. Construction is expected to take 4-6 months. Once the site is operational, the site will operate during daylight hours. It is expected one maintenance truck will visit the site 1-3 times
per year.
Setback and Impervious Surface Requirements. The following table outlines how the proposed use and site plan adheres to the setback and impervious surface requirements of the RR zoning district. The proposed site plan is meeting all the required zoning code standards.
Rural Residential Zoning Standards
Standard Required Proposed
Maximum Height 35 feet 9 feet
Maximum Impervious Coverage -- --
Front Yard Setback – Building 30 feet 50 feet
Interior Side Yard Setback –
Building
10 feet 50 feet
Interior Side Yard Setback –
Building
10 feet 50 feet
Rear Yard Setback - Building 40 feet 50 feet
Standards for Solar Farms. The following outlines how the proposed development adheres to
Section 105.12.560 (a), the City’s standards for solar farms.
1. Conditional or Interim Use Permit. Solar farms in the RR district require a conditional use permit. The applicant has submitted a complete application for consideration.
2. Minimum Lot Size, Setbacks, and Screening Requirements. Solar farms are limited to properties at least ten acres in size, must maintain a setback of at least 50 feet from adjacent
properties and be screened and fenced as determined by the City from adjacent residential
properties. The parcel on which the facility is located is 10.9 acres. The site plan shows the setbacks are at least 50’ from any property line. The site will also be fenced. A revised landscape plan meeting the requirements for landscape screening has been submitted. A condition of approval will require the landscaping be installed according to the approved
plan.
3. Stormwater and NPDES. Solar farms are subject to the City’s and watershed district’s stormwater management and erosion and sediment control provisions and NPDES permit requirements. The applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to submit all required stormwater and NPDES permits prior to approval of a building permit.
4. Foundations. A qualified engineer shall certify that the foundation and design of the solar
panels, racking and support is within accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate conditions. The applicant is proposing this certification will be done within 60 days of construction.
4
Standards for Solar Energy Systems. There are specific use standards for solar energy systems
listed in Section 105.04.220 of the Zoning Code. They include:
1. Permits. A building permit shall be obtained before the installation of solar arrays or panels
on any property. All solar energy systems shall be installed and components labeled in accordance with the Minnesota State Electric Code Section 690. The applicant will be required to obtain these permits prior to construction.
2. Rooftop or Building Integrated Solar Energy Systems. This is not applicable to this
application.
3. Ground-Mount Solar Energy Systems.
a. Ground-mount energy systems must comply with all accessory setback, height and lot coverage restrictions unless otherwise stated herein or a variance is granted and shall
not encroach on any City easement unless an easement encroachment agreement
approved by the Planning Director or his/her designee after review and approval from
the City Engineer or his/her designee has been executed. A certificate of zoning compliance is required for all solar energy systems unless a conditional use permit is required as stated herein. The proposed site plan indicates the facility will meet all
minimum setback requirements. The original site plan indicated 59’ of right-of-way
preservation along 50th Street N. A revised plan showing the required right-of-way preservation of 60 feet from the centerline has been submitted. All setbacks must be measured from the line of preservation.
b. The collector surface of a ground-mount system and any foundation, compacted soil, or
other component of the solar installation that rests on the ground is considered
impervious surface. Vegetated ground under the collector surface can be used to mitigate
stormwater runoff. There is no maximum impervious surface requirement in the RR district.
4. Interconnection Agreement. Solar energy systems connected directly to the distribution or
transmission system must obtain an interconnection agreement with the interconnecting
electric utility. The applicant’s narrative notes the applicant has submitted an interconnection application to Xcel Energy and is working through that process. The final agreement will be submitted prior to a building permit.
5. Glare. Glare produced from any solar energy system shall be minimized from affecting
adjacent or nearby properties. The applicant is proposing to use panels with a non-reflective
coating. In addition, landscape screening will be required along the perimeter of the site.
6. Decommissioning. A decommissioning plan shall be required to ensure that facilities are properly removed after their useful life. Decommissioning of solar panels must occur in the event they are not in use for 12 consecutive months. The plan shall include provisions for
removal of all structures and foundations, restoration of soil and vegetation and a plan
ensuring financial resources will be available to fully decommission the site. The applicant has submitted a decommissioning plan. As a condition of approval, the City will require the owner to remove all modules and equipment within 90 days after the site has been decommissioned. The City will also require a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of
decommissioning. The potential salvage value shall not be subtracted from the cost of
5
decommissioning. In this case, the applicant has estimated the cost of decommissioning at
$96,521. This will require an LOC in the amount of $106,200.
Landscaping Requirements: Sections 105.12.480 (c) and (f) of the Zoning Code list specific landscaping requirements for this site.
• Landscaping of Setback Areas. A minimum of one tree for every 50’ of street frontage is
required. In addition, 5 trees per every acre of disturbed land are required. This requires a
minimum of 50 trees be planted on the site. In the updated landscaping plans submitted on March 8th (Attachment 4), the applicant proposes planting 39 trees on the site and preserving 11 existing trees. A 1:1 ratio was used to count 11 existing/significant trees towards the landscape requirements. No Ash trees were counted in this calculation. In their
letter dated March 2, 2022, the city’s landscape architect states that more information on
tree type and condition would be needed before the city can determine whether the 11 existing trees may be counted towards the landscaping requirement. Although the Landscape Architect has not reviewed them, the most recent plans, submitted on March 8th, address all comments from the March 2nd memo. As a condition of approval, City Staff
recommends that the City’s Landscape Architect shall review and respond to the updated
landscaping plans dated March 8, 2022 prior to issuance of the City permits.
• Screening. Screening is used to provide visual and noise separation of intensive uses from less intensive uses and shall consist of either a masonry wall or fence in combination with
landscape material that forms a screen at least six (6) feet in height, and not less than ninety
percent (90%) opaque on a year-round basis. The revised landscaping plan includes 2,612 linear feet of trees and shrubs. Screening is focused in areas and along property lines directly adjacent to residential uses.
REVIEW COMMENTS
Engineering Review. The City Engineer reviewed this request and prepared a review memorandum for the Commission and City Council’s review, dated November 13, 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Applicant provided responses to the key issues outlined in the review:
• Right-of-way preservation: The minimum right-of-way preservation along 50th Street N is
60’ from the centerline. All setbacks must be measured from the right-of-way preservation line.
o “A site plan and certified ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey is provided as Appendix A. The survey shows the right-of-way preservations along 50th St N and Lake Elmo Avenue, as deeded. All proposed improvements meet the required 60-foot right-of-
way preservations.”
• Site access: The site access on 50th Street N must be relocated as far west as possible to minimize future conflicts with the construction of future turn lanes. The recommended minimum distance is 350’ from the intersection with Lake Elmo Avenue.
o “As discussed via email with Planning Director Molly Just on January 22, 2021, the
Applicant requests a minor reduction in the minimum 350-foot distance from the site
access to the intersection with Lake Elmo Ave. Based on the City Engineer’s
6
comments, we understand this measurement to be from “the west paved shoulder”.
From this point, mandating a minimum distance of 350 feet would require the access
drive be built within the wetland buffer. Our conversations with Valley Branch
Watershed District (VBWD) to date, indicate such impacts would not be approved, providing the Project with no viable access point. Per these review comments, we have redesigned our access point to provide approximately 313 feet from the west
paved shoulder of Lake Elmo Ave N to the centerline of our proposed access. We
strongly feel this is the maximum distance we can provide in order to have a viable
access point. This proposal for revised access point is shown on the revised Site Plan provided as Appendix B (as well as on the certified ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey provided as Appendix A). The proposed grading for the revised access driveway
design is provide as Appendix C.”
• Driveway: Any portion of the proposed driveway located within the right-of-way must be paved.
o “All portions of the prosed access drive located within the public right of- way shall
be paved. This change has been reflected in Appendix B.”
• Site Plan Approval: Prior to the start of any construction, Civil Site Construction Plans must be prepared and submitted for City review and approval. The site plan must submit all of the required detail, including a wetland delineation and the wetland buffers. The site plan must
also show the proposed power poles located at least 55’ from the centerline of 50th Street N.
o “Acknowledged. Civil Site Construction Plans meeting the requirements of this
review comment will be submitted by the Applicant prior to the start of any construction and/or prior to the issuance of City Permits for the project.”
• Stormwater Management: A stormwater management plan meeting all State, Watershed
District and City rules is required and a permit must be obtained from the Valley Branch Watershed District.
o “Acknowledged. A Stormwater Management Plan meeting the City and VBWD rules, prepared and signed by a registered professional engineer in the State of Minnesota will be provided prior to issuance of City permits for the project as discussed with
Planning Director Molly Just on January 22, 2021 via email.”
On February 28, 2022, the City Engineer reviewed the updated plans dated February 22, 2022 and provided the following comments: “The existing conditions information appears to be completed. No further engineering review can proceed until engineered documents and a stormwater management plan meeting VBWD requirements is submitted for review.”
Fire Department Review. The Fire Department reviewed this request and provided the attached comments. Some key issues outlined in the review include:
• A clear, brush-free area of 10 feet (3048 mm) shall be required for ground-mounted
photovoltaic arrays.
• The installation and use of gates shall be in compliance with the fire code. If a gate(s) is to be installed, provide more detailed information for review.
7
• A Fire Department lock box is required for emergency access to building at an approved
location(s) and provide keys for emergency access into the property and any controls necessary for emergency use or shut down.
• Site address numbers shall be plainly visible from the street fronting the property and
shall contrasting color from the background.
The applicant responded to these comments with an updated site plan on February 9, 2022. After reviewing the update plan, the Fire Department provided the following comments: “This site will not require a fire department lock box but we will require the gate to be in
compliance with the fire department’s Emergency Vehicle Access policy attached, specifically:
Section 7 – Gates a) “Gates” for the purposes of the policy includes chains, chain link, and swinging gates. b) Gates. As set forth in Policy 2.02 “Key Boxes, Locks, and Gate Switches”, the City of Lake
Elmo requires that any locked access gate be:
ii) Be accessible by use of a KNOX key operated paddle lock, which can be locked in
sequence to owner supplied locks for emergency access. This paddle lock would be purchased through KNOX as specified by the fire department.”
City Attorney Review. The City Attorney reviewed this request and provided the attached comments. Some key issues outlined in the review include:
• A condition that requires the owner of the property and/or the operator to remove the modules and equipment after a certain amount of time after the project is
decommissioned (i.e. 90 days or something like that). In the event that it is not removed by that time, the City should be given permission to enter the property to remove it and recover its costs from the letter of credit. In the event that the letter of credit is insufficient to cover the City’s costs, the City should be able to certify the costs against the property and collect the costs with the property taxes.
• There should also be a condition that the letter of credit must be in good standing at all times, so in the event that it is not renewed or cancelled, the City may revoke the conditional use permit.
Landscaping Review. The City’s landscape architect reviewed this request and provided a memorandum dated November 12, 2022. At that time, the proposal did not meet the minimum landscape and screening requirements, and a revised landscaping plan meeting the minimum requirements was requested.
The applicant has worked diligently to design a landscape plan that would mitigate the impacts
of the use and address buffering and screening concerns of the Planning Commission and neighbors.
On March 8, 2022, the applicant provided an updated landscaping plan that meets code and is responsive to the concerns about screening and buffering. As a condition of approval, City Staff
8
recommends that the City’s Landscape Architect review and respond to the updated landscaping
plans dated March 8, 2022.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A public hearing notice was published in the Stillwater Gazette on November 12, 2021. Mailed notices to owners of property within 350’ of the site were delivered to the Post Office prior to November 12, 2021. Staff received one comment in response to the application that is included
as an attachment.
A public hearing for the request was held at the November 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting. Six residents spoke at the public hearing. Two commenters spoke in support of the solar garden. One commenter spoke against the solar garden, citing concerns over sound and requesting a noise study be completed. Three commenters spoke against the solar garden, citing
concerns about how the project would impact parcels under their ownership and requested that, if
approved, the project be screened from view. The Planning Commission suggested that the applicant work to bring the landscape plan into compliance with City code and be utilized to address buffering and screening concerns.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Conditional use means a land use or development as defined by ordinance that would not be
appropriate generally but may be allowed with appropriate restrictions as provided by official controls only upon a finding that all of the following provisions are met. Staff recommends the following findings:
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed use will not be
detrimental or in any way endanger the public health, safety, comfort. Conditions intended to mitigate any potential impact have been included in the CUP, and include items such as screening, setbacks, and stormwater management.
2. The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 3
of the Comprehensive Plan notes the City has incorporated standards into their zoning
ordinances regarding siting of structures and buildings to support access to solar resources. Given the City’s dominant residential landscape pattern, options for private property owners including individual homeowners and homeowners’ associations to capitalize on solar energy are supported by the City’s adopted ordinances and official
controls.
3. The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The proposed use is permitted in the Rural Residential District subject to a CUP. With conditions, the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
4. The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of
this Chapter. The proposed use will meet the specific development standards for a solar
facility with specific conditions.
5. If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area, the proposed use meets all the specific standards for such use listed in Chapter 150, §150.250 through 150.257
9
(Shoreland Regulations) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management). The property is
located outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain and shoreland area.
6. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The proposed use will be compatible in appearance with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area.
7. The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to existing or future neighboring structures. The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance. To help ensure this, the staff is recommending conditions for screening and decommissioning.
8. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. No wastewater or city water facilities are needed to serve this site. The site is otherwise adequately served by existing City services.
9. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost.
10. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The
proposed use will generate few trips per year on the site.
11. Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed use should not
create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets.
12. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. The proposed use will not impact a natural or scenic feature.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
If the City Council wishes to approve the CUP request, city staff recommends the following
conditions of approval:
1) Prior to issuance of City permits for the project:
a) Stormwater Management: A stormwater management plan meeting all State, Watershed District and City rules is required and a permit must be obtained from the Valley Branch Watershed District. These required details must be included.
i. Soil borings will be required for infiltration basins.
ii. If adjacent properties are impacted by stormwater discharge, written permission
from those property owners is required.
10
iii. The storm water facilities must remain privately owned and maintained.
iv. A Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement in the City’s standard
form is required.
b) The applicant must provide to the City Engineer a statement from a qualified engineer certifying the foundation and design of the solar panels, racking and support is within accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate conditions.
c) The City’s Landscape Architect shall review and response to the updated landscaping
plans dated March 24, 2022.
d) The applicant must provide an approved interconnection agreement with Xcel.
e) The applicant must provide a letter of credit in the amount of $120,652 for decommissioning the site. The letter of credit must be in good standing at all times and
issued by a bank determined by the City to be solvent and creditworthy. The letter of
credit shall be in a form approved by the City. In the event the letter of credit is not renewed or is cancelled, the City may revoke the conditional use permit.
f) The applicant must obtain all other necessary City, State, and other governing body permits prior to the commencement of any construction activity on the parcel including
but not limited to an approved stormwater management plan, utility plans, grading plan,
and building permits.
2) General:
a) Gate access to the site must be in compliance with the Lake Elmo Fire Department Emergency Vehicle Access Policy.
b) The modules and equipment on the site must be removed within 90 days after the site is
no longer operational or has not operated continuously for 12 months. In the event that it is not removed by that time, the City has permission to enter the property to remove it and recover its costs from the letter of credit. In the event that the letter of credit is insufficient to cover the City’s costs, the City shall certify the costs against the property
and collect the costs with the property taxes.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact on the City as a result of this permit. The City would collect a letter of credit to cover any potential removal costs.
OPTIONS:
The City Council may:
• Approve the Conditional Use Permit with recommended findings and conditions of approval.
• Approve the Conditional Use Permit with amended findings and conditions of approval.
• Deny the Conditional Use Permit based on the findings listed in Resolution 2022-0XX.
11
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the CUP to allow a solar farm with the listed conditions.
Suggested motion to approve:
“Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-026, approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as requested by CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th Street N with the listed conditions based on
the findings listed in the staff report.”
If after additional consideration of the application, the City Council wishes to deny the CUP to allow a solar farm.
Suggested motion to deny:
Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-030, denying the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as requested
by CEF lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th Street N based on the findings of fact listed in the resolution.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2022-026 – Approving Community Solar Garden CUP 2. Resolution 2022-030 – Denying Community Solar Garden CUP 3. Applicant Submission Dated March 28, 2022 with updated Landscape Plan (3/24/2022) 4. Location Map
5. Land Use Application
6. Applicant’s Narrative* 7. Site Plan (2/9/2022) 8. Structure Detail Sheet 9. Landscape Plan (3/8/2022)
10. City Engineer Review Comments (11/13/2021)
11. Fire Department Review Comments (11/12/2021) 12. City Attorney Review Comments (11/11/2021) 13. Landscape Architect Review Comments (11/12/2021) 14. Landscape Architect Review Comments (3/2/22)
15. Letter from Abutting Property Owner
16. Minutes from the November 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting *Due to the size of the full submittal, not all of the appendices listed in the applicant’s narrative are provided. These are available upon request.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2022-026 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A SOLAR FARM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10755 50TH STREET NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th Street North
(PID# 11.029.21.11.0003) (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 22, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its March 15, 2022 meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
City Council makes the following: FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit are found in the Lake
Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 105.12.290. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 105.12.290 have been met by the Applicant.
3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th Street North. 4) The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed
use will not be detrimental or in any way endanger the public health, safety, comfort.
Conditions intended to mitigate any potential impact have been included in the CUP, and include items such as screening, setbacks, and stormwater management.
5) The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan notes the City has incorporated standards into
their zoning ordinances regarding siting of structures and buildings to support access
to solar resources. Given the City’s dominant residential landscape pattern, options for private property owners including individual homeowners and homeowners’ associations to capitalize on solar energy are supported by the City’s adopted ordinances and official controls.
6) The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The proposed use is permitted in the Rural Residential District subject to a CUP. With conditions, the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
7) The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of this Chapter. The proposed use will meet the specific development standards for a solar facility with specific conditions.
8) If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area, the proposed use
meets all the specific standards for such use listed in Chapter 150, §150.250 through 150.257 (Shoreland Regulations) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management). The property is located outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain and shoreland area.
9) The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The proposed use will be compatible in appearance with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area.
10) The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to existing or future neighboring structures. The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance. To help ensure this, the staff is recommending conditions for screening and decommissioning.
11) The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use. No wastewater or city water facilities are needed to serve this site. The
site is otherwise adequately served by existing City services. 12) The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at
public cost. 13) The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
The proposed use will generate few trips per year on the site.
14) Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed use should not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets.
15) The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. The proposed use will not impact a natural or scenic feature.
16) That, in accordance with City Code Section 105.12.290, the Applicant’s proposed use of
the Property as a solar farm shall be permissible under the Conditions 1-9 as provided in the decision below, and incorporated herein:
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, and based upon the
information received and the above Findings, that the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby approves the request by CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th Street North, and grants the same, subject to the following conditions of approval:
Prior to issuance of City permits for the project: 1) Stormwater Management: A stormwater management plan meeting all State, Watershed District and City rules is required and a permit must be obtained from the Valley Branch
Watershed District. These required details must be included. a. Soil borings will be required for infiltration basins. b. If adjacent properties are impacted by stormwater discharge, written permission from those property owners is required. c. The storm water facilities must remain privately owned and maintained.
d. A Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement in the City’s standard form is required. 2) The applicant must provide to the City Engineer a statement from a qualified engineer certifying the foundation and design of the solar panels, racking and support is within
accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate conditions. 3) The City’s Landscape Architect shall review and respond to the updated landscaping
plans dated March 8, 2022.
4) The applicant must provide an approved interconnection agreement with Xcel.
5) The applicant must provide a letter of credit in the amount of $120,652 for
decommissioning the site. The letter of credit must be in good standing at all times and
issued by a bank determined by the City to be solvent and creditworthy. The letter of credit shall be in a form approved by the City. In the event the letter of credit is not renewed or is cancelled, the City may revoke the conditional use permit.
6) The applicant must obtain all other necessary City, State, and other governing body
permits prior to the commencement of any construction activity on the parcel including but not limited to an approved stormwater management plan, utility plans, grading plan, and building permits
General:
7) Gate access to the site must be in compliance with the Lake Elmo Fire Department Emergency Vehicle Access Policy.
8) The modules and equipment on the site must be removed within 90 days after the site is
no longer operational or has not operated continuously for 12 months. In the event that it is not removed by that time, the City has permission to enter the property to remove it and recover its costs from the letter of credit. In the event that the letter of credit is insufficient to cover the City’s costs, the City shall certify the costs against the property
and collect the costs with the property taxes.
Passed and duly adopted this 5th day of April, 2022 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
____________________________________ Charles Cadenhead, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
LA515-1-788781.v1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2022-030 A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A SOLAR FARM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10755 50TH STREET NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) is a municipal corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City for a conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th Street North (PID# 11.029.21.11.0003) (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 22, 2021 and considered the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its March 15, 2022 meeting and
with the Applicant’s consent, tabled the matter to the April 5, 2022 meeting; and NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining a conditional use permit are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 105.12.290.
2) That the required findings for a conditional use permit are set forth in Section 105.12.290 (a) of the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance. That the standards for solar farms are set forth in Section 105.12.560 (a) and Section 15.12.1470 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance.
3) One of the required findings is that the use or development is compatible with the
existing neighborhood. The Property is zoned Rural Residential. The surrounding properties are also Rural Residential. The proposed solar farm will use seven acres of the 10.9-acre site and includes the installation of approximately 2,250 PV modules. The PV modules are nine feet in height with the top of the panels standing no higher than 14 feet. The proposed solar farm will also include the installation of inverters and switch
gear located on 7 foot by 12 foot concrete pads and the installation of up to three new utility poles. Due to the large size of the solar farm and the amount of equipment that will be installed on the Property, the solar farm will not be compatible with the existing the neighborhood which consists of single-family homes, farms, and a cemetery. The
LA515-1-788781.v1
Applicant has proposed screening for the solar farm but due to the topography of the
surrounding area and the height of the equipment, despite the screening, the equipment
on the Property will still be largely visible from the public right-of-way and the surrounding properties.
4) Another required finding is that the use will be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained so at to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of
the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area. As stated above, the surrounding properties are single family homes, farms, and a cemetery. Given that a large amount of equipment must be installed on the Property (2,250 PV panels, inverters, switch gear, and utility poles) and the large size of the equipment (the PV
panels are 9-14 feet in height) the solar farm will not be compatible with the surrounding
single family homes, farm land, and the cemetery that do not have large amounts of equipment installed on them and consist generally of open space.
5) An additional required finding that is not met by the Application is that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major
importance. The Property and the surrounding area consist of scenic farm land which is of a major importance in the City. By installing the solar facilities on the Property, a large portion of this scenic farm land will be lost.
6) Finally, the Zoning Ordinance requires a finding that vehicular approaches to the
property will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public
throughfares. The review by the City Engineer dated November 13, 2021 required that the site access on 50th Street N be relocated as far west as possible to minimize conflicts with the construction of future turn lanes. The City Engineer requested a 350-foot minimum distance for the site access from the intersection with Lake Elmo Avenue. The
Applicant is unable to meet this requirement and the site access on 50th Street N is
located only 313 feet from Lake Elmo Avenue. Because the access does not meet the City Engineer’s requirement, this could potentially interfere with traffic on Lake Elmo Avenue.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, and based upon the information received and the above findings, that the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby denies the request by CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC for a Conditional Use
Permit for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th
Street North. Passed and duly adopted this 5th day of April, 2022 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
LA515-1-788781.v1
____________________________________
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor ATTEST:
_____________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk
March 28, 2022
Molly Just
Lake Elmo City Hall
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE:RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CUP APPLICATION
DEAR MRS. JUST:
CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar,LLC (the “Applicant”)is providing this letter in
response to the open questions at the Lake Elmo City Council’s March 15th
meeting.We appreciate this opportunity to provide responses to these open items
for Lake Elmo City Council’s consideration of our CUP application.
For clarity the City Council’s questions are restated below and our responses are
provided in italics.
1.How is the project taxed? Specifically, if the project is taxed as a
commercial use what are the taxes assessed versus other uses the
assessor might consider? And what, if any, tax revenue is the City
allocated?
Based on a tax estimate from Washington County Property Records &
Taxpayer Services office, the Project will generate approximately $1,700 in
increased real property tax revenue for the Township and County utilizing
2022 market valuations. This estimate is provided as Appendix A, along
with the property’s actual 2021 tax assessment to document the difference.
(Correspondence with Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer
Services also details the exact breakout and is included in the appendix.)
The provided estimate assumes the project area is 7 acres and will be
taxed as a Commercial-Industrial use with the remainder of the parcel
taxed as residential non-homestead – the current use. Conservatively,
assuming no change in property values over the project life, the Project will
generate $42,500 in increased property tax revenue. The solar equipment
is exempt from personal property taxation per Minn. Stat. Sec. 272.02,
subsections 22 and 24 (2017).
2.Does CEF’s 308-B status as a cooperation impact or change how the
project would be taxed?
There will not be an impact on project taxation regardless of CEF’s status
as a 308B cooperative. Since the project will be directly owned by CEF
Watertown Community Solar, LLC, it will be taxed like a for-profit entity.
3.How does community solar billing and savings work for residents? What
fees, contracts, or obligations are residents tied to if they elect to
participate and basically, what’s the catch?
Community solar is not a new concept, but has gained popularity due to
increased demand for renewable energy sources from consumers coupled
with the decreasing cost of solar energy. Community solar programs have
been enacted in roughly one third of states – each of these programs
provides for third-party project ownership and specific rules for program
administration and reporting.
Minnesota’s community solar program – Solar*Rewards Community® -
was approved by the Minnesota legislature in 2013. The program is
administered by Xcel Energy and regulated by the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission and Department of Commerce. The Minnesota
Department of Commerce explains that residents can experience a variety
of benefits from community solar including, “predictable electricity rates
over time, potential utility bill savings and the opportunity to support a
clean, sustainable energy resource.” As of December 2021, there have
been roughly $518 million dollars credited towards subscribers of the
Solar*Rewards Community® in Minnesota.
Unique to CEF’s cooperative structure, subscribers to the CEF Lake Elmo
Community Solar project will become a part owner of the project (not just a
subscriber). For a one-time membership fee of $25, this gives the
subscriber the right to a portion of the energy generated by the project
credited to their Xcel accounts, voting rights within CEF, ability to run for
the CEF board, and access to dividends proportional to their subscription
amount. The subscription amount is determined by Xcel Energy which is
calculated as up to 120% of the subscriber’s previous 12-month electricity
usage. Once the project is operational, CEF reports the associated
customers and their subscription size to Xcel, and Xcel then credits those
residents with the amount of energy that their subscription produced. The
credited rate is determined by the comparable rate Xcel typically charges,
which is around 13-14 cents per kWh. CEF then charges 9 cents per kWh
to subscribers of the project for their energy usage. The difference between
the credit rate from Xcel and the amount CEF charges for the energy
usage, is the savings to the customer. An example bill is provided as
Appendix B and illustrates what a customer would see if participating as a
subscriber to this project.
If a resident were to end the contract, they would need to provide a 90
notice to CEF or a 60 day notice with a referral for someone to take their
subscription spot. If the above criteria could not be met, CEF could charge
a discretionary $75 cancellation fee. The primary concern related to
cancellation is to ensure someone is subscribed to the project so CEF can
deliver the credits at a favorable rate. If a resident were to move
someplace where they would still be eligible for the garden they were
already subscribed to, CEF would be able to transfer their subscription.If a
resident were to move outside of the eligible location for the project, the
above notice criteria would apply.
4.Why was this project sited at this location and why is it uniquely
appropriate for solar?
2
An estimated 49% of households are unable to host residential solar
systems mainly because they are renters and/or they have inadequate roof
space. State legislation passed in 2013, required Xcel Energy to adopt and
operate a community solar garden program, specifically to provide
Minnesotans with greater access to the environmental and economic
benefits of solar energy. As of February 2022, Xcel’s Solar*Rewards
Community® program has enabled the installation and operation of over
830 MWs of community solar across 426 individual projects. This is the
largest community solar program in the United States and has enabled
participation by more than 20,000 unique Xcel Energy retail customers.
Washington County currently hosts 42 MWs of community solar across 61
projects, which is enough power to serve roughly 6,000 Washington
County homes. Given Washington County’s total population is
approximately 260,000 residents, many more community solar gardens are
needed within the County and State to meet the serviceable market.
The need for additional community solar gardens was the catalyst for our
development of a project within the City of Lake Elmo. We evaluated all
5289 properties within Lake Elmo (and Washington County) for the
numerous factors that must coincide to host a community solar garden.
First, we screened out any property that did not meet Lake Elmo’s
minimum parcel acreage (of 10 acres), narrowing down to 252 properties.
We removed properties that are planned for future housing developments
and publicly owned properties. Next, we removed any property that was
not immediately adjacent to an Xcel distribution line with available capacity.
This criterion ensures we do not need to build any new distribution lines to
support our projects. Then we reviewed each Site for enough buildable
acreage to locate an efficient, financeable project. This buildable acreage
analysis included; 1) ensuring the Project could comply with the City
Code’s setback and zoning requirements, 2) did not contain slopes or soils
unsuitable for construction, 3) and that the Project could largely avoid
areas of environmental concerns, such as floodplains, forests, and
wetlands. Given all these factors, we identified 40 properties, less than
0.8% of the total properties in Lake Elmo, were suitable for a community
solar garden. We reached out to each of the 22 landowners to meet the
final, essential criterion, which is landowner interest in hosting a project via
a lease agreement.
Our extensive siting analysis demonstrates that these projects are not
suitable anywhere and that a unique set of conditions must work together
to make a viable project site. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
our application is Lake Elmo’s first opportunity to host a community solar
garden.
5.What does the proposed fencing look like?
We are proposing deer-exclusion fencing around the perimeter of the
Project. Photos of this type of fencing are provided as Appendix C. Unlike
chain-link fences, deer-exclusion fencing is most commonly utilized around
orchards, nurseries, and high-value crops to prevent damage from deer. As
a result, this fencing choice allows the Project to best conform with the
rural aesthetics of the area and significantly reduces the commercial feel
3
associated with chain-link. The deer-exclusion fencing materials include
wood or metal posts with a horizontal, woven galvanized metal mesh that
has a lower visual profile than chain-link, further reducing the visual impact
of the fence.
6.What does the proposed screening look like and how does it protect the
rural neighborhood character?
The proposed landscape screening meets the Standards for Alternative
Energy (105.12.560)by screening the Project from all adjacent residential
properties.A mix of largely evergreen shade and ornamental trees with
shrubs is proposed to provide a full perimeter landscape buffer that will be
90%opaque per landscaping requirements.Additionally,no more than one
species makes up more than 50%of the required plantings and the
species vary in expected growth rate ensuring visual diversity and a natural
feel rather than a monolithic,artificial hedgerow.To address the Council’s
concern about the visual impact of the Project on the rural character of the
area specifically from viewpoints along Lake Elmo Avenue,the Project has
elected to replace a section of smaller shrub plantings with 22 additional
spruce trees along Lake Elmo Avenue in excess of the code requirements.
These trees will be 6 feet tall at installation and will immediately break up
and hide the view of the solar farm from travelers on Lake Elmo Avenue.
As these trees mature at a rate of 12 inches each year,within 2 years of
installation the trees will exceed the height of the panels at all hours of the
day.As they continue to grow,they will fill-in and further prevent views of
the Project.The remaining shrubbery along Lake Elmo Avenue has a rapid
growth rate of 24 inches per year.It will immediately provide a visual
screen for the lower portion of the Project,and will reach 6-7 feet in height
within 5 years,ensuring all sections of Lake Elmo Avenue and 50th St.N
are visually screened.The alternative landscape plan proposal is provided
as Appendix D along with photo-realistic renderings of the Project and
associated landscaping from key viewpoints along Lake Elmo Avenue.The
photos represent the visual screen at installation at the East and Northeast
view.There is a sample provided to show the visual screen at year 5 from
the Northeast view.
To demonstrate how the landscaping plan also protects the neighboring
resident with the only open views of the solar project,photo-realistic
renderings of the view from the end of their driveway on 50th St.N.at
installation and year 5 are provided in Appendix D.The variety of spruce
trees planted along the northside will be 6 feet at installation and have a
growth rate of 12-36 inches per year.These trees will quickly fill in to
provide a thorough vegetative screen.
Comparison of the aesthetics of CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar to the
4
nearby project located at 6820 Military Road in Woodbury discussed at the
March 15,2022 City Council meeting is unsuitable because the Woodbury
project was not required to install full-perimeter landscaping at the
installation heights or opaque density that is required by Lake Elmo’s
landscape requirements.Instead,the City of Woodbury allowed the project
to screen views by installing berms in select locations.Berm installation
was supplemented with less than 300 plantings per the Woodbury Solar
Garden’s CUP and final landscape plan.These plantings were not required
to provide a 90%opaque screen and their installation heights were smaller.
In comparison,the CEF Lake Elmo project is proposing over 850 plantings
despite being three times smaller than the Woodbury project (panels at the
Woodbury project occupy 17 acres while panels for the CEF project will
occupy only 5 acres).
We feel we have addressed each open question from Lake Elmo’s City Council and
look forward to further discussing these items at the April 5,2022 City Council
meeting.
Should you have any further questions or comments,or feel this response is
missing any needed information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
KATE LARKIN
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
(206) 900-9930
kate@oneenergyrenewables.com
5
APPENDIX A: TAX BREAKDOWN & 2022 TAX ESTIMATE
2022 TAX ESTIMATE
6
CORRESPONDENCE WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS AND TAXPAYER SERVICES
7
2021 TAX ASSESSMENT
8
APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE COMMUNITY SOLAR BILL
9
APPENDIX C: DEER EXCLUSION FENCING
10
11
APPENDIX D: VEGETATIVE SCREEN PHOTO RENDERINGS & LANDSCAPE PLAN
NORTH VIEW OF THE PROJECT AT INSTALLATION
NORTH VIEW OF THE PROJECT AT YEAR 5
12
EAST VIEW OF THE PROJECT AT INSTALLATION
EAST VIEW OF THE PROJECT AT YEAR 5
13
NORTHEAST VIEW OF THE PROJECT
NORTHEAST VIEW OF THE PROJECT AT YEAR 5
14
935 9359319319319329329
3
2
9329329339339
3
3
933933
9
3
4 934936
12'
MINDRAINAGE DITCH932.49
932.46
932.05
932.05
932.09
932.25
932.47 932.63
MA 933.24±MA 933.44±
932.24
932.40
9309309319319329339349
3
2
930
931932932932
9
3
2
933
933-1.3%0.6%
-2.0%
-1.0%
932.97933.11
932.52-4.3%-1.1%XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXPARCEL
BOUNDARY
50TH STREET N.LAKE ELMO AVENUE N.EXISTING
OVERHEAD UTILITY
LINES TO REMAIN
EXISTING
WETLAND
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
TYPICAL
TRACKER
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE
EXISTING
WETLAND
A A'
PROPOSED
ACCESS GATE
EXISTING TREE TO BE
PROTECTED, TYP. REFER TO
TREE SURVEY, SHEET L-2.0
R.O.W.
25' WETLAND
SETBACK LINE
25' SETBACK
30' SETBACK
50' SETBACK
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CODE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION CODE REQUIRED PROPOSED EXISTING UNIT
STREET FRONTAGE 1092 LINEAR FEET
LAKE SHORE 0 LINEAR FEET
STREAM FRONTAGE 0 LINEAR FEET
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1092 LINEAR FEET
/50 FEET = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE TREES 22 44 TREES
DEVELOPMENT OR
DISTURBED AREA 5 ACRES
x5 = REQUIRED
DEVELOPMENT TREES 28 17 TREES
INTERIOR PARKING LOT
SPACES 0 SPACES
/10 = REQUIRED PARKING
LOT TREES 0 0 TREES
PERIMETER PARKING
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH 0 LINEAR FEET
/50 = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE STRIP TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED
MITIGATION TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED NUMBER
OF TREES 50 39 TREES
SUBTOTAL TREES 61 11 TREES
TOTAL TREES
(PROVIDED +
PRESERVED EXISTING)
72 TREES
PLANTING LEGEND
SHADE & ORNAMENTAL TREES
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
AC White Fir
Abies concolor*12 6' B&B As shown on plans Moderate
(approx. 12-24" per year)
LL Tamarack Larch
Larix laricina*16 2.5" caliper
measured 6" from base As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PA Norway Spruce
Picea abies*14 6' B&B As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PG Black Hills Spruce
Picea glauca 'Densata'*10 6' B&B As shown on plans Slow to Moderate
(approx. 12" per year
PP Hoopsii Colorado Spruce
Picea pungens 'Hoopsii'*9 6' B&B As shown on plans Slow to Moderate
(approx. 12" per year
SHRUBS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
BM Wintergreen Boxwood
Buxus microphylla 'Wintergreen' *254 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx. 3" per year)
CS Isanti Dogwood
Cornus sericea 'Isanti' *67 5 gallon 5'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
FN Northern Sun Forsythia
Forsythia x 'Northern Sun' *18 5 gallon 6'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
TO Holmstrup Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' *251 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx 8"-12" per year)
VD Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum
Viburnum dentatum 'Christom' *202 5 gallon 4'-6" o.c Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
GROUNDCOVERS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.TYPE
Pollinator Seed Mix (Dry to Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 306,876 sf Seed
Pollinator Seed Mix (Wet Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 4,497 sf Seed
Sedge Meadow Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 7,354 sf Seed
Stormwater Basin Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 8,551 sf Seed
NOTES
* TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES IS DEPENDENT ON AVAILABILITY. IF CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE REQUIRED PLANT MATERIAL, ALTERNATIVE
SPECIES MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
PLANTING NOTES:
1. THE PROPOSED SCREENING CONSISTS OF 2,612 LINEAR FEET
OF SPECIFIED PLANT MATERIAL.
2. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY
WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES
AND REGULATIONS.
3. PLANTING MATERIAL SHALL MEET NURSERY STANDARD
CROWN WIDTH AND HEIGHT FOR THE SPECIFIED CONTAINER
SIZE (REFER TO ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION).
4. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD
PLANTING PRACTICES.
5. BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM
SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH,
SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED
OTHERWISE.
6. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY
PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING
AND PROPOSED TREES.
7. ALL SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE TOP DRESSED WITH A 3" DEEP
LAYER OF COMPOSTED WOOD FIBER MULCH. MULCH TO BE
SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL.
8. LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED BY
THE PROJECT.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALED
DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPT
AND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGY
RENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED OR
REPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/24/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
0' 15' 30' 60' 90'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
NMATCHLINEREFER TO SHEET L-1.11"=30'
L-1.0
PLANTING PLAN
930 930935
935940
9
4
0
9
2
8 9289
2
9 9299
3
1 9319
3
2
933
934
936
936937
9
3
79389
3
89399
3
9
941
9
4
1941
9
4
2
942
9
4
2942
943
9
4
3
DRAINAGE DITCH
932.45
MA 930.00±
929.00
929.85
EOF 931.00
MA 929.98±
933
93
4
932
931
930
930
931 930
929
931
931 931XXXXXXX
X
X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX XX XXXXX X XXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX50TH STREET N.
50' PARCEL SETBACK
PROPOSED FENCE PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANSPARCEL
BOUNDARY
EXISTING OVERHEAD
UTILITY LINES TO REMAIN
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
TYPICAL
TRACKER
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE, TYP. PROTECTIVE
MEASURES PER LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE
(105.12.470) SHALL BE TAKEN TO PROTECT ALL
EXISTING TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION
B
B'
EXISTING VEGETATION PROVIDES 90% OPAQUE
VISUAL SCREEN FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY
DRAINAGE DITCH PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TREE TO BE PROTECTED, TYP.
REFER TO TREE SURVEY, SHEET L-2.0
MINIMUM GRADING ACTIVITY ON ACCESS
ROAD FOR STORMWATER QUALITY POND,
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
TREE #158, CLASSIFICATION: NOT SIGNIFICANT; TO
BE REMOVED DUE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
REFER TO TREE SURVEY, SHEET L-2.0
50' SETBACK
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CODE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION CODE REQUIRED PROPOSED EXISTING UNIT
STREET FRONTAGE 1092 LINEAR FEET
LAKE SHORE 0 LINEAR FEET
STREAM FRONTAGE 0 LINEAR FEET
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1092 LINEAR FEET
/50 FEET = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE TREES 22 44 TREES
DEVELOPMENT OR
DISTURBED AREA 5 ACRES
x5 = REQUIRED
DEVELOPMENT TREES 28 17 TREES
INTERIOR PARKING LOT
SPACES 0 SPACES
/10 = REQUIRED PARKING
LOT TREES 0 0 TREES
PERIMETER PARKING
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH 0 LINEAR FEET
/50 = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE STRIP TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED
MITIGATION TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED NUMBER
OF TREES 50 39 TREES
SUBTOTAL TREES 61 11 TREES
TOTAL TREES
(PROVIDED +
PRESERVED EXISTING)
72 TREES
PLANTING LEGEND
SHADE & ORNAMENTAL TREES
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
AC White Fir
Abies concolor*12 6' B&B As shown on plans Moderate
(approx. 12-24" per year)
LL Tamarack Larch
Larix laricina*16 2.5" caliper
measured 6" from base As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PA Norway Spruce
Picea abies*14 6' B&B As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PG Black Hills Spruce
Picea glauca 'Densata'*10 6' B&B As shown on plans Slow to Moderate
(approx. 12" per year
PP Hoopsii Colorado Spruce
Picea pungens 'Hoopsii'*9 6' B&B As shown on plans Slow to Moderate
(approx. 12" per year
SHRUBS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
BM Wintergreen Boxwood
Buxus microphylla 'Wintergreen' *254 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx. 3" per year)
CS Isanti Dogwood
Cornus sericea 'Isanti' *67 5 gallon 5'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
FN Northern Sun Forsythia
Forsythia x 'Northern Sun' *18 5 gallon 6'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
TO Holmstrup Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' *251 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx 8"-12" per year)
VD Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum
Viburnum dentatum 'Christom' *202 5 gallon 4'-6" o.c Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
GROUNDCOVERS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.TYPE
Pollinator Seed Mix (Dry to Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 306,876 sf Seed
Pollinator Seed Mix (Wet Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 4,497 sf Seed
Sedge Meadow Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 7,354 sf Seed
Stormwater Basin Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 8,551 sf Seed
NOTES
* TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES IS DEPENDENT ON AVAILABILITY. IF CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE REQUIRED PLANT MATERIAL, ALTERNATIVE
SPECIES MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
PLANTING NOTES:
1.THE PROPOSED SCREENING CONSISTS OF 2,612 LINEAR FEET
OF SPECIFIED PLANT MATERIAL.
2.ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY
WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES
AND REGULATIONS.
3.PLANTING MATERIAL SHALL MEET NURSERY STANDARD
CROWN WIDTH AND HEIGHT FOR THE SPECIFIED CONTAINER
SIZE (REFER TO ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION).
4.PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD
PLANTING PRACTICES.
5.BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM
SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH,
SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED
OTHERWISE.
6.PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY
PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING
AND PROPOSED TREES.
7.ALL SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE TOP DRESSED WITH A 3" DEEP
LAYER OF COMPOSTED WOOD FIBER MULCH. MULCH TO BE
SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL.
8.LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED BY
THE PROJECT.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALED
DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPT
AND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGY
RENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED OR
REPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/24/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
0'15'30'60'90'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
NMATCHLINEREFER TO SHEET L-1.2MATCHLINEREFER TO SHEET L-1.01"=30'
L-1.1
PLANTING PLAN
945 945950950942
942942943 943944 944946
9
4
6
947 947948 9489499
4
9
9519
5
1
9529
5
2
9539
5
3
954
9
5
4
XXXXXXXXXXX
X
XXXXXXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDRAINAGE DITCH
50TH STREET N.
50' PARCEL SETBACK
PROPOSED FENCE PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
PARCEL
BOUNDARY
EXISTING OVERHEAD
UTILITY LINES TO REMAIN
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
TYPICAL
TRACKER
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE, TYP.
PROTECTIVE MEASURES PER
LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE
(105.12.470) SHALL BE TAKEN TO
PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES
DURING CONSTRUCTION
DRAINAGE DITCH PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
EXISTING TREE TO BE
PROTECTED, TYP. REFER TO
TREE SURVEY, SHEET L-2.0
50' SETBACK
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CODE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION CODE REQUIRED PROPOSED EXISTING UNIT
STREET FRONTAGE 1092 LINEAR FEET
LAKE SHORE 0 LINEAR FEET
STREAM FRONTAGE 0 LINEAR FEET
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1092 LINEAR FEET
/50 FEET = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE TREES 22 44 TREES
DEVELOPMENT OR
DISTURBED AREA 5 ACRES
x5 = REQUIRED
DEVELOPMENT TREES 28 17 TREES
INTERIOR PARKING LOT
SPACES 0 SPACES
/10 = REQUIRED PARKING
LOT TREES 0 0 TREES
PERIMETER PARKING
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH 0 LINEAR FEET
/50 = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE STRIP TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED
MITIGATION TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED NUMBER
OF TREES 50 39 TREES
SUBTOTAL TREES 61 11 TREES
TOTAL TREES
(PROVIDED +
PRESERVED EXISTING)
72 TREES
PLANTING LEGEND
SHADE & ORNAMENTAL TREES
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
AC White Fir
Abies concolor*12 6' B&B As shown on plans Moderate
(approx. 12-24" per year)
LL Tamarack Larch
Larix laricina*16 2.5" caliper
measured 6" from base As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PA Norway Spruce
Picea abies*14 6' B&B As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PG Black Hills Spruce
Picea glauca 'Densata'*10 6' B&B As shown on plans Slow to Moderate
(approx. 12" per year
PP Hoopsii Colorado Spruce
Picea pungens 'Hoopsii'*9 6' B&B As shown on plans Slow to Moderate
(approx. 12" per year
SHRUBS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
BM Wintergreen Boxwood
Buxus microphylla 'Wintergreen' *254 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx. 3" per year)
CS Isanti Dogwood
Cornus sericea 'Isanti' *67 5 gallon 5'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
FN Northern Sun Forsythia
Forsythia x 'Northern Sun' *18 5 gallon 6'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
TO Holmstrup Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' *251 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx 8"-12" per year)
VD Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum
Viburnum dentatum 'Christom' *202 5 gallon 4'-6" o.c Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
GROUNDCOVERS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.TYPE
Pollinator Seed Mix (Dry to Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 306,876 sf Seed
Pollinator Seed Mix (Wet Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 4,497 sf Seed
Sedge Meadow Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 7,354 sf Seed
Stormwater Basin Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 8,551 sf Seed
NOTES
* TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES IS DEPENDENT ON AVAILABILITY. IF CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE REQUIRED PLANT MATERIAL, ALTERNATIVE
SPECIES MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
PLANTING NOTES:
1.THE PROPOSED SCREENING CONSISTS OF 2,612 LINEAR FEET
OF SPECIFIED PLANT MATERIAL.
2.ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY
WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES
AND REGULATIONS.
3.PLANTING MATERIAL SHALL MEET NURSERY STANDARD
CROWN WIDTH AND HEIGHT FOR THE SPECIFIED CONTAINER
SIZE (REFER TO ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION).
4.PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD
PLANTING PRACTICES.
5.BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM
SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH,
SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED
OTHERWISE.
6.PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY
PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING
AND PROPOSED TREES.
7.ALL SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE TOP DRESSED WITH A 3" DEEP
LAYER OF COMPOSTED WOOD FIBER MULCH. MULCH TO BE
SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL.
8.LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED BY
THE PROJECT.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALED
DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPT
AND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGY
RENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED OR
REPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/24/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
0'15'30'60'90'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
NMATCHLINEREFER TO SHEET L-1.11"=30'
L-1.2
PLANTING PLAN
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALED
DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPT
AND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGY
RENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED OR
REPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/24/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
L-1.3
PLANTING DETAILS
SHRUB PLANTING
2X WIDTH OF
ROOTBALL MIN.
POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM
BASE OF PLANT, TYP.
FINISH GRADE (F.G.)
LOOSEN ROOTS BEFORE PLANTING,
WATER AFTER PLANTING
SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM
NATIVE SOIL
ROOTBALL COLLAR SHALL BE 1"
ABOVE F.G.
1-1/2" DEPTH TEMPORARY WATER
RETENTION BASIN. FORM FROM
SHRUB PIT EXCAVATION
18"MIN.PREPARED BACKFILL,
PER SPECIFICATIONS
CONTROLLED RELEASE
FERTILIZER PER SPECIFICATIONS
NOTES
1.AVOID PLANTING SHRUBS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF IRRIGATION SPRAY HEADS.
PROVIDE CLEARANCE WHEN POSSIBLE.
2.MULCH 3" LAYER MIN. MAINTAIN 6" DIAMETER AROUND ROOT COLLAR.
TREE PLANTING 6"3X SIZE OF ROOTBALL MIN.
SOIL BACKFILL PER
PLANS AND SPECS
3' MIN. 4' MAX.SCARIFY SIDES AND
BOTTOM OF TREE PIT
COMPACT NATIVE SOIL
BELOW ROOTBALL
(2) 2" x 10' LODGE
POLES TO BE
INSTALLED AT SAME
HEIGHT
TOP OF LODGE POLES
TO BE LEVEL WITH
BASE OF LOWEST
BRANCH
8" +/-
TREE TRUNK
RUBBER HOSE
10 GA. GALV. WIRES
LODGE POLE DETAIL
(PLAN VIEW)
LODGE POLE STAKE TYP.
1/2" 2-PLY BLACK RUBBER
HOSE WITH 10 GA GALV.
WIRES TO MAIN TRUNK.
3"
3" TEMPORARY WATER
RETENTION BASIN,
MAINTAIN FOR 6 WEEKS
MAINTAIN 6" DIA.
BARE SOIL AROUND
TRUNK OF TREE
ROOTBALL
MULCH, 3" LAYER MIN.
2'-6"
TYP.
POSITIVE DRAINAGE
AWAY FROM BASE OF
TREE, TYP.
CONTROLLED
RELEASE FERTILIZER
PER SPECIFICATIONS
VEGETATIVE SCREENING CROSS SECTION A-A'
NOTES
1.REFER TO SHEET L-1.0 FOR SECTION CUT LINE AND PLANTING LEGEND
A
A'
COLORADO SPRUCE
PICEA PUNGENS 'HOOPSII'
30' TO 50' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
BLUE MUFFIN ARROWWOOD VIBURNUM
VIBURNUM DENTATUM 'CHRISTOM'
6'-7' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
LAKE ELMO AVENUE
SOLAR
TRACKER
PANELS
REQUIRED
90% OPAQUE
FENCE AND
VEGETATIVE
SCREENING
POLLINATOR
SEED MIX
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EXISTING ROADSIDE
VEGETATION TO REMAIN
9' HT. MAX1'-6"
MIN.
4'-4" MAX HT.
AT MID-DAY
R.O.W.
8' HT. WOOD FENCE
WITH WIRE MESH
WINTERGREEN BOXWOOD
BUXUS MICROPHYLLA 'WINTERGREEN'
3' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
1
2
3
4
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"VEGETATIVE SCREENING CROSS SECTION B-B'
NOTES
A.REFER TO SHEET L-1.1 FOR SECTION
CUT LINE AND PLANTING LEGEND
B B'
NORWAY SPRUCE, PICEA ABIES
40-60' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
REQUIRED 90% OPAQUE
FENCE AND VEGETATIVE
SCREENING
8' HT. WOOD FENCE WITH WIRE MESH
POLLINATOR SEED MIX
PARCEL BOUNDARY
SOLAR
TRACKER
PANELS
9' HT. MAX
1'-6"
MIN.
4'-4" MAX HT.
AT MID-DAY
WHITE FIR, ABIES CONCOLOR
30-50' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
930 930935
935
935 93594094
0
945 94595095092
8 9289
2
9 9299
3
1 9319319319
3
2 9329329
3
2 932932933933933
9
3
3 93
3933
934
93
4 934936
936
936937
9
3
793893
89399
3
9
9
4
1941
942
9429
4
2942
943
943
94
3943944944946
9
4
6
947 947948 9489499
4
9
9519
5
1
9529
5
2
9539
5
3
954
9
5
4
XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXX12'
MINDRAINAGE DITCHDRAINAGE DITCH
932.45
MA 930.00±
929.00
929.85
EOF 931.00
MA 929.98±
932.49
932.46
932.05
932.05
932.09
932.25
932.47 932.63
MA 933.24±MA 933.44±
932.24
932.40
933
93
4
932
931
930
930
931 930
929
931
931 93093093193193293393493
2
930
931932932932
9
3
2
933
933-1.3%0.6%
-2.0%
-1.0%
932.97933.11
932.52-4.3%-1.1%XXXXX
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXX XXXXX X XXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXX50TH STREET N.
197-NS
196-NS
194-NS
193-NS
N/A-I
195-NS
N/A-I
192-NS
197-NS
191-N
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
189-NS
190-N
N/A-I
188-S
N/A-I
N/A-I
N/A-I
187-S
163-S
200-S
186-NS
160-S
159-S
185-S
184-S
186-NS
181-NS
182-S
180-S
179-S
178-N
174-N
173-NS
172-NS
175-NS
176-S
177-NS
171-S
170-NS
169-NS
168-N
167-S
166-NS
165-NS
164-S
162-NS
157-NS
155-NS
154-S
151-NS
N/A-I
152-NS
153-NS
150-S
149-S
148-NS
147-S
146-S
N/A-I
158-NS
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE, TYP. PROTECTIVE MEASURES PER
LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE (105.12.470) SHALL BE TAKEN
TO PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION
50' PARCEL
SETBACK
PARCEL
BOUNDARY
TYPICAL
TRACKER
DRAINAGE DITCH PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
PROPOSED FENCE PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
PROPOSED
ACCESS GATE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
UTILITY LINES TO REMAIN
PARCEL
BOUNDARY
50' PARCEL
SETBACK
EXISTING
WETLAND
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
EXISTING
WETLAND LAKE ELMO AVENUE N.NO GRADING ACTIVITY SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN
THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF SIGNIFICANT TREES
MINIMUM GRADING ACTIVITY ON ACCESS
ROAD FOR STORMWATER QUALITY POND,
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
R.O.W.
25'
WETLAND
SETBACK
LINE
25'
SETBACK
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE, TYP.
CEF LAKE ELMO SOLAR TREE SURVEY
TREE TAG SPECIES CLASSIFICATION CALIPER SIZE
(INCHES)
146 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 20.6
147 POPLAR COMMON
SPECIMEN 37.9
148 WILLOW COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 10.1
149 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 16.9
150 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 13.6
151 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9
152 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 7
153 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.4
154 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 15.4, 15.1
155 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.1
157 WILLOW COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.9
158 ELM COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 7.7
159 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 26.1
160 OAK NOT COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 15.9, 16.4
162 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 11
163 OAK NOT COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 10.4, 15.7
164 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 23.3
165 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 11.2, 9.2
166 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.1
167 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 10.3, 12.2
168 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 34.1
169 WILLOW COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.3
170 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 11.1
171 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 14.2
172 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.5
173 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.5
174 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 27.8
175 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 7.5
176 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 14.5
177 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.9, 6.2
178 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 27.5
179 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 15.4, 19.0
180 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 9.3, 7.8, 9.8, 12.1
181 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.5, 7.3
182 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 12.3, 14.2
183 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 7.7
184 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 14.4, 15.5
185 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 20.2, 9.1
186 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.8
187 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 15.3
188 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 13.9
189 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.1
190 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 29
191 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 20
192 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.1
193 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.1
194 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.5
195 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.3
196 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.3
197 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.4
200 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 16.1
146 - S
CLASSIFICATION
TREE TAG NUMBER
TREE IDENTIFICATION KEY
CLASSIFICATION KEY
S: SIGNIFICANT TREE
NS: NOT SIGNIFICANT
N: NUISANCE
N/A-I: NOT APPLICABLE &
INCONSEQUENTIAL TO CITY CODE
ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 154.257
TREE SURVEY LEGEND
SIGNIFICANT/SPECIMEN TREE
(CRZ RADIUS DEPICTED)
COMMON TREE/ INCONSEQUENTIAL
(CRZ RADIUS NOT DEPICTED)
NUISANCE TREE
(CRZ RADIUS NOT DEPICTED)
NOTES:
1) REFER TO SHEET L-1.3 FOR TREE PROTECTION DETAIL..
2) ALL INVENTORIED TREES ARE HEALTHY UNLESS INDIVIDUALLY NOTED.
3) THE FOLLOWING EXISTING TREES ARE BEING COUNTED TOWARDS THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: #146, 147, 150,
154, 160, 163, 164, 171, 179, 182, AND 200. REFER TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO CODE REQUIREMENTS TABLE ON SHEETS,
L-1.0, L-1.1 AND L-1.2 FOR QUANTITY OF TREES TO BE CREDITED TOWARD THE LANDSCAPE CODE REQUIREMENT.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALED
DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPT
AND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGY
RENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED OR
REPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/24/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
N
0'20'40'80'120'
SCALE: 1" = 40'
1"=30'
L-2.0
TREE SURVEY
Location Map - 10755 50th St N
October 22, 2021 0 450 900225 ft
0 130 26065 m
1:4,800
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Date Received:. ______ _ ReceivedBy: ______ _ Permit#: _______ _
LAND USE APPilCATION
TIil.: CITY OF U\KEELMO 651-747-39003880 LavemeAvenue North Lake Elmo, MN55042
D Comprehensive Plan D Zoning District Amend D Zoning Text Amend D Variance"(see below) D Zoning Appeal
II Conditional Use Permit(C.U.P.) 0 Flood Plain C.U.P. D Interim Use Permit (1.U.P.) D Excavating/Grading
D Lot Line Adjustment D Minor Subdivision D Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan
D PUD Concept Plan D PUD Preliminary Plan D PUD Final Plan D Wireless Communications
Appticant CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC Address: 2003 Western Ave, Suite 225, Seattle WA, 98121 Phone # 206-900-9930
Email Address: kate@oneenergyrenewables.com
Property Owner: Anthony P Manzara Rev Trs
Address: 5050 Kirkwood Ave, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
PhoneV1# ;Q1 ---c;_5/-7&1-7t:JO JEmail Address: smanzara@msn.com
Property Address: 10755 50th St N, lake Elmo, MN 55042 PIO#: 1102921110003
Detailed Reason forRequest: Seeking Conditional Use Permit for construction and operation of a Solar Farm at the property with
the PIO# 1102921110003, in accordance with City Code Section 154.308.A. The Solar Farm will participate in Xcel Energy's
Solar"Rewards Community® program and will result in significant savings to Xcel Energy customers In the City, Washington County,
adjacent counties over the project's 25-year life. The Applicant has a Solar Energy Option Agreement for up to 10 acres with the Anthony
P Manzara Revocable Trust on this property to enable construction and operations of the solar project.
•Variance Requests: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the applicant must demonstratepractical difficulties before a variance can be granted. The practical difficulties related to this application are as follows:
No variances are requested as part of this application.
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning ordinance and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense.
Signatureof lll)plolnl: \( � � Dalee Cl, \ I \ 'l... D '--\
Signature of property owner; at' :::;;z. °"Date: Gf -/ -,Z. 0 ,Z J
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application
Handout
1
F F
F F
F F
CONDITIONAL USE PROCEDURE 1FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
The Lake Elmo City Code was established to protect current and future residents from the
negative impacts of improper development and to ensure a positive future for the city. A
conditional use permit is the mechanism that allows the city to examine proposed uses to ensure
they are compatible with the proposed site and surrounding properties. It is important to
understand that a proposed use may be acceptable in some locations but unacceptable in others.
All applications are viewed on a case-by-case basis.
In order to successfully receive a conditional use permit, there are a number of steps that must be
followed:
1. Contact city staff to discuss your proposed conditional use and obtain a land use
application from City Hall.
2. Put together an informational packet (described herein) that outlines your request and
outlines all reasons as to why the conditional use permit should be granted.
3. Submit your completed packet to staff by the applicable due date for review. Staff will
examine your submittal to determine if the application is complete, and contact you if
additional information is required or was omitted. It is to your advantage to submit
materials as early as possible so staff can assist you in meeting all requirements.
Applications found to be incomplete as of the due date (see submission deadlines on
website) will likely not be reviewed until the following month2.
4. Staff will address completed applications by requesting comments from partnering
agencies, scheduling meetings, writing reports, and notifying a public hearing. Staff will
always strive to place your application before the planning commission as early as
possible, but not until all background work is completed.
5. The Planning Commission will review the request at one of their meetings (held on the
2nd and 4th Monday of every month3) and forward a recommendation onto City Council
(1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month3). Applicants are advised to attend both the
Commission meeting and the Council meeting and be open to questions that might be
posed regarding the request.
6. The City Council will consider the request and either grant or deny the conditional use
permit.
Above all else, it is imperative that you begin your preparations as early as possible to insure
your application is complete at least one month prior to the desired date for planning commission
review. State mandated requirements for public hearing notifications do not allow the City to
accelerate the review process which typically takes 1.5 months from the date of application
(longer if the item is complex or is tabled during the review process).
1 The information provided in this document is intended to be a correct statement of the law as set forth in the Lake Elmo City Code and the laws of
the State of Minnesota. However, the applicant should refer to the actual sources and consult with their own legal advisor regarding applicability to
their application. In providing this information, the City makes no representations nor provides any legal advice or opinion.
2 Minnesota State Statute 15.99 requires local governments to review an application within 15 business days of its submission to determine if an
application is complete and/or if additional information is needed to adequately review the subject request.
3 Please note that meeting dates are subject to change due to holidays, lack of quorum, etc. Please contact City Hall to confirm all dates and times.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application
Handout
2
Conditional use permits can be requested for many different uses in all areas of the City which
makes it very difficult to generate at handout that is applicable in all situations. It is strongly
recommended that an applicant meet with staff prior to putting an application together to identify
components listed herein that may be exempted, and to identify additional information that may
be needed in order to deem your application complete.
At a minimum, the following materials must be submitted to the City before the City deems
an application complete:
USub: RU eq: UItem:
1. A completed land use application form signed by all property owners along with
payment of the proper filing fee.
2. Written statements providing information regarding your proposal. UPlease provide
a separate answer for each of the lettered items listed belowU (answers must be
submitted in both hard copy and electronic form--.txt files or MS Word format):
a. A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) and phone
number(s) of: the owner of record, authorized agents or representatives,
engineer, surveyor, and any other relevant associates;
b. A listing of the following site data: Address, current zoning, parcel size in
acres and square feet, property identification number(s) (PID), and current
legal description(s);
c. A narrative regarding the history of the property (current and past uses) and
any pre-application discussions with staff.
d. A specific written description of the proposed use(s).
i. Incorporate information describing Uhow the use will work on the
proposed siteU including proposed site changes, existing open
spaces, landscaping, traffic circulation, transition areas to adjacent
properties, individual uses for existing and proposed structures, and
effects on natural areas (wetlands, forests, etc.) both on-site and in
the general vicinity of the project.
ii. Provide specific details about the use including the number of
employees, hours of operation, maximum number of animals (if
applicable), proposed development schedule, etc.
e. Provide justification that the proposed use meets the following findings:
i. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger thepublic
health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the
neighborhood or City.
ii. The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan.
iii. The use or development is compatible with the existing
neighborhood.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application
Handout
3
iv. The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such
use listed in Article 7 of the Zoning Code.
v. If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland
area, the proposed use meets all the specific standards for such use.
vi. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing
or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
vii. The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as
defined in the zoning code to existing or future neighboring
structures.
viii. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public
facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and
schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the
establishment of the proposed use.
ix. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements
at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
x. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes,
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be
detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because
of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or
odors.
xi. Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create
traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
xii. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage
of a natural or scenic feature of major importance.
USub: RU eq: I tem:
3. Verification of ownership (a copy of a current title report, purchase agreement,
etc.)
4.
Address labels: A certified list of property owners located within three hundred
fifty (350’) feet of the subject property obtained from and certified by a licensed
abstractor or through Washington County (see attached form).
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application
Handout
4
4 If your survey must be larger than 11x17 to be fully legible and to scale, we ask that five (5) copies be in the large format, with the remainder reduced to 11x17.
5 Please consult with staff on exactly what to include on your survey. Every application is unique and may require more or less information than what is listed in this handout. Staff reserves the right to require additional information.
5. Ten (10) copies of a certified survey or to-scale site plan depicting the lot upon
which a conditional use permit is requested. The large number of copies is
necessaryU given the number of people who receive the planning commission and
city council packets. The survey/site plan shall be at a readable and measurable
engineering scale, be composed of one or more sheets not smaller4 than 11x17, be
5F F
Upre-foldedU for distribution, and include the following informationF F:
Location, Floor Area, and Building Envelope of U ExistingU & UProposedU Structures
Lot Lines
Parcel Size in Acres & Square Feet
Building Setbacks (Front/Rear/Side/Lake): closest point of building to each
property line
Actual elevations for Garage Floor, Basement Floor, Foundation Top, & Building
Height
Lowest Floor Elevation if any part of property is in flood plain
All Water FeaturesU: Floodplain, Floodway Delineations, Ordinary High Water
Mark Elevations, Wetlands, Watercourses, Reservoirs, Ponds, & Other Bodies of
Water
Existing topographic character of land showing contours at 2’ intervals
Proposed topographic character at U 2’ intervals
Flow arrows indicating direction of drainage
General location of wooded or heavily vegetated areas
All Adjacent Structures Within 100 Feet of Property
All Easements (Road, Utility, Drainage, etc.)
Public Right-of-Way Name (street name)
Proposed driveway location and proposed driveway grades
Wells & Neighboring Wells if New Drainfield is Installed
Septic System & Drainfield, or Sanitary Sewer Connection
Percolation Test & Soil Boring Holes (if applicable)
Hardcover Calculations--% and square footage of:
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application
Handout
5
- Building coverage
- Driveway and parking
- Public street right-of-way
- Open space and/or landscaped
area
Proposed Treatment of the Perimeter, including Screens, Fences, Walls, &
Landscaping
Location of adjacent Municipal boundaries
Top and toe of bluffs (if applicable)
Location, dimensions, and number of off-street parking spaces (including guest,
handicapped, bicycle, and motorcycle spaces)
Location of existing and proposed pedestrian sidewalks. Identify possible
vehicular conflicts and indicate the proposed treatment of such
Administrative Information:
- Scale & North Point
- Signature of Surveyor
- Date of Preparation
- PID Number
- Site Address
Other: U
- Legal Description
- Subdivision Name (if applicable)
- Zoning Classification
- Parcel Size in Acres & Square Feet
USub: UReq: Item:
6. Landscape Plan: Ten copies of a Landscape Plan depicting the property in
question. Each document shall be at a consistent, readable, and measurable
engineering scale, be composed of sheet(s) not smaller6 than 11x17, and be pre-
F F folded for distribution. Staff will assist you in determining what is required. The
landscape plan will not be considered complete unless all required elements are
included.
Extent and location of all plant materials and landscape features. Please include a
plant material schedule with common and botanical names, symbols, sizes,
quantities, and total percentage of each species.
Flower and shrub beds shall be clearly shown and drawn to scaled dimensions.
Actual plant quantities must be shown with landscape edge and mulch material
identified.
6 If your survey or sketch plan must be larger than 11x17 to be fully legible, we ask that that ten (10) copies of the plan be in the large format, and an additional twenty (20) be reduced to 11x17.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application
Handout
6
Existing trees must be accurately identified as to location, species, size, and
condition; and labeled with intent to remove, protect, or transplant. Transplanted
tree locations shall be identified.
Tree protection specifications as defined in Section 23 of Lake Elmo Code shall
be included on all landscape plans in written and graphic form.
Proposed treatment of all ground surfaces must be clearly indicated (paving, turf,
mulch grading, etc). Grass surfaces must be identified as sod or seed with the
blend or mix specified.
Show specific horticultural notes and details insuring the quality, survival, and
establishment of plant materials.
Proposed contours if making changes to existing grading.
Retaining walls that are used to provide breaks in slopes, protect trees, or
accomplish other landscape objectives.
Any plans to restore, revegetate, or enhance an affected natural area or natural
area buffer zone.
Mitigation plans for any proposed natural area disturbance.
Other requirements set forth by the City Engineer
Sub:
RU eq: UItem:
7. Architectural Plans: Ten copies6 of architectural plans for all buildings
sufficient to convey the basic architectural intent of the proposed improvements.
The plans shall be pre-folded for distribution, and include the following
information (please consult with staff to determine if any of these informational
requirements can be waived):
Architectural elevations (to a verifiable scale) as they will appear after
construction.
Maximum building height/elevation of all structures.
Indication of all typical building dimensions (including doors, windows, eaves,
rooflines, pitch, et cetera) on all building elevations.
Specifications as to type, color, and texture of exterior surfaces of proposed
structures (include color chips and exterior building materials list).
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application
Handout
7
SU ub:
UReq:
A detailed lighting plan insuring that all lighting apparatuses are down shielded
as to ensure such do not shine or create glare on abutting properties and
surrounding areas (include a specification sheet for all wall fixtures and site plan
fixtures).
Photo metric plan(s) for the site.
Location of utility meters, HVAC equipment, vaults, irrigation boxes,
transformers, and other utility service functions (such as conduits, and vents).
Show how this equipment will be screened so that the visual and acoustic
impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view of the adjacent
properties and public streets.
Item:
8. U Utilities & Services Plan: A plan set detailing the existing and proposed utility
systems including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water, electric, gas lines, telephone
lines, fire hydrants, and trash collection areas.
9. Electronic file(s) of plan sets. Staff can generally work with most file formats (we
would prefer .jpg or .pdf files).
10.
Any other information required by city staff, commissioners, or council members
necessary to provide a complete review of the conditional use request. Information
deemed critical to the review process not listed in this handout may be requested7.
F F Staff will list other requirements below:
The City may require (or the applicant may choose to submit) evidence that is beyond what is
required in any section outlined in this handout. Please be advised that the City reserves the
right to impose conditions on an approved conditional use if necessary to avoid a detrimental
impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole.
If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please call City Hall at (651) 747-3900.
Thank You!
7 Number of copies, size, and other such administrative details may also be imposed when requiring additional information.
LAKE ELMO SOLAR ENERGY APPLICATION
This form is meant to be an addendum to a building permit, interim use permit, conditional use permit, or
certificate of zoning compliance application. Please attach to the applicable form to ensure all submittal
requirements are met. The following outlines what type of permit is required for each type of solar energy
system:
SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT INFORMATION
1. System Manufacturer:
2. Type of Solar Energy System (Please attach this form to the appropriate application as
indicated below):
Type of Solar Energy System Required Permit
Rooftop or Building-Mount Building Permit
Ground-Mount (Accessory Use, Non-Solar Farm) Certificate of Zoning Compliance
Solar Farm in RR or A District Conditional Use Permit
Solar Farm in RT District Interim Use Permit
3. Is the system of mirror reflecting design: Yes No
4. Please explain how glare will be minimized from affecting adjacent property owners
(selective placement, screening, modifying orientation, etc.)
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Attachments to include:
NPDES permit and/or stormwater management, erosion, and sediment control plan
per City and watershed district requirements (only applicable for solar farms).
Interconnection Agreement between the applicant and servicing electrical utility if
connected directly to the distribution or transmission system (if applicable).
Site plan/survey showing proposed setback of the system from all property lines,
easements, lot size, impervious surface (if ground-mount solar energy system), and
structures.
Decommissioning plan including provisions for removal of all structures and
foundations, restoration of soil and vegetation, and plan ensuring financial resources
will be available to fully decommission the site (may be waived for certain types of
solar energy systems).
A statement from an engineer certifying that the foundation and design of the solar
panels, racking and support is within accepted professional standards, given local soil
and climate conditions (only applicable for solar farms).
Approval from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MNPCA) (if applicable)
System design
Graphics showing how the system will appear
Comments (As needed for any clarification or explanation):
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
CEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITY SOLAR
1 MW GROUND-MOUNTED COMMUNITY SOLAR
GARDEN PROJECT
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
SUBMITTED BY: CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC
CONTACT:
Kate Larkin, Associate Director of Development kate@oneenergyrenewables.com 206-900-9930
September 8, 2021 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff
3800 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Conditional Use Permit Application to Develop One-Megawatt Solar Project
Dear Members of the Planning Commission, City Council, and Staff:
CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC - a wholly-owned subsidiary of OneEnergy Development, LLC - is excited to present the following application to the City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission and Council for a one-megawatt (MW) solar project located in Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
OneEnergy Development developed a series of ten (10) projects in 2019 for municipal utilities located throughout the region, which totaled 23MW and included the 2MW St Charles Project and the 600kW Lanesboro Project. OneEnergy also developed and built two (2) one-megawatt
community solar projects for Xcel Energy in central and northern Wisconsin, all of which has
given us strong insights into how to efficiently develop, engineer, and construct solar projects in the Upper Midwest. We believe that we have addressed and/or exceeded the conditions listed in the City of Lake
Elmo Code and the Conditional Use Permit Application for solar farms. OneEnergy has worked
with Xcel Energy to identify a location with a strong interconnection position relative to their distribution infrastructure and have secured a position in Xcel’s Solar*Rewards Community® program that will result in significant savings to Xcel Energy customers in the City, Washington County, and adjacent counties over the project’s 25-year life. OneEnergy has also signed a Solar
Energy Option Agreement for up to 10 acres with the Manzara family to enable construction and
operations of the project. OneEnergy builds all of our projects with an eye towards integrating well to rural and agricultural settings, using deer exclusion, ag-style fencing and seeding perennial, pollinator friendly cover
crops beneath and around the array. Once in operation, the project will not emit discernable
noise beyond the perimeter fence and maintenance personnel will be on site an average of once monthly for vegetation and equipment monitoring and maintenance. OneEnergy is dedicated to preserving its reputation as a good solar neighbor. We look forward
to working with City Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council as you review our CEF
Lake Elmo Community Solar project for a Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely,
Katelyn Larkin Associate Director of Development
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Parcel Attributes ................................................................................................................................ 4
Zoning and Legal Description ......................................................................................................... 4
Land Use and Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 5
Nearby Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 5
Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 5
PV Modules.................................................................................................................................... 6
Racking .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Inverters and Switchgear................................................................................................................ 7
Electrical Collection Systems ......................................................................................................... 7
Electrical Interconnection Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 7
Security Fencing ............................................................................................................................ 7
Access Road .................................................................................................................................. 8
Parking ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Ground Disturbance ....................................................................................................................... 8
Setbacks ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Landscape Screening .................................................................................................................... 8
Economic and Environmental Benefits ........................................................................................... 9
Construction, Operations, and Maintenance ...................................................................................... 9
Hours of Operation ....................................................................................................................... 10
Number of Employees .................................................................................................................. 10
Number of Trips, Vehicles and Traffic Flow .................................................................................. 10
Project Consultations ....................................................................................................................... 10
City Planning and Zoning ............................................................................................................. 11
Wetlands/Vally Branch Watershed District Review ....................................................................... 11
Public Works ................................................................................................................................ 12
Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................................................... 12
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ............................................................................... 13
Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................................................................... 13
Interconnection Application Status ................................................................................................... 13
Stormwater Management Plan ......................................................................................................... 13
Erosion and Sediment Control ..................................................................................................... 14
Decommissioning and Financial Assurance Plan ............................................................................. 15
Conditional Use Justification ............................................................................................................ 17
2
TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Current Title Report and Option to Lease
Appendix B – Current Site Condition Photos
Appendix C – Site Plan
Appendix D – Landscape Plan
Appendix E – Project Consultations
Appendix F – Facilities Study Scope
Appendix G – Stormwater Management Plan
3
INTRODUCTION
The CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar Project (the “Project”) is
a proposed solar photovoltaic (“PV”) project with a maximum
size of 1,000 kilowatts (“KW”) alternating current (“AC”) and is
owned by CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC (“Applicant”),
a wholly-owned subsidiary of OneEnergy Development, LLC.
The Project is proposed to be located at 10755 50th St N, Lake
Elmo, MN 55042. The Applicant has a Solar Energy Option
Agreement to lease up to 10 acres with the Manzara family to
enable construction and operations of the project. The Project’s
proposed area of development (“Site”) will occupy up to
approximately seven (7) acres as shown in Figure 1 below.
AT A GLANCE: CEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITY SOLAR
PROJECT AREA 7 acres
SITE CONTROL
3 year option for a 26-year lease with 10-year extension option
SYSTEM SIZE 1 MW-AC/1,000 KW-
AC
SYSTEM TYPE
Single-axis tracking Solar Photovoltaic
PROJECTED OUTPUT ~2,300 MWh / Year
ESTIMATED ONLINE DATE 2022
Figure 1. Project Area
4
The Project will provide low-cost renewable electricity to Xcel customers in the City of Lake Elmo,
Washington County, and immediately adjacent counties via Xcel Energy’s Solar*Rewards
Community® program, and will connect directly to the distribution system of Xcel Energy. The
project was designed so that the vast majority of the electricity produced would be used within
the community. It is estimated the project will produce enough energy to meet the energy needs
of over two-hundred (200) average Minnesota households annually.
PARCEL ATTRIBUTES
ZONING AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Project will be sited within the Rural
Residential (“RR”) District as defined under the
City of Lake Elmo’s Zoning Code (“Code”). The
Project is allowed in the RR zone subject to a
Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”).
The Project will be located on the property with
the tax parcel number: 11.029.21.11.0003
totaling 10.9 acres (the “Property”). The Property
is in the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota and
bordered by 50th St N to the north, Lake Elmo
Ave N (county road) to the east, and private
property to the south and west. Coordinates for
the approximate center of the Project are
45.020488° north latitude and -92.884442° west
longitude.
The Property is privately-owned by the Anthony P Manzara Revocable Trust. A current title
report demonstrating the land ownership is included as Appendix A. The legal description of the
Property is as follows:
That part of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 29 North,
Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, lying North of the South 2105.5 feet (as
AT A GLANCE: PARCEL ATTRIBUTES
OWNER OF RECORD:
Anthony P Manzara Rev Trs
5050 Kirkwood Ave
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
651-679-7001
PROJECT OWNER:
CEF Lake Elmo
Community Solar, LLC
2003 Western Ave, Suite 225,
Seattle, WA 98121
Kate Larkin, Associate Director
206-900-9930
ADDRESS 10755 50th St N, Lake Elmo, MN
55042
CURRENT ZONING Rural Residential
PARCEL SIZE 10.9 acres/ 474,618 SF
PID 1102921110003
5
measured along the East line) thereof. Excepting therefrom the North 290.4 feet of the
East 750 feet of the West 850 feet of said East Half of the Northeast Quarter, according
to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Washington County,
Minnesota.
The Applicant has an Option to Lease the Property, which is provided in redacted form at
Appendix A.
LAND USE AND CHARACTERISTICS
The Property has historically been used for agricultural purposes. A single family detached home
was build on the western portion of the property in 1986. Currently the property continues to be
used primarily for cultivated agriculture and as a residence. Site elevations range from
approximately 930 to 950 feet above mean sea level. Photos of the current site conditions are
included as Appendix A.
NEARBY LAND USE
Nearby properties are zoned RR and are primarily of residential and agricultural use. However,
the Halcyon Cemetery is also located adjacent to the Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Application is for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 1 megawatt solar PV project on
approximately 7 acres of land. The Project will be constructed on land currently used for
agriculture. No wetlands, forests, or biologically sensitive areas will be impacted by the Project.
The Project will not produce any adverse impacts on surrounding properties, as it has been
designed to avoid percebtable glare and noise, will not generate traffic or emmissions once built.
Additionally, the Project will not place any new burdons on City infrastructure, as no new water
or sewer utilities are required. Conversly, the Project will support healthier air and soils through
local renewable energy generation and use of pollinator habitat in site stabilization.
The Project is expected to start construction and be completed in 2022. The Project will be
constructed in compliance with any applicable local, state, and federal regulatory standards,
including – but not limited to - the State of Minnesota’s Uniform Building Code and the National
Electric Code. A Site Plan is included as Appendix C and further details on the project and it’s
components are provided below.
6
PV MODULES
The Applicant proposes to install approximately 2,250 PV modules (final module count to be
confirmed prior to building permit issuance and start of construction) to convert sunlight to
electricty for local use. The PV modules installed will be consistent with the type, make, and size
of PV module used in residential rooftop
solar installations and will consist of
individual solar cells encased in steel and
glass with an anti-reflective coating as
shown in Figure 2. The modules will be
arranged in rows and the rows will be
spaced apart approximately 15 feet to
prevent inter-row shading and to allow for
stormwater infiltration and maintenance
equipment access.
RACKING
The PV modules will be mounted on single-axis trackers supported on stationary piles as shown
in Figure 2 above. Each row of solar panels will be strung together in a north-south orientation
and the panels will tilt on a single-axis (facing east in the morning
and tilting toward the west, following the sun, through the course
of each day to maximize energy output). The top of the panels
will stand no higher than 14 feet.
The racking system and panels are supported by steel piles
driven to a depth of 5 to 9 feet below grade, as shown in Figure
3. No footings are required for the driven piles. Within 60 days of
completion of construction, a professional engineer licensed in
the state of Minnesota will ceritify in writing that the Project’s
foundation and design of the solar energy system is suitable per
the City’s Standards for Alternative Energy (codified at Section
154.308.A.4).
Figure 3. Steel pile installation
Figure 2. Mounted PV Modules
7
INVERTERS AND SWITCHGEAR
The solar facility will include inverters to convert the variable direct current (DC) output of the
solar panels into the alternating current (AC) power that utilities use to deliver power. Each of
the inverters will be housed within a single purpose-built
steel housing to be placed on top of a concrete slab.
Switchgear will be installed for safety and maintenance
to electrically control, protect, and isolate sections of the
solar array. The switchgear will also be constructed on
a concrete slab. While the exact size of these pads will
be determined by final equipment selection and utility
requirements, the current design calls for ~7’ x ~12’
concrete pads.
ELECTRICAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS
All the wiring for the solar panels and the low-voltage runs to the inverter/switchgear station will
be either underground or in a conduit mounted to the support structure of the array. From the
inverters and switchgear, an underground medium voltage electric line will be constructed to
Xcel’s electrical interconnection infrastructure.
ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION INFRASTRUCTURE
The Project will connect to the existing Xcel Energy distribution line and right-of-way located on-
site. The Project proposes a line tap of the above ground distribution line located at
approximately 45.021274° north latitude and -92.884682° west longitude located south of 50th
St. N. As shown in the Site Plan provided at Appendix C, the Applicant anticipates Xcel Energy
will require up to three new aboveground poles for their electrical equipment to support the
interconnection. The access road will be co-located with the point of interconnection to allow
Xcel Energy access for maintenance.
No other additional utilities or public services, such as septic system or public water service, are
required or proposed. The location of existing public utilities are noted on the Site Plan in
Appendix C.
SECURITY FENCING
Security fencing will be installed and located as shown on the Site Plan to encompass all solar
Figure 4. On-site electrical infrastructure
8
panels, the inverter and switchgear pads, and the temporary staging area, along with portions
of the access road and underground medium voltage electrical line.
ACCESS ROAD
One (16) foot gravel service road will be constructed using appropriate gravel and asphalt
material to allow for vehicular access to the solar facility.
PARKING
No permanent parking spaces are proposed, however, temporary parking during construction
will occur on-site only.
GROUND DISTURBANCE
There will be minor ground disturbance across the Site to drive the support piles and to bury the
necessary electrical wiring. Power and communication lines running between banks of solar
energy panels and the Project’s interconnection to the distribution system shall be buried
underground to the greatest extent possible, as shown on the Site Plan. Best efforts will be taken
to minimize the earthwork required for the construction of the concrete pads for the inverters and
switchgear. As shown on the Site Plan, the Project area includes room for a temporary staging
area at the end of the Project’s access road. All appropriate measures will be taken during
construction and operation to install and maintain necessary stormwater and sediment erosion
control measures, as discussed in greater detail below.
SETBACKS
The Project mets or exceeds the Code’s setback requirement of at least 50 feet from adjacent
properties (Section 154.308.A.2) and the RR zones bulk requirements (Section 154.402). The
Project further observes the 60-foot right-of-ways from the centerline of both Lake Elmo Ave and
50th Ave N. The most strict required setbacks are illustrated on the Site Plan.
LANDSCAPE SCREENING
A majority of the views from adjacent properties are non-residential, primarily agricultural, or are
currently blocked by mature vegetation (to remain on-site). Per feedback received by Mr. Ben
Prchal, former City Planner, landscape screening is proposed between the Project and the
residence located to the south to block residential views of the solar facility. A Landscape Plan
is included as Appendix D.
9
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
The Applicant employs a rigorous site selection process to mitigate, to the largest extent feasible,
negative environmental impacts, while partnering with landowners and local communities to
generate positive economic and environmental benefits.
The Project will generate approximately 2,390 MW-hours of clean electricity each year, which is
enough to power more than 200 average homes and will result in an annual emissions reduction
of over 3.73 million pounds of CO2. This is equivalent to removing roughly 365 passenger
vehicles from the road annually.
The Project will also deploy pollinator-friendly vegetation as a ground cover underneath the array
and within the security fence. Pollinator habitat co-located with solar serves the dual use of
ground cover to prevent soil erosion, while also benefiting pollinator populations. Pollinators are
a crucial component of all agricultural ecosystems, providing every third bite of food we eat, yet
suitable habitat for these species has become increasingly sparse and fragmented.
Beyond promoting a healthy local environment, this Project will deliver numerous economic
benefits. This project will create long-term monitoring and maintenance jobs, temporary
construction jobs, and indirect jobs through local spending at hotels, restaurants, and
construction materials suppliers, among others. The Project will also generate a consistent
revenue stream over it’s operational life through recurring annual lease payments. In addition,
businesses and residents of the City of Lake Elmo and Washington County will be able to
purchase energy produced by the Project at a discounted rate, saving them money on their
electrical bills.
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Construction activities will include, installation of racking posts and assembly of the racking
system, mounting of the solar modules, wiring the modules together, trenching of underground
electrical cables, construction of concrete pads for the inverters, and construction of the project
access roadways. During construction noise levels will be kept to the appropriate daytime hours
and will be temporary. Construction is likely to be complete within four to six months.
10
Once constructed, solar facilities operate passively and have no moving parts, besides the
tracking system. The only on-site activities that will occur during operations include periodic
vegetative maintenance and equipment maintenance and monitoring.
HOURS OF OPERATION
Construction activities will take place between 7am and 7pm. Following construction, the site
will be operational during daylight hours.
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
The project will employee approximately 10-15 people during peak construction for
approximately 4 to 6 months. After construction, there will be no on-site employees on a
regular basis. Maintenance technicians will visit the site 1-3 times per year for scheduled
maintenance, consisting of 2-4 employees. No one other than employees will access the site.
NUMBER OF TRIPS, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC FLOW
Major material and equipment will be delivered by tractor-trailers and offloaded by construction
vehicles (lulls, tracked vehicles, and front-loading equipment). Equipment utilized during
construction of the Project may include dump trucks, trenching equipment, concrete trucks, front
loaders, backhoes, post installation equipment, and excavators. A staging area will be utilized
for unloading of equipment and materials.
During construction, traffic will consist of delivery trucks and personnel vehicles. It is expected
that no more than 4 delivery trucks will arrive on-site per day during construction. Following
construction, approximately one truck is expected to visit the site for maintenance work 1-3
times per year.
PROJECT CONSULTATIONS
The Applicant has consultated a number of governmental agencies or affiliated third-parties to
complete due diligence of the site, determine how the proposed Project may impact the existing
conditions, and confirm the site design conforms with the Code. A summary of the results of
these consultations are below and consultation documentation is provided as Appendix E unless
otherwise stated.
11
CITY PLANNING AND ZONING
The Applicant initially reached out to the City’s Planning and Zoning Deparment regarding the
proposed Project in February 2021 and then followed-up consistently through the application
submission to ensure the Project would comply with all code requirements for solar farms, and
to confirm the application process and submittal requirements. The Applicant’s primary contact
was the City Planner, Mr. Pen Prchal. At the time of this application, Mr. Prchal is no longer with
the City’s Planning and Zoning Deparment. As such, copies of emails exhanged between Mr.
Prchal and the Applicant are provided in Appendix E. The Applicant reached out to the City’s
consultants at Bolten & Menk in August 2021 and shared the Site Plan for review in advance of
application.
WETLANDS/VALLY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT REVIEW
A Level 1 Wetland Delineation report was completed by Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun) in
December 2020 and submitted to the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) in March 2021.
The VBWD requested completion of a field delineation following review of the proposed Project
and Level 1 report. Braun Intertec completed a field delineation (Level 2 Delineation) in April
2021, which identified two wetlands on-site. A Level 2 Wetland Delineation Report was submitted
to VBWD and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in May 2021 via joint application for
wetland delineation concurrance. In June 2021, VBWD conducted an on-site review of the
completed wetland delineations with representatives from Braun and provided their concurance
of the delineations via a Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision dated July 1,
2021.
Following wetland boundary confirmation, the Project was reconfigured to avoid wetland impacts
and a concept Site Plan was then emailed to VBWD with request for feedback. Mr. John Hanson,
the VBWD Engineer, provided comments by phone and email in July 2021 regarding the VBWD
Board’s past decisions to allow solar panels within wetland buffers, but not within delineated
wetlands. He also provided his expectations for how the VBWD Board would view the Project’s
anncillary equipment, such as fencing, access drives, and electrical equipment, located within
the wetlands buffers. Based on these conversations, the Project’s Site Plan was again revised
in conformance with VBWD’s preliminary guidance prior to this submittal.
12
As a result, while two wetlands are located the Property, the Project will not impact either
resource. In accordance with VBWD past approvals, the Project does propose minimal sitting
within the 50-foot wetland buffer, but has confirmed the necessary buffer replacement
requirements and will coordinate approval of such buffer impacts directly with VBWD. Based on
initial feedback received by VBWD, the access road and electrical pads will not be located in the
wetland buffers.
PUBLIC WORKS
At the suggestion of Mr. Ben Prchal, former City Planner, a concept Site Plan was submitted to
Mr. Jack Griffin, PE, City Engineer, in May 2021 for review of the proposed access drive. Mr.
Griffin provided his preliminary findings via a Memorandum dated June 1, 2021, which was
provided to the Applicant. The Project, as proposed, complies with three of the four preliminary
findings, including prohibiting access via Lake Elmo Avenue, observing the City Comprehensive
Plan right-of-way setback of 60 feet from centerline of 50th St. N, and specifying that the portion
of the Project’s access driveway to be located within the public right-of-way be paved per City
ordinance.
The fourth finding states, “Minimum spacing from the intersection with Lake Elmo Avenue for a
private driveway should be 420 feet to provide for a future right turn lane at Lake Elmo Avenue.”
Following conversations with Mr. Griffin and in order to avoid impacts to the delineated wetland
and wetland buffer located along 50th St. N, the project is proposing the access driveway be
located approximately 269 feet from the intersection, as shown in the Site Plan.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
The Applicant confirmed via the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) Notice Criteria Tool
that the proposed project does not require notice to be given to the FAA under CFR Title 14 Part
77.9. Further, the Applicant prepared a glare analysis for the project using the FAA’s approved,
third-party vendor, Forge Solar, developed by the Sandia National Laboratory and widely
considered the industry standard. The analysis indicated that the Project will have “No glare
predicted” with the Project’s current location and design to the 18 adjacent and nearby
residences analyzed.
13
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The Applicant confirmed with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Biological Survey
that the Project is not located within areas identified with moderate to high biological significance.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
The Applicant confirmed with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that the
Project is not proposed within a floodplain.
INTERCONNECTION APPLICATION STATUS
Following application acceptance and deposit of $100,000, but prior to issuance of an
Interconnection Agreement (IA), Xcel completes multiple studies to determine that a proposed
Community Solar Garden is designed to Xcel’s standards and is safe to interconnect onto the
existing electrical grid. To date, the Applicant has successfully completed 3 of the 4 studies
required including, the Initial Engineering Review, Supplemental Review, and System Impact
Study. Xcel is currently performing the Facilities Study, which is the fourth and final study
required. A scope of work fully executed by Xcel and the Applicant for Facilities Study is attached
as Appendix F. Upon completion of the Facilities Study by Xcel, an IA will be issued and a fully
executed copy will be provided to the City before issuance of the building permit and start of
construction.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prior to issuance of a building permit and the start of construction, the Project will obtain (and
comply with) the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) NPDES Construction General
Permit, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Notice of
Intent submittal, and erosion and sediment controls. Additionally, the Project will apply to and
comply with City and watershed district’s stormwater management and erosion and sediment
control provisions.
Consistent with the MPCA’s guidance on solar facilities, stormwater from new impervious
surfaces will be treated by changing the land use from cultivated agriculture to almost 100%
vegetated groundcover, including pollinator plantings, and installation of infiltration basins. A
14
concept Stormwater Management Plan is included as Appendix G and provides the proposed
location of these basins, along with the supporting design calculations.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
The Project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to soils, nor create any
significant erosion. The Project will follow the guiding principles of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency’s Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, using erosion prevention as
the primary protection at the site, with sediment controls used as a secondary system.
Where possible and to the extent feasible, the erosion prevention methods to be deployed
include:
• Preserve the existing vegetation.
• Design the Project to be compatible with the existing topography, soils, and
vegetation.
• Schedule grading and construction to minimize soil exposure, especially during the
rainy season.
• Inspection and maintain of control measures during construction.
The following Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) will be used to prevent erosion and control
sediment:
• Minimize concentrated flows and divert runoff away from exposed or critical areas.
• Minimize slope steepness and slope length.
• Keep runoff velocities low by using channel linings or temporary structures in drainage
channels.
• Prepare drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff.
• Use flagged poles or stakes to mark storm drains, catch basins, curb inlets, and other
BMPs
• Vegetate and mulch disturbed areas.
In addition, the Project will utilize a mix of typical temporary and permanent erosion and sediment
control best management practices during construction such as: stabilization (seeding, straw,
hydro-mulch), silt fences, sediment logs, and stabilized construction exits. The Project’s erosion
and sediment control requirements will be confirmed with VBWD and documented via the
NPDES Construction General Permit to be obtained prior to building permit issuance.
15
DECOMMISSIONING AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PLAN
The Project has an estimated useful lifetime of approximately 25 to 35 years with equipment
replacement and repowering conducted as necessary. The Applicant shall decommission the
project within twelve (12) months of the end of Project operations. Decommissioning the project
shall involve the removal of all components of the Project. Once all solar facilities are removed
from the Project Site, the land will be returned to the farmable conditions in place prior to
construction of the Project.
The decommissioning steps including the following:
• Removal of the PV modules, racking, and piles.
• Removal of the electrical equipment.
• Removal of the below-grade conduits and associated cables.
• Removal of the concrete pads. Replace and grade with native soil.
• Removal of fences and any remaining equipment.
• Removal and haul-off of gravel contained in any roads added as part of the Project plus
the underlying aggregate.
No grading is necessary, since the Project construction plan does not require any grading other
than possibly smoothing or knocking down any piles of debris, dirt, or aggregate that may already
be on the premises.
The Applicant is committed to responsible management of the Project. As part of this
commitment, the Applicant is dedicated to recycling as many of the Project components as
possible once the Project is no longer in operation. As a result, waste from the decommissioning
process is anticipated to be minimal. The Project’s solar PV components, glass, steel,
semiconductor material, and wiring material are all recyclable. During decommissioning, the
Project’s components will be dismantled using low-impact conventional construction equipment
and recycled, or disposed of, safely and in compliance with local and national regulations. Solar
equipment with remaining useful life will be sold for other applications. Any trash or debris on
the Project Site will also be removed during decommissioning. The Applicant aims to employ
experienced, local subcontractors to decommission the Project.
16
The estimated cost, salvage value, and net costs of decommissioning the project are shown in
Table 1 below and will be reviewed and updated prior to issuance of the building permit for
construction. Per this estimate, CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC is proposing a financial
security of $15,000. The purpose of the proposed financial security is to ensure the City has
sufficient funds to remove the project and return the Site to it’s original condition should the
Project be unable or unwilling to implement the decommissioning plan.
CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar, LLC proposes to provide the financial security in the form of
a letter of credit to be established prior to the issuance of the building permit. The City will be
the designated beneficiary of the fund.
The utilization of the financial assurance instrument shall be restricted to decommissioning steps
and requirements as detailed herein. Any residual funds (not spent specifically for reclamation
or remediation) shall be returned to the Applicant once the decommissioning operations have
been completed.
17
Table 1 – Decommissioning Estimate
CONDITIONAL USE JUSTIFICATION
The Applicant has sited and designed the proposed Project to conform with and benefit the
surrounding community as detailed in the findings below.
i. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or City.
Decommissioning Task
Estimated
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 Lump Sum 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
Site Demolition
Remove Existing Fence 3,250 LF 5.20$ 16,900.00$
Remove Existing Gravel Entrance 152 CY 4.80$ 729.60$
Haull off for Existing Gravel Entrance 152 CY 5.80$ 881.60$
Racking and Module Removal
Pile Removal 480 Each 9.50$ 4,560.00$
Table Removal 90 Each 120.00$ 10,800.00$
PV Module Removal 2,250 Each 5.50$ 12,375.00$
PV Module Haul Off 71 Ton 25.00$ 1,775.00$
Wiring Removal
Utility Pole Removal 3 Each 390.00$ 1,170.00$
DC Collector System Cables Removal 1 Per MW 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
Underground AC Collector System Cables Removal 1 Per MW 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
Power Conditioning Equipment Removal
Inverters 10 Each 900.00$ 9,000.00$
Transformer 1 Each 500.00$ 500.00$
SCADA Equipment 1 Each 280.00$ 280.00$
Pad Removal 2 Each 500.00$ 1,000.00$
Site Restoration
Permitting 1 Lump Sum 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
ESC Controls 3,500 LF 5.00$ 17,500.00$
Re-seeding 6 Acre 1,100.00$ 6,050.00$
Decommissioning Subtotal 96,521.20$
Salvage Value
PV Modules 2,138 Each 28.00$ 59,850.00$
Racking 70 Tons 178.00$ 12,460.00$
Piles 24 Tons 178.00$ 4,272.00$
Other (Fencing, electrical equipment)1 Lump Sum 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
Salvage Value Subtotal 81,582.00$
Decommissioning Total Net Cost 14,939.20$
18
As discussed herein, the Project will comply with all code requirements, including those
for setbacks, stormwater management, landscaping to protect residential views, and
structural integrity. The Project will also not produce any harmful noise, fumes, runoff, or
glare, will not be accessible to the public, and will be deemed electrically safe to connect
to the existing grid by Xcel energy. As such, the proposed use will be a largely begnin
addition to the environment while providing local Xcel customers with the opportunity to
save on their electric bills and introducing needed pollinator habitat into the landscape.
ii. The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan.
The Project supports the City of Lake Elmo’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s (the Plan) goals
in a number of ways. First, the Project is proposed in a neighborhood with the Community
Designation of Rural Residential and supports the Future Land Use Plan (and Land Use
Goal #1) by not adding to residential denisty or urbanization through added infrastructure
and maintaining the Property at a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. Next, the Project will
primarily result in a privately-funded, new domestic energy infrastructure resource for the
community (TRIN Goal #1) that can serve and benefit all residents of the City who choose
to enroll by reducing their electric bills. An estimated 49% of households are unable to
host residential solar systems mainly because they are renters and/or they have
inadequate roof space so this new infrastructure will also support and expand on the
Future Land Use Plan’s solar access and resiliency aims. Finally, the Project also
supports Character & Governance Goal # 3 by providing all residents who subscribe
regardless of home ownership or roof space, a novel way to connect to and benefit directly
from their local, renewable solar resource.
iii. The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The Project is compatible with the existing neighborhood as it maintains the desired
density for the Rural Residential District, observes or exceeds all setbacks, protects
residential views, and will not create or produce any impactful traffic, noise, smoke,
fumes, glare or odors once operational. As stated above, the result is a begnin, and
therefore compatible, addition to the existing landscape.
19
iv. If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area, the proposed use
meets all the specific standards for such use.
The Project is not in a flood plain management or shoreland area.
v. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and will not change the essential character of that area.
The Project was designed to be compatible with the surrounding area. The Project is a
small-scale installation, proposed to be less than six acres, sited where the majority of
adjacent parcels are agrigultural and have non-residential views. The Project further
maintains the intended density of the neiborhood. During operations and maintenance, a
meadow condition with pollinator habitat will be maintained under the solar panels
ensuring the Project contributes to the agricultural vitality of the neighborhood. The
Applicant will also maintain a safe and clean site at all times ensuring the Project looks
well-maintained. As a result of the size, siting, and maintenance of the Project, it will not
consequentially change the character of the area.
vi. The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined in the zoning
code to existing or future neighboring structures.
The Project will not be hazardous or create a nuisance at any point and the Applicant will
maintain a safe and clean site at all times. During construction the Applicant will ensure
any noise, dust, vibration, construction waste and debris, and any lighting and signage
created or used will comply with all local laws and limits set by the permit and authorities
having jurisdiction. During operations, the Project will not create any nuisance
circumstance (no drainage will be altered without the proper permit, no access will be
allowable for the public, no dangerous objects, no environmental nuisances, no
explosives,no fires or fire hazards, no inadequate mainteanance or failure to maintain
improvements, etc.) as defined by City Code 96.03.
vii. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water
and sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and
20
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
No new public streets, drainage structures, or water and sewer systems will be needed
to support the project at any point. The project will not increase population at local schools
and no new burdens will be placed on police or fire departmens, though site specific
training can be made available to both angencies as requested. Therefore, the proposed
Project will be served adequately by existing essential public facilities and services.
viii. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
The Project will be paid for by private investments from construction through
decommissioning, including any needed utility upgrades. The Project will benefit the
community through opportunity to reduce individual electricity bills, local spending, and
job creation, as discussed above.
ix. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
No excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors will be created by the Project.
During construction the Applicant will ensure any traffic or noise created will comply with
all local laws, limits set by the permit, and authorities having jurisdiction. Therefore, the
Project will not be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare.
x. Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
As discussed above, traffic to and from the site will be minimal. During construction, traffic
will consist of delivery trucks and personnel vehicles. It is expected that no more than 4
delivery trucks will arrive on-site per day during construction. Following construction,
approximately one truck is expected to visit the site for maintenance work 1-3 times per
21
year. Vehicular approaches to the Property will use a driveway to be approved by the
Public Works Deparment. As a result, the Project will not create congestion or interfere
with traffic on surrounding public roads.
xi. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
As discussed herein, the Project will not damage, destroy or cause the loss of any natural
feature such as wetlands, floodplains or areas of moderate to high biological significance.
Likewise, the Project will have little impact on the scenic landscape due to it’s scale and
siting. Conversly, the Project help reduce emmissions from electricity generation while
creating new pollinator habitat.
LEGENDLAKE ELMO, MNCEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITYEXCLUSIVE USE OF:WAS PREPARED FOR THETHIS SURVEY AND DRAWING11OFSHEET NO.MSSEYP.O. BOX 100, KASSON, MN 55944PH. NO. 507-634-4505, EMAIL SURVEY@WSE.ENGINEERINGWSEALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYSOLAR, LLCW 1/2 NE 1/4E 1/2 NE 1/450TH STREET NORTHLAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTH (CO. RD. No. 17)
LEGENDBOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYW 1/2 NE 1/4
E 1/2 NE 1/450TH STREET NORTHLAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTH (CO. RD. No. 17)
LAKE ELMO, MN
CEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITY
EXCLUSIVE USE OF:
WAS PREPARED FOR THE
THIS SURVEY AND DRAWING
11OFSHEET NO.
M SSEY
P.O. BOX 100, KASSON, MN 55944
PH. NO. 507-634-4505, EMAIL SURVEY@WSE.ENGINEERING
WSE
SOLAR, LLC
60' ROAD
CENTERLINE
EASEMENT50' PARCEL
SETBACK16' GAP BETWEEN
FENCELINE & MODULE
(TYP.)
50' PARCEL
SETBACK
PROJECT
FENCELINE
TYPICAL
TRACKER
PARCEL BOUNDARY
PROPOSED POI
EXISTING POLE
20' INNER
RADIUS
50TH ST N
LAKE ELMO AVE N25'
25'
UTILITY EASEMENT
(50' X 100')
PROPOSED SITE ENTRANCE /
ACCESS GATE (SEE NOTE 8)
RECLOSER
MAIN SERVICE METER
AC DISCONNECT
25' SETBACK
~81'
16'
60' ROAD
CENTERLINE
EASEMENT
~32'
~81'
~144'
~50'9309309
3
593593
5
9359
4
0
94
0
945 9459509289299299319
3
1 931931931931931 931931
932 932932932
93
2
932 93293293
3
933
933
93
3
9
3
3
933
9349
34
93
4
9
3
4 934934
936
936
93
693693
7
937
938938
9
3
9
939
9
4
19419
4
2
94
2
943943944
94
4
944944946947948949951952953 MV EQUIPMENT PAD79.7' FROM CENTERLINE
TO IX POLE
ACCESS LANE ~313'
FROM LAKE ELMO AVE N
ROAD PAVED WITHIN
60' OF CENTERLINE
PROPOSED PREATREATMENT +
BIOINFILTRATION BASIN
4,577 SF COMBINED STORAGE
BASIN BOTTOM: 929.00
BASIN TOP: 930.00
PRETREATMENT BOTTOM: 929.50
PRETREATMENT TOP: 930.00
EOF: 929.80 DRAINAGE DITCHDRAINAGE DITCH
GATE FOR MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
9494 94
95
694
LAKE
ELMO
PROJECT SITE
36
PROPOSED GRAVEL
ACCESS ROAD
VBWD APPROVED
WETLAND BOUNDARY
LAYDOWN / PARKING
AREA
INVERTER PAD
PARCEL BOUNDARY
FENCELINE
MINOR 2' CONTOUR
MAJOR 10' CONTOUR
UNDERGROUND
MEDIUM VOLTAGE
NEW UTILITY POLE
EXISTING UTILITY
POLE
OVERHEAD MEDIUM
VOLTAGE
EXISTING UTILITY LINE
PROPOSED CEMENT
ACCESS ROAD
N
CEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC 1.000MWAC - CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
SITE DETAILS:
SITE LAT:45.020476°
SITE LONG:-92.884332°
CASE NUMBER:03792551
PARCEL ID: 11.029.21.11.0003
OWNER:ANTHONY P. MANZARA
ACREAGE:10.90 ACRES
EXISTING ZONING:RURAL RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING USE:VACANT FIELD
PROPOSED USE:SOLAR PV GENERATION
LAND USE SUMMARY:
TOTAL PARCEL AREA 10.90 ACRES (474,618 SQFT)
TOTAL FENCED AREA:5.08 ACRES
GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD:4,104 SQFT
SCALE: 1" = 60'
SCALE: 1" = 60'
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALED
DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPT
AND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGY
RENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED OR
REPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
CEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC
ONEENERGY DEVELOPMENT
10755 50TH ST N
LAKE ELMO MN 55042
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
1" = 60'
A-001
CG
OM
2/9/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
N
WASHINGTON COUNTY VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 4 MILES
GENERAL NOTES:
15'60'120'
1" = 60'
CEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC 1.000MWAC -
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
1.PROPERTY BOUNDARIES DEVELOPED FROM GIS DATABASE.
2.NO FEMA HAZARD ZONES ARE PRESENT ON THE PARCEL ON WHICH THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED.
3.2FT CONTOURS SHOWN.
4.PROPOSED SITE ENTRANCE TO BE COORDINATED WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE
DEPARTMENT.
5.WETLAND LOCATION INDICATED IS THE RESULT OF GIS DATABASE.
6.THE PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL ZONING, CITY AND COUNTY REQUIREMENTS.
7.LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO PERMITTING CONSTRAINTS, SITE
CONDITIONS, EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION AND UTILITY COORDINATION.
8.XCEL ENERGY SHALL BE GRANTED KEYLESS, UNESCORTED, 24/7 ACCESS TO THE METER AND UTILITY
DISCONNECT. GATE WIDTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12'.
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PRELI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
DESIGN SUMMARY:
MODULE POWER:540W
MODULE COUNT:2,250
MOD/STRING:25
STRING COUNT:90
ARRAY DC VOLTAGE:1500V
INVERTER SIZE:100KW
INVERTER COUNT:10
TRACKER:ATI
DC CAPACITY:1.215MWdc
INVERTER CAPACITY:1.000MWac
DC/AC RATIO:1.215
GROUND COVERAGE RATIO:38.0%
CODE: ASCE 7-16
RISK CATEGORY: II
GROUND SNOW LOAD:50 PSF
WIND SPEED:108 MPH
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
ADDRESS: 2003 WESTERN AVE
SUITE #225
SEATTLE, WA 98121
PHONE: 206-900-9930
EMAIL: KATE@ONEENERGYRENEWABLES.COM
THAT PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE
21 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESTOA, LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH 2105.5 FEET (AS MEASURED
ALONG THE EAST LINE) THEREOF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 290.4 FEET OF THE EAST 750 FEET OF
THE WEST 850 FEET OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF AND SITUATE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
LEGEND
STRING INVERTER
WITH SINGLE DC
INPUT
SUN SHADE
CORRUGATED
METAL ROOF PANEL
AC CONDUITDC CONDUIT
9'-3" MAX
WARNING:High touch current .Earth connection essentialbefore connecting supply.iFor more detailsplease see the user manual.
CAUTION:RISK OF BURNING. DO NOT TOUCH!
CAUTION:DO NOT REMOVE COVER UNTIL 5 MINUTESAFTER DISCONNECTING ALL SOURCES OFSUPPLY.DANGER:BEFORE OPENING THE DEVICE, DISCONNECTFROM GRID AND THE PV GENERATOR. THEDEVICE MAY ONLY BE OPENED BY SERVICEPERSONNEL.WARNING:HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE AND ENERGY INSIDE,DISCHARGE BY SERVICE PERSONNEL BEFOREOPENING THE DEVICE. ELECTRIC SHOCKHAZARD. THE DC CONDUCTORS OF THISPHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM ARE UNGROUNDEDAND MAY BE ENERGIZED.CAUTION:RISK OF ELECTRIC SHOCK - BOTH AC AND DCVOLTAGE SOURCES ARE TERMINATED INSIDETHIS EQUIPMENT. EACH CIRCUIT MUST BEINDIVIDUALLY DISCONNECTED BEFORESERVICING AND WHEN THE PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY IS EXPOSED TO LIGHT, IT SUPPLIES ADC VOLTAGE TO THIS EQUIPMENT.WARNING - POWER FED FROMMORE THAN ONE SOURCE
5min
VERTICAL SUPPORT
STRUCTURES AND SUNSHADE
WOOD GATE POST
FOOTING DESIGN
PER FENCE
SUPPLIER
20'-0"
WOOD GATE POST
4"X4" 6 GA. GALVANIZED
WIRE MESH WELDED TO
FRAME7'-8" MINCHAIN LOCK
1'-6" MIN
9' MAX
ABOVE
GRADE
MOTOR/DAMPERS
TRACKER ROTATION
LIMIT 120°
72 CELL SOLAR
MODULE
1'-6" MIN MOTOR/DAMPERS
9' MAX
72 CELL SOLAR
MODULE
TRACKER
PILE
9'-3" MAX
ABOVE
GRADE
8'
9'-4"
40'40'
ABOVE
GRADE
ABOVE
GRADE
GRADE
6'6'
2'
DITCH1:1EDGE OF GRAVELEDGE OF GRAVEL4:1
1:
1
6:1
SLOPE TO
EXISTING
GROUND
MATCH
EXISTING
GROUND6" TOP COURSE - CLASS 5
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
2% SLOPE (TYP), MIN 1%2% SLOPE (TYP), MIN 1%
LOADBREAK SWITCH
OPERATING HANDLE
RECLOSER CONTROL
CABINET
FEEDER BREAKERS
MAIN BREAKER
WOODEN POWER POLE
WOODEN POWER POLE
15KV GROUP
OPERATED
DISCONNECT
15KV RECLOSER
6'6'
8'-8"
3'-8"
CONDUIT
SUPPORT STRUT
ABOVE
GRADE
STRING INVERTER
WITH SINGLE DC
INPUT
6" BASE COURSE
4'-4" MAX HEIGHT
AT MIDDAY CONCRETE PAD
40'
ABOVE
GRADE
PRODUCTION METER
CABINET
WOODEN POWER POLE
15KV METER
6'
10'-10" MAX
ABOVE
GRADE
CONCRETE PAD3' MIN
NCU ANTENNAWEATHER SENSOR
5'-3" ABOVE GRADE
7'
7'-3"UTILITY METER
OUTPUT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALED
DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPT
AND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGY
RENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED OR
REPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
CEF LAKE ELMO COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC
ONEENERGY DEVELOPMENT
10755 50TH ST N
LAKE ELMO MN 55042
ELEVATION DETAILS
1" = 4'
A-002
OM
10/1/2021
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
935 9359319319319329329
3
2
9
3
2932933933
9
3
3
9
3
3933
93
4 934936
12'MINDRAINAGE DITCH932.49
932.46
932.05
932.05
932.09
932.25
932.47 932.63
MA 933.24±MA 933.44±
932.24
932.40
9309309319319329339349
3
2
930
931932932932
93
2
933
933-1.3%0.6%
-2.0%
-1.0%
932.97933.11
932.52-4.3%-1.1%XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPARCEL
BOUNDARY
50TH STREET N.LAKE ELMO AVENUE N.EXISTING
OVERHEAD UTILITY
LINES TO REMAIN
EXISTING
WETLAND
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
TYPICAL
TRACKER
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE
EXISTING
WETLAND
A A'
PROPOSED
ACCESS GATE
EXISTING TREE TO BE
PROTECTED, TYP. REFER TO
TREE SURVEY, SHEET L-2.0
R.O.W.
25' WETLAND
SETBACK LINE
25' SETBACK
30' SETBACK
50' SETBACK
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CODE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION CODE REQUIRED PROPOSED EXISTING UNIT
STREET FRONTAGE 1092 LINEAR FEET
LAKE SHORE 0 LINEAR FEET
STREAM FRONTAGE 0 LINEAR FEET
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1092 LINEAR FEET
/50 FEET = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE TREES 22 22 TREES
DEVELOPMENT OR
DISTURBED AREA 5 ACRES
x5 = REQUIRED
DEVELOPMENT TREES 28 17 TREES
INTERIOR PARKING LOT
SPACES 0 SPACES
/10 = REQUIRED PARKINGLOT TREES 0 0 TREES
PERIMETER PARKING
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH 0 LINEAR FEET
/50 = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE STRIP TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED
MITIGATION TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED NUMBER
OF TREES 50 39 TREES
SUBTOTAL TREES 39 11 TREES
TOTAL TREES
(PROVIDED +
PRESERVED EXISTING)50 TREES
PLANTING LEGEND
SHADE & ORNAMENTAL TREES
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
AC White Fir
Abies concolor*12 6' B&B As shown on plans Moderate
(approx. 12-24" per year)
LL Tamarack Larch
Larix laricina*11 2.5" caliper
measured 6" from base As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PA Norway Spruce
Picea abies*16 6' B&B As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
SHRUBS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
BM Wintergreen Boxwood
Buxus microphylla 'Wintergreen' *336 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx. 3" per year)
CS Isanti Dogwood
Cornus sericea 'Isanti' *67 5 gallon 5'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
FN Northern Sun Forsythia
Forsythia x 'Northern Sun' *18 5 gallon 6'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
TO Holmstrup Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' *251 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx 8"-12" per year)
VD Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum
Viburnum dentatum 'Christom' *202 5 gallon 4'-6" o.c Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
GROUNDCOVERS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.TYPE
Pollinator Seed Mix (Dry to Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 306,143 sf Seed
Pollinator Seed Mix (Wet Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 4,497 sf Seed
Sedge Meadow Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 7,354 sf Seed
Stormwater Basin Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 8,551 sf Seed
NOTES
* TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES IS DEPENDENT ON AVAILABILITY. IF CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE REQUIRED PLANT MATERIAL, ALTERNATIVE
SPECIES MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
PLANTING NOTES:
1. THE PROPOSED SCREENING CONSISTS OF 2,612 LINEAR FEET OF SPECIFIED PLANT MATERIAL.
2. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES AND REGULATIONS.
3. PLANTING MATERIAL SHALL MEET NURSERY STANDARD CROWN WIDTH AND HEIGHT FOR THE
SPECIFIED CONTAINER SIZE (REFER TO ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION).
4. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES.
5. BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS
LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.
6. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR
BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES.
7. ALL SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE TOP DRESSED WITH A 3" DEEP LAYER OF COMPOSTED WOOD
FIBER MULCH. MULCH TO BE SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL.
8. LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED BY THE PROJECT.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALEDDIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPTAND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGYRENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED ORREPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/08/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
0' 15' 30' 60' 90'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
NMATCHLINEREFER TO SHEET L-1.11"=30'
L-1.0
PLANTING PLAN
930 930935
935940
94
0
92
8 9289
2
9 92993
1 93193
2
933
934
936
93693793
793893
893993
9
941
94
1
9
4
1
94
2
942
94
2942
943
94
3
DRAINAGE DITCH
932.45
MA 930.00±
929.00
929.85
EOF 931.00
MA 929.98±
933
934
932 931 930
930
931 930929
931
931 931XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX XXXXXXX X XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX50TH STREET N.
50' PARCEL SETBACK
PROPOSED FENCE PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANSPARCEL
BOUNDARY
EXISTING OVERHEAD
UTILITY LINES TO REMAIN
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
TYPICAL
TRACKER
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE, TYP. PROTECTIVE
MEASURES PER LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE
(105.12.470) SHALL BE TAKEN TO PROTECT ALL
EXISTING TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION
B
B'
EXISTING VEGETATION PROVIDES 90% OPAQUE
VISUAL SCREEN FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY
DRAINAGE DITCH PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING TREE TO BE PROTECTED, TYP.
REFER TO TREE SURVEY, SHEET L-2.0
MINIMUM GRADING ACTIVITY ON ACCESS
ROAD FOR STORMWATER QUALITY POND,
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
TREE #158, CLASSIFICATION: NOT SIGNIFICANT; TO
BE REMOVED DUE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
REFER TO TREE SURVEY, SHEET L-2.0
50' SETBACK
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CODE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION CODE REQUIRED PROPOSED EXISTING UNIT
STREET FRONTAGE 1092 LINEAR FEET
LAKE SHORE 0 LINEAR FEET
STREAM FRONTAGE 0 LINEAR FEET
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1092 LINEAR FEET
/50 FEET = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE TREES 22 22 TREES
DEVELOPMENT OR
DISTURBED AREA 5 ACRES
x5 = REQUIRED
DEVELOPMENT TREES 28 17 TREES
INTERIOR PARKING LOT
SPACES 0 SPACES
/10 = REQUIRED PARKINGLOT TREES 0 0 TREES
PERIMETER PARKING
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH 0 LINEAR FEET
/50 = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE STRIP TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED
MITIGATION TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED NUMBER
OF TREES 50 39 TREES
SUBTOTAL TREES 39 11 TREES
TOTAL TREES
(PROVIDED +
PRESERVED EXISTING)50 TREES
PLANTING LEGEND
SHADE & ORNAMENTAL TREES
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
AC White Fir
Abies concolor*12 6' B&B As shown on plans Moderate
(approx. 12-24" per year)
LL Tamarack Larch
Larix laricina*11 2.5" caliper
measured 6" from base As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PA Norway Spruce
Picea abies*16 6' B&B As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
SHRUBS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
BM Wintergreen Boxwood
Buxus microphylla 'Wintergreen' *336 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx. 3" per year)
CS Isanti Dogwood
Cornus sericea 'Isanti' *67 5 gallon 5'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
FN Northern Sun Forsythia
Forsythia x 'Northern Sun' *18 5 gallon 6'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
TO Holmstrup Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' *251 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx 8"-12" per year)
VD Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum
Viburnum dentatum 'Christom' *202 5 gallon 4'-6" o.c Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
GROUNDCOVERS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.TYPE
Pollinator Seed Mix (Dry to Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 306,143 sf Seed
Pollinator Seed Mix (Wet Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 4,497 sf Seed
Sedge Meadow Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 7,354 sf Seed
Stormwater Basin Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 8,551 sf Seed
NOTES
* TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES IS DEPENDENT ON AVAILABILITY. IF CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE REQUIRED PLANT MATERIAL, ALTERNATIVE
SPECIES MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
PLANTING NOTES:
1. THE PROPOSED SCREENING CONSISTS OF 2,612 LINEAR FEET OF SPECIFIED PLANT MATERIAL.
2. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES AND REGULATIONS.
3. PLANTING MATERIAL SHALL MEET NURSERY STANDARD CROWN WIDTH AND HEIGHT FOR THE
SPECIFIED CONTAINER SIZE (REFER TO ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION).
4. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES.
5. BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS
LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.
6. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR
BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES.
7. ALL SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE TOP DRESSED WITH A 3" DEEP LAYER OF COMPOSTED WOOD
FIBER MULCH. MULCH TO BE SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL.
8. LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED BY THE PROJECT.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALEDDIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPTAND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGYRENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED ORREPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/08/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
0' 15' 30' 60' 90'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
NMATCHLINEREFER TO SHEET L-1.2MATCHLINEREFER TO SHEET L-1.01"=30'
L-1.1
PLANTING PLAN
945 9459509
5
0
942
942942943 943944 944946
94
6
9479479489
4
8
9499
4
9
95195
1
95295
2
95395
3
954
9
5
4
XXXXXXXXXXX
X
XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDRAINAGE DITCH
50TH STREET N.
50' PARCEL SETBACK
PROPOSED FENCE PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
PARCEL
BOUNDARY
EXISTING OVERHEAD
UTILITY LINES TO REMAIN
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
TYPICAL
TRACKER
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE, TYP.
PROTECTIVE MEASURES PER
LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE
(105.12.470) SHALL BE TAKEN TO
PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES
DURING CONSTRUCTION
DRAINAGE DITCH PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
EXISTING TREE TO BE
PROTECTED, TYP. REFER TO
TREE SURVEY, SHEET L-2.0
50' SETBACK
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CODE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION CODE REQUIRED PROPOSED EXISTING UNIT
STREET FRONTAGE 1092 LINEAR FEET
LAKE SHORE 0 LINEAR FEET
STREAM FRONTAGE 0 LINEAR FEET
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1092 LINEAR FEET
/50 FEET = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE TREES 22 22 TREES
DEVELOPMENT OR
DISTURBED AREA 5 ACRES
x5 = REQUIRED
DEVELOPMENT TREES 28 17 TREES
INTERIOR PARKING LOT
SPACES 0 SPACES
/10 = REQUIRED PARKINGLOT TREES 0 0 TREES
PERIMETER PARKING
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH 0 LINEAR FEET
/50 = REQUIRED
FRONTAGE STRIP TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED
MITIGATION TREES 0 0 TREES
REQUIRED NUMBER
OF TREES 50 39 TREES
SUBTOTAL TREES 39 11 TREES
TOTAL TREES
(PROVIDED +
PRESERVED EXISTING)50 TREES
PLANTING LEGEND
SHADE & ORNAMENTAL TREES
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
AC White Fir
Abies concolor*12 6' B&B As shown on plans Moderate
(approx. 12-24" per year)
LL Tamarack Larch
Larix laricina*11 2.5" caliper
measured 6" from base As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
PA Norway Spruce
Picea abies*16 6' B&B As shown on plans Rapid
(approx. 36" per year)
SHRUBS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.SIZE SPACING GROWTH RATE
BM Wintergreen Boxwood
Buxus microphylla 'Wintergreen' *336 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx. 3" per year)
CS Isanti Dogwood
Cornus sericea 'Isanti' *67 5 gallon 5'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
FN Northern Sun Forsythia
Forsythia x 'Northern Sun' *18 5 gallon 6'-0" o.c.Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
TO Holmstrup Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' *251 5 gallon 3'-0" o.c.Slow
(approx 8"-12" per year)
VD Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum
Viburnum dentatum 'Christom' *202 5 gallon 4'-6" o.c Rapid
(approx. 24" per year)
GROUNDCOVERS
SYMBOL KEY PLANT NAME QTY.TYPE
Pollinator Seed Mix (Dry to Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 306,143 sf Seed
Pollinator Seed Mix (Wet Mesic)
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 4,497 sf Seed
Sedge Meadow Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 7,354 sf Seed
Stormwater Basin Seed Mix
Available through Minnesota Native Landscapes 8,551 sf Seed
NOTES
* TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES IS DEPENDENT ON AVAILABILITY. IF CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE REQUIRED PLANT MATERIAL, ALTERNATIVE
SPECIES MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
PLANTING NOTES:
1. THE PROPOSED SCREENING CONSISTS OF 2,612 LINEAR FEET OF SPECIFIED PLANT MATERIAL.
2. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES AND REGULATIONS.
3. PLANTING MATERIAL SHALL MEET NURSERY STANDARD CROWN WIDTH AND HEIGHT FOR THE
SPECIFIED CONTAINER SIZE (REFER TO ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION).
4. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES.
5. BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS
LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.
6. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR
BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES.
7. ALL SHRUB AREAS SHALL BE TOP DRESSED WITH A 3" DEEP LAYER OF COMPOSTED WOOD
FIBER MULCH. MULCH TO BE SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL.
8. LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED BY THE PROJECT.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALEDDIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPTAND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGYRENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED ORREPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/08/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
0' 15' 30' 60' 90'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
NMATCHLINEREFER TO SHEET L-1.11"=30'
L-1.2
PLANTING PLAN
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALEDDIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPTAND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGYRENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED ORREPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/08/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
L-1.3
PLANTING DETAILS
SHRUB PLANTING
2X WIDTH OF
ROOTBALL MIN.
POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM
BASE OF PLANT, TYP.
FINISH GRADE (F.G.)
LOOSEN ROOTS BEFORE PLANTING,
WATER AFTER PLANTING
SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM
NATIVE SOIL
ROOTBALL COLLAR SHALL BE 1"
ABOVE F.G.
1-1/2" DEPTH TEMPORARY WATER
RETENTION BASIN. FORM FROM
SHRUB PIT EXCAVATION
18"MIN.PREPARED BACKFILL,
PER SPECIFICATIONS
CONTROLLED RELEASE
FERTILIZER PER SPECIFICATIONS
NOTES
1.AVOID PLANTING SHRUBS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF IRRIGATION SPRAY HEADS.
PROVIDE CLEARANCE WHEN POSSIBLE.
2.MULCH 3" LAYER MIN. MAINTAIN 6" DIAMETER AROUND ROOT COLLAR.
TREE PLANTING 6"3X SIZE OF ROOTBALL MIN.
SOIL BACKFILL PER
PLANS AND SPECS
3' MIN. 4' MAX.SCARIFY SIDES AND
BOTTOM OF TREE PIT
COMPACT NATIVE SOIL
BELOW ROOTBALL
(2) 2" x 10' LODGE
POLES TO BE
INSTALLED AT SAME
HEIGHT
TOP OF LODGE POLES
TO BE LEVEL WITH
BASE OF LOWEST
BRANCH
8" +/-
TREE TRUNK
RUBBER HOSE
10 GA. GALV. WIRES
LODGE POLE DETAIL
(PLAN VIEW)
LODGE POLE STAKE TYP.
1/2" 2-PLY BLACK RUBBER
HOSE WITH 10 GA GALV.
WIRES TO MAIN TRUNK.
3"
3" TEMPORARY WATER
RETENTION BASIN,
MAINTAIN FOR 6 WEEKS
MAINTAIN 6" DIA.
BARE SOIL AROUND
TRUNK OF TREE
ROOTBALL
MULCH, 3" LAYER MIN.
2'-6"
TYP.
POSITIVE DRAINAGE
AWAY FROM BASE OF
TREE, TYP.
CONTROLLED
RELEASE FERTILIZER
PER SPECIFICATIONS
VEGETATIVE SCREENING CROSS SECTION A-A'
NOTES
1.REFER TO SHEET L-1.0 FOR SECTION CUT LINE AND PLANTING LEGEND
A
A'
WINTERGREEN BOXWOOD
BUXUS MICROPHYLLA 'WINTERGREEN'
3' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
BLUE MUFFIN ARROWWOOD VIBURNUM
VIBURNUM DENTATUM 'CHRISTOM'
6'-7' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
LAKE ELMO AVENUE
SOLAR
TRACKER
PANELS
REQUIRED
90% OPAQUE
FENCE AND
VEGETATIVE
SCREENING
POLLINATOR
SEED MIX
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EXISTING ROADSIDE
VEGETATION TO REMAIN
9' HT. MAX1'-6"
MIN.
4'-4" MAX HT.
AT MID-DAY
R.O.W.
8' HT. WOOD FENCE
WITH WIRE MESH
1
2
3
4
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"VEGETATIVE SCREENING CROSS SECTION B-B'
NOTES
A.REFER TO SHEET L-1.1 FOR SECTION
CUT LINE AND PLANTING LEGEND
B B'
NORWAY SPRUCE, PICEA ABIES
40-60' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
REQUIRED 90% OPAQUE
FENCE AND VEGETATIVE
SCREENING
8' HT. WOOD FENCE WITH WIRE MESH
POLLINATOR SEED MIX
PARCEL BOUNDARY
SOLAR
TRACKER
PANELS
9' HT. MAX
1'-6"
MIN.
4'-4" MAX HT.
AT MID-DAY
WHITE FIR, ABIES CONCOLOR
30-50' HT. AT MATURE SIZE
930 930935
935
935 93594094
0
945 9459509
5
0
92
8 9289
2
9 92993
1 93193193193
2 9329329
3
2
9
3
2932933933
933
9
3
3
9
3
3933
934
93
4 934936
936
93693793
793893
893993
9
94
1
9
4
1
942
94294
2942
943
943
94
3943944944946
94
6
9479
47
9489
4
8
9499
4
9
95195
1
95295
2
95395
3
954
95
4
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX12'MINDRAINAGE DITCHDRAINAGE DITCH
932.45
MA 930.00±
929.00
929.85
EOF 931.00
MA 929.98±
932.49
932.46
932.05
932.05
932.09
932.25
932.47 932.63
MA 933.24±MA 933.44±
932.24
932.40
933
934
932 931 930
930
931 930929
931
931 9309309319319329339349
3
2
930
931932932932
93
2
933
933-1.3%0.6%
-2.0%
-1.0%
932.97933.11
932.52-4.3%-1.1%XXXXX XX X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX50TH STREET N.
197-NS
196-NS
194-NS
193-NS
N/A-I
195-NS
N/A-I
192-NS
197-NS
191-N
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
189-NS
190-N
N/A-I
188-S
N/A-I
N/A-I
N/A-I
187-S
163-S
200-S
186-NS
160-S
159-S
185-S
184-S
186-NS
181-NS
182-S
180-S
179-S
178-N
174-N
173-NS
172-NS
175-NS
176-S
177-NS
171-S
170-NS
169-NS
168-N
167-S
166-NS
165-NS
164-S
162-NS
157-NS
155-NS
154-S
151-NS
N/A-I
152-NS
153-NS
150-S
149-S
148-NS
147-S
146-S
N/A-I
158-NS
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE, TYP. PROTECTIVE MEASURES PER
LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE (105.12.470) SHALL BE TAKEN
TO PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION
50' PARCEL
SETBACK
PARCEL
BOUNDARY
TYPICAL
TRACKER
DRAINAGE DITCH PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
PROPOSED FENCE PER
CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
PROPOSED
ACCESS GATE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
UTILITY LINES TO REMAIN
PARCEL
BOUNDARY
50' PARCEL
SETBACK
EXISTING
WETLAND
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
ADJACENT RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
ZONED PROPERTY
EXISTINGWETLAND LAKE ELMO AVENUE N.NO GRADING ACTIVITY SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN
THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF SIGNIFICANT TREES
MINIMUM GRADING ACTIVITY ON ACCESS
ROAD FOR STORMWATER QUALITY POND,
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS
R.O.W.
25'WETLAND
SETBACK
LINE
25'
SETBACK
PROPOSED SNOW FENCE, TYP.
CEF LAKE ELMO SOLAR TREE SURVEY
TREE TAG SPECIES CLASSIFICATION CALIPER SIZE
(INCHES)
146 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 20.6
147 POPLAR
COMMON
SPECIMEN 37.9
148 WILLOW COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 10.1
149 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 16.9
150 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 13.6
151 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9
152 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 7
153 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.4
154 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 15.4, 15.1
155 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.1
157 WILLOW COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.9
158 ELM COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 7.7
159 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 26.1
160 OAK NOT COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 15.9, 16.4
162 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 11
163 OAK NOT COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 10.4, 15.7
164 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 23.3
165 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 11.2, 9.2
166 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.1
167 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 10.3, 12.2
168 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 34.1
169 WILLOW COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.3
170 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 11.1
171 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 14.2
172 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.5
173 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.5
174 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 27.8
175 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 7.5
176 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 14.5
177 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.9, 6.2
178 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 27.5
179 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 15.4, 19.0
180 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 9.3, 7.8, 9.8, 12.1
181 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.5, 7.3
182 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 12.3, 14.2
183 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 7.7
184 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 14.4, 15.5
185 ASH COMMONSIGNIFICANT 20.2, 9.1
186 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.8
187 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 15.3
188 ASH COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 13.9
189 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.1
190 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 29
191 COTTONWOOD NOT COMMON
NUISANCE & SPECIMEN 20
192 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 6.1
193 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.1
194 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.5
195 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 8.3
196 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.3
197 ASH COMMON
NOT SIGNIFICANT 9.4
200 WILLOW COMMON
SIGNIFICANT 16.1
146 - S
CLASSIFICATION
TREE TAG NUMBER
TREE IDENTIFICATION KEY
CLASSIFICATION KEY
S: SIGNIFICANT TREENS: NOT SIGNIFICANTN: NUISANCEN/A-I: NOT APPLICABLE &
INCONSEQUENTIAL TO CITY CODE
ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 154.257
TREE SURVEY LEGEND
SIGNIFICANT/SPECIMEN TREE(CRZ RADIUS DEPICTED)
COMMON TREE/ INCONSEQUENTIAL
(CRZ RADIUS NOT DEPICTED)
NUISANCE TREE(CRZ RADIUS NOT DEPICTED)
NOTES:
1) REFER TO SHEET L-1.3 FOR TREE PROTECTION DETAIL..
2) ALL INVENTORIED TREES ARE HEALTHY UNLESS INDIVIDUALLY NOTED.
3) THE FOLLOWING EXISTING TREES ARE BEING COUNTED TOWARDS THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: #146, 147, 150,
154, 160, 163, 164, 171, 179, 182, AND 200. REFER TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO CODE REQUIREMENTS TABLE ON SHEETS,
L-1.0, L-1.1 AND L-1.2 FOR QUANTITY OF TREES TO BE CREDITED TOWARD THE LANDSCAPE CODE REQUIREMENT.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
DRAWING
TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
REVISIONS:
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLAN SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALEDDIMENSIONS. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD
VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS. THIS DRAWING, DESIGN, CONCEPTAND ARRANGEMENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ONEENERGYRENEWABLES AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED ORREPRODUCED WITHOUT CONSENT.
DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A B C D E F G H I J K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
REVISION LOG:
CEF LAKE ELMO
COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC.
10755 50TH ST. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
AES
03/08/2022
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS
OF THE DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF
1.000MWac SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
MODULES ARE TO BE
MOUNTED IN SINGLE AXIS
TRACKERS, WHICH FOLLOW
THE SUN FROM EAST TO
WEST THROUGHOUT THE
DAY OR MOUNTED AT A
FIXED TILT FACING SOUTH.
INTERCONNECTION TO BE
COORDINATED WITH THE
LOCAL UTILITY.
JRS
N
0' 20' 40' 80' 120'
SCALE: 1" = 40'
1"=30'
L-2.0
TREE SURVEY
PAGE 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 13, 2021
To: Jane Kansier, AICP, Planning Consultant Re: OneEnergy Solar Garden – 10755 50th Street N.
Molly Just, Planning Director Engineering Review Comments
Cc: Chad Isakson, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the OneEnergy – CEF Community Solar Garden Conditional Use
Permit Application received on October 22, 2021. The project is proposed for construction and operation on the
property located at 10755 50th Street North. The submittal consisted of the following documentation:
Project Report and Narrative prepared by One Energy and dated September 8, 2021.
Site Plan dated September 7, 2021.
Stormwater Management Plan dated October 13, 2021.
Landscape Plan dated August 27, 2021.
Wetland Delineation date July 1, 2021.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments have been provided as outlined below. Site Plan revisions and
additional design detail will be required to facilitate City review and approval.
RIGHT‐OF‐WAY PRESERVATION
The Site Plan shows right‐of‐way preservation along 50th Street North, measured 59 feet from the existing
centerline. The minimum right‐of‐way preservation must be 60 feet. In addition, all setbacks along 50th
Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue should be measured from the roadway preservation easements/rights‐
of‐way (60‐feet from existing centerlines). Right‐of‐way preservation is required per the Lake Elmo and
Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plans (2‐lane undivided Collector Roadways).
SITE ACCESS
One new access is proposed to the site from 50th Street North. No site access is shown from Lake Elmo
Avenue. Access to Lake Elmo Avenue should be prohibited as presented.
The site access along 50th Street North must be relocated to be as far west as possible, and no closer than
350 feet from the Lake Elmo Avenue intersection (as measured from the west paved shoulder). The
driveway relocation is required to minimize future conflicts with the construction of a future right and left
turn lane along 50th Street North. The future turn lanes will be required to meet State Aid design
standards when constructed along 50th Street North (Municipal State Aid Route) for the City to be able to
use State Aid funding for the turn lane construction.
One 16‐foot wide (16) gravel service road is proposed. Per City ordinance, all portions of the driveway to
be located within the public right‐of‐way must be paved.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 2
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Prior to the start of any construction, Civil Site Construction Plans must be prepared and submitted for City
review and approval. The plans must be prepared and signed by a registered professional engineer in the
State of Minnesota and the plans must be prepared in accordance with the City Design Standards and Plan
Format requirements.
An existing conditions plan is required to facilitate a detailed review by the City and site plan revisions may
be required due to new information provided in the detailed plans. Existing conditions must include scaled
full size plan sets (no greater than 1” = 50’ scale) and include all property, right‐of‐way and easement lines,
a detailed topographic survey including contours at 2’ intervals or less, include all public and private
utilities along the public rights‐of‐way and for a minimum distance of 150 feet from the construction limits,
and include delineated wetlands and wetland buffers. Public and private utility information must include
utility type, pipe material and size, inverts (when applicable) and location as surveyed in the field.
The site plan indicates that wetland locations are shown from GIS database information. A wetland
delineation will be required and the Site Plans must be updated to include the delineated wetlands and
required wetland buffers meeting the City and watershed requirements.
The 3‐new proposed Xcel Energy above ground power poles, to be installed to support the site
interconnection, must be installed a minimum of 55 feet south of the centerline of 50th Street to locate
the utilities within the designated utility corridor for the roadway right‐of‐way.
No waste water management or drinking water supply is required to support the proposed site
development.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The Site Plan shows a potential stormwater infiltration basin intended to address stormwater management
requirements and storm water calculations were submitted to support the basin sizing. However, the site
is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, Watershed District and City rules and a permit
will be required from the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). The Stormwater Management Plan
must therefore be revised and resubmitted, demonstrating compliance with City and VBWD rules, and
must be prepared and signed by a registered professional engineer in the State of Minnesota.
The Stormwater Management Plan must provide a pre and post condition rate control analysis of the site,
including pre and post condition drainage maps. The SWMP must demonstrate rate control is provided for
all points of discharge from the site. Overland emergency overflows or outlets are required to be sown on
the plans. The 100‐year high water flood level (HWL) must be shown on the plans for all water bodies
(wetlands) and storm water facilities, and the 100‐year high water flood level (HWL) must be fully
contained within private property or easements.
The construction of an infiltration basin is proposed for the site. Soil borings must be provided as part of
the Site Plans to demonstrate that the facility will be constructed in soils that are conducive to infiltration
practices and the infiltration rate for the design must be based on the soil investigation.
To the extent adjacent properties are impacted by storm water management discharges, written
permission from those properties must be submitted as part of the development application.
The storm water facilities constructed for this site 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 access to all storm water
facilities.
“Proudly Serving Neighbors & Friends”
Lake Elmo Fire Department
Memorandum
To: Jane Kansier, AICP
From: Dustin Kalis, Fire Chief
Date: 11/12/2021
Re: Land Use Review Request - CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar Garden
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The Lake Elmo Fire Department has completed a land use review of CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar Garden
based on the Lake Elmo Planning Department packet dated 10/22/21 with the following comments:
1) The installation and use of gates shall be in compliance with the fire code. If a gate(s) is to be installed,
provide more detailed information for review.
2) A Fire Department lock box is required for emergency access to building at an approved location(s) and
provide keys for emergency access into the property and any controls necessary for emergency use or
shut down.
3) Site address numbers shall be plainly visible from the street fronting the property and shall contrasting
color from the background.
4) A clear, brush-free area of 10 feet (3048 mm) shall be required for ground-mounted photovoltaic
arrays.
Codes and Standards Used for this Review
This review is based on the following codes and standards as adopted and in effect in the State of Minnesota
at the time of plan submittal.
2020 Minnesota State Fire Code
1
Jane Kansier
From:Sonsalla, Sarah J. <SSonsalla@Kennedy-Graven.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 11, 2021 11:23 AM
To:Jane Kansier
Cc:Molly Just; Sonsalla, Sarah J.
Subject:RE: Land Use Review Request - CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar Garden
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi Jane,
I reviewed the application materials for the community solar garden CUP. My only comment relates to
decommissioning of the project. The applicant is proposing to provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of
$15,000 that the City can use in the event that the modules are no longer in use. This can be used to remove the
modules from the site and dispose of them if the owner of the property or the operator of the solar garden does not
take care of it. The City should determine whether $15,000 is a sufficient amount to cover its costs in this type of
circumstance.
In line with this issue, I would also recommend that there be a condition in the conditional use permit that requires the
owner of the property and/or the operator to remove the modules and equipment after a certain amount of time after
the project is decommissioned (i.e. 90 days or something like that). In the event that it is not removed by that time, the
City should be given permission to enter the property to remove it and recover its costs from the letter of credit. In the
event that the letter of credit is insufficient to cover the City’s costs, the City should be able to certify the costs against
the property and collect the costs with the property taxes.
There should also be a condition that the letter of credit must be in good standing at all times, so in the event that it is
not renewed or cancelled, the City may revoke the conditional use permit.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Sarah
Sarah J. Sonsalla | Attorney | Kennedy & Graven, Chartered | 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 | Minneapolis, MN 55402 |direct:
612.337.9284 | fax: 612.337.9310 | e-mail: ssonsalla@kennedy-graven.com
From: Jane Kansier <Jane.Kansier@bolton-menk.com>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Jack Griffin <Jack.Griffin@focusengineeringinc.com>; chad.isakson@focusengineeringinc.com; Sonsalla, Sarah J.
<SSonsalla@Kennedy-Graven.com>; jhanson@barr.com; transportation@co.washington.mn.us; Marty Powers
<MPowers@lakeelmo.org>; Dustin Kalis <DKalis@lakeelmo.org>; jtaylor@lakeelmo.org; Harding, Sarah
<Sarah.Harding@stantec.com>; Niday, Jenna <jenna.niday@stantec.com>
Cc: Molly Just <MJust@lakeelmo.org>; Diane Wendt <DWendt@lakeelmo.org>; Corrin Bemis <Corrin.Bemis@bolton-
menk.com>
Subject: Land Use Review Request - CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar Garden
Good morning.
Memo
File: 227704555
To: Molly Just, City of Lake Elmo Planning Director From: Sarah Harding, Landscape Architect
Jenna Niday, Landscape Designer Subject: City of Lake Elmo Conditional Use Permit Review CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar Review #1 Date: November 12, 2021
Submittals
• Landscape Plan, dated 8-27-2021, received 10-22-2021.
Location: Southwest quadrant of the intersection of 50th Street North & Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN
Land Use Category: Rural Residential
Surrounding Land Use: Rural Residential
Tree Preservation:
A tree survey/preservation plan is not required for the proposed project. Per tree preservation code section 154.257.C.1.a.iii, the applicant has demonstrated that no major grading activity will occur onsite, and all trees will be preserved.
• If a tree survey is conducted, any existing, healthy, common or significant trees found onsite could potentially offset code required trees, specified below. Common and significant trees are defined in tree preservation code 154.257.B.
Alternative Energy:
Per alternative energy code 154.308:
• (A.2) Solar farms are required to be screened and fenced as determined by the City from adjacent residential properties. Screening requirements are further defined below.
Landscape Requirements:
A landscape plan has been submitted that does not include all requirements.
• The landscape plan does not include required City standard notes and details. Per landscape code 154.258:
• (A.2) Methods for protecting existing trees and other landscape material are required.
• (A.3) Native grass ground cover seed mixes shall be specified as needed for any restored wetlands, wetland buffers, upland perennial permanent ground covers, and biofiltration basins.
• (A.5) Details and cross sections of screening are required.
• (C.1) A minimum of one (1) tree is required for every fifty (50) feet of street frontage.
• (C.2) A minimum of five (5) trees are required for every one (1) acre of land that is developed or disturbed by development activity.
November 12, 2021
Molly Just
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
Page 2 of 2
Code Required Proposed Street frontage 1092 Lineal Feet Lake Shore 0 Lineal Feet Stream Frontage 0 Lineal Feet Total Linear Feet 1092 Lineal Feet /50 Feet = Required Frontage Trees 22 0 Trees Development or Disturbed Area - SF Development or Disturbed Area 5.5 Acres *5 = Required Development Trees 28 0 Trees Interior Parking Lot Spaces* 0 Spaces /10 = Required Parking Lot Trees 0 0 Trees Perimeter Parking Lot Frontage Length 0 Lineal Feet
/50 = Required Frontage Strip Trees 0 0 Trees Required Mitigation Trees 0 0
Required Number of Trees 50 0
• (F) Screening shall be used to provide visual and noise separation of intensive uses from less intensive uses. Where screening is required in the City Code between uses or districts, it shall consist of either a masonry wall or fence in combination with landscape material that forms a screen at least six (6) feet in height, and not less than ninety percent (90%) opaque on a year-round basis. Landscape material shall include trees, planted at a minimum of one deciduous or coniferous tree per forty (40) linear feet along the property line. Additional landscape material such as shade trees or trellises may be required to partially screen views from above.
Recommendation: It is recommended that a condition of approval include:
• Submittal of a revised landscape plan meeting the code requirements as noted above.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Sarah Harding, PLA (MN) City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect P: 952-334-4838 E: sarah.harding@stantec.com
Memo
File: 227704555 To: Molly Just, City of Lake Elmo Planning Director From: Sarah Harding, Landscape Architect
Subject: City of Lake Elmo Conditional Use Permit Review
CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar Review #3
Date: March 2, 2022
Submittals:
• Landscape Plans, dated February 22, 2022, received February 23, 2022.
Review History:
• Initial landscape review on November 12, 2021.
• Resubmittal landscape review on January 26, 2022.
Location: Southwest quadrant of the intersection of 50th Street North & Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN Land Use Category: Rural Residential Surrounding Land Use: Rural Residential Tree Preservation - 105.12.470: A tree survey has been provided but is missing or is unclear as related to the following criteria:
• Tree condition (healthy, dead, diseased, or dying) is missing from the tree inventory.
• Some tree species are missing (labeled as ‘other) from the inventory but are classified as Significant,
Common, or Nuisance trees. Refer to the code definitions for Common, Deciduous Hardwood,
Significant, Nuisance, Healthy, and Coniferous/evergreen trees to reflect the appropriate classification
category based on species and caliper inch size.
• Preserved Healthy trees that are categorized as Common, Deciduous Hardwood, or
Coniferous/Evergreen trees may count toward the landscape requirements in a 1:1 ratio (one preserved
tree equals one required landscape tree).
− Preserved Ash trees are not counted toward the landscape requirement per the code definition of
Tree Pest and the nature of the Emerald Ash Borer.
• Current location of tree protection fencing near proposed 931 contour and Tree 163 is shown through the area of grading/construction activity. Adjust tree protection fencing to be outside of the grading limits and critical root zones of trees to remain.
• Tree 160 is listed as an Other species but classified as significant. Tree protection fencing is also shown within the critical root zone of this tree, therefore is not considered a tree that counts toward the landscape requirements at this time.
• Tree 158 is located outside of the tree protection fencing area and is not considered a tree that counts toward the landscape requirements at this time.
• Based on the above comments, Trees 146, 148, 150, 154, 157, 164, 169, 179, 182 and 200 could count
as 10 trees toward the landscape requirements if healthy and preserved to remain. Additional information
March 2, 2022
Molly Just
Planning Director City of Lake Elmo
Page 2 of 3
such as species, tree condition, and tree protection fencing adjusted to save Tree 158 would need to be provided to verify whether additional trees could count toward the landscape requirements.
Landscape Requirements – 105.12.480: A landscape plan has been submitted that meets code requirements.
• Watershed may have comments regarding screening fence, seed mixtures, planting, and plant species
within the wetland once submitted for their review.
Code Required Proposed Existing
Street frontage 1092 Lineal Feet
Lake Shore 0 Lineal Feet
Stream Frontage 0 Lineal Feet
Total Linear Feet 1092 Lineal Feet
/50 Feet = Required Frontage Trees 22 22 Trees
Development or Disturbed Area - SF
Development or Disturbed Area 5.5 Acres
*5 = Required Development Trees 28 28 Trees
Interior Parking Lot Spaces* 0 Spaces
/10 = Required Parking Lot Trees 0 0 Trees
Perimeter Parking Lot Frontage Length 0 Lineal Feet
/50 = Required Frontage Strip Trees 0 0 Trees
Required Mitigation Trees 0 0
Required Number of Trees 50
Subtotal Trees 50 10+/-*
Total Trees (Provided + Preserved Existing) 60 +/-
‘* See Tree Preservation Section comments above.
March 2, 2022
Molly Just
Planning Director City of Lake Elmo
Page 3 of 3
Standards for Alternative Energy – 105.12.560:
• Solar farms are required to be screened and fenced as determined by the City from adjacent residential properties. The landscape plan has been updated to indicate fencing and planting materials to meet this requirement. Recommendation: It is recommended that a condition of approval include:
• Submittal of an updated tree survey addressing comments above and revised landscape plan including the preserved, healthy trees to remain that can count toward the landscape requirements.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Sarah Harding, PLA (MN) City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect P: 952-334-4838 E: sarah.harding@stantec.com
City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of November 22, 2021
Commission Chair Risner called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Risner, Graen, Mueller, Rehkamp, Steil, Vrieze
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Weeks
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Just
Pledge of Allegiance at 7:00 PM
Introduction of new Planning Commissioner Thomas Rehkamp
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Steil/Vrieze moved to approve the agenda. Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Approve Minutes:
M/S/P: Graen/Mueller moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 25th, 2021. Vote:
6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearings:
Conditional Use Permit- 10755 50th Street N CEF Lake Elmo Community Solar has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the property located at 10755 50th Street N (PID#1102921110003). The proposed solar photovoltaic (“PV”) project has a maximum size of 1,000 kilowatts (“KW”) alternating current (“AC”). The Applicant has a Solar Energy Option Agreement to lease up to 10 acres with the Manzara family to enable construction and operations of the project. Director Just gave staff report and presentation. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to meeting the conditions of approval listed in this report. Applicant Katelyn Larkin gave presentation: This Application is for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 1 megawatt solar PV project on approximately 7 acres of land. The Project will be constructed on land currently used for agriculture. No wetlands, forests, or biologically sensitive areas will be impacted by the Project. The Project will not produce any adverse impacts on surrounding properties, as it has been designed to avoid perceptible glare and noise, will not generate traffic or emissions once built. Additionally, the Project will not place any new burdens on City infrastructure, as no new water or sewer utilities are required. Conversely, the Project will support healthier air and soils through local renewable energy generation and use of pollinator habitat in site stabilization. Public hearing opened at 7:23 PM Chris Boylan, 10711 50th Street N, has concerns regarding impact of sound issues and asked for a noise study.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes;11-22-21
George Crocker, 5093 Keats Ave N, is in support of the solar garden. Tony Manzara, 5050 Kirkwood Ave N, is in support of the solar garden Colleen Walsh, 10830 50th Street N, is not in support of the solar garden, as it impacts her parcel. Julie Andrich, on behalf of Bev Rieks, 4564 Kimbro Ave N, is not in support of the solar garden, as it impacts this parcel. Applicant, Dan Grantier, 5027 36th Avenue South, Minneapolis, with Cooperative Energy Futures, spoke in response to the concerns of the residents. Richard Day, 11049 50th Street N, is not in support of the solar garden, as it impacts his parcel. Public hearing closed at 7:46 PM There was a discussion regarding the conditions of approval.
M/S/P: Graen/Mueller moved to recommend approval of the CUP for a solar farm with the listed
conditions base on the finings listed in the presentation. Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
New/Unfinished Business a. Royal Golf 4th Addition Final Plat – South of 20th Street N and east of Lake Elmo Avenue N US Home Corporation (Lennar) has submitted an application for a final plat to be known as Royal Golf 4th Addition. The final plat includes approximately 88 acres to be subdivided into 5 outlots for future development. Director Just gave staff report and presentation.
M/S/P: Steil/Graen moved to recommend approval of the Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo 4th Addition Final
Plat based on the findings of fact and conditions outlined in the staff report. Vote: 6-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Communications/Updates a. City Council Update 11-03-2021 Meeting –Crossroads East Final Plat and PUD - Approved 11-16-2021 Meeting – Krueger Tree Farm IUP – interim use for photography was approved, expansion IUP building has been postponed.
b. Staff Updates c. Upcoming PC Meetings:
1. December 13, 2021 - No public hearings, review the Work Plan
2. December 27, 2021 - (Cancelled)
3. January 10, 2022 Meeting adjourned at 8:26 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Wendt
Permit Technician
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes;11-22-21
LA515-1-788839.v1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022
REGULAR
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM: Interim Ordinance for Meeting Demand for South Area Water
TO: Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY: Molly Just, Planning Director
OVERVIEW: The area south of the Union Pacific Railroad and East of Keats Avenue in Lake Elmo has been determined to be a “low pressure zone” with respect to the City’s ability to provide water services to that area. The Water System Low Pressure Zone is shown on the attached map. This
area has low water pressure and the City is concerned that if additional water users are added to this area that it may have issues supplying water to this area in the future. With the existing challenges in the Water System Low Pressure Zone and the limited water supply remaining to serve the existing and approved water users in this area, staff sought
guidance from the City Council on how to manage the demand to develop new residential and commercial uses in this area. Before additional water users are added to the area, the City needs to study the current and future water usage in the area in order to determine if additional infrastructure is needed. Staff and the City Council agreed that a consistent and pro-active approach to managing demand for new development would be most transparent.
In the Water System Low Pressure Zone there are just over 200 residential units and approximately 300,000 square feet of non-residential development approved but not yet occupied that must be served by the existing water supply. There is nearly 500 acres of land planned for residential development and nearly 200 acres planned for commercial development in the area.
While these local challenges exist, we are also managing the uncertainty around a solution related to the White Bear Lake court ruling. At the March 8, 2022 work session the City Council determined that it is in the best interests of the City to impose a moratorium on platted development within the Water System Low Pressure
Zone so that it can study the current and future water usage within the Water System Low Pressure Zone. Staff was directed to take the necessary steps to bring forward an interim ordinance to place a moratorium on all new platted development within this area. Any property that has been granted preliminary plat or final plat approval by the City Council would be
exempt from this moratorium.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the council adopt an ordinance to place a one-year moratorium on new plats in the Water System Low Pressure Zone?
LA515-1-788839.v1
PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE:
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, subdivision 4(a) provides for the purpose, applicability, and procedures for cities to enact an interim ordinance (more commonly known as a moratorium). The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict, prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the city or a portion of the city for a period not to exceed one year from the effective date of the interim
ordinance. An interim ordinance may be adopted only in specific circumstances, including the
conducting of a study for the purpose of adoption or amendment of the Comprehensive Plan or the City’s official controls. An interim ordinance can only be in place for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective. There are some exceptions that would allow an interim ordinance to be extended for a period of an additional 120 days but in very limited circumstances.
There is no public notice that is required before the City Council adopts an interim ordinance that would impact commercial development, but a public hearing is required. If the interim ordinance would impact “housing proposals”, the statute says that written notice must be given to “any person who has submitted a housing proposal, has a pending housing proposal, or has provided a written
request to be notified of interim ordinances related to housing proposals.” Notice must also be
posted on the City’s official web site. A “housing proposal” is defined by the statute as being a written request for city approval of a project intended primarily to provide residential dwellings, either single family or multi-family, and involves the subdivision or development of land or the demolition, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or occupancy of residential dwellings.”
Since the interim ordinance would affect housing proposals, City staff has done the following:
• Staff has posted notice of the public hearing on the City’s website;
• Staff has notified proposers of projects related to housing; and
• Staff has posted notice of the public hearing in the City’s weekly The Fresh e-newsletter.
FISCAL IMPACT: Study of Comprehensive Plan Map 3-7 MUSA Growth and Phasing Plan (Map 3-7) and the City’s other official controls can be conducted internally. A broader study of infrastructure could require the cost of a consultant.
OPTIONS: 1) Adopt Ordinance No 2022-03 2) Amend and then Adopt Ordinance No 2022-03 3) Do not adopt Ordinance No 2022-03
RECOMMENDATION: “Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2022-03 and order City staff to study the current and future water needs of the Water System Low Pressure Zone during the period of the interim ordinance.”
ATTACHMENT:
• Map of Water System Low Pressure Zone
• Map 3-7 MUSA Growth and Phasing Plan
• Ordinance 2022-03
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WATER PRESSURE LOW PRESSURE ZONE
LOW PRESSURE ZONE BOUNDARY
0 10.5 Miles
´
Map Date: March 2022Created By: Planning Dept.Keats Ave.Lake Elmo Ave.Manning Ave.20th St.
10th St.
30th St.
U p p e r 3 3 rd S t.BaytownTownship
WestLakelandTownship
LAKE ELMO
HORSESHOELAKE
DOWNSLAKE
LEGIONPOND
GOOSELAKE
ROSELAKE
SUNFISHLAKE
LakeOlson Lake Jane
LakeElmo
Sun
f
i
s
h
L
a
k
e
E
a
g
l
e
P
o
i
n
t
L
a
k
e
DownsLake
0 1900 3800 5700 7600 Ft ´
Map 3-7 MUSA Growth & Phasing Plan
2040 Future Land Use MUSA Boundary Planned Roadway (Parkway)
Staging/Phase Timeline
Current (2020)2020 - 2030 2030 - 2040 2035 - 2040 +
Map Date: January 2021
1
LA515-1-787538.v1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2022-03 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON PLATTED
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE WATER SYSTEM LOW PRESSURE ZONE The City of Lake Elmo City Council ordains:
Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this interim ordinance (this “Ordinance”)
is to impose, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, subdivision 4, a moratorium within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) on platted development within the area defined as the “Water System Low Pressure Zone” in the City in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City.
Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows: (a) There is a certain area within the City that has been determined to be a “low pressure zone” with respect to the City’s ability to provide water services to that area. The
Water System Low Pressure Zone is shown on the map attached as Exhibit A. This
area has low water pressure and the City is concerned that if additional water users are added to this area that it may have issues supplying water to this area in the future.
(b) That before additional water users are added to the Water System Low Pressure
Zone, the City needs to study the current and future water usage in the Water System Low Pressure Zone in order to determine if additional infrastructure is needed.
(c) That it is in the best interests of the City to impose a moratorium on platted
development within the Water System Low Pressure Zone so that it can study the current and future water usage within the Water System Low Pressure Zone. Section 3. Study Authorized. The City will be initiating a study of the water usage and future
water needs within the Water System Low Pressure Zone.
Section 4. Moratorium Imposed; Exceptions. A moratorium is hereby imposed within the City with respect to the platting of any property located within the Water System Low Pressure Zone. No application for the platting of property located within the Water System Low Pressure Zone
will be accepted by the City during the term of this Ordinance. Any property that has been granted
preliminary plat or final plat approval by the City Council is exempt from this moratorium. Section 5. Duration. This Ordinance shall remain in effect for one year from the date that it is effective unless it is expressly repealed earlier by the City Council.
2
LA515-1-787538.v1
Section 6. Severability. Every section, provision, and part of this Ordinance is declared severable
from every other section, provision, and part thereof. If any section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall not invalidate any other section, provision, or part of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Enforcement. The City may enforce any provision of this Ordinance by mandamus,
injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its legal passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on this 5th day of April, 2022, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL _________________________________
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08- was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2022.
3
LA515-1-787538.v1
EXHIBIT A
Map of Water System Low Pressure Zone
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022
REGULAR
AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review for Cyphers Logistics Park TO: Mayor and City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Molly Just, Planning Director
BACKGROUND: At the November 16, 2021 City Council meeting the City Council approved a resolution ordering the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the study area to be known
as Cyphers Logistics Park. Since NorthPoint is proposing over a million square feet of warehouse space, an AUAR is necessary. The AUAR is a planning tool that local government can use to understand how different development scenarios would affect the environment of their community before the development occurs.
The city asked that Northpoint complete the AUAR for not only their 77 acres but the whole 180 acre planning area so we can evaluate impact of development on the entire area. NorthPoint contracted with Kimley Horn to prepare the AUAR however, it is the city who is actually the applicant in these cases as the responsible governmental unit. They worked with city staff and consultants to prepare the information in the AUAR and to follow the required process to adopt
the Final AUAR. The process has followed these required steps: 1. November 16, 2021 City Council adopts resolution ordering preparation of the AUAR 2. February 1, 2022 Draft AUAR published in EQB Monitor and posted on City website beginning 30-day public comment period.
3. March 13, 2022 Final AUAR with public comments distributed for 10-business day objection period. No objections were received. 4. April 5, 2022 City Council is asked to adopt the Final AUAR. Once the resolution adopting the Final AUAR is signed it will be submitted to the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board’s EQB Monitor to complete the AUAR process. The AUAR will need to be updated every 5 years until all of the land is developed. The City will retain the land north of 34th Street. The land will be marketed for sale and development consistent with the City’s preferred scenario. Once the preferred scenario is
identified, staff will proceed to amend the comprehensive plan to enable the type of development indicated in the preferred scenario. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: The Council is being asked to adopt the Final AUAR for Cyphers Logistics Park and declare a
preferred scenario for development of the land north of 34th Street. AUAR SCENARIOS EVALUATED: The scenarios evaluated in the AUAR (the AUAR Scenarios) are depicted and detailed herein.
Table 1: The AUAR Scenarios
Land Use Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Business Park ~1.1 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet ~2.75 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet
Mixed-Use Business Park
400 residential units 653,400 square feet business/light industrial
210 residential units 457,380 square feet business/light industrial
-- --
Commercial 91,500 square feet 178,596 square feet 91,500 square feet -- Rural Area Development (Residential) 10 residential units
Low Density Residential -- 56 residential units 56 residential units --
Medium Density Residential -- 124 residential units -- --
Existing Public Works Building 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4
Park 8 acres 8 acres 8 acres 0 acres Ponding 15 acres 15 acres 15 acres 0 acres Right-of-Way 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres
Figure 1: AUAR Scenario 1
Figure 2: AUAR Scenario 2
Figure 3: AUAR Scenario 3
Figure 4: AUAR Scenario 4
FISCAL IMPACT:
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost to prepare the AUAR is being covered by NorthPoint through an escrow agreement. OPTIONS: 1) Approve Resolution No 2022-033
2) Amend and then Approve Resolution No 2022-033
3) Do not approve Resolution No 2022-033 to adopt the Final AUAR RECOMMENDATIONS: “Motion to approve Resolution No 2022-033, a resolution adopting the Final Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) for Cyphers Logistics Park.”
AND
“Motion to declare AUAR Scenario __ as the preferred scenario for development of the
Cyphers Logistics Park land north of 34th Street” ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution No 2022 - 033
• Final AUAR
LA515-1-761712.v2
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-033 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE
REVIEW (AUAR) FOR THE CYPHERS LOGISTIC PARK WHEREAS, The City of Lake Elmo is the Responsible Governmental Unit for
the environmental review of the Cyphers Logistic Park pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part
4410.3610 Subp. 1; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3610 provides for a substitute form
of environmental review known as an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
process; and
WHEREAS, the City undertook an environmental review process to determine if
future redevelopment of the Cyphers Logistic Park area has the potential for significant
environmental effects and prepared an AUAR pursuant to state requirements; and
WHEREAS, the availability of the AUAR was officially noticed on February 1,
2022, in the EQB Monitor; and
WHEREAS, the City posted the contents of the AUAR on the City’s website;
and
WHEREAS, comments on the AUAR were received through March 3, 2022; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed all comments received during the comment
period and incorporated applicable changes into the Final AUAR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo hereby approves the March 2022 Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the
Cyphers Logistics Park.
LA515-1-761712.v2
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: __________________________
Charles Cadenhead
(Seal) Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________
Julie Johnson
City Clerk
Cyphers Logistic Park
FINAL Alternative Urban Areawide Review
March 2022
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR i March 2022
Table of Contents
1. Project Title ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Proposer....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation ................................................................................................................................. 2 5. Project Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 6. Project Description ................................................................................................................................................... 5 7. Cover Types ..............................................................................................................................................................12 8. Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................................................14 9. Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................................15 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms.................................................................................................24 11. Water Resources......................................................................................................................................................28 12. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks ..................................................................................42 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources ..................................................46 14. Historic Properties...................................................................................................................................................49 15. Visual...........................................................................................................................................................................49 16. Air.................................................................................................................................................................................50 17. Noise ...........................................................................................................................................................................51 18. Transportation..........................................................................................................................................................52 19. Cumulative Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................59 20. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ...........................................................................................................60 Mitigation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................60
List of Tables
Table 1: Development Scenarios .................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2: Cover Types ......................................................................................................................................................12 Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required................................................................................................................14 Table 4: Soil Types ..........................................................................................................................................................25 Table 5: Wells within AUAR Study Area....................................................................................................................29 Table 6: Anticipated Average Daily Flow Rates and Peak Daily Flow Rates...................................................32 Table 7: Wetlands Identified on Site .........................................................................................................................35 Table 8: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites ...............................................................................................42 Table 9: Trip Generation Forecasts ............................................................................................................................54 Table 10: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS................................................................................................55 Table 11: Permits and Approvals Required .............................................................................................................60 Table 12: Mitigation Plan ..............................................................................................................................................62
List of Figures
Figure 1: AUAR Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: USGS Map ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Development Scenario 1............................................................................................................................... 8
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR ii March 2022
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2............................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Development Scenario 3.............................................................................................................................10 Figure 6: Development Scenario 4.............................................................................................................................11 Figure 7: Existing Cover Type Map ............................................................................................................................13 Figure 8: FEMA Map .......................................................................................................................................................19 Figure 9: Existing City Zoning......................................................................................................................................22 Figure 10: Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................................23 Figure 11: Soil Types ......................................................................................................................................................27 Figure 12: Wells within 150 feet of AUAR Study Area..........................................................................................30 Figure 13: Water Resources Within 1-Mile of AUAR Study Area ......................................................................39 Figure 14: Water Resources Within AUAR Study Area.........................................................................................40 Figure 15: Drinking Water Supply Management Area & Wellhead Protection Area ..................................41 Figure 16: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites ...........................................................................................44 Figure 17: Traffic Study Intersections ........................................................................................................................58
List of Appendices
Appendix A: NHIS Correspondence (pending) Appendix B: Historic Resources Correspondence Appendix C: Traffic Study Appendix D: Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement Appendix E: Responses to Agency and Public Comments Appendix F: Agency and Public Comment Letters
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 1 March 2022
July 2013 Version
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. This EAW form is being used to delineate the issues and analyses to be reviewed in an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). Where the AUAR guidance provided by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) indicates that an AUAR response should differ notably from what is required for an EAW, the guidance is noted in italics.
1. Project Title
Cyphers Logistic Park
2. Proposer
Proposer: NorthPoint Development Contact Person: Christina Hubacek Title: Project Manager Address: 3010 Highland Parkway, Suite 440 City, State, ZIP: Downers Grove, IL 60515 Phone: 331-251-3111 Email: chubacek@northpointkc.com
3. RGU
RGU: City of Lake Elmo Contact Person: Kristina Handt Title: City Administrator Address: 3880 Laverne Avenue N, Suite 100 City, State, ZIP: Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Phone: 651-747-3905 Email: khandt@lakeelmo.org
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 2 March 2022
4. Reason for EAW Preparation
AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to an AUAR.
5. Project Location
County: Washington County City/Township: Lake Elmo PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NE ¼ and SE ¼ of Section 16, Township 29N, Range 21W and NW ¼ of Section 21, Township 29N, Range 21W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Lower St. Croix River GPS Coordinates: 44° 59' 55.0" N, 92° 56' 23.1" W Tax Parcel Number(s): 1602921230003, 1602921240002, and 1602921320001 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the AUAR:
• A map clearly depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis (See Figure 1 and Figure 3 through Figure 5)
• US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 2)
• A cover type map as required for Item 7 (See Figure 7)
• Land use and planning and zoning maps as required in conjunction with Item 9 (see Figure 9 and Figure 10)
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 3 March 2022
Figure 1: AUAR Study Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 4 March 2022
Figure 2: USGS Map
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 5 March 2022
6. Project Description
AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the EAW form, the description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included:
• Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial development throughout the AUAR area.
• Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary.
• Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule
Important Note: Every AUAR document MUST review one or more development scenarios based on and consistent with the RGU’s Comprehensive Plan in effect when the AUAR is officially ordered. (This is equivalent to reviewing the “no-build” alternative in an EIS.) If an RGU expects to amend its existing Comprehensive Plan, it has the options of deferring the start of the AUAR until after adopting the amended plan or reviewing developments based on both the existing and amended comprehensive plans; however, it cannot review only a development based on an expected amendment to the existing plan. Also, the rules require that one or more development scenarios analyzed must be consistent with known development plans of property owners within the AUAR area.
The AUAR study area encompasses approximately 190 acres on three existing tax parcels in the City of Lake Elmo. Approximately 180-acres of the AUAR study area was recently acquired by the City of Lake Elmo as part of a settlement with 3M for the Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination that affects the groundwater in this region. When the City acquired the AUAR study area as part of the 3M Settlement, it anticipated that any future development would require the extension of municipal services given the groundwater contamination. The AUAR study area is located east of I-694 and is bordered to the west by the City of Oakdale at Ideal Avenue N (CSAH 13). The AUAR study area is bisected east-west by 34th Street N (CSAH 14). Within the AUAR study area, approximately 110 acres lie north, and 80 acres lie south of the 34th Street N right-of-way. The existing land use within the AUAR study area is predominantly agricultural, with approximately 7.4 acres used for the City’s public works building and municipal elevated water storage tower located northeast of the 34th Street N and Ideal Ave N intersection.
Four development scenarios are proposed for evaluation in the AUAR (described in Table 1). The existing public works building is included in all the scenarios, but it is not planned for further development or redevelopment; however, since it is connected to the roadway system and may eventually be served by municipal sewer, it is prudent to include it within this evaluation. In 2020 the City completed a Master Plan process to evaluate the desired land uses within the AUAR study area as a result of the 3M settlement process. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are generally consistent with the land use patterns and densities evaluated within the Master Plan process but are not consistent with the adopted 2040 Future Land Use Plan adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Scenario 4 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as required by this AUAR process, but is considered the no-build scenario since it does not include the extension of municipal services to the AUAR study area north of 34th Street N.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 6 March 2022
The intent of the AUAR is to evaluate scenarios that identify the greatest potential impact and to evaluate the development potential given the existing Comprehensive Plan. All development scenarios must identify the mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for any identified impacts.
Development Scenario 1:
Development Scenario 1 land uses includes business park, mixed-use business park, commercial, existing public works, park, ponding, and right-of-way (see Figure 3).
Development Scenario 2:
Development Scenario 2 land uses includes business park, mixed-use business park, commercial, low density residential, medium density residential, existing public works, park, ponding, and right-of-way (see Figure 4).
Development Scenario 3:
Development Scenario 3 land uses includes business park, commercial, low density residential, public works, park, ponding, and right-of-way (see Figure 5).
Development Scenario 4:
Development Scenario 4 land uses includes agricultural, rural residential, public works, and business park. This scenario is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 6).
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 7 March 2022
Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3 Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 evaluate the same anticipated development of the AUAR study area lying south of 34th Street N, which is the area the project proposer plans to develop. Construction of the parcels south of 34th Street N is anticipated to begin in 2022 and be built over two phases with construction complete by 2024. The AUAR study area lying north of 34th Street N will be developed later and there are no known development plans. To account for the unknown plans for the north area, different land use patterns with varying densities are evaluated in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 and are based on the City’s completed Master Plan process. Roadway infrastructure supporting Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 includes access from 34th Street N and Ideal Avenue N. The scenario plans identify three access points into the area south of 34th Street N and two access points into the northern portion of the study area. The AUAR study area will be connected to the public municipal water and regional sanitary sewer systems. Stormwater management will be provided locally onsite as part of any development.
Scenario 4
Scenario 4 is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which permits the development of the parcels south of 34th Street N for Business Park uses and the parcels north of 34th Street N for rural residential uses, continued agriculture, and the public works facility.
Table 1: Development Scenarios
Land Use Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Business Park ~1.1 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet ~2.2 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet
Mixed-Use Business Park
400 residential units 653,400 square feet business/light industrial
210 residential units 457,380 square feet business/light industrial
-- --
Commercial 91,500 square feet 178,596 square feet 91,500 square feet -- Rural Area Development (Residential) 10 residential units
Low Density Residential -- 56 residential units 56 residential units --
Medium Density Residential -- 124 residential units -- --
Existing Public Works Building 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4
Park 8 acres 8 acres 8 acres 0 acres Ponding 15 acres 15 acres 15 acres 0 acres Right-of-Way 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 8 March 2022
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 9 March 2022
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 10 March 2022
Figure 5: Development Scenario 3
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 11 March 2022
Figure 6: Development Scenario 4
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 12 March 2022
7. Cover Types
AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided:
• A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting:
o Wetlands (identified by Circular 39 type)
o Watercourses (rivers, streams, creeks, ditches)
o Lakes (identify public waters status and shoreland management classification)
o Woodlands (break down by classes where possible)
o Grassland (identify native and old field)
o Cropland
o Current development
• An “overlay” map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types. This map
should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive
cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should be generally
provided.
The AUAR study area covers approximately 190 acres of predominantly agricultural land. Approximately 7.4 acres is partially developed with the Lake Elmo Public Works building at the northeast intersection of Ideal Avenue N and 34th Street N. Existing cover types within the AUAR study area are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 7 and were determined by reviewing aerial photography and land cover classification maps. The National Wetland Inventory identifies five freshwater emergent wetlands and three freshwater ponds within the AUAR study area.
Table 2: Cover Types
Cover Type Existing (acres) Scenario 1 (acres) Scenario 2 (acres) Scenario 3 (acres) Scenario 4 (acres)
Agriculture 139.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wooded/Forest 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 Lawn/Landscaping 16.8 62.0 64.2 54.2 115.1 Impervious Surface 5.4 105.2 103.0 113.0 54.5 Wetland/Pond 5.2 20.5 20.5 20.5 8.2
Total 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 13 March 2022
Figure 7: Existing Cover Type Map
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 14 March 2022
8. Permits and Approvals Required
AUAR Guidance: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major development scenario. This list will help orient reviewers to the framework that will protect environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR.
Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 To be applied for, if applicable State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities
To be applied for
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for
Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable
Construction Contingency Plan and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for Construction Dewatering To be applied for, if applicable
Regional Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for
Valley Branch Watershed District
Watershed District Permit To be applied for Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Replacement Plan To be applied for, if applicable
County Washington County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for Local City of Lake Elmo Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for Building Permit To be applied for Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Amendment (applies to Scenario 1, 2, and 3) To be applied for
Zoning Map Amendment To be applied for Planned Unit Development To be completed, if applicable
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 15 March 2022
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Conditional Use Permit To be completed, if applicable Union Pacific Railroad Utility Crossing Permit To be applied for
Xcel Energy Transmission Line Encroachment Agreement To be applied for
BP Gas Main Easement Encroachment Agreement To be applied for
9. Land Use
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands.
The AUAR study area consists of three parcels totaling approximately 190 acres that are bisected by 34th Street N (CSAH 14). Approximately 110 acres of the AUAR study area are located north of 34th Street N and approximately 80 acres are located south of 34th Street N. Approximately 95% of the AUAR study area consists of prime farmland, prime farmland if drained, or farmland of statewide importance (see Table 4). There are no existing parks or trails in the AUAR study area, but there are existing trails located adjacent to the site in the City of Oakdale. There is an existing trail that runs within the Ideal Avenue N (CSAH 13) right-of-way, and a trail/sidewalk on the south side of 34th Street N within the right-of-way adjacent to the Oakdale Marketplace development.
The study area is bound by Ideal Avenue N along the easterly border, which is also the municipal boundary with the City of Oakdale. North and south of 34th Street N is mostly undeveloped agricultural land and Stillwater Boulevard (CSAH 6) is the southerly border. The Union Pacific railroad right-of-way bisects a portion of the agricultural land south of 34th Street N. Approximately 7.4 acres of land northeast of the Ideal Avenue N and 34th Street N intersection is developed with the City’s existing public works building and municipal elevated water storage tower. Adjacent to the site on the north and east are rural residential uses and a small mining operation. South of Stillwater Boulevard there are rural residential uses. Across Ideal Avenue N, in the City of Oakdale, there are residential and business park uses (see Figure 9).
ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency.
AUAR Guidance: Water-related land use management districts should be delineated on appropriate maps, and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed.
The AUAR study area is located in the City of Lake Elmo and is subject to the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Regulations and standards within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan include the following:
• Future land use plan
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 16 March 2022
• Water Supply
• Sanitary Sewer Plan
• Local Surface Water Management Plan
• Lake Elmo Transportation Plan
• Washington County 2040 Transportation Plan All development must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as adopted, or it must be amended. The City recently acquired the AUAR study area as part of a 3M Settlement and it was not planned for urbanized development within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Since the adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the 3M Settlement agreement was completed, and the City acquired the approximately 180-acre AUAR study area and prepared a Master Plan to plan for its development. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adjust the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) in the City of Lake Elmo to include the approximately 80 acres contained south of 34th Street N was completed in May 2021. Given the proximity of the site to the City of Oakdale and existing regional sanitary sewer infrastructure, it was determined that the most effective and efficient way to develop the site with regional sewer is to work collaboratively with the City of Oakdale. In August 2021, the City of Lake Elmo entered into a cooperative agreement for the reconstruction of a sanitary sewer lift station (Lift Station 6) to establish a sanitary sewer connection to ensure the full AUAR study area can be served through Oakdale. The Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement detailing costs and responsibilities was subsequently executed to implement the cooperative agreement in September 2021 (See Appendix D). Reconstruction of Lift Station 6 will require a DNR Water Appropriation Permit if the dewatering for reconstruction will exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one million gallons per year. Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan The City of Lake Elmo adopted their 2040 Comprehensive Plan1 in November 2019, and was most recently amended in May 2021, as noted above. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Lake Elmo as an “emerging suburban edge” community where the MUSA is designated and land area in this designation is planned to transition from agricultural land uses to urbanized development. The remainder of the community is designated as a “rural residential” community that is characterized by large lots with no plans to provide municipal sanitary sewer service. The May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment was completed to add the parcels south of 34th Street N to the City’s designated MUSA and to allow for its urbanized development. The study area north of 34th Street was not included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and remains outside the MUSA boundary.
The May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved and the study area south of 34th Street N is now located within the emerging suburban edge designation (MUSA) and was re-guided to Business Park (BP). All four scenarios evaluated in this AUAR are consistent with the future land use guiding for parcels south of 34th Street N. The study area north of 34th Street N is located within the rural residential designation and is guided Rural Area Development (RAD) and Park/Open Space (public works facility) on the Future Land Use Plan. This guiding does not plan for the extension of the MUSA to this area (scenario 4). Any urbanized development in the study
1 Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at https://cms8.revize.com/revize/lakeelmomn/Full2040CompPlan.pdf
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 17 March 2022
area north of 34th Street N will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (scenarios 1, 2 and 3).
Other Agreements and Plans
Sanitary Sewer Cooperative Agreement and Sewer Service Agreement with the City of Oakdale
As previously noted, the City of Lake Elmo entered into a cooperative agreement with the City of Oakdale for improvements to Lift Station 6 to provide regional sanitary sewer to the AUAR study area. The cooperative agreement contemplates the development of the full AUAR study area for urban services. To implement the Cooperative Agreement, the City of Lake Elmo entered into the Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement in September 2021 which details costs and responsibilities for the construction and long-term service once the improvements and extension are completed. The City of Lake Elmo acknowledges that any urbanized development of the area north of 34th Street N will require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to include the approximately 110 acres into the MUSA.
Water Supply Plan
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a water supply plan that planned for serving the AUAR study area with municipal water. As discussed, the City acquired the AUAR study area as part of a settlement with 3M for PFAS contamination which is affecting the City’s groundwater. Hooking up properties within the City, in both urbanized and rural areas, is important to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Lake Elmo’s residents. As a result, all scenarios included in this AUAR plan for development to be served by the municipal water supply and is consistent with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
Existing Zoning The AUAR study area, excluding the public works facility, is zoned Rural Residential (RR) and the public works facility parcel is zoned Public Facilities (PF) (see Figure 8). Adjacent zoning in the City of Lake Elmo includes Rural Single Family (RS) along the northern boundary, Open Space PUD (OP) east of the study area north of 34th Street N, Limited Commercial (LC) east of the study area south of 34th Street N, and Residential Estate (RE) along the southern boundary. Adjacent to the site in the City of Oakdale, land is predominantly zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a small portion of land adjacent to the southern portion of the study area zoned Low Density Residential (R-2) and Very Low Density Residential (R-1). Any proposed new development or redevelopment that results in a change in land use will be required to be zoned consistent with the Future Land Use Plan adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
A portion along the southern area of the AUAR study area is located within the City’s Shoreland buffer (see Figure 14).2
2 City of Lake Elmo Zoning Map (last updated January 2021): https://cms8.revize.com/revize/lakeelmomn/Document%20center/Departments/Planning%20and%20Zoning/Maps/ZoningJanuary2021%201-22-21.pdf
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 18 March 2022
Valley Branch Watershed District The AUAR study area is located within the Valley Branch Watershed District3 (VBWD) area. VBWD seeks to protect surface water, ground water, and natural resources within in the Valley Branch Watershed. Several wetlands are located within the AUAR study area as well as an unnamed tributary along southern boundary of the site. Any future development adjacent to the tributary and wetlands will need to maintain a vegetative buffer to minimize effects to the waterbody and may require watershed district permit approvals if any physical modification of waterbodies is proposed. All proposed development will be required to meet the requirements and standards of the City’s adopted Local Surface Water Management Plan that incorporates the VBWD standards by reference.
FEMA National Flood Hazard According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map, the majority of the AUAR study area is located in an area of minimal flood hazard. The southeast and southwest corners are located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain and are associated with an unnamed DNR Public Water Basin and unnamed DNR Public Watercourse, respectively (see Figure 8). The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel numbers for the site are 27163C0240E, 27163C0245E, 27163C0331E, and 27163C0329E, effective February 3, 2010.
The parcels located north of 34th Street N are not located within any of the City’s floodplain zoning districts. However, FEMA Zone A and Zone AE Floodway are present within the parcels south of 34th Street N. Areas designated as Zone A are within the City’s General Flood Plain District. Areas designated as floodway are within the City’s Floodway District. Therefore, both the General Flood Plain District and Floodway District exist within the area south of 34th Street N. All development of the parcels south of 34th Street N must follow the standards as established within the adopted Floodplain Ordinance and any standards and regulations, including but not limited to setbacks established by the VBWD rules.
3 Valley Branch Watershed District rules. Available at https://vbwd.org/document_center/Quick%20links/2013AdoptedRules.pdf
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 19 March 2022
Figure 8: FEMA Map
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 20 March 2022
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3
The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the area north of 34th Street N a as Rural Area Development which generally permits rural residential principal and accessory uses. The May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment guides the area south of 34th Street N for Business Park. Land use east of the project site is guided for Rural Area Development and Limited Commercial/business uses. Land west of the site is within the City of Oakdale and is guided for urbanized development including PUD Business Park and low density residential. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 propose development of the AUAR study area with urbanized development patterns that require the extension of municipal water and regional sanitary sewer. This area of the City was not contemplated for urban services in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan period because the 3M Settlement occurred after its adoption. The PFAS groundwater contamination in this area makes it important for any development or redevelopment activities to be served by the municipal water supply, and consequently make it cost effective for the area to be served by the regional sanitary sewer. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with the land use patterns in the City of Oakdale, and while they are somewhat inconsistent with the adjacent Lake Elmo land uses, environmentally it is important to serve this area with municipal services rather than private utilities and infrastructure.
Land adjacent to the AUAR study area in the City of Lake Elmo is of a lower density and intensity land use pattern than is identified in all Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. The most significant potential conflict is along the northern and eastern border of the study area where the predominant existing land use is rural residential. To mitigate potential land use conflicts, Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 include an approximately 14-acre residential buffer between the planned Business Park and existing rural residential development. The parcels south of 34th Street N are where the project proposer intends to develop a Business Park that will include a combination of warehousing and light-industrial uses. Planned development will include open space buffers along the south and southeastern borders where there is existing vegetation and the floodplain. On the easterly border of the study area there are existing Limited Commercial uses that will be compatible with Scenarios 1, 2, and 3.
The parcels south of 34th Street N in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with the guided Business Park land uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as amended in May 2021, and rezoning of this area will be required as part of the land use application process. The area north of 34th Street N in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are inconsistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be included within the MUSA. Once the development is known, this area would be re-guided and subsequently rezoned to be consistent as part of any land use application process.
Scenario 4
Scenario 4 is consistent with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan as amended in May 2021. The area south of 34th Street N are guided for Business Park and at time of development must be rezoned for consistency with this land use designation. The area south of 34th Street N is included in the City’s MUSA boundary and is planned to be connected to both municipal water supply and the regional sanitary sewer system. The area north of 34th Street N is guided Rural
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 21 March 2022
Residential and is zoned Rural Area Development (RAD) and Public Facilities on the approximately 7.4 acres of land that includes the City’s public work facilities. Scenario 4 assumes the continuation of this land use pattern and would permit the development of the existing agricultural land into approximately 10 rural residential lots. If development occurs consistent with Scenario 4, the City will require the extension of municipal water to these properties due to the known PFAS groundwater contamination in the area. Scenario 4 is not desirable due to the costs associated with the infrastructure needed to develop the area north of 34th Street N, but it is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
As mentioned in Item 9b, Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 include a residential buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the study area north of 34th Street N to transition between residential and Business Park uses. Development of this area will be required to demonstrate appropriate transitions between the uses, including where and how roadways are connected throughout the AUAR study area, where open space, vegetation, and stormwater management features can be used to protect existing neighborhoods from the more intense development patterns contemplated in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. Additionally, given the known PFAS groundwater contamination in the area, it is important for any new development to be hooked up to and served by municipal water. To serve this area efficiently and cost-effectively, a more intense and urbanized development pattern will help to mitigate the significant costs associated with the infrastructure. Re-guiding and rezoning the AUAR study area is another mitigative strategy as it will require public hearings and other formal land use applications that will provide opportunities for neighbors to express their concerns, and for the City and potential developers to respond to potential adverse impacts.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 22 March 2022
Figure 9: Existing City Zoning
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 23 March 2022
Figure 10: Existing Land Use
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 24 March 2022
10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms
AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. A standard soils map for the area should be included.
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified.
According to the Geologic Atlas of Washington County (Minnesota Geological Survey, 2016), the AUAR study area is underlain by sand, gravel, and diamicton.
Bedrock is encountered at varying depths across the AUAR study area, ranging in depth from approximately 1-50 feet below ground surface. Bedrock is comprised of Platteville and Glenwood Formations, fine-grained limestone containing thin shale partings near the top and base, underlain by green, sandy shale.
The AUAR study area is located within a karst-prone area where karst features may form on the land surface and where they are likely present in the subsurface. Site specific subsurface investigations should be completed prior to work commencement. If karst conditions are found to be present, the project proposer will follow the Valley Branch Watershed District, City of Lake Elmo, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) design guidelines.
Groundwater is present at approximately 0 to 50 feet below the surface.
b. Soils and Topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii.
AUAR Guidance: The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. A standard soils map for the area should be included.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the area is comprised of 13 different soil types (see Table 4 and Figure 10). A Geotechnical Evaluation Report was completed by Braun Intertec (August 2021) on the study area south of 34th Street N, which is the area the project proposer intends to develop for business park uses. According to
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 25 March 2022
the report, the predominant soil conditions consist of an average of one foot of topsoil overlying mixed glacially deposited soils.
Earthwork on the study area south of 34th Street N is anticipated to generally balance and be kept onsite. The proposed project will require approximately 500,000 total cubic yards of excavation.
During construction, sediment control best management practices such as silt fences, biologs, and silt curtains will be used where appropriate. The proposed development within the study area south of 34th Street N will require compliance with both the City’s and VBWD’s erosion and sediment control standards. Erosion will be minimized to the extent practicable by establishing or retaining stabilizing vegetation and avoiding the placement of structures or land alternations near steep slopes.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Stormwater Permit (SWPPP) will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the study area south of 34th Street N.
While unlikely, if the study area north of 34th Street N is developed consistent with Scenario 4, minimal site grading and excavation work will be necessary to develop large rural residential lots, and all proper grading permits and site plan approvals will be required. The City anticipates development of the study area north of 34th Street N will be consistent with either Scenarios 1, 2, or 3 but the actual development is unknown. Based on the scenario’s excavation, mass grading and site work are likely with Scenarios 1, 2, or 3. Any future development of the study area north of 34th Street N will be required to submit construction and development plans that include erosion control and grading plans. All development will be required to obtain NPDES and SWPPP approvals, if applicable.
Table 4: Soil Types
Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Acres within site
Percent of Site Hydric Rating Farmland Classification
49B Antigo silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 48.9 26.1% Not Hydric Prime farmland
49C Antigo silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 27.1 14.5% Not Hydric Farmland of statewide importance
49D Antigo silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 2.7 1.4% Not Hydric Not Prime Farmland
120 Brill silt loam 7.3 3.9% Hydric (1%-32%) Prime farmland
153B Santiago silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 26.0 13.8% Not Hydric Prime farmland
153C Santiago silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 45.9 24.5% Not Hydric Farmland of statewide importance
155C Chetek sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 1.3 0.7% Not Hydric Not Prime Farmland
264 Freeon silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 11.6 6.2% Hydric (1%-32%) Prime farmland
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 26 March 2022
Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Acres within site
Percent of Site Hydric Rating Farmland Classification
266 Freer silt loam 8.7 4.6% Hydric (1%-32%) Prime farmland if drained
325 Prebish loam 1.3 0.7% Hydric (66%-99%) Not Prime Farmland
342B Kingsley sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.4 0.2% Hydric (1%-32%) Prime farmland
896D Mahtomedi-Kingsley complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes 3.5 1.9% Not Hydric Not Prime Farmland
1847 Barronett silt loam, sandy substratum 2.9 1.5% Hydric (66%-99%) Not Prime Farmland
Total 187.7 100% -- --
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 27 March 2022
Figure 11: Soil Types
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 28 March 2022
11. Water Resources
AUAR Guidance: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan.
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below.
i. Surface Water - Lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. All surface water features should be described and identified on a map of the project area. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
Surface water features within the AUAR study area include five freshwater emergent wetlands and three ponds. These features are identified on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the surface area of these ponds totals 5.2 acres (see Figure 13).
There are two waterbodies identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Part 303d Impaired Waters List within one mile of the AUAR study area. Lake Jane, located north of the site, is impaired for mercury in fish tissue and fish bioassessments. Eagle Point Lake, located southeast of the site, is impaired for Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in fish tissue (see Figure 12).
The site generally drains to the east and south. One unnamed DNR Public Water Basin is present in the southeast corner of the site (DNR ID 82040000). An unnamed DNR Public Watercourse is present south of the site. This unnamed watercourse is an upstream tributary of Raleigh Creek, which drains into Eagle Point Lake.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
According to the DNR’s County Geologic Atlas Program, the depth to groundwater within the AUAR study area is 0 to 50 feet below the surface. Based on the Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Well Index, there is one well located within the AUAR study area and one well within 150 feet of the AUAR study area (see Table 5 and Figure 11). The City recently acquired the AUAR study area parcels, and based on information obtained during the acquisition, the well has been properly sealed and closed. If unknown wells are encountered onsite, they will be sealed and abandoned following Minnesota Department of Health and MPCA protocols.
The southernmost part of the AUAR study area is located in the Oakdale drinking water supply management area (DWSMA), see Figure 14. The AUAR study area is not within any
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 29 March 2022
wellhead protection areas, but it is adjacent to the Oakdale South wellhead protection area (WPA), see Figure 14.
Per the Minnesota Department of Health, the AUAR study area is located in a Special Well and Boring Construction Area (SWCA) due to the known PFAS groundwater contamination at levels that may pose public health risks. As stated by Washington County, “The purpose of a SWCA is to inform the public of potential health risks in areas of groundwater contamination, provide for the construction of safe water supplies, and prevent the spread of contamination due to improper drilling of wells or borings”. As previously noted, the safety of the water supply is critical in this area due to known groundwater contamination.
Table 5: Wells within AUAR Study Area
Well ID Number Well Status Well Name Well Depth Date Completed
440554 Sealed Cerney, Jim & Cindy 141 Feet 10/09/1986 255284 Sealed Imation MW 146 Feet 05/00/1956
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 30 March 2022
Figure 12: Wells within 150 feet of AUAR Study Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 31 March 2022
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below.
iii. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site.
AUAR Guidance: Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR:
• Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an AUAR process
• Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area; the basis of flow estimates should be explained
• The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows should be identified
• If not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction should be described
• The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive sewer plan and (for metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU’s wastewater treatment system compared to the flows from the AUAR area; any necessary improvements should be described.
• If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR, the guidance in the February 2000 edition of the EAW Guidelines on page 16 regarding item 18b under Residential development should be followed.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure.
In August 2021, the City of Lake Elmo entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Oakdale to hook up and serve the AUAR study area with regional sanitary sewer system through Oakdale. The Cooperative Agreement identifies and establishes the quantity of wastewater flows anticipated for full development of the AUAR study area, and the City of Lake Elmo has agreed to contribute to the construction and upgrade of Oakdale’s Lift Station 6 proportionate to the development anticipated. The implementation of the Cooperative Agreement was approved in the Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement approved by the Lake Elmo City Council in September 2021. Ultimately the sanitary sewer main is connected to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services system through a 10-inch gravity sewer main extending across the City of Oakdale and connecting to the MCES 15-in 1-WO-500 interceptor sewer trunk line. The 1-WO-500 interceptor main discharges to the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 32 March 2022
The Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant is the largest wastewater treatment facility in Minnesota. The plant is an advanced secondary treatment plant with chlorination/dichlorination. Currently, the plant has a maximum capacity of 314 million gallons per day. During the month of September 2021, the plant had an average flow of 160.8 million of gallons per day, which results in an excess capacity of approximately 153 million gallons per day.
Table 6 illustrates the anticipated average daily flow rates and peak daily flow rates for each of the scenarios. Each of the potential scenarios is well within the existing capacity of the existing Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Table 6: Anticipated Average Daily Flow Rates and Peak Daily Flow Rates
AVERAGE DAY WASTEWATER USE PEAK DAY WASTEWATER USE
Area north of 34th Street N (gpd)
Area south of 34th Street N (gpd)
Total AUAR study area (gpd)
Area north of 34th Street N (gpd)
Area south of 34th Street N (gpd)
Total AUAR study area (gpd)
Scenario 1 114,000 38,000 152,000 240 80 320 Scenario 2 104,000 38,000 142,000 220 80 300 Scenario 3 38,000 38,000 76,000 80 80 160 Scenario 4 0 38,000 38,000 0 80 80
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system.
The existing public works facility is served by an Individual Subsurface Sewage Treatment System that includes a private drainfield. The public works facility is located in the area north of 34th Street N and there is no immediate plan to hook up the system to the regional sanitary system. At the time of development in the area north of 34th Street N, the public works facility may be hooked up to the regional system, but it is unknown at this time. If Scenario 4 were to be developed, Individual Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) would likely be installed to serve the rural residential development in the area north of 34th Street N. However, as previously stated, the City anticipates that development of the area north of 34th Street N will be consistent with either Scenario 1, 2, or 3 and that the area will be served by the regional sewer extension and that no other subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) would be developed in the AUAR study area.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
No wastewater discharge to surface waters is anticipated for any of the development scenarios.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 33 March 2022
iv. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in addition to that in EAW Guidelines:
• It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues
• A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided
• The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed.
• If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses:
o Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs.
o Trout streams: If stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream, an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included.
The existing Lake Elmo public works building is located at the northeast quadrant of the Ideal Avenue and 34th Street N intersection and is comprised of approximately three acres of impervious surfaces. The remainder of the existing ground cover is made up of pervious surfaces. The soil across the AUAR study area is generally clayey with relatively low permeability rates. Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) regulates the stormwater management criteria for the AUAR study area. For new, nonlinear developments that create 6,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface on sites without restrictions, stormwater runoff volumes will be controlled, and the post-construction runoff volume shall be retained onsite for 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces. In addition to the water quality retention requirements, the VBWD requires the peak rate of stormwater runoff from the developed site not exceed the existing peak rate of runoff for all critical duration events, up to and including the 100-year return frequency storm event for all points where discharges leave a site during all
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 34 March 2022
phases of development. Design criteria shall be the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour storms with respective 2.8, 4.2, and 7.3-inch rainfall depths with VBWD-approved time distribution and the 7.2-inch, 100-year, 10-day snowmelt event.
As shown in each scenario, an extensive network of stormwater ponds and stormwater features are anticipated throughout the study area. The stormwater management design will be subject to the regulations as previously noted, regardless of the scenario developed, and individual plans will be required to demonstrate compliance with both the City’s and VBWD’s rules for stormwater management.
Additionally, the developer will look for methods to minimize chloride use and improve treatment of stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts to downstream waters. The project will comply with all city, watershed district, county, and state rules for stormwater management, and chloride use will be addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan that will be reviewed by the City for compliance.
v. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.
AUAR Guidance: If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.
Construction dewatering will be required for the development of the area south of 34th Street N and may be required when the area north of 34th Street N develops. Construction activities associated with dewatering will include discharging into temporary sedimentation basins to reduce the rate of water discharged from the site, as well as discharging to temporary stormwater best management practices. Any temporary dewatering will require a DNR Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if less than 50 million gallons per year and less than one year in duration. In the area south of 34th Street N it is anticipated that the temporary dewatering would only occur during utility installation and potential construction of building footings.
The water supply will be obtained from the three municipal groundwater wells that currently supply the Lake Elmo water system. The groundwater wells draw water from the Jordan aquifer.4 According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the City’s pumping capacity is 3,750 gallons per minute (gpm) as of 2019 for the three wells.
4 Source: City of Lake Elmo. 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Water Supply Plan in Appendix H (2019). https://cms8.revize.com/revize/lakeelmomn/Full2040CompPlan.pdf
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 35 March 2022
The existing water system was analyzed for supply, treatment, storage, and distribution capacity to determine if additional water system capital improvements are necessary to continue to provide a safe and reliable water supply through 2040 in the Comprehensive Plan. It was determined that as the City grows, the Comprehensive Plan assumes an additional 2-3 wells will be required and that the existing water tower storage capacity of Towers 2 and 4 equate to 1,750,000 gallons. In addition, the City is currently designing and constructing Water Tower No. 3 to add another 1,000,000 gallons of elevated storage capacity to the overall system. With the completion of Water Tower No. 3, anticipated in the Fall of 2023, the storage capacity will be sufficient to serve the demands projected in the Comprehensive Plan beyond 2040. The Minnesota DNR recommends that the total storage be equal or exceed the average daily demand. The Water Supply Plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan did not plan for development of the AUAR study area with urban densities; however, it did plan to serve the AUAR study area with municipal water given the known PFAS groundwater contamination in the area. Based on the expected population growth of Lake Elmo per the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the projected average daily demand will be 2,100,000 gallons per day.
While the projected density and intensity is higher than planned, the City’s planned improvements to the water supply, including additional wells and storage capacity, is sized adequately to serve the increased demand based on higher intensity and density in the area.
vi. Surface Waters
1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and identify those probable locations.
Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4
Approximately 5.2 acres of wetlands are located within the AUAR study area based on National Wetlands Inventory data from the DNR (See Table 7). If any wetland impacts are proposed as part of future development within the AUAR study area, the applicable WCA and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approvals will need to be obtained.
Table 7: Wetlands Identified on Site
Identifying Inventory Wetland Type Wetland Classification Identified Wetland Size
National Wetlands Inventory
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1A 0.44 acres
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1C 1.6 acres
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 36 March 2022
Identifying Inventory Wetland Type Wetland Classification Identified Wetland Size
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1C 48 square feet
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1F 0.3 acres
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1A 2.4 acres
Freshwater Pond PUBFx 0.18 acres
Freshwater Pond PABHx 0.08 acres
Freshwater Pond PUBHx 0.21 acres
Total -- -- 5.2 Acres
c. Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
AUAR Guidance: Water surface use need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies.
No alternations to other surface waters are anticipated as part of any of the development scenarios.
d. If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
No wastewater discharge to existing surface waters is anticipated for any of the development scenarios.
e. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential Best Management Practices site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction.
Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 37 March 2022
The following stormwater management requirements will be adhered to:
• City of Lake Elmo Code of Ordinances; 105.04-XIV Stormwater and Erosion and Sediment Control
• City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan
• Valley Branch Watershed District Standards
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements will be determined for each new development within the AUAR Study Area. This permit requires 80 percent TSS removal and meeting existing run-off rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events.
Stormwater will be managed on site and will maintain the current drainage patterns to the discharge points. The proposed development within the AUAR study area will require compliance with the standards of the VBWD and the City of Lake Elmo for water quality, volume control, rate control, and erosion control. For new, nonlinear developments that create 6,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface on sites without restrictions, stormwater runoff volumes will be controlled, and the post-construction runoff volume shall be retained onsite for 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces. In addition to the water quality retention requirements, the City and VBWD requires the peak rate of stormwater runoff from the developed site shall not exceed the existing peak rate of runoff for all critical duration events, up to and including the 100-year return frequency storm event for all points where discharges leave a site during all phases of development. Design criteria shall be the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour storms with respective 2.8, 4.2, and 7.3-inch rainfall depths with VBWD-approved time distribution and the 7.2-inch 100-year 10-day snowmelt event.
The soil profile is anticipated to be clayey having a poor permeability rate. Per VBWD regulations, developments must exhaust options to infiltrate the 1.1-inch water quality volume before alternate means of treatment can be considered. Alternate options to infiltration may include but are not limited to underground detention, underground infiltration, stormwater reuse, surface biofiltration, and green roofs. In addition to potential soil permeability issues, karst geology may be present in the area. If karst formations are found onsite, the stormwater mitigation measures must follow both MPCA and VBWD requirements.
Stormwater modeling of runoff and temperature controls will be completed as part of the final design of each project phase to provide volume and temperature control for the proposed improvements. The modeling will be performed to ensure conformance to all City of Lake Elmo and VBWD standards. Outfalls will be defined as part of the final design of each project phase.
The following design/construction standards are to be adhered to during construction:
• Grading of the infiltration basins shall be accomplished using low-impact, earthmoving
equipment to prevent compaction of the underlying soils.
• Infiltration basin excavation shall be held 1 foot above the bottom of the excavation until
the contributing drainage areas with exposed soils have been fully stabilized.
• Divert upland drainage areas to prevent runoff from entering the excavated basins or
into the work areas.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 38 March 2022
• Care must be taken to avoid contamination of engineered soils with sediment, in-situ, or
topsoil during and after installation. Materials must be segregated.
• Installation with dry soil conditions is critical to prevent smearing and compaction.
Schedule work for periods of dry weather.
• Do not leave infiltration areas and/or perimeter slope exposed overnight. Secure the area
from risk of precipitation and damages at the end of every workday. In the event of rain,
take action to divert stormwater away from work area and temporarily cover all exposed
soils with filter fabric or impermeable sheeting.
• In the event that the sediment is introduced into the BMP during or immediately
following excavation, remove sediment prior to initiating the next step in the infiltration
basin construction process.
• Excavate sediment built up during construction after stabilization of upstream areas and
before placement of hydraulic soil stabilizer type special.
• Stockpiling of materials shall not be allowed in proposed infiltration areas before or after
they are constructed. Only specified equipment will be allowed inside of the orange
construction fence for the sole purpose of constructing the infiltration basins.
• All infiltration basin construction activities shall be completed during dry soil conditions.
• All infiltration areas shall be protected during construction operations.
In all four development scenarios, roads, parking lots, and stormwater management basins are proposed. To minimize the impact of snow melt on the adjacent natural resources, snow will be stockpiled and managed in proposed landscape and stormwater pre-treatment forebays. In the spring, the proposed infiltration basins will minimize the effect of freezing by providing increased pore space through the native sandy soils and proposed plantings. The basins will also be sized to control the peak runoff rates from the 1-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events. It is anticipated that approximately 500,000 cubic feet of stormwater volume will need to be retained and infiltrated on-site. Pretreatment of all runoff prior to discharging into the stormwater BMP is encouraged, but not required if the tributary area is less than two acres. The volume provided onsite will provide excess storage to compensate for the runoff volume expected during spring thawing. The proposed stormwater management BMPs will be designed to comply with all City of Lake Elmo and VBWD standards and with comply with all maintenance/monitoring requirements of the City and VBWD.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 39 March 2022
Figure 13: Water Resources Within 1-Mile of AUAR Study Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 40 March 2022
Figure 14: Water Resources Within AUAR Study Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 41 March 2022
Figure 15: Drinking Water Supply Management Area & Wellhead Protection Area
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 42 March 2022
12. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks
a. Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s In My Neighborhood (WIMN) database was reviewed to determine if any known contaminated properties or potential environmental hazards are located within the AUAR study area. Two sites were identified within the AUAR study area and two sites were identified within 250 feet of the AUAR study area (see Table 8 and Figure 16).
Using the following criteria established by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the sites were classified into high, medium, and low risk sites:
• High risk: In general, sites with high environmental risks are properties that have documented releases of chemicals or hazardous or regulated substances (e.g., active and inactive state and federal cleanup sites, active and inactive dump sites, and active leaking underground storage tank sites), strong evidence of contamination (e.g., soil staining, stressed vegetation), or storage of large volumes of petroleum or other chemicals (e.g., bulk storage tank facilities).
• Medium risk: Sites of medium environmental risk are properties where smaller volumes of petroleum, chemicals, or hazardous materials are frequently stored and used (e.g., registered underground and aboveground storage tanks, vehicle repair facilities, metal working shops), but at which no evidence of spills or releases exists, or properties with documented releases that have been “closed” (signifying no further cleanup actions deemed necessary) by the MPCA. Closed sites, such as closed leaking underground storage tank sites, are considered medium risks because residual soil or groundwater contamination may exist.
• Low risk: Low environmental risk sites include properties where minor volumes of chemicals or hazardous materials have been used or stored (e.g., hazardous waste generators, and possibly some farmsteads and residences).
Table 8: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites
Site ID Site Name Activity Status Activity Risk Level
108620 Lake Elmo Public Works Active Hazardous Waste – minimal quantity generator Low
95697 Lake Elmo Public Works Facility
Inactive Construction Stormwater Low
Active Underground Tanks Medium
28670 Oakwood Animal Hospital Active Hazardous Waste – very small quantity generator Low
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 43 March 2022
Site ID Site Name Activity Status Activity Risk Level
Inactive Petroleum Remediation Medium
40673 Myrons Service Center Inactive Hazardous Waste Low
As described in Item 11(ii), the AUAR study area is located within the Special Well and Boring Construction Area (SWCA) because of known PFAS groundwater contamination. As stated by Washington County, “Wastes containing perfluoro-alkyl Substances (PFAS), also known as perfluorochemicals (PFCs) were disposed of by the 3M Company at the 3M disposal sites in Oakdale, Woodbury, and Cottage Grove, and the former Washington County Landfill in Lake Elmo. PFAS were released from the sites, resulting in contamination of groundwater and nearby drinking water wells”.
Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4
The AUAR study area is in an area known to contain PFAS groundwater contamination and as a result any development must be served by municipal water. Additionally, given the known contamination in the area a Response Action Plan (RAP) must be developed for any construction in the AUAR study area, and a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) will be prepared and implemented during construction.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 44 March 2022
Figure 16: MPCA What’s in My Neighborhood Sites
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 45 March 2022
b. Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling.
AUAR Guidance: Generally, only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included
According to Washington County Ordinance No. 202, Washington County will ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 473.811.
Construction Generated Solid Waste Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4
All four scenarios include the development and construction of the area south of 34th Street N with business park uses. The construction will generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes. The wastes generated as a result of the construction will either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines.
Future development of the area north of 34th Street N will likely be similar to the waste generated in the area south of 34th Street N; the wastes will either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines.
Operation Generated Solid Waste Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 Recycling for residential units and commercial buildings in the AUAR study area will be conducted in accordance with the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section 115A.552). Furthermore, Washington County Ordinance 202 (2.83) requires source separation by the generator prior to collection for recycling services.
The proposed development of the area south of 34th Street N will generate new demands on solid waste management and sanitation services. It is estimated that the added residential waste stream will be approximately 937 tons per year under Scenario 1; 914 tons per year under Scenario 2; 131 tons per year under Scenario 3; and 23 tons per year under Scenario 4. The added non-residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream will be approximately 27,674 tons per year under Scenario 1; 26,040 tons per year under Scenario 2; 42,623 tons per year under Scenario 3; and 16,500 tons per year under Scenario 4.
c. Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Potential locations of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations).
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 46 March 2022
Not required for an AUAR.
d. Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR.
Not required for an AUAR.
13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site.
AUAR Guidance: The description of fish and wildlife resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on the cover types map. Any differences in impacts between development scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion.
Minimal native wildlife habitat is located within the AUAR study area due to the site’s use as an agricultural field. Wildlife that can be found within the AUAR study area include birds and small mammals. There are four areas of Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) Sites of Biodiversity Significance, eight native plant communities, and six Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) located within one mile of the site. Existing cover types are shown in Figure 6.
b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-965) and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained, and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include the reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result.
Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on a review of the US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) data for federally listed threatened and endangered species, there are seven federally listed species within Washington County; Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), Higgins eye (pearlymussel), snuffbox mussel, spectaclecase (mussel), winged mapleleaf, monarch butterfly, and rusty patched bumble bee.
A record for the Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is located within Washington County. Northern long-eared bat was designated a federally threatened species by FWS in April 2015. According to the Minnesota DNR, in the southern part of the state, Northern Long-Eared
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 47 March 2022
Bat may use attics, bridges, and buildings for hibernating. In summer, the species is often found within forested habitats, especially around wetlands. Summer roosts may include under loose tree bark, in buildings, behind signs or shutters, caves, mines, and quarry tunnels.
A record for Higgins eye (Lampsilis higginsii), a federally endangered species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is larger rivers with deep water and moderate currents.
A record for snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra), a federally endangered species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is small to medium sized creeks with a swift current.
A record for spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), a federally endangered species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is in large rivers where they can shelter from the main force of the current.
A record for winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa), a federally endangered species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is in riffles with clean gravel, sand, or rubble bottoms and in clear, high quality water.
A record for monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a federal candidate species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species is anywhere milkweed is present, including fields, roadside ditches, open areas, or wet areas.
A record for the rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis), a federally listed endangered species, is located within Washington County. The preferred habitat for this species includes grasslands and tallgrass prairies. Although the AUAR study area is located within a high potential zone for the rusty patched bumble bee, the site has been previously cultivated for agricultural use and does not contain natural prairie vegetation.
State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species (per license agreement LA-965), there are no records within the AUAR study area and three records within one mile of the AUAR study area: Red-shouldered hawk, least darter, and rusty-patched bumble bee.
A record for the Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), a state-listed special concern species, is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes large tracts of mature deciduous forest with scattered wetland openings.
A record for the Least Darter (Etheostoma microperca), a state-listed special concern species, is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes freshwater streams and lakes.
A record for the Rusty-patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis), a federally listed endangered species, is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The AUAR study area is also entirely within a High Potential Zone for the rusty-patched bumble bee. Disturbed areas will be reseeded using native seed mixes; therefore, no long-term adverse impacts are anticipated.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 48 March 2022
Other Sensitive Ecological Resources There are four areas of Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and eight native plant communities within a one-mile radius of the project site. Considering none are within the AUAR study area, no adverse impacts in these areas are anticipated.
There are six regionally significant ecological areas (RSEA) within one mile of the project site, one of which is within the AUAR study area, south of 34th Street N. Any project grading or tree removal will occur along the edge of the RSEA, and potential impact will be limited.
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 Effects to Wildlife Habitat The current site provides several acres of non-native wildlife habitat. It is possible one or more species utilizing the existing site may be relocated as a result of future development.
Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species The AUAR study area is not located in a township containing documented NLEB maternity roost trees or hibernacula; therefore, adverse impacts are minimal.
Potential suitable habitat for the rusty patched bumble bee may exist within or near the AUAR study area as it is located entirely within a High Potential Zone; however, due to the highly disturbed nature of the site, proposed impacts are minimal.
The Least Darter is sensitive to environmental degradation, especially turbidity and siltation within the waterbodies that it inhabits.
The site does not contain any rivers or creeks; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Higgins eye, snuffbox mussel, spectaclecase, or winged mapleleaf are anticipated.
The site does not contain suitable habitat for the Red-shouldered hawk; therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
Potential suitable habitat for the monarch butterfly may exist within or near the project AUAR study area; however, due to the highly disturbed nature of the site, proposed impacts are minimal.
A request for concurrence was submitted to the DNR and is currently pending (see correspondence in Appendix A).
Invasive Species Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment, and other debris.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4
Effects to Wildlife Habitat
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 49 March 2022
Tree removal mitigation will be implemented if the maximum allowable amount of tree removal is exceeded as required by City of Lake Elmo’s code of ordinances § 154.257. Some green space and native landscaping will be provided within the proposed development scenarios. Pollinator friendly seed mixes will be used to promote pollinator habitat.
Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species Disturbed areas will be reseeded using native seed mixes to promote pollinator habitat; therefore, no long-term adverse impacts are anticipated to the Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee and Monarch butterfly.
Removal of trees and any potential rusty patched bumble bee habitat will be completed during the inactive season (November 1 – March 31) to minimize impacts to the northern long eared bat and rusty patched bumble bee.
In order to avoid impacts to the Least Darter, proper erosion and sediment control practices will be implemented and maintained during construction near wetlands and will be incorporated into a stormwater management plan.
Invasive Species Invasive species will be controlled on-site during construction and landscaping will not include any DNR identified invasive species. Additionally, best management practices will be followed when relocating equipment from other sites.
14. Historic Properties
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office and State Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 A SHPO database review was requested in November 2021. The database review identified no historic sites within proximity to the AUAR study area. Therefore, there are no impacts to nearby archaeological, historical, and/or architectural resources anticipated as part of this development. A letter from the State Historic Preservation Office is provided in Appendix B.
15. Visual
Scenic views or vistas may include spectacular viewing points along lakes, rivers or bluffs; virgin timber tracts; prairie remnants; geological features; waterfalls; specimen trees; or plots of wildflowers. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 50 March 2022
intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
AUAR Guidance: Any impacts on scenic views and vistas present in the AUAR should be addressed. This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 The AUAR study area includes existing agricultural property that is not near any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Future development will conform with the zoning regulations for building height, building form, landscape screening, and lighting would be in conformance with City ordinances. No visual impacts are anticipated.
16. Air
a. Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review.
Not applicable.
b. Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions.
AUAR Guidance: Although the MPCA no longer issues Indirect Source Permits, traffic-related air
quality may still be an issue if the analysis in Item 18 indicates that development would cause or
worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance from the EAW form should still be followed.
Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to MPCA staff.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide (CO) impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 51 March 2022
None of the intersections in the AUAR study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards.
c. Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual
reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust
control ordinances in effect.
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 The proposed development for any scenario may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. Dust emissions can be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during operations as all ground surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated.
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any construction noise ordinances in effect.
• If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of Item 18. it is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues;
• A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided;
• The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed.
• If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses:
• Lakes: within the Twin Cities metro area a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs;
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 52 March 2022
• Trout streams: if stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included.
Traffic Generated Noise Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 The AUAR study area is predominantly existing agricultural land near state highways and county roads. The Union Pacific railroad passes though the southern portion of the AUAR study area. Existing traffic noise sources at the site are from the surrounding roadways. Traffic volumes in the AUAR study area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are sensitive to noise, or the traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable. The change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible.
A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be perceived as twice as loud.
Operational Noise Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 The Lake Elmo Code of Ordinances regulates mechanical noise associated with building operation by the standards set by the MPCA and Washington County.5 All future development of the study area will be required to comply with these requirements.
Construction Noise Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified that would necessitate a detailed construction noise analysis. The Lake Elmo Code of Ordinances regulates both the hours of operation for construction equipment and allowable noise levels. All construction and development activities in the AUAR study area must comply with these requirements.
18. Transportation
AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form.
a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes.
Parking
5 Source: Lake Elmo, Minnesota, Municipal Code § 9.04.050 (h)
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 53 March 2022
There are no existing parking spaces within the AUAR study area. Proposed parking spaces located in the area north of 34th Street N will be determined when a site plan becomes available. There will be approximately 797 parking stalls for the development south of 34th Street N.
Existing Conditions The primary existing roadway network within the AUAR study area includes 34th Street (CSAH 14), Ideal Avenue (CSAH 13), and Stillwater Boulevard (CSAH 6). The roadway network is described below.
• 34th Street N (CSAH 14) is an east-west roadway that runs along the northern boundary of the proposed industrial site and on the southern boundary of the proposed mixed-use site. 34th Street N is a 4-lane divided roadway with turn lanes provided at major intersections. 34th Street N is classified an A-Minor Expander in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph) in the AUAR study area. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 34th Street N is approximately 14,600 vehicles per day (vpd) (2018) west of Ideal Avenue N and 10,400 vpd (2018) east of Ideal Avenue N.
• Ideal Avenue N (CSAH 13) is a north-south roadway that runs along the western boundary of the proposed site. Ideal Avenue N is a two-lane undivided roadway south of 34th Street N and a four-lane divided roadway between 34th Street N and 36th Street N. Turn lanes or passing lanes are provided at all intersections. Ideal Avenue N is classified as an A-Minor Reliever, north of 34th Street N and a Major Collector south of 34th Street N in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 50 mph north of 34th Street N and 40 mph south of 34th Street N. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along Ideal Avenue N is approximately 4,250 vpd (2018) north of 34th Street N and 5,200 vpd (2018) south of 34th Street N.
• Stillwater Boulevard N (CSAH 6) generally runs east-west, south of the AUAR study area and turns north at the eastern edge of the study network. Stillwater Boulevard N is a two-lane undivided roadway with right turn lanes provided at intersections. Stillwater Boulevard N is classified as a Major Collector west of Inwood Avenue N and an A-Minor Expander east of Inwood Avenue N in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing AADT along Stillwater Boulevard N is 5,400 vpd (2018) west of Inwood Avenue N, and 4,900 vpd (2018) east of Inwood Avenue N. Traffic Generation Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4 Trip generation estimates were based on a review of industrial land uses provided in the manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 154 (High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse), LUC 820 (Shopping Plaza >150ksf), LUC 821 (Shopping Plaza 40ksf-150ksf), LUC 210 (Single Family Detached Housing), LUC 220 (Multifamily Housing Low-Rise), and LUC 221 (Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise) were determined to be the most appropriate fit for the proposed development in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The trip generation for the three scenarios is shown in Table 9. The full traffic study conducted for the AUAR can be found in Appendix C.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 54 March 2022
Table 9: Trip Generation Forecasts
Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Scenario 1 450 245 205 805 380 425 10,450
Scenario 2 440 235 205 960 460 500 11,105
Scenario 3 380 250 130 750 330 420 9,790
Scenario 4 95 70 25 120 35 85 1,635
Availability of Transit There are no transit routes currently serving the AUAR study area.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance.
AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews, a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to Items 16 and 17.
Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in November 2021 based on the projected trip generation of the four proposed scenarios. The results of this study can be found in Appendix C. Based on the detailed findings of the NorthPoint Industrial Park TIA, the area’s transportation network is expected to support redevelopment within the AUAR study area with mitigation. The TIA identified improvements that could be constructed to mitigate possible future traffic impacts associated with development within the AUAR study area. Metrics for traffic analysis include intersection delay as measured by Level of Service (LOS) and queue lengths.
The traffic analysis report includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections at site access points along Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N as well as intersection operations within the vicinity of the project (see locations identified on Figure 16). Based on the results of the TIA capacity analysis, a couple intersections operate poorly in Horizon Year (2040) Scenario 2 without mitigation. Table 10 shows the LOS for the AUAR study area intersections in each analysis scenario. The mitigation determined necessary for 2040 No-Build conditions was included in the No Mitigation analysis for all three 2040 Build Scenarios.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 55 March 2022
Table 10: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS
Intersection 2021
2025 2040
No-Build Scenarios 1-4 No-Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
No Miti No Miti No Miti Miti No Miti No Miti Miti No Miti No Miti
A.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N A B B B B C C C B B
Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Street N/Site Access 2 A A A A A A A B A A
Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 A A A A A A A A A A
Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N A A A A A A A A A A
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N A A A A A A A A A A
Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N A A A A A B B A A A
34th Street N & Site Access 1 -- -- A -- -- C C C C B
P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N B C C C C C C C C C
Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Street N/Site Access 2 B B C C C D C D C C
Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 A A B F B C C C C B
Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N A B B E B C C C B B
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N A A A B B C D A C B
Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N A A A C C C C C C C
34th Street N & Site Access 1 -- -- A -- -- D F C D A
Miti=Mitigation
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 56 March 2022
Existing (2021) Conditions
• No mitigation necessary
Opening Year (2025) No-Build Conditions
• No mitigation necessary
Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4 Conditions
• Install eastbound right and westbound left turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Side-Street stop control at all accesses
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Addition of a southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
• Signal timing modification at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Side-Street stop control at all accesses
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Expansion of 34th Street N to a four-lane cross-section at its intersection with Jamaca Avenue N
• Monitor the roundabout at 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N and add a second circulating lane for the eastbound and westbound movements if necessary
• Addition of southbound left-turn lane to site access 1 on 34th Street N
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & Site Access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 57 March 2022
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 58 March 2022
Figure 17: Traffic Study Intersections
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 59 March 2022
19. Cumulative Potential Effects
AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the AUAR area.
However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item.
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
Cumulative effects are defined as the “effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”6 The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to the AUAR study area, and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
Washington County is planning to construct road improvements on Ideal Avenue from 34th Street (CSAH 14) to 44th Street in the Cities of Oakdale and Lake Elmo. The project includes improvements to intersection controls, pavement, surface water drainage, and continuing north-south trail segments. The first phase of the project was constructed in 2017 and the second phase of the project is planned for construction in 2022.
The Willowbrook development, located on the northwest corner of the Ideal Avenue N and 36th Street N intersection is anticipated to have a total of 1,410 residential units, composed of single family, townhomes, multifamily apartments and senior housing. Phase 1 is anticipated to be completed by 2025 which includes 114 single family units and 280 townhomes, and all development is anticipated to be completed prior to 2040.
a. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects.
Impacts resulting from the development of the AUAR study area may include wetland impacts and increased traffic to the area. Impacts of the future road project on Ideal Avenue and the Willowbrook residential development may also impact traffic and adjacent water resources;
6 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 60 March 2022
however, the planned future road improvements will result in a cumulative benefit to traffic conditions. All other impacts from these future projects will be addressed via regulatory permitting and approval measures; therefore, they will be individually mitigated to ensure no cumulative impacts occur to environmental and community resources.
20. Other Potential Environmental Impacts
If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
All known environmental effects are addressed in the preceding sections.
Mitigation Plan
This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an understanding of the actions that are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios.
This Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a mitigation plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. Although mitigation strategies are discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts.
The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances, rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies’ responsibilities for implementing their respective regulatory programs nor create additional regulatory requirements. The plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
There were no impacts or mitigation strategies identified in Item 14 and Item 15; therefore, these areas are not included in the Mitigation Plan. The remaining AUAR items have identified regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of potential impact of development within the AUAR study area. The following mitigation summary applies to Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4 unless otherwise specified.
Table 11: Permits and Approvals Required
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 To be applied for, if applicable State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities
To be applied for
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 61 March 2022
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable
Construction Contingency Plan and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for Construction Dewatering To be applied for, if applicable
Regional Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for
Valley Branch Watershed District
Watershed District Permit To be applied for Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Replacement Plan To be applied for, if applicable
County Washington County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable Local
City of Lake Elmo
Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for Building Permit To be applied for Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Amendment (applies to Scenario 1, 2, and 3) To be applied for
Zoning Map Amendment To be applied for Planned Unit Development To be completed, if applicable Conditional Use Permit To be completed, if applicable Union Pacific Railroad Utility Crossing Permit To be applied for
Xcel Energy Transmission Line Encroachment Agreement To be applied for
BP Gasmain Easement Encroachment Agreement To be applied for
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 62 March 2022
Table 12: Mitigation Plan
Resource Area Mitigation
Land Use
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: All four scenarios propose business park and commercial uses in the area south of 34th Street N, which are consistent with the May 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The area north of 34th Street is guided as Rural Area Development (RAD). Development consistent with Scenarios 1, 2, or 3 will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide the parcels consistent with the proposed development to be included in the MUSA. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Any proposed development in the AUAR study area for Scenario 1, Scenario 2, Scenario 3, or Scenario 4 will require rezoning of the parcels to allow for business park, mixed-use business park, commercial uses and any urban density residential development. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Any future development adjacent to the tributary and wetlands will need to maintain a vegetative buffer to minimize effects to the waterbody and may require watershed district permit approvals if any physical modification of waterbodies is proposed. All proposed development will be required to meet the requirements and standards of the City’s adopted Local Surface Water Management Plan that incorporates the VBWD standards by reference. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: All development of the parcels south of 34th Street N must follow the standards as established within the adopted Floodplain Ordinance and any standards and regulations, including but not limited to setbacks established by the VBWD rules.
Geology, Soils, and Topography
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Stormwater Permit (SWPPP) will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the area south of 34th street N, and if needed in the area north of 34th Street N. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: During construction, sediment control best management practices such as silt fences, biologs, and silt curtains will be used where appropriate. The proposed development within the AUAR study area will require compliance with the City and watershed district erosion and sediment control standards. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Site specific subsurface investigations should be completed prior to work commencement. If karst conditions are found to be present, follow the Valley Branch Watershed District, City of Lake Elmo, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) design guidelines. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Stabilizing vegetation will be established or retained. Placing structures or land alterations near steep slopes will be avoided to the extent practicable. All proper grading permits and site plan approvals will be required.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 63 March 2022
Resource Area Mitigation
Water Resources
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Future infrastructure will be built within the AUAR study area to convey stormwater to stormwater management areas to help achieve the appropriate water quality treatment. As required by the City and VBWD, the quantity and rate of stormwater runoff from the 2-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events with respective 2.8, 4.2, and 7.3-inch rainfall depths with VBWD-approved time distribution and the 7.2-inch 100-year 10-day snowmelt event. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Stormwater management BMPs will be designed to comply with all City of Lake Elmo and VBWD standards and will comply with all maintenance/monitoring requirements of the City and VBWD. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Best management practices pertaining to stormwater management will be adhered to during construction. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Obtain a permit from the Metropolitan Council and MPCA for a sewer extension and permit to connect. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Obtain a permit from MDH for a watermain installation. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: A DNR temporary water appropriation permit will be obtained for any dewatering that will be needed for construction. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Groundwater wells will be properly sealed, if not already sealed, by a licensed well contractor prior to any development within the AUAR study area per MPCA and MDH well sealing requirements. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: If any wetland impacts are proposed as part of future development within the AUAR study area, the applicable WCA and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approvals will need to be obtained.
Contamination/ Hazardous Waste
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Development will generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Recycling for residential units and commercial buildings will be conducted in accordance with the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section 115A.552). Furthermore, Washington County Ordinance 202 (2.83) requires source separation by the generator prior to collection for recycling services. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 473.811, subdivision 5c. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: A Response Action Plan (RAP) will be developed for any known areas of contamination and a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) will prepared and implemented during construction.
Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Tree removal mitigation will be implemented if the maximum allowable amount of tree removal is exceeded as required by City of Lake Elmo’s code of ordinances § 154.257. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Removal of trees and any potential rusty patched bumble bee habitat will be completed during the inactive season (November 1 – March 31) to minimize impacts to the northern long eared bat and rusty patched bumble bee.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 64 March 2022
Resource Area Mitigation
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: To avoid impacts to the Least Darter, proper erosion and sediment control practices will be implemented and maintained during construction near wetlands and will be incorporated into a stormwater management plan. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Invasive species will be controlled during site construction. Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Pollinator friendly seed mixes will be used to promote pollinator habitat.
Air
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Construction will generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions will be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate.
Noise
Scenario 1, 2, 3, and 4: Construction activities may result in temporarily elevated noise levels. The Lake Elmo Code of Ordinances regulates both the hours of operation for construction equipment and allowable noise levels. Construction of the proposed project would comply with these requirements.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 65 March 2022
Resource Area Mitigation
Transportation
Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4 Conditions
• Install eastbound right and westbound left turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Side-Street stop control at all accesses
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Addition of a southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
• Signal timing modification at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Side-Street stop control at all accesses
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Expansion of 34th Street N to a four-lane cross-section at its intersection with Jamaca Avenue N
• Monitor the roundabout at 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N and add a second circulating lane for the eastbound and westbound movements if necessary
• Addition of southbound left-turn lane to site access 1 on 34th Street N
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & Site Access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix A
NHIS Correspondence (pending)
Appendix A: Correspondence
to Agency Comments
: Responses to Public Comments
From:Peterson, Kestra
To:Review.NHIS@state.mn.us
Subject:NHIS Review Request for Cyphers Logistic Park in Lake Elmo, MN
Date:Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:43:00 PM
Attachments:StudyArea.pdf
Hello,
Kimley-Horn has been contracted to prepare an AUAR for Cyphers Logistic Park located north and
south of 34th Street N and east of Ideal Avenue N on an approximately 190-acre site in Lake Elmo,
Washington County, Minnesota. A project location map is attached.
A review of the DNR Natural Heritage Inventory System (LA-965) database was conducted for the
AUAR study area and the area within one mile of the project site. This review identified three
records within one mile of the project site but no records within the project site itself.
A record for the Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), a state-listed special concern species, is
located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes
large tracts of mature deciduous forest with scattered wetland openings. The site does not contain
suitable habitat for the species; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Red-shouldered Hawk are
anticipated.
A record for the Least Darter (Etheostoma microperca), a state-listed special concern species, is
located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The preferred habitat for this species includes
freshwater streams and lakes. The site does not contain suitable habitat for the species; therefore,
no adverse impacts to the Least Darter are anticipated.
A record for the Rusty-patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis), a federally listed endangered species,
is located within a one-mile radius of the project site. The AUAR study area is also entirely within a
High Potential Zone for the rusty-patched bumble bee.
There are four areas of Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and eight native
plant communities within a one-mile radius of the project site. Considering none are within the
AUAR study area, no adverse impacts in these areas are anticipated.
There are six regionally significant ecological areas (RSEA) within one mile of the project site, one of
which is within the AUAR study area, south of 34th Street N. This RSEA is associated with an
unnamed DNR stream and unnamed DNR waterbody, which are adjacent to the site. Due to the
small amount of overlap between the RSEA and the study area, impacts will be minimal.
Please confirm our conclusions and let us know if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Thank you,
Kestra Peterson
Kimley-Horn | 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114Main: 651-645-4197 | Direct: 651-456-8167
Celebrating 14 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix B
Historic Resources Correspondence
Historic Resources Correspondence
From:MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO
To:Peterson, Kestra
Subject:RE: Database Search Request
Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 5:58:50 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
History.xls
Hello Kestra,
Please see attached. Our database has no archaeological records for the given project area.
BTW, I assumed you meant Township 29N, Range 21W for both sections?
Jim
SHPO Data Requests
Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203
Saint Paul, MN 55155
(651) 201-3299
datarequestshpo@state.mn.us
Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The
database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS
DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL
PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information
regarding our Environmental Review Process.
Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been
recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development
projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the
area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites.
Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for
listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those
reports:
NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a
National Register District.
CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for
listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the
Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the
National Register.
SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National
Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process.
DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for
listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed.
CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the
This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security
Operations Center.
purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may
need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts.
Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and
therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any
eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date
and the property will need to be reassessed.
If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or
historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need
assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201-
3285 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us.
The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at
https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/.
Given the Governor's implementation of Stay Safe MN, SHPO staff will continue to work
remotely and be available via phone and email, and the SHPO office will be closed to visitors
and unable to accommodate in-person research and deliveries. Mail is being delivered to the
office via USPS, FedEx and UPS, however, staff have limited weekly access to sort and process
mail. Our office will continue to take file search requests via DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us.
Check SHPO's webpage for the latest updates and we thank you for your continued patience.
From: Peterson, Kestra <Kestra.Peterson@kimley-horn.com>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:47 PM
To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us>
Subject: Database Search Request
Hello,
I would like to request a database search for a proposed project located in the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the 34th Street N/Ideal Avenue N intersection in Lake Elmo (NE ¼ and SE ¼ of
Section 16, Township 21N, Range 29W and NW ¼ of Section 21, Township 29N, Range 21W). The
location is shown on the attached USGS and existing conditions maps. Please let me know if you
need any additional information.
Thank you,
Kestra
Kestra Peterson
Kimley-Horn | 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114
Main: 651-645-4197 | Direct: 651-456-8167
Celebrating 14 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For
COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNSHIPRANGESECTIONQUARTERSUSGS REPORTNUMNRHPCEFDOEINVENTNUM
Washington
Baytown Twp.
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to theWashington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Lake Elmo
Kern House 11912 Stillwater Blvd N 29 21 21 NE-SE-SE Stillwater WA-2018-3H WA-LEC-020
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Washington
Lake Elmo
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to theWashington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Oak Park Heights
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to theWashington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Oakdale
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to theWashington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Washington
Oakdale
Stillwater
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SW-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 16 SE-SE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to theWashington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NE-NW XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Trunk Highway 212: Stillwater to the
Washington/ Ramsey County Line 29 21 21 NW-NE XX-2020-1H WA-XXX-001
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix C
Traffic Study
Appendix C
Traffic Impact Analysis
NorthPoint Industrial Park
AUAR
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2022
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
1 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3
2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................3
2.2 STUDY AREA............................................................................................................4
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 5
3.1 FUTURE ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ........................................5
3.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING .............................................................................5
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 8
4.1 SITE LOCATION ........................................................................................................8
4.2 SITE CIRCULATION...................................................................................................8
4.3 FUTURE LAND USE ..................................................................................................8
4.4 TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................................9
4.5 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ................................................... 12
4.6 TOTAL TRAFFIC FORECAST.................................................................................... 13
5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 13
5.1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ........................................................................................... 13
5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 13
5.3 EXISTING YEAR (2021) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS.................................................... 14
5.4 OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .................................... 17
5.5 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ................ 19
5.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .................................... 21
5.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ...................... 25
5.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ...................... 27
5.9 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ...................... 31
5.10 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .................... 33
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 35
6.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT & STUDY AREA................................................. 35
6.2 EXISTING YEAR (2021) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............................ 35
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 2
6.3 OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............. 36
6.4 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 36
6.5 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............. 36
6.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 37
6.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 37
6.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 37
6.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
38
6.9 MITIGATION PLAN .................................................................................................. 38
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 40
3 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NorthPoint Development is proposing to develop an approximately 84-acre industrial park located on the
southeast corner of the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N and an approximately 96-acre mixed
use development on the northeast corner of the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N, in Lake
Elmo, MN. The existing site is currently undeveloped. Exhibit 1 in Appendix A shows the project location
and study intersections.
The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on
surrounding streets and intersections.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Following provides a description of the public roadways within the study area:
34th Street N (CSAH 14) is an east-west roadway that runs along the northern boundary of the
proposed industrial site and on the southern boundary of the proposed mixed-use site. 34th Street N is
a 4-lane divided roadway with turn lanes provided at major intersections. 34th Street N is classified an
A-Minor Expander in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of
55 miles per hour (mph) in the study area. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the
existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 34th Street N is approximately 14,600 vehicles per
day (vpd) (2018) west of Ideal Avenue N and 10,400 vpd (2018) east of Ideal Avenue N.
Ideal Avenue N (CSAH 13) is a north-south roadway that runs along the western boundary of the
proposed site. Ideal Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway south of 34th Street N and a four-lane
divided roadway between 34th Street N & 36th Street N. Turn lanes or passing lanes are provided at all
intersections. Ideal Avenue is classified as an A-Minor Reliever, north of 34th Street N and a Major
Collector south of 34th Street N in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted
speed limit of 50 mph north of 34th Street N and 40 mph south of 34th Street N. According to the MnDOT
Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along Ideal Avenue N is
approximately 4,250 vpd (2018) north of 34th Street N and 5,200 vpd (2018) south of 34th Street N.
Stillwater Boulevard N (CSAH 6) generally runs east-west, south of the proposed development area
and turns north at the eastern edge of the study network. Stillwater Boulevard N is a two-lane undivided
roadway with right turn lanes provided at intersections. Stillwater Boulevard N is classified as a Major
Collector west of Inwood Avenue N and an A-Minor Expander east of Inwood Avenue N in the
Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. According to the
MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing AADT along Stillwater Boulevard N is 5,400 vpd
(2018) west of Inwood Avenue N, and 4,900 vpd (2018) east of Inwood Avenue N.
Jamaca Avenue N runs north-south, east of the proposed development. Jamaca Avenue N is a two-
lane undivided roadway; no turn lanes are provided along Jamaca Avenue N. Jamaca Avenue N is
classified as a local roadway in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of
45 mph. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing AADT along Jamaca Avenue
N is 1,950 vpd (2019).
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 4
36th Street N runs east-west, north of the proposed development. 36th Street N is a two-lane divided
roadway; turn lanes are provided at accesses along 36th Street N. 36th Street N is classified as a local
roadway in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with no posted speed limit. There is no reported
AADT along 36th Street N.
32nd Street N runs east-west, west of the proposed development. 32nd Street N is a two-lane undivided
roadway that provides access to businesses south of 34th Street N; turn lanes are provided at major
accesses along 32nd Street N. 32nd Street N is classified as a local roadway in the Lake Elmo 2040
Comprehensive Plan with no posted speed limit. There is no reported AADT along 32nd Street N.
31st Street N runs east-west, west of the proposed development. 31st Street N is a two-lane undivided
roadway; no turn lanes are provided along 31st Street N. 31st Street N is classified as a local roadway
in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with no posted speed limit. There is no reported AADT
along 36th Street N.
Interstate 694 (I-694) is a highway that runs north-south in the study area, west of the of the proposed
development. While I-694 will not be analyzed in the study network it is expected that many site trips
will utilize I-694 to connect the site with the regional roadway network. I-694 is a four-lane divided
highway with grade separated interchanges at intersections with major roadways. I-694 is classified as
a Principal Arterial in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan with a posted speed limit of 60 mph.
The AADT along I-694 is 61,505 vpd (2020) north of 34th Street N and 63,000 vpd (2020) south of 34th
Street N.
The following is a list of the study intersections analyzed in this report and the intersection control type at
each intersection:
• Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N – Side Street Stop Control
• Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N – Signalized
• Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Street N – Side Street Stop control
• Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N – Side Street Stop Control
• Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N – All Way Stop Control
• 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N / Stillwater Boulevard N – Roundabout
Exhibit 2 provides the existing geometry and intersection control for the study intersections. Washington County is planning to improve pavement and safety conditions on Ideal Avenue, this will result in an updated
geometry for the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N by 2022, which is what will be analyzed for
opening year and horizon year conditions.
Weekday AM and PM peak period turning movement counts were collected Tuesday August 10th, 2021 at
all study intersections in the study area except for the intersection of Ideal Avenue N and 36th Street N
which was under construction at the time of data collection. The turning movement counts are provided in
Appendix B. Exhibit 3 provides the existing volumes used in the analysis.
2.2 STUDY AREA
The land uses adjacent to the development are generally low-density single family residential to the north,
east, and south and commercial and office to the west.
5 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
The study area intersections include Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N, Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N, Ideal
Avenue N & 32nd Street N, Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N, Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N, and
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N / Stillwater Boulevard N.
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
It is assumed that the 84-acre industrial development will be fully built out by the Opening Year (2025). By
the Horizon Year (2040), it is assumed the 96-acre parcel to the north will be developed for a mix of
residential, commercial, and industrial use. Therefore, intersection turning movement volumes were
projected for the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040) based on the data collected in August
2021. The future volume forecast accounted for background growth in regional traffic volumes as well as
including traffic from the Willowbrooke development which is under construction.
3.1 FUTURE ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Washington County is planning a future roadway improvement that will impact the surrounding
transportation network. County Highway 13 (Ideal Avenue) Phase II is a pavement and safety improvement
project, which will change the roadway geometry on Ideal Avenue N, between 36th Street N & 44th Street
N. The only study intersection that will be affected is the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N. The
following describes the proposed changes at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N:
• Add a northbound right turn lane
• Add a southbound right turn lane
• Buildout the westbound approach to have a shared left-through lane and a shared through-right
turn lane.
• The westbound approach will be realigned to be an east-west roadway, with an access point for
the Lake Elmo Public Works Driveway
The proposed roadway improvements are planned for construction in 2022, the improvements were
included in the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040) conditions. No other roadway improvement
projects are currently planned in the study area.
3.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING
Background growth was based on a review of historic AADT volumes and projected 2040 AADT volumes
provided in the Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Projections are also consistent with
projections from the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Historic (2015) and projected (2040)
AADT volumes for existing roadways within the study area are summarized in Table 1. Based on the data,
this study assumed an average annual growth rate of 1.0 percent for 34th Street N and 1.5 percent for Ideal
Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N. No growth rate was applied to the remaining roads in the study area.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 6
TABLE 1: AADT PROJECTION AND RESPECTIVE GROWTH RATE
Count Location
Lake Elmo 2040
Comprehensive Plan 2040 Forecast
Growth Rate 2015 AADT 2040 AADT
34th Street N – West of Ideal Avenue N 16,200 21,000 1.0%
34th Street N – East of Stillwater Boulevard/Jamaca Avenue N 11,000 13,300 0.8%
Ideal Avenue N – North of 34th Street N 3,850 4,500 0.6%
Ideal Avenue N – 34th Street to Stillwater Boulevard N 5,000 7,100 1.4%
Stillwater Boulevard N – East of Ideal Avenue N 5,400 8,300 1.7%
In addition to the background growth rates, trips were also added to the network to account for the
Willowbrooke Residential development, located on the northwest corner of the Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street
N intersection. The development is anticipated to have a total 1,410 residential units, composed of single
family, townhomes, multifamily apartments, and senior housing. All development is anticipated to be
completed prior to the Horizon Year (2040). It was assumed that phase 1 of development (114 single family
units and 280 townhomes) was completed by Opening Year (2025). Table 2 provides the anticipated trip
generation of the Willowbrooke development for the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040).
TABLE 2: WILLOWBROOKE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Description ITE Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Opening Year (2025) Development
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 114 Dwelling Units 1,076 21 63 84 71 42 113
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 280 Dwelling Units 2,050 8 26 34 99 58 157
TOTAL ROUNDED SITE TRIPS 3,125 30 90 120 170 100 270
Horizon Year (2040) Development
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 302 Dwelling Units 2,851 56 167 223 188 111 299
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 342 Dwelling Units 2,503 9 32 41 121 71 192
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 656 Dwelling Units 3,569 61 175 236 176 113 289
Senior Adult Housing-Attached 252 110 Dwelling Units 407 8 14 22 16 13 29
TOTAL ROUNDED SITE TRIPS 9,330 135 385 520 500 310 810
The Willowbrooke residential development is anticipated to generate 3,125 daily trips, 120 AM peak hour trips, and 270 PM peak hour trips in the Opening Year. In the Horizon Year, Willowbrooke is anticipated to generate 9,330 daily trips, 520 AM peak hour trips, and 810 PM peak hour trips. The trips were then assigned to the study network based on population hubs and the roadway network. The global distribution was assumed to be:
• 65% to/from the west on 34th Street N • 5% to/from the east on 34th Street N • 5% to/from the west on Stillwater Boulevard N
• 5% to/from the south on Inwood Avenue N
7 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Exhibit 4 shows the Opening Year (2025) No-Build peak hour traffic volumes based on the turning movement counts, the assumed growth rate, and the addition of Willowbrooke traffic. Exhibit 5 shows the Horizon Year (2040) No-Build peak hour traffic volumes.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 8
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed development is in the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, and is adjacent to low density, single
family developments to the east, north, and south. The development consists of 2 primary developments,
on the southeast corner of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N is the proposed 84-acre industrial development
that is anticipated to be operational by 2025, and on the northeast corner of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue
N is the proposed 96-acre mixed-use development that is anticipated to be built out by 2040. The proposed site is currently undeveloped and zoned as Rural Residential (RR). The project location is shown in Exhibit
1.
4.2 SITE CIRCULATION
In Phase 1, access to the development is proposed to be provided at three full access connections, two
along Ideal Avenue N and one located on 34th Street N. In Phase 2, two full access driveways are proposed
in addition to the three accesses from phase 1 of development. Of the additional accesses, one will be
located on Ideal Avenue N as an extension of 36th Street N and the last access will be on 34th Street N,
directly aligned with the access from phases 1 of development. All four build scenarios have the same
proposed site accesses. The proposed site plans are attached in Appendix C.
The industrial development is separated by railroad tracks owned by Union Pacific, one building is proposed
south of the tracks and three buildings are proposed north of the tracks. There will be no facilities on the
proposed site to cross the train tracks, vehicles needing to cross the tracks will need to utilize Ideal Avenue
N.
4.3 FUTURE LAND USE
There are four potential development plans, Scenario 1 consists of industrial park, commercial, and
multifamily residential. Scenario 2 consists of industrial park, commercial, multifamily residential, and single
family residential. Scenario 3 consists of industrial park, commercial, and single family residential. Scenario
4 consists of industrial park, and single family residential. The first three development scenarios have similar
land uses and levels of density and scenario 4 is lower density north of 34th Street N. Table 3 provides a
summary of the four development scenarios that are considered in this AUAR.
9 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
TABLE 3: AUAR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Full Development Scenario 1
Land Use Size
Industrial Business Park 1,753,400 Square Feet
Commercial 91,500 Square Feet
Multifamily Residential Units 400 Dwelling Units
Full Development Scenario 2
Land Use Size
Industrial Business Park 1,557,380 Square Feet
Commercial 178,596 Square Feet
Multifamily Residential Units 334 Dwelling Units
Single Family Residential Units 38 Dwelling Units
Full Development Scenario 3
Land Use Size
Industrial Business Park 2,200,000 Square Feet
Commercial 91,500 Square Feet
Single Family Residential Units 56 Dwelling Units
Full Development Scenario 4
Land Use Size
Industrial Business Park 1,100,000 Square Feet
Single Family Residential Units 10 Dwelling Units
For scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4, the development south of 34th Street N was assumed to be fully built by the
Opening Year (2025). All four scenarios are expected to have the same development, 1,100,000 square
feet of industrial business park, in the Opening Year. Full development was assumed for all four scenarios
by Horizon Year (2040). The access locations are anticipated to be the same in all four scenarios.
4.4 TRIP GENERATION
Proposed development traffic was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip
Generation, 11th Edition. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations, inbound-outbound
percentages, and truck percentages which were used to estimate the number of daily peak hour, and truck
trips that can be attributed to the undeveloped site. Based on a review of industrial land uses provided in
the manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 154 (High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse), LUC
820 (Shopping Plaza >150ksf), LUC 821 (Shopping Plaza 40ksf-150ksf), LUC 210 (Single Family Detached
Housing), LUC 220 (Multifamily Housing Low-Rise), and LUC 221 (Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise) were
determined to be the most appropriate fit for the proposed development.
LUC 154 was determined to most accurately reflect trip generation of typical NorthPoint industrial
development based on a study completed by Priority Engineers, Inc. in December 2019. The NorthPoint
Development Traffic Trip Generation Analysis is included in Appendix D.
Scenarios 1-4 all have the same phase 1 development. Table 4 provides a summary of trip generation for
development phase 1 of Scenarios 1-4. Based on the trip generation calculation, phase 1 development is
anticipated to generate 90 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (70 entering and 20 exiting), 110 total trips
during the PM Peak Hour (30 entering, 80 exiting), and 1,540 total daily trips.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 10
TABLE 4: BUILD PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description ITE Land Use Code (LUC)
Intensity/ Units Vehicle Type Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Opening Year (2025)
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse 154 1,100,000 Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 1,300 60 10 70 25 75 100
Trucks 240 10 10 20 5 5 10
Total Rounded Trips 1,540 70 20 90 30 80 110
Table 5 provides a summary of trip generation for development phase 2 of Scenario 1, this is a cumulative
table, and includes development from phase 1. Based on the trip generation calculation the phase 2 of
scenario 1 is anticipated to generate 450 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (245 entering and 205 exiting),
805 total trips during the PM Peak Hour (380 entering, 425 exiting), and 10,450 total daily trips.
TABLE 5: BUILD SCENARIO 1 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description ITE Land Use Code (LUC)
Intensity/ Units Vehicle Type Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Horizon Year (2040)
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse 154 1,753,400 Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 2,070 95 10 105 45 115 160
Trucks 385 15 20 35 5 10 15
Shopping Plaza (40-150ksf) 821 91,500 Square Feet Passenger Vehicles 6,180 100 60 160 235 240 475
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 400 Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 1,815 35 115 150 95 60 155
Total Passenger Vehicle Trips 10,065 230 185 415 375 415 790
Total Truck Trips 385 15 20 35 5 10 15
Total Rounded Trips 10,450 245 205 450 380 425 805
Table 6 provides a summary of trip generation for development phase 2 of Scenario 2, this is a cumulative
table, and includes development from phase 1. Based on the trip generation calculation the phase 2 of
scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 430 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (230 entering and 200 exiting),
925 total trips during the PM Peak Hour (450 entering, 495 exiting), and 10,940 total daily trips.
11 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
TABLE 6: BUILD SCENARIO 2 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description ITE Land Use Code (LUC)
Intensity/ Units Vehicle Type Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Horizon Year (2040)
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse 154 1,557,380 Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 1,840 85 15 95 40 105 140
Trucks 340 15 15 30 5 10 15
Shopping Plaza (>150ksf) 820 178,596 Square Feet Passenger Vehicles 6,610 95 55 150 290 315 605
Single Family Detached Housing 210 38 Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 360 5 20 25 25 15 40
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 124 Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 835 10 40 50 40 25 65
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 210 Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 955 20 60 80 50 30 80
Total Passenger Vehicle Trips 10,600 215 190 400 445 490 925
Total Truck Trips 340 15 15 30 5 10 15
Total Rounded Trips 10,940 230 200 430 450 495 925
Table 7 provides a summary of trip generation for development phase 2 of Scenario 3, this is a cumulative
table, and includes development from phase 1. Based on the trip generation calculation, phase 2 of scenario
3 is anticipated to generate 380 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (250 entering and 130 exiting), 750
total trips during the PM Peak Hour (330 entering, 420 exiting), and 9,790 total daily trips.
TABLE 7: BUILD SCENARIO 3 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description ITE Land Use Code (LUC)
Intensity/ Units Vehicle Type Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Horizon Year (2040)
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse 154 2,200,000 Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 2600 120 20 140 50 150 200
Trucks 480 20 20 40 10 10 20
Shopping Plaza (40-150ksf) 821 91,500 Square Feet Passenger Vehicles 6,180 100 60 160 235 240 475
Single Family Detached Housing 210 56 Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 530 10 30 40 35 20 55
Total Passenger Vehicle Trips 9,310 230 110 340 320 410 730
Total Truck Trips 480 20 20 40 10 10 20
Total Rounded Trips 9,790 250 130 380 330 420 750
Table 8 provides a summary of trip generation for development phase 2 of Scenario 4, this is a cumulative
table, and includes development from phase 1. Based on the trip generation calculation, phase 2 of scenario
4 is anticipated to generate 95 total trips during the AM Peak Hour (70 entering and 25 exiting), 120 total
trips during the PM Peak Hour (35 entering, 85 exiting), and 1,635 total daily trips.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 12
TABLE 8: BUILD SCENARIO 3 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Description ITE Land Use Code (LUC)
Intensity/ Units Vehicle Type Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Horizon Year (2040)
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse 154 1,100,000 Square Feet
Passenger Vehicles 1,300 60 10 70 25 75 100
Trucks 240 10 10 20 5 5 10
Single Family Detached Housing 210 10 Dwelling Units Passenger Vehicles 95 0 5 5 5 5 10
Total Passenger Vehicle Trips 1,395 60 15 75 30 80 110
Total Truck Trips 240 10 10 20 5 5 10
Total Rounded Trips 1,635 70 25 95 35 85 120
4.5 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Based on regional traffic patterns, development locations, and population hubs, the following global
distribution was assumed for passenger vehicles utilizing the proposed industrial and residential
development in all three build scenarios:
• 80% to/from the west via 34th Street N
• 10% to/from the east via 34th Street N
• 5% to/from the south via Inwood Avenue N
• 5% to/from the southwest via Stillwater Boulevard N
Exhibits 6, 7, & 8 provide the passenger vehicle distributions for the industrial development and for the
Residential Development.
The following global distribution was assumed for the commercial passenger vehicles trips:
• 60% to/from the west via 34th Street N
• 30% to/from the east via 34th Street N
• 5% to/from the south via Inwood Avenue N
• 5% to/from the southwest via Stillwater Boulevard N
Exhibit 9 provides the passenger vehicle distribution for the commercial development.
The following global distribution was assumed for industrial truck trips:
• 100% to/from the west via 34th Street N
Exhibits 10 & 11 provide the truck distributions for the industrial development.
Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the trip distribution and the likely travel
patterns to and from the site. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed development traffic was
distributed to site accesses based on the proposed site layout, particularly the location and size of
development buildings in relation to the proposed site accesses as well as the anticipated site circulation. Scenario 1, 2, 3, & 4 have different trip assignments to the site accesses.
13 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
The following lists the trip assignment for various development scenarios:
• Exhibit 12 – Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 13 – Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4 truck trip assignment
• Exhibit 14 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 15 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 truck trip assignment
• Exhibit 16 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 17 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 truck trip assignment
• Exhibit 18 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 19 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 truck trip assignment
• Exhibit 20 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 total trip assignment
• Exhibit 21 – Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 truck trip assignment
4.6 TOTAL TRAFFIC FORECAST
Total traffic volumes were developed from a combination of existing turning movement counts, background
growth, adjacent development assignment, and the forecasted site traffic. Exhibit 22 provides the total
traffic volumes for Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4. Exhibits 23, 24, 25, & 26 provide the total
traffic volumes for the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1, 2, 3, & 4, respectively.
5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
5.1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
An intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections to quantify the delay and level
of service at the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. The capacity analysis was
performed using Synchro/SimTraffic traffic models and delays and level of service were evaluated for each
of the following scenarios:
• Existing Year (2021)
• Opening Year (2025) No-Build
• Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4
• Horizon Year (2040) No-Build
• Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
• Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
• Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
• Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE OVERVIEW
Synchro/SimTraffic were used for the analysis. Level of Service (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. Although LOS E is defined as at-capacity, LOS D is generally the minimum
acceptable level of operation at an intersection. Table 9 provides the LOS grading criteria for unsignalized
and signalized intersections.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 14
TABLE 9: LEVEL OF SERVICE GRADING CRITERIA
Level of Service Description
Average Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized Signalized
A
Minimal control delay; traffic operates at
primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within traffic stream. 0 – 10 0 – 10
B
Minor control delay at signalized
intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream.
> 10 – 15 > 10 – 20
C
Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B; formation of queues contributes to lower average travel speeds.
> 15 – 25 > 20 – 35
D
Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in
flow; average travel speeds continue to decrease.
> 25 – 35 > 35 – 55
E High control delay; average travel speed no
more than 33 percent of free flow speed. > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80
F Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly
restricted traffic flow.
> 50 > 80
For the purposes of this study, the worst individual movement delay was reported as the overall intersection
delay at side street stop control intersections.
5.3 EXISTING YEAR (2021) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Existing Year (2021) Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the baseline
operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 3 were used in the Existing
Year (2021) analysis. As previously discussed, these volumes were developed based on turning movement
counts recorded in August 2021.
Tables 10 – 11 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Existing
Year (2021) Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM peak hour and PM
peak hour, respectively. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E.
15 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
TABLE 10: EXISTING YEAR (2021) AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 19.8 B 8.4 A 2.2 A
9.7 A WB 20.3 C 9.2 A 2.6 A
NB 11.0 B 6.7 A 2.1 A
SB 12.9 B 15.8 B 6.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 6.4 A - - 2.6 A
6.4 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.0 A 0.2 A - -
SB - - 4.1 A 3.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 6.4 A - - 3.3 A
6.4 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.0 A 1.6 A - -
SB - - 0.3 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 4.7 A 9.6 A 2.2 A
5.8 A WB 4.4 A 9.4 A 3.0 A
NB 4.5 A 8.6 A 2.0 A
SB 4.8 A 8.1 A 1.9 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 2.7 A 5.5 A 2.7 A
5.5 A WB 4.5 A 9.3 A 4.6 A
NB 2.2 A 4.8 A 1.7 A
SB 2.3 A 5.4 A 1.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 5.1 A - - 1.8 A
5.5 A WB 5.5 A - - - -
NB 2.0 A 1.6 A 1.0 A
SB - - 0.5 A 0.1 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 16
TABLE 11: EXISTING YEAR (2021) PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 45.0 D 13.1 B 3.8 A
17.8 B WB 45.6 D 11.0 B 1.8 A
NB 31.5 C 31.8 C 6.2 A
SB 26.3 C 38.3 D 8.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 11.1 B - - 4.6 A
11.1 B WB - - - - - -
NB 3.8 A 0.3 A - -
SB - - 6.0 A 5.1 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 9.5 A - - 3.8 A
9.5 A WB - - - - - -
NB 4.6 A 1.8 A - -
SB - - 0.8 A 0.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 8.5 A 13.0 B 3.5 A
9.5 A WB 8.0 A 13.1 B 5.0 A
NB 7.0 A 11.2 B 3.9 A
SB 10.6 B 13.5 B 3.6 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 8.5 A 12.4 B 8.7 A
8.5 A WB 6.5 A 11.1 B 5.7 A
NB 3.7 A 7.7 A 3.3 A
SB 3.6 A 6.0 A 1.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 4.9 A - - 2.1 A
5.2 A WB 5.2 A - - - -
NB 2.5 A 1.5 A 1.9 A
SB - - 0.6 A 0.1 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS B or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Existing Year (2021) Conditions, all intersection movements are anticipated to
operate at LOS D or better.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues are
anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays.
17 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
5.4 OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Opening Year (2025) No-Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area without the addition of the development traffic. The traffic
volumes shown in Exhibit 4 were used in the Opening Year (2025) No-Build analysis. As previously
discussed, these volumes were developed based on turning movement counts collected in August 2021,
traffic projections from the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Willowbrooke development. Signal
timings were not changed from existing year (2021) conditions.
Tables 12 – 13 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Opening
Year (2025) No-Build Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM peak hour
and PM peak hour, respectively. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix F.
TABLE 12: OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 20.1 C 10.7 B 2.4 A
11.3 B WB 24.9 C 11.9 B 1.8 A
NB 11.0 B 8.9 A 3.1 A
SB 14.0 B 17.1 B 7.8 A
Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.4 A - - 2.6 A
7.4 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.1 A 0.2 A - -
SB - - 4.2 A 4.0 A
Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.3 A - - 3.6 A
6.3 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.9 A 1.6 A - -
SB - - 0.4 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 5.1 A 9.7 A 1.6 A
6.1 A WB 4.5 A 10.3 B 3.3 A
NB 4.0 A 8.6 A 2.4 A
SB 5.2 A 8.5 A 1.8 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 2.9 A 5.4 A 2.1 A
5.5 A WB 4.7 A 9.3 A 4.2 A
NB 1.8 A 4.9 A 1.8 A
SB 1.8 A 5.4 A 1.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 5.3 A - - 2.0 A
5.8 A WB 5.8 A - - - -
NB 1.9 A 1.8 A 1.3 A
SB - - 0.4 A 0.1 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 18
TABLE 13: OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 42.4 D 15.2 B 3.9 A
21.8 C WB 47.9 D 16.2 B 2.4 A
NB 34.7 C 34.0 C 10.5 B
SB 27.3 C 42.3 D 11.1 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 11.3 B - - 4.5 A
11.3 B WB - - - - - -
NB 4.1 A 0.4 A - -
SB - - 6.0 A 5.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 8.2 A - - 3.6 A
8.2 A WB - - - - - -
NB 4.2 A 1.8 A - -
SB - - 0.9 A 0.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 9.4 A 14.1 B 4.1 A
10.6 B WB 9.3 A 14.4 B 5.7 A
NB 7.6 A 11.3 B 4.2 A
SB 12.6 B 15.0 B 3.4 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 8.9 A 13.4 B 9.3 A
9.0 A WB 7.1 A 11.7 B 7.2 A
NB 4.3 A 7.6 A 3.2 A
SB 3.2 A 6.3 A 1.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.1 A - - 2.3 A
7.1 A WB 5.0 A - - - -
NB 3.8 A 1.5 A 1.6 A
SB - - 0.6 A 0.1 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Opening Year (2025) No-Build Conditions, all intersection movements are
anticipated to operate at LOS D or better.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays.
19 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
5.5 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. Scenarios 1-3 have the same anticipated
phase 1 development. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 22 were used in the Opening Year (2025) Build
Scenarios 1-3 analysis. As previously discussed, these volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 1
trips generated by the site to the Opening Year (2025) No-Build volumes. All site accesses were modeled
as side street stop, with one exiting lane. Per conversations with Washington County, site access 1 was
assumed to have a 300-foot eastbound right turn lane and a 300-foot westbound left turn lane along 34th
Street N. Signal timings were not changed from existing year (2021) conditions.
Tables 14 – 15 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Opening
Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 for each movement at the study intersections during the AM peak hour
and PM peak hour. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix G.
TABLE 14: OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-3 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 23.1 C 10.2 B 2.6 A
11.5 B WB 27.2 C 11.9 B 2.0 A
NB 12.8 B 8.0 A 2.6 A
SB 14.8 B 17.9 B 8.1 A
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.3 A - - 2.5 A
6.3 A WB - - - - 3.3 A
NB 1.6 A 0.3 A 0.1 A
SB 6.2 A 4.8 A 4.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side
Street
Stop
EB 6.8 A - - 2.6 A
6.8 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.7 A 1.6 A 1.4 A
SB 1.5 A 0.5 A 0.2 A
Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-Way
Stop
EB 5.1 A 10.1 B 2.8 A
6.0 A WB 4.1 A 9.8 A 3.0 A
NB 5.4 A 8.7 A 2.3 A
SB 4.9 A 8.4 A 1.9 A
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N Round-about
EB 3.0 A 5.6 A 3.2 A
5.7 A WB 5.1 A 9.4 A 4.1 A
NB 1.7 A 5.1 A 1.9 A
SB 2.6 A 5.2 A 1.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 5.4 A - - 2.0 A
5.8 A WB 5.8 A - - - -
NB 2.2 A 1.8 A 1.1 A
SB - - 0.4 A 0.1 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - 3.0 A 2.2 A
6.9 A WB 3.2 A 0.4 A - -
NB 6.9 A - - - -
SB - - - - - -
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 20
TABLE 15: OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-3 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 44.2 D 18.2 B 4.4 A
23.4 C WB 52.1 D 17.9 B 2.6 A
NB 35.5 D 29.5 C 8.1 A
SB 29.6 C 46.9 D 10.7 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side Street
Stop
EB 17.3 C - - 5.2 A
17.3 C WB - - - - 14.6 B
NB 7.3 A 4.2 A 0.7 A
SB 10.9 B 6.6 A 5.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side Street
Stop
EB 12.5 B - - 4.3 A
12.5 B WB 8.7 A - - 7.0 A
NB 5.0 A 1.8 A 1.8 A
SB 6.4 A 1.1 A 0.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 9.6 A 14.3 B 3.9 A
11.1 B WB 9.2 A 14.3 B 5.8 A
NB 8.2 A 11.7 B 4.6 A
SB 14.0 B 16.7 C 4.4 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 9.7 A 13.9 B 10.4 B
9.0 A WB 6.7 A 11.5 B 6.5 A
NB 4.0 A 7.8 A 3.5 A
SB 3.3 A 6.1 A 1.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.7 A - - 2.3 A
8.1 A WB 8.1 A - - - -
NB 4.0 A 1.5 A 1.8 A
SB - - 0.7 A 0.1 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - 2.6 A 2.6 A
9.8 A WB - - 0.6 A - -
NB 9.8 A - - 6.2 A
SB - - - - - -
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3, all intersection movements are
anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. It is not anticipated that a signal will be required at site access 1 on 34th Street N, due to the anticipated trip generation and because all movements at site access 1 are
expected to operate acceptably.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 20 feet past the provided storage bay. The anticipated queue will fit within the
existing taper. No mitigation is anticipated for the Opening Year (2025) Build Scenario 1 conditions.
21 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
5.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area in the Horizon Year without the addition of the development
traffic. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 5 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) No-Build analysis. As
previously discussed, these volumes were developed based on turning movement count collected in August
2021, traffic projections from the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Willowbrooke development.
Signal timing was optimized at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N. Signal timings were
optimized at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N.
Tables 16 – 17 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM peak hour
and PM peak hour, respectively. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in
yellow and the movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic
reports are included in Appendix H.
TABLE 16: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 25.6 C 17.0 B 3.1 A
17.7 B WB 31.8 C 22.3 C 3.1 A
NB 17.0 B 12.7 B 5.2 A
SB 16.6 B 19.9 B 15.7 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.1 A - - 3.1 A
9.1 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.8 A 0.4 A - -
SB - - 4.4 A 4.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 7.8 A - - 2.9 A
7.8 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.2 A 1.7 A - -
SB - - 0.5 A 0.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 6.0 A 11.7 B 3.2 A
7.0 A WB 5.5 A 10.6 B 4.0 A
NB 5.7 A 9.3 A 3.1 A
SB 6.4 A 9.6 A 2.3 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 4.0 A 6.7 A 4.1 A
6.3 A WB 5.7 A 10.4 B 5.3 A
NB 2.8 A 6.3 A 2.1 A
SB 3.4 A 6.3 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.0 A - - 3.9 A
8.0 A WB 7.1 A - - - -
NB 3.2 A 1.9 A 1.5 A
SB - - 0.9 A 0.2 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 22
TABLE 17: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 41.3 D 21.7 C 5.2 A
26.3 C WB 47.6 D 27.9 C 4.8 A
NB 33.9 C 28.3 C 12.9 B
SB 28.6 C 41.0 D 16.6 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 19.6 C - - 6.9 A
19.6 C WB - - - - - -
NB 6.9 A 0.5 A - -
SB - - 6.6 A 5.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 47.4 E - - 51.1 F
51.1 F WB - - - - - -
NB 7.1 A 2.0 A - -
SB - - 18.6 C 4.1 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 23.9 C 26.3 D 5.3 A
39.1 E WB 17.3 C 21.5 C 11.7 B
NB 14.7 B 19.1 C 5.8 A
SB 93.7 F 92.5 F 12.5 B
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 16.5 C 20.6 C 14.2 B
14.1 B WB 14.4 B 18.7 C 14.0 B
NB 4.6 A 9.6 A 4.1 A
SB 4.1 A 6.8 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 17.5 C - - 3.7 A
17.5 C WB 14.9 B - - - -
NB 7.5 A 2.0 A 1.9 A
SB - - 1.3 A 0.2 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections and intersection movements are expected to operate at LOS
C or better during the AM peak hour. Under Horizon Year (2040) No-Build PM peak hour conditions, all
intersections and movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better except the following:
• Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N – The overall intersection is anticipated to operate at
LOS E and the southbound left and through movements are expected to operate at LOS F. The
long southbound delays are caused by the southbound approach, specifically the shared left-
through lane being over capacity
• Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N – The overall intersection delay is reported as the worst individual
movement. The eastbound left is anticipated to operate at LOS E and the eastbound right is
anticipated to operate at LOS F. These delays are caused by southbound queues backing into the intersection from Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except for the following in the PM peak hour:
• Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N – The northbound left 95th percentile queue is anticipated to extend
past the provided storage capacity by approximately 25 feet. This anticipated queue can be accommodated within the taper of the turn lane.
23 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
• Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N – The southbound approach is anticipated to have excessive
queueing, with queues potentially impacting operations at the upstream intersection of Ideal
Avenue N & 31st Street N. As previously mentioned, this is a result of the existing geometry being
over capacity for the southbound approach.
The southbound approach at Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N was expanded to include a dedicated
left turn lane, a dedicated through lane, and a dedicated right turn lane to mitigate operational issues in the
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions. Tables 18 – 19 provide a summary of the average delay
(seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions with mitigation for each
movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM peak hour, respectively. The movements that are
anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the movements that are anticipated to operate at
LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix I.
TABLE 18: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD MITIGATION AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 26.9 C 16.2 B 2.9 A
18.0 B WB 31.2 C 21.7 C 3.0 A
NB 18.6 B 14.3 B 4.9 A
SB 17.7 B 20.7 C 15.8 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side
Street Stop
EB 8.8 A - - 3.2 A
8.8 A WB - - - - - -
NB 2.5 A 0.4 A - -
SB - - 4.5 A 4.2 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side
Street Stop
EB 6.9 A - - 3.4 A
6.9 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.1 A 1.6 A - -
SB - - 0.5 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-Way
Stop
EB 6.7 A 11.4 B 2.6 A
6.7 A WB 5.9 A 10.3 B 3.7 A
NB 6.0 A 9.7 A 3.1 A
SB 5.5 A 8.6 A 2.2 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 3.9 A 6.9 A 4.0 A
6.8 A WB 6.3 A 11.2 B 5.8 A
NB 2.7 A 5.9 A 2.0 A
SB 4.1 A 6.8 A 1.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 9.2 A - - 6.1 A
9.2 A WB 8.2 A - - - -
NB 3.6 A 1.5 A 1.1 A
SB - - 0.9 A 0.2 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 24
TABLE 19: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD MITIGATION PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 40.9 D 21.5 C 5.1 A
26.4 C WB 42.6 D 28.4 C 4.5 A
NB 32.3 C 29.0 C 12.4 B
SB 28.5 C 41.9 D 18.2 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 22.5 C - - 7.0 A
22.5 C WB - - - - - -
NB 5.4 A 0.5 A - -
SB - - 6.6 A 6.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 12.4 B - - 4.8 A
12.4 B WB - - - - - -
NB 5.0 A 2.0 A - -
SB - - 1.1 A 0.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 16.8 C 20.9 C 5.4 A
14.4 B WB 15.8 C 19.9 C 9.6 A
NB 12.9 B 18.6 C 6.0 A
SB 16.2 C 12.9 B 4.7 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 15.7 C 19.9 C 15.6 C
14.1 B WB 14.5 B 19.4 C 14.4 B
NB 5.7 A 9.1 A 4.2 A
SB 4.5 A 6.4 A 1.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 15.2 C - - 5.3 A
15.2 C WB 14.7 B - - - -
NB 7.5 A 1.9 A 1.8 A
SB - - 1.2 A 0.2 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Horizon Year (2040) No-Build with Mitigation, all intersection movements are
anticipated to operate at LOS D or better.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 10 feet past the provided storage bay. The anticipated queue will fit within the
existing taper.
25 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
5.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding
of the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in
Exhibit 23 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 analysis. As previously discussed, these
volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 2 of Scenario 1 trips generated by the site to the Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build volumes. The same geometry and intersection control was used as in the Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build model (the southbound approach at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N was expanded to three approach lanes and signal timing was optimized at the intersection of
34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N). All site accesses were modeled as side street stop, with one exiting lane.
Site Access 1 was modeled with left and right turn lanes on 34th Street N due to the high speeds along the
corridor.
Tables 20 – 21 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM
peak hours. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix J.
TABLE 20: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 31.2 C 20.9 C 3.3 A
21.6 C WB 33.8 C 24.9 C 3.6 A
NB 21.6 C 17.4 B 6.5 A
SB 20.0 B 24.0 C 21.1 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site Access 2
Side
Street Stop
EB 9.8 A - - 3.4 A
9.8 A WB - - - - 3.4 A
NB 2.5 A 0.5 A 0.3 A
SB 6.5 A 5.4 A 4.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site Access 3
Side
Street Stop
EB 9.3 A - - 3.5 A
9.3 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.2 A 1.8 A 1.6 A
SB 2.7 A 0.7 A 0.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-Way
Stop
EB 7.2 A 11.1 B 2.9 A
6.8 A WB 4.6 A 10.9 B 4.0 A
NB 6.6 A 10.0 A 2.8 A
SB 5.6 A 8.2 A 2.4 A
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N Round-about
EB 4.4 A 7.4 A 4.1 A
7.0 A WB 6.5 A 11.2 B 6.7 A
NB 2.7 A 6.4 A 2.2 A
SB 2.9 A 6.0 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 8.5 A - - 8.1 A
10.5 B WB 10.5 B - - - -
NB 3.7 A 1.6 A 1.4 A
SB - - 1.2 A 0.1 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side Street
Stop
EB 9.5 A 4.4 A 4.0 A
24.1 C WB 3.3 A 0.8 A 0.3 A
NB 24.1 C - - - -
SB 20.6 C - - 5.6 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 26
TABLE 21: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 47.1 D 29.3 C 7.0 A
32.6 C WB 47.0 D 36.7 D 7.3 A
NB 39.4 D 27.2 C 15.4 B
SB 29.5 C 45.7 D 25.1 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side Street
Stop
EB 27.3 D - - 7.4 A
27.3 D WB - - - - 24.0 C
NB 8.2 A 5.9 A 0.7 A
SB 12.2 B 7.3 A 7.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side Street
Stop
EB 18.4 C - - 5.9 A
18.4 C WB 17.4 C - - 8.0 A
NB 5.5 A 1.9 A 1.9 A
SB 7.5 A 1.3 A 1.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 24.0 C 27.7 D 6.0 A
17.1 C WB 16.3 C 22.4 C 12.1 B
NB 18.1 C 20.0 C 5.9 A
SB 19.8 C 14.5 B 5.8 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 20.2 C 24.0 C 17.9 C
19.4 C WB 22.9 C 27.6 D 22.8 C
NB 6.7 A 9.5 A 4.4 A
SB 4.2 A 8.1 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 14.8 B - - 6.5 A
19.3 C WB 19.3 C - - - -
NB 7.6 A 2.2 A 2.1 A
SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 10.8 B 4.1 A 4.0 A
27.0 D WB - - 1.1 A 1.3 A
NB 18.1 C - - 9.4 A
SB 27.0 D - - 18.9 C
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1, all intersection movements are anticipated
to operate at LOS D or better. 34th Street N & site access 1 has acceptable side street delays in the peak
hours but the intersection should be monitored as development occurs on the north side of 34th Street N.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 85 feet past the provided storage bay. The queue is anticipated to fit within the existing taper. No mitigation is anticipated for the Opening Year (2025) Build Scenario 1 conditions.
27 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
5.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding
of the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in
Exhibit 24 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 analysis. As previously discussed, these
volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 2 of Scenario 2 trips generated by the site to the Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build volumes. The same geometry and intersection control was used as in the Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build model (the southbound approach at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N was expanded to three approach lanes and signal timing was optimized at the intersection of
34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N). All site accesses were modeled as side street stop, with one exiting lane.
Site Access 1 was modeled with left and right turn lanes on 34th Street N due to the high speeds along the
corridor.
Tables 22 – 23 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM
peak hours. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix K.
TABLE 22: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 29.2 C 19.5 B 3.1 A
21.1 C WB 35.4 D 23.9 C 4.0 A
NB 21.1 C 16.5 B 4.5 A
SB 18.8 B 23.3 C 21.7 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site Access 2
Side
Street Stop
EB 8.4 A - - 3.0 A
8.4 A WB - - - - 3.3 A
NB 2.7 A 0.4 A 0.4 A
SB 6.4 A 5.3 A 4.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site Access 3
Side
Street Stop
EB 8.0 A - - 3.5 A
8.0 A WB - - - - - -
NB 4.3 A 1.7 A 1.3 A
SB 2.4 A 0.7 A 0.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-Way
Stop
EB 6.3 A 11.2 B 2.4 A
6.5 A WB 4.9 A 10.5 B 3.9 A
NB 5.8 A 9.5 A 2.9 A
SB 5.2 A 7.9 A 2.4 A
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N Round-about
EB 6.2 A 8.0 A 5.5 A
7.2 A WB 6.3 A 11.2 B 6.8 A
NB 2.5 A 5.6 A 2.2 A
SB 3.7 A 6.7 A 1.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 9.4 A - - 8.1 A
11.2 B WB 11.2 B - - - -
NB 3.9 A 1.9 A 1.3 A
SB - - 1.1 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side Street
Stop
EB 8.8 A 4.3 A 3.3 A
18.7 C WB 2.1 A 0.8 A 0.4 A
NB 15.0 B - - - -
SB 18.7 C - - 6.0 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 28
TABLE 23: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 48.0 D 29.2 C 6.6 A
33.0 C WB 50.4 D 38.6 D 8.4 A
NB 38.8 D 33.4 C 14.7 B
SB 27.7 C 46.3 D 24.8 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side Street
Stop
EB 22.4 C - - 7.7 A
22.4 C WB - - - - 17.5 C
NB 8.0 A 6.0 A 0.7 A
SB 12.1 B 7.4 A 7.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side Street
Stop
EB 20.5 C - - 5.8 A
20.5 C WB 15.1 C - - 7.7 A
NB 6.3 A 2.0 A 1.8 A
SB 5.9 A 1.2 A 0.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 24.8 C 28.8 D 5.7 A
16.9 C WB 15.8 C 22.3 C 11.2 B
NB 15.7 C 19.4 C 6.4 A
SB 20.0 C 13.4 B 5.6 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 40.4 E 45.9 E 43.5 E
32.5 D WB 37.2 E 40.6 E 40.0 E
NB 6.1 A 10.3 B 4.2 A
SB 5.2 A 7.2 A 1.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 17.5 C - - 6.5 A
18.7 C WB 18.7 C - - - -
NB 8.0 A 2.1 A 2.3 A
SB - - 1.5 A 0.3 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 11.8 B 4.1 A 3.6 A
61.0 F WB - - 1.2 A 1.4 A
NB 20.7 C - - 9.3 A
SB 61.0 F - - 48.8 E
Based on the analysis, all study intersections and intersection movements are expected to operate at LOS
C or better during the AM peak hour. Under Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 PM peak hour conditions,
all intersections and movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better except the following:
• 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N –The eastbound and westbound approaches are expected to
operate at LOS E. This is caused by increased east-west volume along 34th Street N nearing
capacity of the roundabout.
• 34th Street N & Site Access 1 – The overall intersection delay is reported as the worst individual
movement. The southbound left is anticipated to operate at LOS F and the southbound right is
anticipated to operate at LOS E. These delays are caused by increased east-west volumes and
only one exiting lane at the site access.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which extends approximately 70 feet past the provided storage bay. The queue is anticipated to fit within the existing taper. Required mitigation is consistent with Horizon Year (2040) conditions.
29 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
The following mitigation was analyzed to improve operations at intersections with undesirable LOS:
•34th Street N was expanded to a four-lane cross section through Jamaca Avenue N.
•A second through lane was added to the roundabout at 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N to
increase capacity.
•The southbound approach at Access 1 was modeled with a dedicated southbound left turn lane
and a dedicated southbound right turn lane.
Tables 24 – 25 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Conditions with mitigation for each movement at the study intersections during
the AM & PM peak hour, respectively. The full SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix L.
TABLE 24: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 29.8 C 21.2 C 3.3 A
20.8 C WB 34.7 C 24.5 C 3.7 A
NB 21.6 C 19.5 B 5.6 A
SB 20.3 C 22.5 C 18.6 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side
Street
Stop
EB 11.6 B - - 3.2 A
11.6 B WB - - - - 3.9 A
NB 2.6 A 0.5 A 0.2 A
SB 6.8 A 5.3 A 4.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site Access 3
Side
Street Stop
EB 8.1 A - - 3.0 A
8.1 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.4 A 1.8 A 1.9 A
SB 2.3 A 0.8 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater Boulevard N
All-
Way Stop
EB 6.4 A 11.7 B 3.0 A
6.7 A WB 5.4 A 11.2 B 4.1 A
NB 6.7 A 9.8 A 2.8 A
SB 5.5 A 8.4 A 2.4 A
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N Round-about
EB 2.6 A 5.1 A 1.9 A
5.1 A WB 4.7 A 8.0 A 2.6 A
NB 2.8 A 6.9 A 2.2 A
SB 3.6 A 5.7 A 1.9 A
Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Side
Street Stop
EB 8.8 A - - 5.6 A
9.9 A WB 9.9 A - - - -
NB 3.8 A 1.8 A 1.5 A
SB - - 1.1 A 0.1 A
34th Street N & Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 8.7 A 4.1 A 3.6 A
19.6 C WB 2.9 A 0.8 A 0.3 A
NB 19.5 C - - - -
SB 19.6 C - - 3.8 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 30
TABLE 25: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 48.8 D 28.5 C 6.4 A
34.6 C WB 49.7 D 39.6 D 8.1 A
NB 46.8 D 31.2 C 19.4 B
SB 29.6 C 44.6 D 28.4 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side Street
Stop
EB 29.2 D - - 7.9 A
29.2 D WB - - - - 18.5 C
NB 7.8 A 6.2 A 0.8 A
SB 11.7 B 7.1 A 6.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side Street
Stop
EB 16.5 C - - 5.9 A
16.5 C WB 15.0 B - - 8.1 A
NB 5.5 A 2.0 A 2.0 A
SB 5.5 A 1.2 A 0.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 25.5 D 28.9 D 5.8 A
17.3 C WB 17.2 C 22.3 C 11.5 B
NB 16.0 C 21.2 C 6.2 A
SB 20.4 C 12.9 B 5.5 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 5.5 A 8.9 A 4.2 A
7.4 A WB 6.8 A 9.6 A 3.3 A
NB 7.5 A 10.9 B 4.3 A
SB 4.5 A 7.6 A 1.9 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 19.5 C - - 6.5 A
19.5 C WB 17.2 C - - - -
NB 7.8 A 2.3 A 2.2 A
SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 10.0 A 3.6 A 2.9 A
24.7 C WB - - 1.4 A 1.5 A
NB 18.1 C - - 9.7 A
SB 24.7 C - - 9.1 A
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3, all intersection movements are
anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. 34th Street N & site access 1 has acceptable side street delays
with the addition of dedicated turn lanes on the side streets in the peak hours, but the intersection should
be monitored as development occurs to determine if a signal is required.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 120 feet past the provided storage bay in the pm peak hour. If these volumes are
realized, it may be necessary to restripe the northbound approach to include a longer storage capacity,
however it is anticipated this can be done within the existing cross section.
31 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
5.9 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding
of the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in
Exhibit 25 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 analysis. As previously discussed, these
volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 2 of Scenario 3 trips generated by the site to the Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build volumes. The same geometry and intersection control was used as in the Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build model (the southbound approach at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N was expanded to three approach lanes and signal timing was optimized at the intersection of
34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N). All site accesses were modeled as side street stop, with one exiting lane.
Site Access 1 was modeled with left and right turn lanes on 34th Street N due to the high speeds along the
corridor.
Tables 26 – 27 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM
peak hours. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix M.
TABLE 26: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 29.5 C 19.5 B 3.2 A
20.0 C WB 32.1 C 25.2 C 3.0 A
NB 19.8 B 15.1 B 5.6 A
SB 19.1 B 22.2 C 17.7 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site Access 2
Side
Street Stop
EB 8.7 A - - 3.1 A
8.7 A WB - - - - 3.5 A
NB 2.4 A 0.4 A 0.3 A
SB 5.9 A 5.1 A 5.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site Access 3
Side
Street Stop
EB 6.9 A - - 3.3 A
6.9 A WB - - - - - -
NB 3.8 A 1.7 A 1.6 A
SB 2.3 A 0.8 A 0.3 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-Way
Stop
EB 6.8 A 11.2 B 3.0 A
6.7 A WB 5.2 A 11.1 B 3.9 A
NB 6.6 A 9.8 A 2.8 A
SB 5.5 A 8.3 A 2.4 A
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N Round-about
EB 4.7 A 8.0 A 4.6 A
7.0 A WB 6.5 A 11.0 B 6.0 A
NB 2.5 A 6.1 A 2.2 A
SB 3.6 A 6.5 A 1.8 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 8.0 A - - 3.9 A
8.7 A WB 8.7 A - - - -
NB 3.9 A 1.7 A 1.3 A
SB - - 1.0 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side Street
Stop
EB 8.9 A 4.4 A 3.3 A
21.7 C WB 1.4 A 0.8 A 0.4 A
NB 18.0 C - - - -
SB 21.7 C - - 7.8 A
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 32
TABLE 27: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 43.5 D 27.5 C 6.0 A
31.4 C WB 43.8 D 36.1 D 8.5 A
NB 38.5 D 34.4 C 16.9 B
SB 28.7 C 46.3 D 23.5 C
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side Street
Stop
EB 23.4 C - - 7.2 A
23.4 C WB - - - - 16.4 C
NB 7.9 A 5.4 A 0.7 A
SB 11.3 B 7.3 A 6.4 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side Street
Stop
EB 16.9 C - - 6.4 A
16.9 C WB 16.1 C - - 8.1 A
NB 5.6 A 1.9 A 1.6 A
SB 7.8 A 1.2 A 1.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 16.6 C 21.1 C 4.9 A
13.7 C WB 14.2 B 19.7 C 9.1 A
NB 11.2 B 16.1 C 6.0 A
SB 15.7 C 12.9 B 5.0 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 25.4 D 28.6 D 25.4 D
20.2 C WB 21.2 C 26.1 D 20.7 C
NB 6.4 A 10.0 A 4.4 A
SB 3.8 A 7.3 A 1.6 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 16.9 C - - 7.0 A
17.6 C WB 17.6 C - - - -
NB 7.6 A 2.1 A 1.9 A
SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB 9.7 A 3.8 A 2.8 A
28.8 D WB - - 1.0 A 1.0 A
NB 17.3 C - - 10.3 B
SB 28.8 D - - 18.4 C
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3, all intersection movements are anticipated
to operate at LOS D or better. 34th Street N & site access 1 has acceptable side street delays in the peak
hours but the intersection should be monitored as development occurs on the north side of 34th Street N.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 60 feet past the provided storage bay in the PM peak hour. If these volumes are realized, it may be necessary to restripe the northbound approach to include a longer storage capacity,
however it is anticipated this can be done within the existing cross section.
33 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
5.10 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding
of the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions for the study area. The traffic volumes shown in
Exhibit 26 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 analysis. As previously discussed, these
volumes were calculated by adding the Phase 2 of Scenario 4 trips generated by the site to the Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build volumes. The same geometry and intersection control was used as in the Horizon
Year (2040) No-Build model (the southbound approach at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater
Boulevard N was expanded to three approach lanes and signal timing was optimized at the intersection of
34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N). All site accesses were modeled as side street stop, with one exiting lane.
Site Access 1 was modeled with left and right turn lanes on 34th Street N due to the high speeds along the
corridor.
Tables 28 – 29 provide a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon
Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Conditions for each movement at the study intersections during the AM & PM
peak hours. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in yellow and the
movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The full SimTraffic reports are
included in Appendix N.
TABLE 28: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 AM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N &
34th Street N Signal
EB 24.9 C 16.5 B 3.1 A
17.3 B WB 35.3 D 21.1 C 2.8 A
NB 17.5 B 13.5 B 4.4 A
SB 17.6 B 20.4 C 15.6 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site Access 2
Side
Street Stop
EB 8.7 A - - 3.0 A
8.7 A WB - - - - 4.0 A
NB 2.6 A 0.5 A 0.2 A
SB 6.4 A 5.3 A 5.0 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site Access 3
Side
Street Stop
EB 7.4 A - - 3.0 A
7.4 A WB - - - - - -
NB 4.0 A 1.7 A 1.7 A
SB 2.3 A 0.6 A 0.5 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-Way
Stop
EB 6.7 A 11.4 B 2.5 A
6.6 A WB 5.4 A 10.4 B 4.0 A
NB 5.6 A 9.3 A 2.8 A
SB 5.2 A 8.5 A 2.2 A
34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N Round-about
EB 4.8 A 6.9 A 4.9 A
6.3 A WB 5.5 A 10.4 B 6.1 A
NB 1.6 A 5.0 A 2.0 A
SB 2.7 A 5.7 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side Street
Stop
EB 9.6 A - - 4.2 A
9.6 A WB 8.0 A - - - -
NB 3.3 A 1.8 A 1.2 A
SB - - 0.9 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side Street
Stop
EB - - 3.6 A 2.8 A
10.9 B WB 2.9 A 0.4 A - -
NB 10.9 B - - - -
SB - - - - - -
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 34
TABLE 29: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 PM LOS SUMMARY
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Signal
EB 42.7 D 23.8 C 6.1 A
28.8 C WB 48.9 D 30.1 C 4.3 A
NB 39.0 D 29.1 C 14.0 B
SB 30.2 C 45.8 D 19.2 B
Ideal Avenue N &
32nd Street N/Site
Access 2
Side Street
Stop
EB 20.2 C - - 7.1 A
20.6 C WB - - - - 20.6 C
NB 9.2 A 5.5 A 0.7 A
SB 10.9 B 7.1 A 6.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
31st Street N/Site
Access 3
Side Street
Stop
EB 14.9 B - - 5.0 A
14.9 B WB 14.6 B - - 9.2 A
NB 5.2 A 1.9 A 1.6 A
SB 6.8 A 1.2 A 0.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
Stillwater
Boulevard N
All-
Way
Stop
EB 16.9 C 20.5 C 5.2 A
13.9 B WB 12.4 B 19.4 C 9.2 A
NB 14.9 B 17.7 C 5.7 A
SB 16.6 C 12.4 B 5.0 A
34th Street N &
Jamaca Avenue N
Round-
about
EB 16.9 C 20.7 C 18.1 C
13.7 B WB 12.4 B 17.4 C 10.9 B
NB 5.6 A 9.1 A 4.1 A
SB 4.1 A 7.1 A 1.7 A
Ideal Avenue N &
36th Street N
Side
Street
Stop
EB 17.6 C - - 5.3 A
17.6 C WB 16.0 C - - - -
NB 8.1 A 2.0 A 1.6 A
SB - - 1.4 A 0.2 A
34th Street N &
Site Access 1
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - 3.1 A 2.9 A
10.0 A WB - - 0.8 A - -
NB 10.0 A - - 7.1 A
SB - - - - - -
Based on the analysis, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM &
PM peak hours. Under Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4, all intersection movements are anticipated
to operate at LOS D or better. 34th Street N & site access 1 has acceptable side street delays in the peak
hours but the intersection should be monitored as development occurs on the north side of 34th Street N.
The 95th percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues for the
movements are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective storage bays, except the 95th
percentile queue of the northbound left turn at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N which
extends approximately 75 feet past the provided storage bay in the PM peak hour. If these volumes are realized, it may be necessary to restripe the northbound approach to include a longer storage capacity,
however it is anticipated this can be done within the existing cross section.
35 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A traffic analysis was performed to quantify the impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent
roadway network and intersections. The proposed site is located on the northeast and southeast corner of
the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N, in Lake Elmo, MN. No-Build, Build Scenario 1, Build
Scenario 2, Build Scenario 3, and Build Scenario 4 were analyzed in the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon
Year (2040)
6.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT & STUDY AREA
Four development buildout scenarios were considered; Scenario 1 is anticipated to have 1,753,400 square
feet of industrial development, 91,500 square feet of commercial development, and 400 multifamily dwelling
units. Scenario 2 is anticipated to have 1,557,380 square feet of industrial development, 178,596 square
feet of commercial development, 38 single family dwelling units, and 334 multifamily dwelling units.
Scenario 3 is anticipated to have 1,750,000 square feet of industrial development, 91,500 square feet of
commercial development, and 56 single family dwelling units. Scenario 4 is anticipated to have 1,100,000
square feet of industrial development and 10 single family dwelling units. All four scenarios are not expected
to be fully built out until the Horizon Year (2040); in the Opening Year (2025) all build scenarios are
anticipated to have 1,100,000 square feet of industrial development.
The Opening Year (2025) Scenarios 1-4 are anticipated to generate 90 trips during the AM peak hour and
110 trips during the PM peak hour. In the Horizon Year (2040), Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate 450
trips during the AM peak hour and 805 trips during the PM peak hour. Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate
430 AM peak hour trips and 940 PM peak hour trips in the Horizon Year (2040). Scenario 3 is anticipated
to generate 380 AM peak hour trips and 750 PM peak hour trips in the Horizon Year (2040). Lastly, Scenario
4 is anticipated to generate 95 AM peak hour trips and 120 PM peak hour trips in the Horizon Year (2040).
The study area intersections include Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N, Ideal Avenue & 32nd Street N/Site
Access 2, Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3, Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N, 34th
Street N & Jamaca Avenue N, and Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4. A capacity analysis was
performed for each of the following conditions to quantify background operations in the study area, as well
as operating conditions with Scenario 1, Scenario 2, Scenario 3, and Scenario 4 development:
•Existing Year (2021)
•Opening Year (2025) No-Build
•Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-4
•Horizon Year (2040) No-Build
•Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
•Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
•Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
•Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
6.2 EXISTING YEAR (2021) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for Existing Year (2021) traffic conditions at the study intersections to
determine baseline existing conditions. No improvements were incorporated into the traffic model. Based
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 36
on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS and there are no queuing
issues at the study intersections.
6.3 OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for Opening Year (2025) No-Build traffic conditions at the study
intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2025 analysis year. The only modification to the traffic
model was an update to the geometry at Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N according to the Washington
County Highway 13 (Ideal Avenue) Phase II pavement and safety improvement project.
Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS and there are no
queuing issues at the study intersections.
6.4 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE
ANALYSIS SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was conducted for Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 at the study intersections
to determine baseline conditions for the 2025 analysis year. The geometry and signal timings are the same
as Opening Year (2025) No-Build conditions. Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to
operate at acceptable LOS and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections. Side-street stop
control is adequate at all site accesses. It is not anticipated that a signal will be required at site access 1 on
34th Street N due to the anticipated trip generation and because all movements at site access 1 are
expected to operate acceptably.
6.5 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build traffic conditions were studied with and without mitigation at the study
intersections to determine baseline mitigation needed to maintain acceptable LOS as the background traffic
volumes grow. The first analysis assumed the base geometry and the mitigated analysis was similar to the base geometry, with the exception of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N, where the southbound
approach was expanded to have dedicated left, through, and right turn lanes.
Based on the unmitigated analysis, the following intersections have movements that are anticipated to
operate at unacceptable LOS with background growth
• Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N (PM peak hour)
• Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N (PM peak hour)
Additionally, the southbound left turn movement at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard
N has a 95th percentile queue that extend past the provided storage capacity and impacts the upstream
intersection of Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N.
In the mitigated analysis, all intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better. Additionally, there
are no queuing issues in the study network.
37 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
6.6 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was performed for Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 at the study intersections to
determine the impact of site traffic. The mitigated geometry from Opening Year (2040) No-Build analysis
was utilized for this analysis.
All intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, all 95th
percentile queues are expected to be within their respective storage capacity, except for the northbound
left at 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N, which is anticipated to fit within the existing taper.
6.7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 traffic conditions were studied with and without mitigation at the study
intersections to determine mitigation needed to maintain acceptable LOS with the development traffic. The
mitigated geometry from Opening Year (2040) No-Build analysis was originally used for this analysis, then
additional mitigation was applied to movements and intersection operating at unacceptable LOS.
Based on the unmitigated analysis, the following intersections have movements that are anticipated to
operate at unacceptable LOS with background growth
•34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N (PM peak hour)
•34th Street N & Site Access 1 (PM peak hour)
To alleviate operational issues, 34th Street was expanded to a four-lane cross section through the
intersection with Jamaca Avenue, and a second through lane was added to the roundabout to increase
capacity. At the intersection of 34th Street N & Site Access 1 the southbound approach was expanded to
include dedicated left and right turn lanes.
In the mitigated analysis, all intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better. Additionally, there
are no queuing issues in the study network, except for the northbound left at the intersection of 34th Street
N & Ideal Avenue N, which could extend out of the turn lane taper. This movement should be monitored
and if projected volumes are realized, restriping may be necessary to provide adequate storage. Pavement
expansion is not expected.
6.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was performed for Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 at the study intersections to
determine the impact of site traffic. The mitigated geometry from Opening Year (2040) No-Build analysis
was utilized for this analysis.
All intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, there are
no queuing issues in the study network, except for the northbound left at the intersection of 34th Street N &
Ideal Avenue N, which could extend out of the turn lane taper. This movement should be monitored and if
projected volumes are realized, restriping may be necessary to provide adequate storage. Pavement expansion is not expected.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 38
6.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
A capacity analysis was performed for Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 at the study intersections to
determine the impact of site traffic. The mitigated geometry from Opening Year (2040) No-Build analysis
was utilized for this analysis.
All intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, there are
no queuing issues in the study network, except for the northbound left at the intersection of 34th Street N &
Ideal Avenue N, which could extend out of the turn lane taper. This movement should be monitored and if
projected volumes are realized, restriping may be necessary to provide adequate storage. Pavement
expansion is not expected.
6.9 MITIGATION PLAN
The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic
analysis for the NorthPoint Industrial Park.
Existing (2021) Conditions
•No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2025) No-Build Conditions
•No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Conditions
•Install eastbound right and westbound left turn lanes on 34th Street N at site access 1.
•Side-Street stop control at all accesses.
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
•Addition of a southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard
N
•Signal timing modification at the intersection of 34th Street N & Ideal Avenue N
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
•All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
•Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street
N at site access 1.
•Side-Street stop control at all accesses.
•Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted.
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
•All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
•Expansion of 34th Street N to a four-lane cross-section at its intersection with Jamaca Avenue N
•Monitor the roundabout at 34th Street N & Jamaca Avenue N and add a second through lane for the
eastbound and westbound movements if necessary.
•Addition of southbound left-turn lane to site access 1 on 34th Street N
39 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street
N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & site access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted.
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street
N at site access 1
• Monitor 34th Street & Site Access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted.
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4 Conditions
• All Modifications from Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions
• Install eastbound left, eastbound right, westbound left, and westbound right turn lanes on 34th Street
N at site access 1
• Side-Street stop control at all accesses.
• Monitor 34th Street & Site Access 1 as development continues to determine if a signal is warranted.
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 40
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: EXHIBITS
APPENDIX B: TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
APPENDIX C: SITE PLAN
APPENDIX D: NORTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION STUDY
APPENDIX E: EXISTING YEAR (2021) SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX F: OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX G: OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIO 1-4 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX H: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX I: HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD MITIGATED SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX J: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX K: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX L: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX M: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
APPENDIX N: HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4 SIMTRAFFIC REPORT
41 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Appendix A:
Exhibits
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA
LEGEND
Proposed 2025 Industrial Development
Proposed 2040 Mixed-use Development
Study Intersection
Proposed Site Driveway
694
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 2
EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
LEGEND
Project Site Location
Study Intersections
Existing Signal Control
Existing Stop Control
Existing Roundabout
Channelized Right Turn
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 3
EXISTING YEAR (2021)
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 4
OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 5
HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 6
SOUTHERN BUSINESS PARK
PASSENGER VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 7
NORTHERN BUSINESS PARK
PASSENGER VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 8
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PASSENGER VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 9
COMMERCIAL/SHOPPING PLAZA DEVELOPMENT
PASSENGER VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 10
SOUTHERN BUSINESS PARK
TRUCK TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 11
NORTHERN BUSINESS PARK
TRUCK TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
Site Traffic Distribution
Inbound Site Traffic
Outbound Site Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 12
OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIO 1, 2, 3, & 4
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 13
OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIO 1, 2, 3, & 4
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 14
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 15
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 16
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 17
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 18
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 19
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 20
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4
TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 21
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4
TRUCK TRAFFIC
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 22
OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD SCENARIOS 1, 2, 3, & 4
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 23
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 1
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 24
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 2
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 25
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 3
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NOT TO SCALE
14COUNTY
13COUNTY
EXHIBIT 26
HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD SCENARIO 4
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
LEGEND
Proposed Site Location
AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 42
Appendix B:
Turning Movement Counts
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound 34th StreetWestbound 34th StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total12:00 AM 1 2 1 105 0 0 0 000 1 0 0 001 0 0 3 003 912:15 AM 1 2 3 006 0 0 0 000 1 1 0 002 0 1 0 001 912:30 AM 0 2 0 204 0 2 0 002 4 0 0 004 0 0 0 000 1012:45 AM 0 1 7 008 0 2 0 002 2 0 0 002 0 2 1 003 15Hourly Total 2 7 11 3023 0 4 0 004 8 1 0 009 0 3 4 007 431:00 AM 0 1 2 003 0 0 0 000 4 0 0 004 0 0 0 000 71:15 AM 0 1 3 004 0 0 0 000 2 0 0 002 1 0 0 001 71:30 AM 0 1 0 001 0 0 0 000 0 1 0 001 0 0 1 001 31:45 AM 1 0 1 103 0 0 0 000 1 1 0 002 0 0 2 002 7Hourly Total 1 3 6 1011 0 0 0 000 7 2 0 009 1 0 3 004 242:00 AM 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 1 1 0 002 0 1 1 002 42:15 AM 1 0 2 003 1 1 0 002 0 1 0 001 0 0 1 001 72:30 AM 0 1 1 103 0 0 0 000 1 1 0 002 0 0 1 001 62:45 AM 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 1 0 0 001 0 0 1 001 2Hourly Total 1 1 3 106 1 1 0 002 3 3 0 006 0 1 4 005 193:00 AM 0 0 0 000 0 1 0 001 0 0 0 000 0 1 0 001 23:15 AM 0 0 1 001 0 1 0 001 0 0 0 000 0 1 1 002 43:30 AM 0 1 0 001 0 4 0 004 4 0 0 004 0 0 2 002 113:45 AM 0 2 1 003 0 2 1 003 3 0 0 003 1 1 0 002 11Hourly Total 0 3 2 005 0 8 1 009 7 0 0 007 1 3 3 007 284:00 AM 0 1 1 002 0 1 0 001 2 0 0 002 0 0 0 000 54:15 AM 0 4 0 004 0 3 0 003 4 0 0 004 0 0 2 002 134:30 AM 0 3 0 003 0 7 0 007 10 0 0 0010 0 1 0 001 214:45 AM 0 2 2 004 0 6 0 006 7 0 0 007 0 0 1 001 18Hourly Total 0 10 3 0013 0 17 0 0017 23 0 0 0023 0 1 3 004 575:00 AM 0 6 0 006 0 16 0 0016 12 0 0 0012 0 0 1 001 355:15 AM 0 6 1 007 1 22 0 0023 9 0 0 009 0 0 3 003 425:30 AM 0 16 1 0017 4 33 0 0037 20 1 0 0021 1 5 6 0012 875:45 AM 1 9 3 0013 2 24 0 0026 17 0 2 0019 2 3 8 0013 71Hourly Total 1 37 5 0043 7 95 0 00102 58 1 2 0061 3 8 18 0029 2356:00 AM 1 7 2 1011 4 36 1 0041 14 0 1 0015 3 1 7 0011 786:15 AM 4 13 5 1023 2 32 1 0035 24 2 0 0026 3 2 12 0017 1016:30 AM 4 32 8 0044 1 31 11 0043 28 0 1 0029 2 5 13 0020 1366:45 AM 2 45 7 1055 7 45 6 0058 39 3 2 0044 6 7 10 0023 180Hourly Total 11 97 22 30133 14 144 19 00177 105 5 4 00114 14 15 42 0071 4957:00 AM 1 32 9 2044 2 40 3 0045 19 1 2 0022 2 10 9 0021 1327:15 AM 1 34 10 1146 2 62 0 0064 21 0 1 0022 2 4 6 0012 1447:30 AM 3 42 14 0059 4 74 1 0079 41 1 2 0044 4 8 11 0023 205
7:45 AM 3 42 18 3066 6 65 3 0074 49 1 7 0057 9 15 23 0047 244Hourly Total 8 150 51 61215 14 241 7 00262 130 3 12 00145 17 37 49 00103 7258:00 AM 2 47 17 2068 5 67 0 0072 29 3 8 0040 4 14 19 0037 2178:15 AM 4 32 16 1053 8 61 2 0071 33 0 3 0036 10 11 15 0036 1968:30 AM 0 46 17 0063 10 56 2 0068 34 1 1 0036 8 6 17 0031 1988:45 AM 5 44 19 0068 3 54 2 0059 39 1 3 0043 5 6 9 0020 190Hourly Total 11 169 69 30252 26 238 6 00270 135 5 15 00155 27 37 60 00124 8019:00 AM 1 42 13 1057 3 41 3 0047 28 0 2 0030 4 13 11 1029 1639:15 AM 1 42 15 1059 3 62 0 0065 23 3 2 0028 6 7 11 0024 1769:30 AM 4 48 15 2069 1 55 1 0057 19 1 5 0025 4 12 15 0031 1829:45 AM 6 42 8 0056 4 46 4 0054 12 2 5 0019 4 9 17 0030 159Hourly Total 12 174 51 40241 11 204 8 00223 82 6 14 00102 18 41 54 10114 68010:00 AM 0 42 16 1259 5 39 2 0046 17 1 0 0018 2 10 12 0024 14710:15 AM 1 35 12 4052 2 48 1 0051 31 2 5 0038 2 15 18 0035 17610:30 AM 5 48 12 1066 3 53 4 0060 29 1 1 0031 4 12 16 0032 18910:45 AM 0 41 21 3065 3 46 2 0051 30 7 6 0043 4 7 19 0030 189Hourly Total 6 166 61 92242 13 186 9 00208 107 11 12 00130 12 44 65 00121 70111:00 AM 3 44 22 0069 7 57 4 0068 20 4 3 0027 11 9 18 0038 20211:15 AM 4 43 15 1063 14 43 4 0061 31 4 5 0040 4 15 18 0037 20111:30 AM 4 39 24 3070 11 58 2 0071 30 1 6 0037 11 13 17 0041 21911:45 AM 4 45 14 1064 6 45 10 0061 19 2 5 0026 8 18 25 0051 202Hourly Total 15 171 75 50266 38 203 20 00261 100 11 19 00130 34 55 78 00167 82412:00 PM 1 49 26 1077 5 53 4 0062 31 2 4 0037 6 16 18 0040 21612:15 PM 4 59 24 0087 6 60 1 0067 31 7 6 0044 10 17 23 0050 24812:30 PM 5 45 31 0081 7 53 0 0060 33 0 6 0039 5 12 16 0033 21312:45 PM 4 50 19 1074 6 37 1 0044 33 3 6 0042 6 5 15 0026 186Hourly Total 14 203 100 20319 24 203 6 00233 128 12 22 00162 27 50 72 00149 8631:00 PM 2 31 26 2161 5 41 3 0049 30 1 4 0035 5 10 12 0027 1721:15 PM 1 51 18 1071 5 38 4 0047 23 3 5 0031 4 10 15 0029 1781:30 PM 4 44 24 0072 5 49 1 0055 30 2 7 0039 6 14 11 0031 1971:45 PM 3 43 23 2071 6 45 3 0054 38 4 6 0048 2 16 9 0027 200Hourly Total 10 169 91 51275 21 173 11 00205 121 10 22 00153 17 50 47 00114 7472:00 PM 5 44 25 1075 7 26 3 0036 24 4 7 0035 8 15 15 0038 1842:15 PM 2 48 30 1081 3 42 0 0045 32 6 5 0043 6 14 12 0032 2012:30 PM 1 66 27 2096 5 56 2 0163 28 1 5 0034 5 20 12 0037 2302:45 PM 3 54 29 1087 10 63 5 0078 32 2 4 0038 7 14 12 0033 236Hourly Total 11 212 111 50339 25 187 10 01222 116 13 21 00150 26 63 51 00140 8513:00 PM 2 67 36 34108 12 48 4 0064 37 3 4 0044 5 18 29 0452 2683:15 PM 2 61 31 3097 6 74 0 0080 29 3 7 0039 7 18 8 0033 2493:30 PM 6 66 27 10100 6 62 0 0068 39 5 3 0047 16 12 16 0044 2593:45 PM 5 81 49 50140 5 58 3 0066 43 2 10 0055 10 21 17 0048 309Hourly Total 15 275 143 124445 29 242 7 00278 148 13 24 00185 38 69 70 04177 10854:00 PM 4 73 45 30125 2 64 4 0070 41 2 7 0050 9 16 19 0044 2894:15 PM 1 100 54 20157 7 67 0 1075 48 2 10 0060 4 24 18 0046 3384:30 PM 5 82 49 20138 8 78 0 0086 43 3 8 0054 5 23 20 0048 3264:45 PM 3 91 42 20138 5 80 3 0088 60 1 11 0072 9 11 15 0035 333Hourly Total 13 346 190 90558 22 289 7 10319 192 8 36 00236 27 74 72 00173 12865:00 PM 4 77 36 30120 6 59 6 0071 47 2 7 0056 6 27 21 0054 3015:15 PM 3 66 36 00105 5 50 3 0058 60 3 11 0074 7 15 18 0040 2775:30 PM 3 53 37 1194 5 55 3 0063 72 7 10 0089 9 15 21 0045 2915:45 PM 1 61 29 0091 5 49 1 0055 59 12 8 0079 8 17 24 0049 274Hourly Total 11 257 138 41410 21 213 13 00247 238 24 36 00298 30 74 84 00188 1143
6:00 PM 4 65 46 01115 4 40 0 0044 46 3 5 0054 10 21 13 0044 2576:15 PM 8 55 30 5098 4 50 1 1056 41 5 11 0057 6 8 15 0029 2406:30 PM 3 53 17 1074 4 36 3 0043 32 5 6 0043 10 11 14 0035 1956:45 PM 2 46 28 2078 9 33 1 0143 26 3 6 0035 6 10 15 0031 187Hourly Total 17 219 121 81365 21 159 5 11186 145 16 28 00189 32 50 57 00139 8797:00 PM 1 35 28 0064 5 33 2 0040 24 1 4 0029 1 14 7 0022 1557:15 PM 4 29 25 0058 10 38 3 0051 22 3 3 0028 3 11 14 0028 1657:30 PM 5 39 13 1058 4 28 0 0032 22 2 4 0028 2 11 13 0026 1447:45 PM 3 19 22 0044 4 29 5 0038 20 0 2 0022 4 5 12 0021 125Hourly Total 13 122 88 10224 23 128 10 00161 88 6 13 00107 10 41 46 0097 5898:00 PM 5 28 21 1055 6 41 1 0048 19 7 7 0033 3 7 18 0028 1648:15 PM 2 20 34 3059 5 33 1 0039 24 5 4 0033 2 11 16 0029 1608:30 PM 2 17 13 4136 2 19 0 0021 25 3 3 0031 1 7 13 0021 1098:45 PM 0 24 14 1039 2 22 1 0025 8 1 0 009 1 6 8 0015 88Hourly Total 9 89 82 91189 15 115 3 00133 76 16 14 00106 7 31 55 0093 5219:00 PM 3 17 19 0039 1 18 0 0019 19 1 2 0022 7 6 9 0022 1029:15 PM 0 17 20 1038 2 20 0 0022 7 2 4 0013 1 3 2 006 799:30 PM 0 16 7 1024 2 17 0 0019 8 0 0 008 2 6 3 0011 629:45 PM 0 22 12 1035 1 7 1 009 6 0 1 007 1 2 2 005 56Hourly Total 3 72 58 30136 6 62 1 0069 40 3 7 0050 11 17 16 0044 29910:00 PM 1 12 13 0026 1 6 0 007 5 1 2 008 0 0 3 003 4410:15 PM 0 17 10 1028 0 9 0 009 7 1 0 008 1 1 2 004 4910:30 PM 0 13 8 0021 0 11 0 0011 3 0 0 003 0 0 0 000 3510:45 PM 1 8 9 0018 0 2 0 002 4 0 0 004 0 3 1 004 28Hourly Total 2 50 40 1093 1 28 0 0029 19 2 2 0023 1 4 6 0011 15611:00 PM 1 3 3 108 0 5 1 006 3 0 1 004 2 2 2 006 2411:15 PM 0 5 9 0014 1 4 0 005 1 0 0 001 0 0 0 000 2011:30 PM 1 6 5 0012 0 3 0 003 3 0 0 003 0 1 1 002 2011:45 PM 0 2 3 005 0 1 0 001 3 0 0 003 1 1 0 002 11Hourly Total 2 16 20 1039 1 13 1 0015 10 0 1 0011 3 4 3 0010 75Grand Total 188 3018 1541 95114842 333 3153 144 223632 2086 171 304 002561 356 772 962 142091 13126Approach % 3.9 62.3 31.8 2.0-- 9.2 86.8 4.0 0.1-- 81.5 6.7 11.9 0.0-- 17.0 36.9 46.0 0.0-- -Total % 1.4 23.0 11.7 0.7-36.9 2.5 24.0 1.1 0.0-27.7 15.9 1.3 2.3 0.0-19.5 2.7 5.9 7.3 0.0-15.9 -Lights 174 2945 1517 90-4726 332 3069 138 2-3541 2068 159 300 0-2527 322 755 914 1-1992 12786% Lights 92.6 97.6 98.4 94.7-97.6 99.7 97.3 95.8 100.0-97.5 99.1 93.0 98.7 --98.7 90.4 97.8 95.0 100.0-95.3 97.4Mediums 8 55 18 3-84 0 62 6 0-68 12 12 4 0-28 30 16 36 0-82 262% Mediums 4.3 1.8 1.2 3.2-1.7 0.0 2.0 4.2 0.0-1.9 0.6 7.0 1.3 --1.1 8.4 2.1 3.7 0.0-3.9 2.0Articulated Trucks 6 18 6 2-32 1 22 0 0-23 6 0 0 0-6 4 1 12 0-17 78% ArticulatedTrucks3.2 0.6 0.4 2.1-0.7 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0-0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 --0.2 1.1 0.1 1.2 0.0-0.8 0.6Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -10- - - - -2- - - - -0- - - - -4- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -90.9- - - - -100.0- - - - --- - - - -100.0- -Pedestrians - - - -1- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Pedestrians - - - -9.1- - - - -0.0- - - - --- - - - -0.0- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 408/10/2021 12:00 AMEnding At08/11/2021 12:00 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total472 1992 246426 82 1086 17 230 0 00 0 0504 2091 2595914 755 322 1 036 16 30 0 012 1 4 0 00 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0962 772 356 1 4R T L U P
36800
0
22
89
3569
Out
36320
0
23
68
3541
In
73120
0
45
157
7110
Total
Westbound 34th Street [WB
R
1440
0
0
6
138
T
31530
0
22
62
3069
L
3330
0
1
0
332
U
20
0
0
0
2
P
20
2
0
0
0
2604 2527 513134 28 628 6 140 0 00 0 02646 2561 5207Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 2068 159 300 00 12 12 4 00 6 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 2086 171 304 0Eastbound 34th Street [EB]Total10867197740011138In47268432004842Out61411134200629690320095U1748600188L29455518003018T1517186001541R00010111PTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound 34th StreetWestbound 34th StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total7:30 AM 3 42 14 0059 4 74 1 0079 41 1 2 0044 4 8 11 0023 2057:45 AM 3 42 18 3066 6 65 3 0074 49 1 7 0057 9 15 23 0047 2448:00 AM 2 47 17 2068 5 67 0 0072 29 3 8 0040 4 14 19 0037 2178:15 AM 4 32 16 1053 8 61 2 0071 33 0 3 0036 10 11 15 0036 196Total12 163 65 60246 23 267 6 00296 152 5 20 00177 27 48 68 00143 862Approach % 4.9 66.3 26.4 2.4-- 7.8 90.2 2.0 0.0-- 85.9 2.8 11.3 0.0-- 18.9 33.6 47.6 0.0-- -Total % 1.4 18.9 7.5 0.7-28.5 2.7 31.0 0.7 0.0-34.3 17.6 0.6 2.3 0.0-20.5 3.1 5.6 7.9 0.0-16.6 -PHF 0.750 0.867 0.903 0.500-0.904 0.719 0.902 0.500 0.000-0.937 0.776 0.417 0.625 0.000-0.776 0.675 0.800 0.739 0.000-0.761 0.883Lights12 153 62 3-230 23 258 6 0-287 151 3 19 0-173 23 46 61 0-130 820% Lights 100.0 93.9 95.4 50.0-93.5 100.0 96.6 100.0 --97.0 99.3 60.0 95.0 --97.7 85.2 95.8 89.7 --90.9 95.1Mediums 0 8 3 3-14 0 9 0 0-9 1 2 1 0-4 4 2 7 0-13 40% Mediums 0.0 4.9 4.6 50.0-5.7 0.0 3.4 0.0 --3.0 0.7 40.0 5.0 --2.3 14.8 4.2 10.3 --9.1 4.6Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0-2 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 2% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0-0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.2Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -Pedestrians - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Pedestrians - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 7:30 AMEnding At08/10/2021 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total21 130 1512 13 150 0 00 0 00 0 023 143 16661 46 23 0 07 2 4 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 068 48 27 0 0R T L U P
2100
0
2
13
195
Out
2960
0
0
9
287
In
5060
0
2
22
482
Total
Westbound 34th Street [WB
R
60
0
0
0
6
T
2670
0
0
9
258
L
230
0
0
0
23
U
00
0
0
0
0
P
00
0
0
0
0
131 173 3045 4 90 0 00 0 00 0 0136 177 313Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 151 3 19 00 1 2 1 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 152 5 20 0Eastbound 34th Street [EB]Total70334200739In23014200246Out47320000493330006U12000012L1538200163T62300065R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 7Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)Start TimeEastbound 34th StreetWestbound 34th StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total4:15 PM 1 100 54 20157 7 67 0 1075 48 2 10 0060 4 24 18 0046 3384:30 PM 5 82 49 20138 8 78 0 0086 43 3 8 0054 5 23 20 0048 3264:45 PM 3 91 42 20138 5 80 3 0088 60 1 11 0072 9 11 15 0035 3335:00 PM 4 77 36 30120 6 59 6 0071 47 2 7 0056 6 27 21 0054 301Total13 350 181 90553 26 284 9 10320 198 8 36 00242 24 85 74 00183 1298Approach % 2.4 63.3 32.7 1.6-- 8.1 88.8 2.8 0.3-- 81.8 3.3 14.9 0.0-- 13.1 46.4 40.4 0.0-- -Total % 1.0 27.0 13.9 0.7-42.6 2.0 21.9 0.7 0.1-24.7 15.3 0.6 2.8 0.0-18.6 1.8 6.5 5.7 0.0-14.1 -PHF 0.650 0.875 0.838 0.750-0.881 0.813 0.888 0.375 0.250-0.909 0.825 0.667 0.818 0.000-0.840 0.667 0.787 0.881 0.000-0.847 0.960Lights13 346 180 9-548 25 276 9 1-311 198 8 36 0-242 23 85 69 0-177 1278% Lights 100.0 98.9 99.4 100.0-99.1 96.2 97.2 100.0 100.0-97.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 --100.0 95.8 100.0 93.2 --96.7 98.5Mediums 0 4 1 0-5 0 7 0 0-7 0 0 0 0-0 1 0 3 0-4 16% Mediums 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0-0.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0-2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 4.2 0.0 4.1 --2.2 1.2Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0-0 1 1 0 0-2 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 2 0-2 4% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0-0.0 3.8 0.4 0.0 0.0-0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 --1.1 0.3Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -Pedestrians - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Pedestrians - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 34th St NSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 8Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 4:15 PMEnding At08/10/2021 5:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total30 177 2070 4 40 2 20 0 00 0 030 183 21369 85 23 0 03 0 1 0 02 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 074 85 24 0 0R T L U P
4110
0
0
5
406
Out
3200
0
2
7
311
In
7310
0
2
12
717
Total
Westbound 34th Street [WB
R
90
0
0
0
9
T
2840
0
1
7
276
L
260
0
1
0
25
U
10
0
0
0
1
P
00
0
0
0
0
290 242 5321 0 11 0 10 0 00 0 0292 242 534Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 198 8 36 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 198 8 36 0Eastbound 34th Street [EB]Total1100153001118In5485000553Out55210300565900009U13000013L3464000350T1801000181R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound 32nd StreetSouthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM13004111900301730020547:15 AM0700772400311070017557:30 AM05005144700612140025917:45 AM490013165100673640040120Hourly Total524002948141001898418001023208:00 AM6110017103200423260038978:15 AM01000102136005732500371048:30 AM0110011123700492170028888:45 AM39001213400053209002994Hourly Total941005056145002011052700132383*** BREAK ***----------------4:00 PM93100403245007754600601774:15 PM732003917460063731200851874:30 PM530003532530085741200862064:45 PM10320042355900945160057193Hourly Total31125001561162030031925236002887635:00 PM64200482950007952800601875:15 PM53402392269009159900681985:30 PM224012632940012647600532055:45 PM52200272569009440110051172Hourly Total1812203140108282003901983400232762Grand Total6331203375328771001099639115007542228Approach %16.883.20.0--29.870.20.0--84.715.30.0---Total %2.814.00.0-16.814.734.60.0-49.328.75.20.0-33.8-Lights623090-3713267660-10926281110-7392202% Lights98.499.0--98.999.499.4--99.498.396.5--98.098.8Mediums030-3250-71000-1020% Mediums0.01.0--0.80.60.6--0.61.60.0--1.30.9Articulated Trucks100-1000-0140-56% Articulated Trucks1.60.0--0.30.00.0--0.00.23.5--0.70.3Bicycles on Crosswalk---3----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---100.0------------Pedestrians---0----0----0--% Pedestrians---0.0------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 208/10/2021 7:00 AMEnding At08/10/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total828 739 15675 10 151 5 60 0 00 0 0834 754 1588111 628 0 00 10 0 04 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0115 639 0 0R T U P937 1092 202913 7 201 0 10 0 00 0 0951 1099 2050Out In TotalSouthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 326 766 00 2 5 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 328 771 0Eastbound 32nd Street [EB]Total8085500818In3713100375Out4372400443000000U62010063L3093000312R000303PTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound 32nd StreetSouthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total7:30 AM05005144700612140025917:45 AM4900131651006736400401208:00 AM6110017103200423260038978:15 AM0100010213600573250037104Total1035004561166002271211900140412Approach %22.277.80.0--26.973.10.0--86.413.60.0---Total %2.48.50.0-10.914.840.30.0-55.129.44.60.0-34.0-PHF0.417 0.795 0.000-0.662 0.726 0.814 0.000-0.847 0.840 0.792 0.000-0.875 0.858Lights10350-45611630-224115190-134403% Lights100.0 100.0--100.0 100.0 98.2--98.795.0 100.0--95.797.8Mediums000-0030-3600-69% Mediums0.00.0--0.00.01.8--1.35.00.0--4.32.2Articulated Trucks000-0000-0000-00% Articulated Trucks0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.0Bicycles on Crosswalk---0----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ----------------Pedestrians---0----0----0--% Pedestrians----------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 7:30 AMEnding At08/10/2021 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total173 134 3073 6 90 0 00 0 00 0 0176 140 31619 115 0 00 6 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 019 121 0 0R T U P150 224 3746 3 90 0 00 0 00 0 0156 227 383Out In TotalSouthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 61 163 00 0 3 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 61 166 0Eastbound 32nd Street [EB]Total1250000125In45000045Out80000080000000U10000010L35000035R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM)Start TimeEastbound 32nd StreetSouthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total4:30 PM530003532530085741200862064:45 PM103200423559009451600571935:00 PM64200482950007952800601875:15 PM5340239226900915990068198Total2613802164118231003492363500271784Approach %15.984.10.0--33.866.20.0--87.112.90.0---Total %3.317.60.0-20.915.129.50.0-44.530.14.50.0-34.6-PHF0.650 0.821 0.000-0.854 0.843 0.837 0.000-0.928 0.797 0.729 0.000-0.788 0.951Lights251370-1621182310-349235350-270781% Lights96.299.3--98.8 100.0 100.0--100.0 99.6 100.0--99.699.6Mediums010-1000-0100-12% Mediums0.00.7--0.60.00.0--0.00.40.0--0.40.3Articulated Trucks100-1000-0000-01% Articulated Trucks3.80.0--0.60.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.1Bicycles on Crosswalk---2----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---100.0------------Pedestrians---0----0----0--% Pedestrians---0.0------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 32nd StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 4:30 PMEnding At08/10/2021 5:30 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total256 270 5260 1 11 0 10 0 00 0 0257 271 52835 235 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 035 236 0 0R T U P372 349 7212 0 20 0 00 0 00 0 0374 349 723Out In TotalSouthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 118 231 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 118 231 0Eastbound 32nd Street [EB]Total3151100317In1621100164Out1530000153000000U25010026L1371000138R000202PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound 31st StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total7:00 AM3201502700272300023557:15 AM3201503100311900019557:30 AM6200815600572410025907:45 AM3000306400644100041108Hourly Total15602211178001791071001083088:00 AM4000403600363820040808:15 AM50015154005539200411018:30 AM6101714500462660032858:45 AM100110530053320003286Hourly Total16103172188001901351000145352*** BREAK ***----------------4:00 PM33006267006985400891644:15 PM2106316200631022001041704:30 PM340270820082985001031924:45 PM5300868800947850083185Hourly Total1311082492990030836316003797115:00 PM52007275007787500921765:15 PM850713280008285700921875:30 PM3301631280013163700702075:45 PM2201429300956020062161Hourly Total181209309376003852952100316731Grand Total62300229221104100106290048009482102Approach %67.432.60.0--2.098.00.0--94.95.10.0---Total %2.91.40.0-4.41.049.50.0-50.542.82.30.0-45.1-Lights61290-902010350-1055888480-9362081% Lights98.496.7--97.895.299.4--99.398.7 100.0--98.799.0Mediums110-2160-71100-1120% Mediums1.63.3--2.24.80.6--0.71.20.0--1.21.0Articulated Trucks000-0000-0100-11% Articulated Trucks0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.10.0--0.10.0Bicycles on Crosswalk---10----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---45.5------------Pedestrians---12----0----0--% Pedestrians---54.5------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 208/10/2021 7:00 AMEnding At08/10/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total1096 936 20327 11 180 1 10 0 00 0 01103 948 205148 888 0 00 11 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 048 900 0 0R T U P917 1055 197212 7 191 0 10 0 00 0 0930 1062 1992Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 20 1035 00 1 6 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 21 1041 0Eastbound 31st Street [EB]Total1583000161In90200092Out68100069000000U61100062L29100030R000101222PTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound 31st StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total7:30 AM6200815600572410025907:45 AM30003064006441000411088:00 AM4000403600363820040808:15 AM5001515400553920041101Total1820120221000212142500147379Approach %90.010.00.0--0.999.10.0--96.63.40.0---Total %4.70.50.0-5.30.555.40.0-55.937.51.30.0-38.8-PHF0.750 0.250 0.000-0.625 0.500 0.820 0.000-0.828 0.866 0.625 0.000-0.896 0.877Lights1720-1922080-21013750-142371% Lights94.4 100.0--95.0 100.0 99.0--99.196.5 100.0--96.697.9Mediums100-1020-2400-47% Mediums5.60.0--5.00.01.0--0.92.80.0--2.71.8Articulated Trucks000-0000-0100-11% Articulated Trucks0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.70.0--0.70.3Bicycles on Crosswalk---0----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---0.0------------Pedestrians---1----0----0--% Pedestrians---100.0------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 7:30 AMEnding At08/10/2021 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total225 142 3673 4 70 1 10 0 00 0 0228 147 3755 137 0 00 4 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 05 142 0 0R T U P139 210 3494 2 61 0 10 0 00 0 0144 212 356Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 2 208 00 0 2 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 2 210 0Eastbound 31st Street [EB]Total26100027In19100020Out700007000000U17100018L200002R000011PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:45 PM)Start TimeEastbound 31st StreetNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftRight U-Turn Peds App. Total LeftThru U-Turn Peds App. Total Thru Right U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total4:45 PM53008688009478500831855:00 PM52007275007787500921765:15 PM850713280008285700921875:30 PM330163128001316370070207Total2113083413371003843132400337755Approach %61.838.20.0--3.496.60.0--92.97.10.0---Total %2.81.70.0-4.51.749.10.0-50.941.53.20.0-44.6-PHF0.656 0.650 0.000-0.654 0.542 0.725 0.000-0.733 0.899 0.857 0.000-0.916 0.912Lights21130-34133710-384312240-336754% Lights100.0 100.0--100.0 100.0 100.0--100.0 99.7 100.0--99.799.9Mediums000-0000-0100-11% Mediums0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.30.0--0.30.1Articulated Trucks000-0000-0000-00% Articulated Trucks0.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.00.0--0.00.0Bicycles on Crosswalk---4----0----0--% Bicycles on Crosswalk ---50.0------------Pedestrians---4----0----0--% Pedestrians---50.0------------
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & 31st StreetSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 4:45 PMEnding At08/10/2021 5:45 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total392 336 7280 1 10 0 00 0 00 0 0392 337 72924 312 0 00 1 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 024 313 0 0R T U P325 384 7091 0 10 0 00 0 00 0 0326 384 710Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T P0 13 371 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 13 371 0Eastbound 31st Street [EB]Total71000071In34000034Out37000037000000U21000021L13000013R000448PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:45 PM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Turning Movement DataStart TimeEastbound Stillwater BoulevardWestbound Stillwater BoulevardNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total7:00 AM 7 17 2 0126 2 11 9 0022 0 18 3 0021 15 3 7 0025 947:15 AM 6 17 1 0024 3 9 12 0024 2 12 7 0021 14 7 3 0024 937:30 AM 12 22 0 0034 3 16 20 0039 2 19 2 0023 8 7 4 0019 1157:45 AM 11 13 0 0024 1 10 30 0041 0 25 5 0030 22 11 12 0045 140Hourly Total 36 69 3 01108 9 46 71 00126 4 74 17 0095 59 28 26 00113 4428:00 AM 10 5 1 0016 3 9 18 0030 3 9 2 0014 16 10 10 0136 968:15 AM 19 13 2 0034 4 14 22 0040 4 16 3 0023 19 16 5 0040 1378:30 AM 11 14 0 0325 2 16 13 0031 0 16 5 0021 10 9 7 0026 1038:45 AM 10 17 0 0227 0 14 25 1040 2 23 4 0029 12 16 4 0032 128Hourly Total 50 49 3 05102 9 53 78 10141 9 64 14 0087 57 51 26 01134 464*** BREAK *** - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -4:00 PM 20 32 2 0054 4 35 33 0072 4 28 2 0034 34 34 18 0086 2464:15 PM 10 25 3 0738 7 34 35 0076 2 19 9 0030 48 29 31 00108 2524:30 PM 12 37 6 0055 8 28 43 0079 3 26 7 0036 39 31 23 0093 2634:45 PM 18 27 7 0252 8 26 46 0080 3 29 4 0036 33 38 19 0090 258Hourly Total 60 121 18 09199 27 123 157 00307 12 102 22 00136 154 132 91 00377 10195:00 PM 21 23 3 0047 6 35 26 0067 3 24 5 0032 32 36 22 0090 2365:15 PM 7 21 5 0533 8 29 40 0077 2 42 5 0049 46 23 15 0084 2435:30 PM 17 26 4 0147 7 34 63 00104 2 45 10 0057 28 25 20 0073 2815:45 PM 11 25 3 0039 8 26 60 0094 3 25 3 0031 29 20 11 0060 224Hourly Total 56 95 15 06166 29 124 189 00342 10 136 23 00169 135 104 68 00307 984Grand Total 202 334 39 021575 74 346 495 10916 35 376 76 00487 405 315 211 01931 2909Approach % 35.1 58.1 6.8 0.0-- 8.1 37.8 54.0 0.1-- 7.2 77.2 15.6 0.0-- 43.5 33.8 22.7 0.0-- -Total % 6.9 11.5 1.3 0.0-19.8 2.5 11.9 17.0 0.0-31.5 1.2 12.9 2.6 0.0-16.7 13.9 10.8 7.3 0.0-32.0 -Lights 199 331 39 0-569 73 339 491 1-904 35 374 76 0-485 399 312 206 0-917 2875% Lights 98.5 99.1 100.0 --99.0 98.6 98.0 99.2 100.0-98.7 100.0 99.5 100.0 --99.6 98.5 99.0 97.6 --98.5 98.8Mediums 3 3 0 0-6 1 7 4 0-12 0 2 0 0-2 5 3 5 0-13 33% Mediums 1.5 0.9 0.0 --1.0 1.4 2.0 0.8 0.0-1.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 --0.4 1.2 1.0 2.4 --1.4 1.1Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 1 0 0 0-1 1% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 --0.1 0.0Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -6- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -28.6- - - - --- - - - --- - - - -0.0- -Pedestrians - - - -15- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -1- -% Pedestrians - - - -71.4- - - - --- - - - --- - - - -100.0- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 208/10/2021 7:00 AMEnding At08/10/2021 6:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total1064 917 19819 13 220 1 10 0 00 0 01073 931 2004206 312 399 0 05 3 5 0 00 0 1 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1211 315 405 0 1R T L U P
8160
0
1
8
807
Out
9160
0
0
12
904
In
17320
0
1
20
1711
Total
Westbound Stillwater Boule
R
4950
0
0
4
491
T
3460
0
0
7
339
L
740
0
0
1
73
U
10
0
0
0
1
P
00
0
0
0
0
424 485 9094 2 60 0 00 0 00 0 0428 487 915Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 35 374 76 00 0 2 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 35 376 76 0Eastbound Stillwater BoulevTotal1149180001167In5696000575Out58012000592000000U1993000202L3313000334T39000039R00061521PTurning Movement Data Plot
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 3Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)Start TimeEastbound Stillwater BoulevardWestbound Stillwater BoulevardNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total7:30 AM 12 22 0 0034 3 16 20 0039 2 19 2 0023 8 7 4 0019 1157:45 AM 11 13 0 0024 1 10 30 0041 0 25 5 0030 22 11 12 0045 1408:00 AM 10 5 1 0016 3 9 18 0030 3 9 2 0014 16 10 10 0136 968:15 AM 19 13 2 0034 4 14 22 0040 4 16 3 0023 19 16 5 0040 137Total52 53 3 00108 11 49 90 00150 9 69 12 0090 65 44 31 01140 488Approach % 48.1 49.1 2.8 0.0-- 7.3 32.7 60.0 0.0-- 10.0 76.7 13.3 0.0-- 46.4 31.4 22.1 0.0-- -Total % 10.7 10.9 0.6 0.0-22.1 2.3 10.0 18.4 0.0-30.7 1.8 14.1 2.5 0.0-18.4 13.3 9.0 6.4 0.0-28.7 -PHF 0.684 0.602 0.375 0.000-0.794 0.688 0.766 0.750 0.000-0.915 0.563 0.690 0.600 0.000-0.750 0.739 0.688 0.646 0.000-0.778 0.871Lights51 52 3 0-106 11 45 87 0-143 9 69 12 0-90 64 42 29 0-135 474% Lights 98.1 98.1 100.0 --98.1 100.0 91.8 96.7 --95.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 --100.0 98.5 95.5 93.5 --96.4 97.1Mediums 1 1 0 0-2 0 4 3 0-7 0 0 0 0-0 1 2 2 0-5 14% Mediums 1.9 1.9 0.0 --1.9 0.0 8.2 3.3 --4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 1.5 4.5 6.5 --3.6 2.9Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - -0.0- -Pedestrians - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -1- -% Pedestrians - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - - -100.0- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 4Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 7:30 AMEnding At08/10/2021 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total207 135 3424 5 90 0 00 0 00 0 0211 140 35129 42 64 0 02 2 1 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 131 44 65 0 1R T L U P
1300
0
0
2
128
Out
1500
0
0
7
143
In
2800
0
0
9
271
Total
Westbound Stillwater Boule
R
900
0
0
3
87
T
490
0
0
4
45
L
110
0
0
0
11
U
00
0
0
0
0
P
00
0
0
0
0
56 90 1462 0 20 0 00 0 00 0 058 90 148Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 9 69 12 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 9 69 12 0Eastbound Stillwater BoulevTotal1898000197In1062000108Out83600089000000U51100052L52100053T300003R000000PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 5Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)Start TimeEastbound Stillwater BoulevardWestbound Stillwater BoulevardNorthbound Ideal AvenueSouthbound Ideal AvenueEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalLeft Thru Right U-Turn PedsApp.TotalInt. Total4:00 PM 20 32 2 0054 4 35 33 0072 4 28 2 0034 34 34 18 0086 2464:15 PM 10 25 3 0738 7 34 35 0076 2 19 9 0030 48 29 31 00108 2524:30 PM 12 37 6 0055 8 28 43 0079 3 26 7 0036 39 31 23 0093 2634:45 PM 18 27 7 0252 8 26 46 0080 3 29 4 0036 33 38 19 0090 258Total60 121 18 09199 27 123 157 00307 12 102 22 00136 154 132 91 00377 1019Approach % 30.2 60.8 9.0 0.0-- 8.8 40.1 51.1 0.0-- 8.8 75.0 16.2 0.0-- 40.8 35.0 24.1 0.0-- -Total % 5.9 11.9 1.8 0.0-19.5 2.6 12.1 15.4 0.0-30.1 1.2 10.0 2.2 0.0-13.3 15.1 13.0 8.9 0.0-37.0 -PHF 0.750 0.818 0.643 0.000-0.905 0.844 0.879 0.853 0.000-0.959 0.750 0.879 0.611 0.000-0.944 0.802 0.868 0.734 0.000-0.873 0.969Lights59 120 18 0-197 27 121 157 0-305 12 102 22 0-136 152 132 90 0-374 1012% Lights 98.3 99.2 100.0 --99.0 100.0 98.4 100.0 --99.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 --100.0 98.7 100.0 98.9 --99.2 99.3Mediums 1 1 0 0-2 0 2 0 0-2 0 0 0 0-0 1 0 1 0-2 6% Mediums 1.7 0.8 0.0 --1.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 --0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 --0.5 0.6Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0-0 1 0 0 0-1 1% ArticulatedTrucks0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 --0.3 0.1Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -4- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Bicycles onCrosswalk- - - -44.4- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -Pedestrians - - - -5- - - - -0- - - - -0- - - - -0- -% Pedestrians - - - -55.6- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- -
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Ideal Avenue & StillwaterBoulevardSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 6Peak Hour Data08/10/2021 4:00 PMEnding At08/10/2021 5:00 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansSouthbound Ideal AvenueOut In Total318 374 6921 2 30 1 10 0 00 0 0319 377 69690 132 152 0 01 0 1 0 00 0 1 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 091 132 154 0 0R T L U P
2970
0
1
2
294
Out
3070
0
0
2
305
In
6040
0
1
4
599
Total
Westbound Stillwater Boule
R
1570
0
0
0
157
T
1230
0
0
2
121
L
270
0
0
0
27
U
00
0
0
0
0
P
00
0
0
0
0
177 136 3130 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0177 136 313Out In TotalNorthbound Ideal AvenueU L T R P0 12 102 22 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 12 102 22 0Eastbound Stillwater BoulevTotal4205000425In1972000199Out2233000226000000U59100060L1201000121T18000018R000459PTurning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Stillwater Boulevard RoundaboutNBRSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Direction (Northbound)Start TimeLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksTotal7:00 AM2210237:15 AM3200327:30 AM3220347:45 AM2500258:00 AM2200228:15 AM2200228:30 AM2300238:45 AM2800284:00 PM5600564:15 PM4700474:30 PM7710784:45 PM6100615:00 PM5500555:15 PM5900595:30 PM7500755:45 PM550055Total69140695Total %99.40.60.0100.0AM Times7:00 AM7:00 AM7:00 AM7:00 AMAM Peaks11130114PM Times4:30 PM4:00 PM4:00 PM4:30 PMPM Peaks25210253
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Stillwater Boulevard RoundaboutNBRSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 2
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Jamaca Avenue Roundabout SBRSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 1Direction (Southbound)Start TimeLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksTotal7:00 AM70077:15 AM1600167:30 AM81097:45 AM1000108:00 AM1400148:15 AM1400148:30 AM910108:45 AM80084:00 PM1300134:15 PM90094:30 PM60064:45 PM60065:00 PM30035:15 PM50055:30 PM70075:45 PM7007Total14220144Total %98.61.40.0100.0AM Times7:15 AM7:00 AM7:00 AM7:15 AMAM Peaks481049PM Times4:00 PM4:00 PM4:00 PM4:00 PMPM Peaks340034
Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 riley.mitts@kimley-horn.comCount Name: Jamaca Avenue Roundabout SBRSite Code:Start Date: 08/10/2021Page No: 2
43 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Appendix C:
Site Plan
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 7 January 2022
Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3 Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 evaluate the same anticipated development of the AUAR study area lying south of 34th Street N, which is the area the project proposer plans to develop. Construction of the parcels south of 34th Street N is anticipated to begin in 2022 and built over two phases with construction complete by 2024. The AUAR study area lying north of 34th Street N will be developed later and there are no known development plans. To account for the unknown plans for the north area, different land use patterns with varying densities are evaluated in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 and are based on the City’s completed Master Plan process. Roadway infrastructure supporting Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 includes access from 34th Street N and Ideal Avenue N. The scenario plans identify three access points into the area south of 34th Street N and two access points into the northern portion of the study area. The AUAR study area will be connected to the public municipal water and regional sanitary sewer systems. Stormwater management will be provided locally onsite as part of any development.
Scenario 4
Scenario 4 is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which permits the development of the parcels south of 34th Street N for Business Park uses and the parcels north of 34th Street N for rural residential uses, continued agriculture, and the public works facility.
Table 1: Development Scenarios
Land Use Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Business Park ~1.1 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet ~2.2 million square feet ~1.1 million square feet
Mixed-Use Business Park
400 residential units 653,400 square feet business/light industrial
210 residential units 457,380 square feet business/light industrial
-- --
Commercial 91,500 square feet 178,596 square feet 91,500 square feet -- Rural Area Development (Residential) 10 residential units
Low Density Residential -- 56 residential units 56 residential units --
Medium Density Residential -- 124 residential units -- --
Existing Public Works Building 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4 acres 7.4
Park 8 acres 8 acres 8 acres 0 acres Ponding 15 acres 15 acres 15 acres 0 acres Right-of-Way 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres 6 acres
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 8 January 2022
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 9 January 2022
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 10 January 2022
Figure 5: Development Scenario 3
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR 11 January 2022
Figure 6: Development Scenario 4
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 44
Appendix D:
NorthPoint Development Trip
Generation Study
NORTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION
ANALYSIS
December 30, 2019
Prepared For:
NorthPoint Development
4825 NW 41st Street, Suite 500
Riverside, MO 64150
Prepared By:
Priority Engineers, Inc.
PO Box 563
Garden City, MO 64747
December 30, 2019 Mr. Chris Chancellor, P.E.
Northpoint Development 4825 NW 41st Street, Suite 500 Riverside, MO 64150
RE: NorthPoint Trip Generation Traffic Study - Edgerton KS, Kansas City MO, Birmingham MO, Riverside MO and Hazelwood MO Northpoint Facilities Dear Mr. Chancellor: In response to your request, Priority Engineers, Inc. has completed a traffic impact analysis for the above referenced project. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the most appropriate traffic trip generation rates for NorthPoint developments based upon these five existing operational NorthPoint developments. The following
report documents our analysis and recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact
us with any questions or if you require additional information. Sincerely,
PRIORITY ENGINEERS, INC.
Jesse J Skinner, P.E., PTOE
Senior Traffic Engineer
Priority Engineers, Inc. PO Box 563 Garden City, MO 64747 816.738.4400
Table of Contents
Section Page No.
1) INTRODUCTION 1
2) DATA 1
3) DATA ANALYSIS 1
4) TRIP GENERATION RATES (SQ. FT. GFA) 3
5) TRIP GENERATION RATES (EMPLOYEES) 9
6) TRUCK TRAFFIC 14
7) CONCLUSIONS 14
APPENDIX I
ITE LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX II
REAR LOADING DOCK BUILDINGS
APPENDIX III
LARGE CROSS DOCK BUILDINGS
APPENDIX IV
SMALLER CROSS DOCK BUILDINGS
APPENDIX V
ALL CROSS DOCK BUILDINGS
APPENDIX VI
ALL BUILDINGS
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
1
1) INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to determine more specific trip generation data for the similar land uses within NorthPoint Development properties. As part of this study, five sites were evaluated. These sites were located in Edgerton KS, Kansas City MO, Birmingham MO, Riverside MO, and
Hazelwood MO.
2) DATA
The data was collected on “average weekdays” in May, June, and July of 2019. For the purposes of this study, only data collected on Tuesdays through Thursdays was utilized. Data was not collected near national holidays. Data was not collected when there was a potential conflict with major local events.
Data was collected via traffic cameras and analyzed with additional software with the exception of one location where a tube counter was utilized. Individual entrances into buildings were collected for 24 hours in 15-minute time intervals. Traffic was classified as passenger vehicle and truck traffic. Passenger vehicles include motorcycles, cars, and some pick-up trucks (FHWA class 1, 2, and some class 3) whereas truck traffic was selected for vehicles most likely requiring a commercial drivers license (some FWHA class 3, all class 4 and above). There were 28 buildings total that had data for each entrance collected. These buildings ranged in size between 50,000 sq. ft. and 927,112 sq. ft. NorthPoint Development was able to provide the number of employees for 26 of the buildings studied.
3) DATA ANALYSIS Regression analysis was applied to the data using methodologies similar to those used in the
ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The data analysis includes truck specific analysis not found in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. Users of this data are encouraged to apply the same guidance as found in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition in regards to determining if
the fitted curve, the average rate, or additional local data needs to be collected before using a specific time period and independent variable’s trip generation rate. While several of the study locations (most notably Edgerton KS, and Hazelwood MO) had public transportation stops located within the study site, there was not a significant amount of pedestrian traffic observed. The majority of pedestrians appeared to be recreational in nature as opposed to commuting.
The most logical nearby street was selected for each study site and an AM and PM Peak Count was also performed to determine when the peak period of the adjacent street occurred. Table 1 shows the relationship between the adjacent street Peak Hours and the Peak Hour of the Generator for each building within the five study areas.
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
2
Table1: Peak Hour Comparison
Location
Building
Designation
(NorthPoint)
AM Peak
Period (Gen)
PM Peak
Period (Gen)
AM Peak
Period (Adj
Street)
PM Peak
Period (Adj
Street)
Hazelwood
I 6:30-7:30 15:15-16:15 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
II 5:15-6:15 14:15-15:15 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
III 1:45-2:45 18:30-19:30 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
IV 10:45-11:30 12:15-13:15 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
V 7:45-8:45 13:15-14:15 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
VI 7:30-8:30 16:45-17:45 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
VII 10:45-11:45 14:45-15:45 7:00-8:00 16:45-17:45
Three Trails
TT1 12:00-1:00 16:30-17:30 07:15-08:15 17:00-180:00
TT2 11:00-12:00 16:30-17:30 07:15-08:15 17:00-180:00
TT3 06:15-07:15 14:00-15:00 07:15-08:15 17:00-180:00
NLP
NLPI 7:15-8:15 14:45-15:45 7:00-8:00 16:30-17:30
NLPII 6:15-7:15 16:15-17:15 7:00-8:00 16:30-17:30
NLPIII 5:30-6:30 13:30-14:30 7:00-8:00 16:30-17:30
LPKC
II 11:15-12:15 14:15-15:15 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
IV 7:45-8:45 16:30-17:30 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
V 11:00-12:00 14:00-15:00 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XI 05:00-06:00 14:30-15:30 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XII 06:00-07:00 17:45-18:45 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XIV 06:15-07:15 17:30-18:30 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XV 11:00-12:00 15:00-16:00 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XXXI 11:30-12:30 14:15-15:15 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XXXII 11:30-12:30 14:15-15:15 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
XXXIII 04:00-05:00 15:00-16:00 06:00-0:700 15:00-16:00
Horizons
H1 7:30-8:30 16:45-17:45 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
H2 6:15-7:15 16:00-17:00 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
H4 5:45-6:45 16:15-17:15 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
H5 6:15-7:15 15:00-16:00 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
Gallagher 11:15-12:15 16:15-17:15 7:15-8:15 16:45-17:45
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
3
In general, the Kansas City Metropolitan Area’s Peak Hours can be categorized as most often occurring between 06:30 and 09:30 and 15:30 and 18:00. Factors that commonly affect Peak
Hour variability includes the amount of commuter traffic and the distance of the commute, the amount of retail destinations near the study area, and the presence of schools near the study area. While the individual land uses within the study sites are similar, the Peak Hour for each
business varied greatly depending upon the specifics of each business such as staffing schedules and if the business had a large number of the trucks entering or exiting the building in a short period of time. The majority of the buildings had the Peak Hours of the generator
occurring at times other than the Peak Hour of the adjacent street.
4) TRIP GENERATION RATES (SQ. FT. AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLE) NorthPoint Development’s study areas typically have buildings with loading docks located in the back of the building or along one or two of the longer sides of the building. Buildings with rear
loading docks tended to be smaller in size (108,273 sq. ft to 243,230 sq. ft.). Buildings with docks located on one or more of the long sides of the building tended to have a larger range, and all but one of them are in excess of 325,000 sq. ft. in size and ranging in size up to 927,112 sq. ft. Trip rates were analyzed for the following building types:
• rear loading docks (7 buildings)
• smaller cross dock (less than 600,000 sq. ft, 15 buildings)
• larger cross dock buildings (6 buildings)
• all cross dock buildings (21 buildings)
• overall aggregate of all 28 buildings While less common than the cross-dock buildings and smaller in size, the rear loading dock
buildings tended to have a significantly higher trip rate generation than buildings with cross docks. Table 2 below summarizes the Trip Generation Rates for rear loading cross dock facilities and compares them to similar ITE Land Uses. Land uses used for comparison are as
follows:
• Land Use 130 = Industrial Park
• Land Use 140 = Manufacturing
• Land Use 150 = Warehousing
• Land Use 154 = High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse ITE Land Use descriptions are provided in Appendix I. Raw data and graphs associated with data analysis are also contained in Appendix II-VI.
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
4
Table 2: Trip Generation Rate - Rear Loading Dock Buildings
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) + 4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 6.2 y = 0.0021x2.4517 = 0.5209
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 0.55 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 0.42 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 0.66 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
5
While large cross dock buildings are large in size, their associated trip generation was significantly smaller than the rear loading dock buildings or the majority of the comparative ITE
land uses as displayed in Table 3 Below. Overall, large cross dock facilities generate similar Peak Hour trip generation rates to Land Use 154 with fewer total trips during a weekday. Raw data is contained in Appendix III.
Table 3: Trip Generation Rate - Large Cross Dock Buildings
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) +4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .961 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .08 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .11 T = 0.7336x - 474.02 .50
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .08 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock 0.17 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
6
Smaller cross dock facilities were the most commonly encountered building type within the five study sites. Like larger cross dock facilities, facilities under 600,000 sq. ft. tend to have trip
generation rates that are lower than likely comparable ITE land uses. While the smaller cross dock facilities had a slightly higher weekday trip generation rate than large cross dock facilities, they tend to have a lesser trip generation rate in the Peak Hours. Trip Rates are shown in Table
4 and raw data can be found in Appendix IV.
Table 4: Trip Generation Rate - Smaller Cross Dock Buildings
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) +4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock 1.32 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .06 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .06 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .146 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .15 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
7
When the cross dock facilities are aggregated into a single land use, the trip generation rates are most similar to ITE Land Use 154. The associated rates are shown below in Table 5 with the
associated raw data being found in Appendix V.
Table 5: Trip Generation Rate - All Cross Dock Buildings
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) + 4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock 1.16 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .07 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .09 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .13 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .13 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
8
When both rear loading dock buildings and cross dock buildings are combined the trip generation rates are as shown in Table 6 with the raw data associated with these numbers
being found in Appendix VI.
Table 6: Trip Generation Rate - All building types
Weighted Average Rate (1000 Sq. Ft.) Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 3.37 Ln(T) = 0.52 Ln(X) + 4.45 0.58
Land Use 140 3.93 T = 3.16(X) + 160.04 0.82
Land Use 150 1.74 T = 1.58(X) + 45.54 0.93
Land Use 154 1.4 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings 1.75 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.62 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.17 T = 0.12(X) + 25.32 0.69
Land Use 154 0.08 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .12 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.4 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 0.67 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 150 0.19 T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 0.65
Land Use 154 0.1 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .20 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.41 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .81 T = 0.61(X) + 34.25 .80
Land Use 150 .85 T = 0.11(X) + 30.07 .85
Land Use 154 .12 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .19 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 140 .79 T = 0.62(X) + 29.00 .76
Land Use 150 .24 T = 0.15(X) + 22.52 .91
Land Use 154 .16 Not Provided Not Provided
Land Use 130 0.40 Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .21 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
9
5) TRIP GENERATION RATES (EMPLOYEES AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLE)
Similar analysis to the what was performed in section 4 of this report was performed for the previously discussed building types with the number of employees as the independent variable. The trip generation rates for rear loading dock buildings is shown in Table 7 below and the raw
data is contained in Appendix II.
Table 7: Trip Generation Rate - Rear Loading Dock Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 0.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 17.1 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock .77 T = 1.6882x + 0.8087 .54
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 1.36 T = 1.3944x .43
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock 2.27 T = 1.4671x + 27.806 .41
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Rear Loading Dock .31 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
10
The results of the analysis for larger cross dock buildings trip generation based upon employees is shown in Table 8 below with the raw data being contained in Appendix III.
Table 8: Trip Generation Rate - Large Cross Dock Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 0.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock 2.69 T = 1.7893x + 246.6 .94
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .23 T = 0.2594x - 9.4162 .78
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .32 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .35 T = 0.2865x + 16.347 .93
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Large Cross Dock .31 T = 57.164ln(x) - 159.03 .61
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
11
The results of the analysis for smaller cross dock buildings trip generation based upon employees is shown in Table 9 below with the raw data being contained in Appendix IV.
Table 9: Trip Generation Rate - Smaller Cross Dock Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 00.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock 6.63 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .37 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .35 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .77 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
Smaller Cross Dock .76 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
12
The results of the analysis for combined cross dock buildings trip generation based upon employees is shown in Table 10 below with the raw data being contained in Appendix V.
Table 10: Trip Generation Rate - All Cross Dock Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 0.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock 4.14 T= 1.6896x + 317.92 .46
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .28 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .33 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .50 T= 0.2188x + 44.829 .45
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Cross Dock .59 y = 0.4436x .42
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
13
The results of the analysis for the aggregate of all buildings combined trip generation, based upon employees, is shown in Table 11 below with the raw data being contained in Appendix VI.
Table 11: Trip Generation Rate - All Buildings
Employees Equation R^2
Weekday
Land Use 130 2.91 Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 3.34 0.81
Land Use 140 2.47 Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(X) + 1.69 .95
Land Use 150 5.05 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 2.33 .88
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings 5.1 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.44 Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.39 .87
Land Use 140 .37 T = 0.26(X) + 32.97 .79
Land Use 150 .61 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .91
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .38 Not Provided Not Provided
PM Peak Hour Adj. St.
Land Use 130 0.42 Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 0.93 .90
Land Use 140 .33 T = 0.19(X) + 41.22 .88
Land Use 150 .66 T = 0.52(X) + 4.93 .74
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .41 Not Provided Not Provided
AM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 0.36 0.90
Land Use 140 .43 = 0.33(X) + 39.35 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 0.99 .87
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .63 T = 0.2188x + 44.829 .45
PM Peak Hour Generator
Land Use 130 .42 Ln(T) = 0.75 Ln(X) + 0.90 .89
Land Use 140 .45 T = 0.38(X) + 24.71 .94
Land Use 150 .68 Ln(T) = 0.79 Ln(X) + 0.49 .80
Land Use 154 Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided
All Buildings .67 Not Provided Not Provided
December 30, 2019
NorthPoint Development Trip Generation Study
14
6) TRUCK TRAFFIC
The percent of truck traffic for NorthPoint Development’s study sites is summarized in Table 12 below.
Table 12: Percent Truck Traffic
Building Type Weekday AM PEAK
Generator
PM PEAK
Generator
AM PEAK
Adj. St.
AM PEAK
Adj. St.
Rear Loading Dock 15% 16% 9% 17% 10%
Large Cross Dock 19% 9% 7% 7% 9%
Smaller Cross Dock 24% 20% 13% 22% 21%
All Cross Dock 22% 16% 10% 15% 14%
Overall Aggregate 19% 16% 10% 16% 12%
7) CONCLUSIONS As previously discussed, rear loading dock buildings had trip generation rates higher than the comparative ITE Land Uses in the analysis. The sample size for this type of building was relatively small, seven sites at two locations. Overall there were only eight of the twenty-eight buildings in the complete study that had a weekday trip generation greater than nine hundred vehicles. Three of these eight buildings were rear loading facilities. It is recommended that additional sites be evaluated to determine if the typical user of a rear loading facility has a
significantly higher rate than cross dock facilities. Until such additional analysis is performed, using ITE Land USE 140 for Peak Hour trip generation rates and the rear loading weekday trip rate should provide a conservative estimate of trip generation when square footage GFA is used
as the independent variable. Until additional rear loading dock sites can be evaluated, no additional recommendations are being made for using employees as the independent variable beyond providing the observed trip generation rates for the limited sample size.
The analysis of trip generation rates for all sizes of cross dock facilities correlate very well with ITE Land USE 154 when evaluating square footage GFA as the independent variable. Given the robust data set (five study locations in two states with twenty-one individual sites) traffic engineers should have confidence in using either ITE Land Use 154 or the NorthPoint specific trip generation rates to give an accurate estimate of potential trips generated. ITE has not yet disseminated trip generation data on an employee basis for Land Use 154 yet. If the number of employees is to be used as the independent variable, the evaluated land use with the closest correlation is Land Use 140. Using a Northpoint specific trip generation based upon the combined cross dock trip generation rates (Table 10) should provide a reasonable estimate of the trips generated.
45 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Appendix E:
Existing Year (2021) SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)19.8 8.4 2.2 20.3 9.2 2.6 11.0 6.7 2.1 12.9 15.8 6.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)9.7
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 2.6 2.0 0.2 4.1 3.7 2.2
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 3.3 3.0 1.6 0.3 0.3 1.3
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 3.7 0.5 0.4 3.5 0.2 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 9.6 2.2 4.4 9.4 3.0 4.5 8.6 2.0 4.8 8.1 1.9
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)5.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 3.3 0.2 0.2 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 5.5 2.7 4.5 9.3 4.6 2.2 4.8 1.7 2.3 5.4 1.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 1.8 5.5 2.0 1.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 1.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)14.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 16 26 53 48 34 47 82 89 25 118 67 69
Average Queue (ft)2 7 17 9 1 15 29 37 4 55 16 19
95th Queue (ft)11 20 41 31 18 38 62 74 20 100 48 51
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 84 54
Average Queue (ft)26 16
95th Queue (ft)59 40
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 48 38 4
Average Queue (ft)7 14 12 0
95th Queue (ft)24 34 36 5
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 17
Average Queue (ft)15 1
95th Queue (ft)40 7
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 22 59 52 59 24 62 60
Average Queue (ft)28 4 27 28 27 7 32 21
95th Queue (ft)43 17 47 46 48 24 55 45
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 38 26 33 26
Average Queue (ft)14 7 2 3 7
95th Queue (ft)41 25 14 20 25
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LTR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 33 31 12
Average Queue (ft)9 6 1
95th Queue (ft)31 25 6
Link Distance (ft)682 328
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)45.0 13.1 3.8 45.6 11.0 1.8 31.5 31.8 6.2 26.3 38.3 8.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.8
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)11.1 4.6 3.8 0.3 6.0 5.1 4.2
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.5 3.8 4.6 1.8 0.8 0.6 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 3.8 0.5 0.5 3.3 0.2 0.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 13.0 3.5 8.0 13.1 5.0 7.0 11.2 3.9 10.6 13.5 3.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)9.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 3.1 0.2 0.1 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 12.4 8.7 6.5 11.1 5.7 3.7 7.7 3.3 3.6 6.0 1.4
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)8.5
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 2.1 5.2 2.5 1.5 1.9 0.6 0.1 1.6
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)22.8
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 35 48 104 110 64 78 94 98 25 195 112 76
Average Queue (ft)6 8 43 43 10 25 38 41 3 101 30 18
95th Queue (ft)22 29 86 89 44 61 80 77 17 161 73 51
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 146 60
Average Queue (ft)73 20
95th Queue (ft)131 47
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 72 61 13
Average Queue (ft)17 30 26 0
95th Queue (ft)42 57 51 6
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 30
Average Queue (ft)15 3
95th Queue (ft)38 19
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 26 89 68 74 48 157 72
Average Queue (ft)43 11 42 36 37 16 65 28
95th Queue (ft)70 29 70 58 62 39 117 52
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 163 113 32 49 46
Average Queue (ft)58 25 9 19 12
95th Queue (ft)131 69 29 54 35
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LTR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 35 23
Average Queue (ft)10 10 2
95th Queue (ft)32 34 13
Link Distance (ft)682 328
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 46
Appendix F:
Opening Year (2025) No-Build
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)20.1 10.7 2.4 24.9 11.9 1.8 11.0 8.9 3.1 14.0 17.1 7.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)11.3
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 2.6 2.1 0.2 4.2 4.0 2.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 3.6 2.9 1.6 0.4 0.3 1.3
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.8 0.5 0.4 3.4 0.1 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 9.7 1.6 4.5 10.3 3.3 4.0 8.6 2.4 5.2 8.5 1.8
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.1
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.1 0.2 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9 5.4 2.1 4.7 9.3 4.2 1.8 4.9 1.8 1.8 5.4 1.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 3.9 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 3.7 1.5
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 2.0 5.8 1.9 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.1 1.4
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)15.7
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 34 63 63 35 52 82 92 30 97 68 71
Average Queue (ft)7 8 21 15 2 17 35 41 6 52 22 21
95th Queue (ft)24 24 49 44 17 41 68 80 24 87 57 54
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 76
Average Queue (ft)28 30
95th Queue (ft)62 62
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB
Directions Served L R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 32 44 39
Average Queue (ft)7 16 11
95th Queue (ft)26 32 35
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 23
Average Queue (ft)14 1
95th Queue (ft)37 9
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 23 71 59 56 24 82 46
Average Queue (ft)30 3 30 30 29 9 34 15
95th Queue (ft)47 15 54 48 49 26 60 36
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 48 25 42 31
Average Queue (ft)13 7 2 3 6
95th Queue (ft)37 29 14 21 24
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 26 22
Average Queue (ft)13 6 2
95th Queue (ft)37 23 13
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)42.4 15.2 3.9 47.9 16.2 2.4 34.7 34.0 10.5 27.3 42.3 11.1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)21.8
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)11.3 4.5 4.1 0.4 6.0 5.7 4.1
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.2 3.6 4.2 1.8 0.9 0.6 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 3.6 0.6 0.6 3.3 0.2 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.4 14.1 4.1 9.3 14.4 5.7 7.6 11.3 4.2 12.6 15.0 3.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)10.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.2 0.1 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 13.4 9.3 7.1 11.7 7.2 4.3 7.6 3.2 3.2 6.3 1.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)9.0
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.8 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)7.1 2.3 5.0 3.8 1.5 1.6 0.6 0.1 2.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)26.0
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 112 87 99 127 81 77 112 123 48 235 188 83
Average Queue (ft)49 35 45 51 9 22 49 56 9 115 38 21
95th Queue (ft)97 74 86 105 44 56 95 106 33 197 85 57
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)2
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 168 91
Average Queue (ft)88 31
95th Queue (ft)153 69
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 70 66 23
Average Queue (ft)18 30 27 2
95th Queue (ft)42 57 54 13
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 29
Average Queue (ft)14 2
95th Queue (ft)38 14
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 92 29 89 83 71 63 178 62
Average Queue (ft)48 11 42 38 36 15 76 27
95th Queue (ft)78 29 71 65 59 40 136 47
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 173 97 48 70 40
Average Queue (ft)66 29 10 19 11
95th Queue (ft)143 73 34 56 33
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 26 26 73 4
Average Queue (ft)11 2 7 14 0
95th Queue (ft)35 26 25 46 0
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
47 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Appendix G:
Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios
1-4 SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)23.1 10.2 2.6 27.2 11.9 2.0 12.8 8.0 2.6 14.8 17.9 8.1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)11.5
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 2.5 3.3 1.6 0.3 0.1 6.2 4.8 4.4 2.6
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8 2.6 3.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 0.5 0.2 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 4.1 0.5 0.4 3.6 0.1 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 10.1 2.8 4.1 9.8 3.0 5.4 8.7 2.3 4.9 8.4 1.9
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.0
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.1 0.1 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0 5.6 3.2 5.1 9.4 4.1 1.7 5.1 1.9 2.6 5.2 1.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.9 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 3.9 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)5.4 2.0 5.8 2.2 1.8 1.1 0.4 0.1 1.4
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0 2.2 3.2 0.4 6.9 1.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)15.6
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 60 54 62 23 52 91 90 27 121 81 75
Average Queue (ft)7 10 19 18 1 15 36 43 4 62 19 23
95th Queue (ft)22 32 44 47 12 40 72 82 20 104 55 57
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1713 1713 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 101 85
Average Queue (ft)30 28
95th Queue (ft)69 62
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 36 31 25 37
Average Queue (ft)8 14 9 8 5
95th Queue (ft)26 31 32 26 23
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 40 16 26
Average Queue (ft)15 1 2
95th Queue (ft)39 8 12
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 67 22 67 60 64 24 76 44
Average Queue (ft)33 5 29 29 29 8 32 17
95th Queue (ft)55 19 53 47 48 25 56 37
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 47 50 24 42 26
Average Queue (ft)15 9 2 3 7
95th Queue (ft)39 33 13 21 24
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 35 26 29
Average Queue (ft)11 3 3
95th Queue (ft)35 17 17
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement WB NB
Directions Served L LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 21 27
Average Queue (ft)2 6
95th Queue (ft)15 23
Link Distance (ft)530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)44.2 18.2 4.4 52.1 17.9 2.6 35.5 29.5 8.1 29.6 46.9 10.7
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)23.4
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)17.3 5.2 14.6 7.3 4.2 0.7 10.9 6.6 5.8 5.0
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)12.5 4.3 8.7 7.0 5.0 1.8 1.8 6.4 1.1 0.8 1.8
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 3.7 0.7 0.6 3.3 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6 14.3 3.9 9.2 14.3 5.8 8.2 11.7 4.6 14.0 16.7 4.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)11.1
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.5 0.7 3.0 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 13.9 10.4 6.7 11.5 6.5 4.0 7.8 3.5 3.3 6.1 1.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)9.0
SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.5 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)7.7 2.3 8.1 4.0 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.1 2.2
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 2.6 0.6 9.8 6.2 1.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)27.4
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 90 120 124 114 76 123 117 39 258 151 76
Average Queue (ft)49 37 52 55 16 23 56 62 8 131 36 18
95th Queue (ft)98 76 101 105 66 60 105 110 29 218 92 52
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1713 1713 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)2
Queuing Penalty (veh)2
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 227 91
Average Queue (ft)103 30
95th Queue (ft)190 65
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 77 57 62 48 17
Average Queue (ft)19 31 20 22 5 1
95th Queue (ft)49 57 49 49 27 8
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 48 27 32
Average Queue (ft)14 20 3 2
95th Queue (ft)37 46 18 14
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 97 26 87 86 73 45 213 76
Average Queue (ft)49 11 44 39 36 16 82 30
95th Queue (ft)80 28 71 65 61 37 160 56
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 189 106 40 65 36
Average Queue (ft)74 30 11 21 12
95th Queue (ft)153 72 32 59 34
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Scenarios 1-3 Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LT LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 26 59
Average Queue (ft)14 7 15
95th Queue (ft)41 26 46
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement WB NB
Directions Served T LR
Maximum Queue (ft)4 27
Average Queue (ft)0 12
95th Queue (ft)3 30
Link Distance (ft)2413 530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 48
Appendix H:
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)25.6 17.0 3.1 31.8 22.3 3.1 17.0 12.7 5.2 16.6 19.9 15.7
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.7
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)9.1 3.1 2.8 0.4 4.4 4.4 2.7
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)7.8 2.9 3.2 1.7 0.5 0.4 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 4.1 0.5 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.0 11.7 3.2 5.5 10.6 4.0 5.7 9.3 3.1 6.4 9.6 2.3
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)7.0
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 6.7 4.1 5.7 10.4 5.3 2.8 6.3 2.1 3.4 6.3 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.3 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 3.9 7.1 3.2 1.9 1.5 0.9 0.2 2.4
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)21.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 66 90 105 40 64 136 131 32 171 99 100
Average Queue (ft)27 26 29 31 3 24 66 66 10 73 31 32
95th Queue (ft)60 57 64 74 24 53 109 105 31 134 77 75
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 110 187
Average Queue (ft)42 69
95th Queue (ft)84 134
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 40 44 4
Average Queue (ft)9 16 18 0
95th Queue (ft)28 33 45 3
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 18
Average Queue (ft)18 1
95th Queue (ft)45 11
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 23 66 67 65 25 80 48
Average Queue (ft)37 6 33 32 29 12 43 21
95th Queue (ft)62 21 56 53 48 30 71 39
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 54 30 44 40
Average Queue (ft)25 12 4 6 12
95th Queue (ft)58 38 20 30 34
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 175 26 58
Average Queue (ft)13 32 4 14
95th Queue (ft)39 132 18 42
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)41.3 21.7 5.2 47.6 27.9 4.8 33.9 28.3 12.9 28.6 41.0 16.6
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)26.3
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)19.6 6.9 6.9 0.5 6.6 5.9 5.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)47.4 51.1 7.1 2.0 18.6 4.1 11.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.8 0.7 0.8 3.1 0.3 0.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)23.9 26.3 5.3 17.3 21.5 11.7 14.7 19.1 5.8 93.7 92.5 12.5
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)39.1
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.9 0.3 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.5 20.6 14.2 14.4 18.7 14.0 4.6 9.6 4.1 4.1 6.8 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)14.1
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 3.7 14.9 7.5 2.0 1.9 1.3 0.2 3.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)45.3
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 210 156 144 162 107 83 147 149 48 264 195 94
Average Queue (ft)117 83 65 75 24 30 82 83 18 132 67 30
95th Queue (ft)185 138 123 139 76 69 134 133 41 225 140 65
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)3 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 220 158
Average Queue (ft)116 62
95th Queue (ft)193 115
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 104 100 4 22
Average Queue (ft)21 41 41 0 2
95th Queue (ft)45 77 80 0 11
Link Distance (ft)885 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 62 29 344 209
Average Queue (ft)22 6 97 33
95th Queue (ft)63 24 372 200
Link Distance (ft)712 792
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120 200
Storage Blk Time (%)15
Queuing Penalty (veh)7
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 204 40 138 146 142 45 504 373
Average Queue (ft)87 16 65 58 55 18 340 200
95th Queue (ft)170 36 114 109 99 41 615 537
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)8
Queuing Penalty (veh)48
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%)2 0 60
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 94
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 287 287 53 67 32
Average Queue (ft)125 87 15 25 15
95th Queue (ft)239 218 41 64 35
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 47 175 34 134 5
Average Queue (ft)15 19 9 50 0
95th Queue (ft)41 105 29 102 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 153
49 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Appendix I:
Horizon Year (2040) No-Build
Mitigated SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)26.9 16.2 2.9 31.2 21.7 3.0 18.6 14.3 4.9 17.7 20.7 15.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)18.0
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 3.2 2.5 0.4 4.5 4.2 2.7
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 3.4 3.1 1.6 0.5 0.3 1.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.8 0.4 0.4 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 11.4 2.6 5.9 10.3 3.7 6.0 9.7 3.1 5.5 8.6 2.2
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 3.2 0.2 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 6.9 4.0 6.3 11.2 5.8 2.7 5.9 2.0 4.1 6.8 1.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 3.7 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)9.2 6.1 8.2 3.6 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.2 3.2
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)21.7
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 73 74 78 76 44 79 125 128 36 179 100 99
Average Queue (ft)28 31 31 28 2 22 67 68 10 84 30 30
95th Queue (ft)63 63 67 61 20 56 114 109 32 140 74 73
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 198
Average Queue (ft)47 71
95th Queue (ft)98 142
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 45 39 8
Average Queue (ft)9 17 16 0
95th Queue (ft)28 34 40 4
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 24
Average Queue (ft)18 1
95th Queue (ft)41 9
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 24 64 61 71 36 77 71 52
Average Queue (ft)38 6 31 31 31 12 33 28 23
95th Queue (ft)63 21 52 50 56 33 58 52 41
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 92 104 39 43 53
Average Queue (ft)24 20 5 6 13
95th Queue (ft)59 62 23 30 36
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
AM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 133 218 25 53
Average Queue (ft)18 29 4 15
95th Queue (ft)87 154 20 41
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)40.9 21.5 5.1 42.6 28.4 4.5 32.3 29.0 12.4 28.5 41.9 18.2
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)26.4
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)22.5 7.0 5.4 0.5 6.6 6.5 5.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)12.4 4.8 5.0 2.0 1.1 0.7 1.7
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.6 0.7 0.8 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.8 20.9 5.4 15.8 19.9 9.6 12.9 18.6 6.0 16.2 12.9 4.7
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)14.4
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 2.9 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)15.7 19.9 15.6 14.5 19.4 14.4 5.7 9.1 4.2 4.5 6.4 1.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)14.1
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)15.2 5.3 14.7 7.5 1.9 1.8 1.2 0.2 4.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)33.7
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 223 168 151 176 89 85 166 152 59 254 176 78
Average Queue (ft)118 79 66 72 21 28 84 85 20 133 68 29
95th Queue (ft)190 137 125 132 67 66 138 138 48 209 134 65
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 4196 4196 768
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)3 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 219 153
Average Queue (ft)108 69
95th Queue (ft)189 126
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N
Movement EB EB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 68 99 73 22
Average Queue (ft)22 41 34 2
95th Queue (ft)53 76 62 11
Link Distance (ft)885
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 30
Average Queue (ft)15 5
95th Queue (ft)38 23
Link Distance (ft)712
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 162 43 131 132 137 51 148 93 68
Average Queue (ft)74 15 62 54 56 18 71 49 30
95th Queue (ft)130 35 103 93 101 43 124 80 53
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 509
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 305 314 60 76 40
Average Queue (ft)119 86 18 25 14
95th Queue (ft)244 249 47 63 37
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Mitigated Traffic Projections
PM Peak Hour
10/06/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 220 34 98 4
Average Queue (ft)16 42 9 49 0
95th Queue (ft)43 166 28 89 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 50
Appendix J:
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)31.2 20.9 3.3 33.8 24.9 3.6 21.6 17.4 6.5 20.0 24.0 21.1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)21.6
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)9.8 3.4 3.4 2.5 0.5 0.3 6.5 5.4 4.7 3.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.3 3.5 3.2 1.8 1.6 2.7 0.7 0.4 1.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.3 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)7.2 11.1 2.9 4.6 10.9 4.0 6.6 10.0 2.8 5.6 8.2 2.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 3.2 0.3 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.4 7.4 4.1 6.5 11.2 6.7 2.7 6.4 2.2 2.9 6.0 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)7.0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.4 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 8.1 10.5 3.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.1 4.6
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.5 4.4 4.0 3.3 0.8 0.3 24.1 20.6 5.6 4.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)25.4
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 86 102 112 120 60 86 150 137 35 196 114 100
Average Queue (ft)36 44 53 49 5 29 82 81 10 93 32 32
95th Queue (ft)75 86 93 99 32 67 133 128 31 159 80 73
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 157 232
Average Queue (ft)56 100
95th Queue (ft)113 178
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 50 35 46 34
Average Queue (ft)10 18 8 16 6
95th Queue (ft)29 39 30 37 25
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 15 46
Average Queue (ft)17 1 4
95th Queue (ft)44 6 23
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 23 67 60 71 29 59 74 60
Average Queue (ft)36 6 33 31 32 9 32 29 26
95th Queue (ft)62 21 58 50 56 27 53 55 47
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 86 72 35 45 46
Average Queue (ft)26 19 7 4 11
95th Queue (ft)61 55 27 24 33
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 249 99 49 13
Average Queue (ft)16 56 36 16 0
95th Queue (ft)61 195 68 41 6
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 24 13 31 99
Average Queue (ft)27 2 0 8 35
95th Queue (ft)58 13 4 26 69
Link Distance (ft)530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)47.1 29.3 7.0 47.0 36.7 7.3 39.4 27.2 15.4 29.5 45.7 25.1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)32.6
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)27.3 7.4 24.0 8.2 5.9 0.7 12.2 7.3 7.0 6.0
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)18.4 5.9 17.4 8.0 5.5 1.9 1.9 7.5 1.3 1.0 2.1
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 3.6 0.8 0.8 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)24.0 27.7 6.0 16.3 22.4 12.1 18.1 20.0 5.9 19.8 14.5 5.8
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)17.1
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 2.9 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)20.2 24.0 17.9 22.9 27.6 22.8 6.7 9.5 4.4 4.2 8.1 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)19.4
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s)14.8 6.5 19.3 7.6 2.2 2.1 1.4 0.2 5.3
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)10.8 4.1 4.0 1.1 1.3 18.1 9.4 27.0 18.9 7.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)42.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 242 220 227 214 139 90 201 211 49 355 183 75
Average Queue (ft)137 120 120 116 30 39 133 138 19 168 65 27
95th Queue (ft)221 191 194 190 97 79 194 197 45 284 131 60
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 8 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 11 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 252 237
Average Queue (ft)135 109
95th Queue (ft)218 203
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 103 55 84 52 29
Average Queue (ft)23 42 19 34 7 2
95th Queue (ft)54 78 49 62 33 14
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 49 52 28 37
Average Queue (ft)18 21 4 2
95th Queue (ft)44 48 21 15
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 218 50 151 157 148 51 169 128 87
Average Queue (ft)92 16 68 62 55 18 80 54 41
95th Queue (ft)170 38 123 117 104 39 143 96 73
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 364 474 55 68 60
Average Queue (ft)147 149 21 31 17
95th Queue (ft)303 374 46 67 45
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 1
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 263 95 119 4
Average Queue (ft)14 45 36 48 0
95th Queue (ft)41 182 73 99 4
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T T T T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 117 6 9 23 30 17 39 245
Average Queue (ft)47 0 0 2 4 1 15 95
95th Queue (ft)97 5 5 12 18 7 35 188
Link Distance (ft)1718 1718 2408 2408 530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 12
51 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Appendix K:
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)29.2 19.5 3.1 35.4 23.9 4.0 21.1 16.5 4.5 18.8 23.3 21.7
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)21.1
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 4.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)8.4 3.0 3.3 2.7 0.4 0.4 6.4 5.3 4.7 3.2
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 3.5 4.3 1.7 1.3 2.4 0.7 0.4 1.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 4.1 0.5 0.4 3.5 0.3 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 11.2 2.4 4.9 10.5 3.9 5.8 9.5 2.9 5.2 7.9 2.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.5
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.4 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.2 8.0 5.5 6.3 11.2 6.8 2.5 5.6 2.2 3.7 6.7 1.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)7.2
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 3.4 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)9.4 8.1 11.2 3.9 1.9 1.3 1.1 0.2 4.6
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 4.3 3.3 2.1 0.8 0.4 15.0 18.7 6.0 3.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)24.8
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 94 90 109 110 51 78 160 163 34 197 111 110
Average Queue (ft)36 36 49 44 5 25 82 81 10 88 32 35
95th Queue (ft)77 72 97 89 30 63 137 132 31 152 79 82
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 152 276
Average Queue (ft)55 99
95th Queue (ft)111 194
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 39 36 49 38
Average Queue (ft)8 17 9 15 5
95th Queue (ft)26 33 31 39 24
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 21 31
Average Queue (ft)18 1 3
95th Queue (ft)44 11 18
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 63 23 72 62 62 29 69 57 56
Average Queue (ft)35 6 34 32 31 11 31 27 26
95th Queue (ft)55 21 57 54 53 30 54 50 48
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 127 67 26 45 46
Average Queue (ft)34 20 5 6 11
95th Queue (ft)87 53 20 30 34
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 270 77 62
Average Queue (ft)16 54 33 18
95th Queue (ft)41 202 62 48
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 24 4 35 90
Average Queue (ft)25 1 0 8 36
95th Queue (ft)59 10 3 27 73
Link Distance (ft)530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)48.0 29.2 6.6 50.4 38.6 8.4 38.8 33.4 14.7 27.7 46.3 24.8
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)33.0
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)22.4 7.7 17.5 8.0 6.0 0.7 12.1 7.4 7.0 5.8
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)20.5 5.8 15.1 7.7 6.3 2.0 1.8 5.9 1.2 0.9 2.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.5 0.8 0.7 3.1 0.4 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)24.8 28.8 5.7 15.8 22.3 11.2 15.7 19.4 6.4 20.0 13.4 5.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 2.9 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)40.4 45.9 43.5 37.2 40.6 40.0 6.1 10.3 4.2 5.2 7.2 1.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)32.5
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.6 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 6.5 18.7 8.0 2.1 2.3 1.5 0.3 5.3
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 11.8 14.2 2.7
Total Del/Veh (s)11.8 4.1 3.6 1.2 1.4 20.7 9.3 61.0 48.8 14.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.1
Total Del/Veh (s)50.0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 264 256 226 221 122 111 236 227 58 302 192 84
Average Queue (ft)137 124 124 124 32 40 150 153 19 164 77 28
95th Queue (ft)223 205 207 206 87 82 219 219 45 267 154 65
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 9 1
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 264 203
Average Queue (ft)133 105
95th Queue (ft)235 174
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 110 59 81 51 18
Average Queue (ft)24 47 23 33 5 2
95th Queue (ft)50 88 50 64 29 12
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 57 27 26
Average Queue (ft)17 18 4 1
95th Queue (ft)39 47 21 12
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 213 40 149 143 123 54 172 101 84
Average Queue (ft)97 14 66 59 56 17 81 48 38
95th Queue (ft)191 35 118 108 101 41 149 81 67
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 579 636 60 65 55
Average Queue (ft)272 256 22 30 17
95th Queue (ft)550 572 49 65 42
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 286 90 121 5
Average Queue (ft)15 50 34 51 0
95th Queue (ft)43 193 68 105 4
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T T T T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 141 16 5 21 21 28 44 296
Average Queue (ft)57 1 0 2 2 2 14 187
95th Queue (ft)109 9 4 11 13 14 35 334
Link Distance (ft)1718 1718 2408 2408 530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)27
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 13
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 52
Appendix L:
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2
Mitigated SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)48.8 28.5 6.4 49.7 39.6 8.1 46.8 31.2 19.4 29.6 44.6 28.4
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)34.6
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)29.2 7.9 18.5 7.8 6.2 0.8 11.7 7.1 6.9 6.1
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.5 5.9 15.0 8.1 5.5 2.0 2.0 5.5 1.2 0.9 2.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.4 3.5 0.8 0.7 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)25.5 28.9 5.8 17.2 22.3 11.5 16.0 21.2 6.2 20.4 12.9 5.5
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)17.3
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.7 2.9 0.3 0.3 3.9
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5 8.9 4.2 6.8 9.6 3.3 7.5 10.9 4.3 4.5 7.6 1.9
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)7.4
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s)19.5 6.5 17.2 7.8 2.3 2.2 1.4 0.2 5.3
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)10.0 3.6 2.9 1.4 1.5 18.1 9.7 24.7 9.1 6.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)38.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 257 228 228 216 137 113 244 272 57 322 358 98
Average Queue (ft)145 125 118 119 29 43 154 158 19 180 104 31
95th Queue (ft)230 200 191 190 92 89 226 239 44 319 292 73
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1707 1707 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 1 12 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 18 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 238 276
Average Queue (ft)122 118
95th Queue (ft)211 227
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 88 105 48 76 62 21
Average Queue (ft)27 44 22 35 7 1
95th Queue (ft)62 80 48 64 33 9
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 40 41 29 21
Average Queue (ft)15 16 4 2
95th Queue (ft)37 42 21 14
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 234 42 158 130 147 51 196 90 91
Average Queue (ft)96 16 66 62 59 19 81 49 39
95th Queue (ft)198 35 121 108 109 41 155 79 69
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT TR LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 88 15 94 15 70 59 51 20
Average Queue (ft)36 1 28 1 24 24 17 1
95th Queue (ft)71 9 68 9 54 61 41 10
Link Distance (ft)908 908 2668 2668 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
PM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 235 98 130 5 4
Average Queue (ft)15 48 33 47 0 0
95th Queue (ft)45 185 69 102 4 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T T T R LTR LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 109 12 23 30 17 49 140 106
Average Queue (ft)42 1 2 3 1 15 55 47
95th Queue (ft)87 6 13 18 7 39 112 79
Link Distance (ft)1707 2408 2408 530 556 556
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 24
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)29.8 21.2 3.3 34.7 24.5 3.7 21.6 19.5 5.6 20.3 22.5 18.6
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)20.8
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)11.6 3.2 3.9 2.6 0.5 0.2 6.8 5.3 4.7 3.3
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.1 3.0 3.4 1.8 1.9 2.3 0.8 0.3 1.6
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.8 0.5 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 11.7 3.0 5.4 11.2 4.1 6.7 9.8 2.8 5.5 8.4 2.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.9
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 5.1 1.9 4.7 8.0 2.6 2.8 6.9 2.2 3.6 5.7 1.9
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 3.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 3.7 1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 5.6 9.9 3.8 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.1 3.8
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 4.1 3.6 2.9 0.8 0.3 19.5 19.6 3.8 3.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)23.4
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 88 148 130 49 86 149 162 37 188 124 87
Average Queue (ft)36 41 50 45 5 30 84 82 8 87 36 30
95th Queue (ft)75 82 103 96 29 66 143 137 28 151 90 71
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1707 1707 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 118 225
Average Queue (ft)52 95
95th Queue (ft)101 172
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 44 36 50 38
Average Queue (ft)11 17 9 16 5
95th Queue (ft)33 34 33 39 24
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 66 27 45
Average Queue (ft)20 2 4
95th Queue (ft)48 12 25
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 70 25 70 77 74 24 64 70 48
Average Queue (ft)35 6 30 32 34 10 32 29 24
95th Queue (ft)57 21 55 55 60 28 51 53 43
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT LT R LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 41 4 48 27 37 44 22
Average Queue (ft)11 0 11 6 4 11 2
95th Queue (ft)32 2 32 22 24 33 14
Link Distance (ft)908 908 2668 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 with Mitigation
AM Peak Hour
11/20/2021 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 224 80 60 4
Average Queue (ft)15 34 34 16 0
95th Queue (ft)41 151 66 44 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 84 20 8 26 60 56
Average Queue (ft)19 1 0 6 23 23
95th Queue (ft)50 11 4 23 52 44
Link Distance (ft)530 556 556
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
53 NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022
Appendix M:
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)29.5 19.5 3.2 32.1 25.2 3.0 19.8 15.1 5.6 19.1 22.2 17.7
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)20.0
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 3.1 3.5 2.4 0.4 0.3 5.9 5.1 5.3 3.1
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 3.3 3.8 1.7 1.6 2.3 0.8 0.3 1.5
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.4 0.4 3.5 0.3 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8 11.2 3.0 5.2 11.1 3.9 6.6 9.8 2.8 5.5 8.3 2.4
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.5 0.3 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.2 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 8.0 4.6 6.5 11.0 6.0 2.5 6.1 2.2 3.6 6.5 1.8
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)7.0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 3.2 1.5
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 3.9 8.7 3.9 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.2 2.7
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 4.4 3.3 1.4 0.8 0.4 18.0 21.7 7.8 4.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)23.5
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft)89 89 115 109 56 86 158 156 31 192 116 103
Average Queue (ft)34 37 48 47 4 28 76 79 9 88 32 32
95th Queue (ft)72 75 92 94 27 65 127 129 30 147 80 76
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 136 204
Average Queue (ft)51 83
95th Queue (ft)98 150
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft)33 57 36 45 49 4
Average Queue (ft)10 18 9 14 6 0
95th Queue (ft)30 39 33 36 29 5
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft)40 16 31
Average Queue (ft)16 1 3
95th Queue (ft)41 9 17
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft)74 24 68 66 80 29 67 83 66
Average Queue (ft)39 6 35 33 33 11 33 30 25
95th Queue (ft)64 21 58 53 61 29 55 57 48
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft)90 85 29 41 45
Average Queue (ft)30 19 6 5 12
95th Queue (ft)71 56 23 27 36
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft)35 166 55 64
Average Queue (ft)16 29 18 17
95th Queue (ft)41 124 43 46
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T L T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)86 5 10 10 12 43 95
Average Queue (ft)27 0 1 0 1 11 31
95th Queue (ft)63 3 7 5 6 33 67
Link Distance (ft)1718 2408 530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)43.5 27.5 6.0 43.8 36.1 8.5 38.5 34.4 16.9 28.7 46.3 23.5
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)31.4
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)23.4 7.2 16.4 7.9 5.4 0.7 11.3 7.3 6.4 5.7
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 6.4 16.1 8.1 5.6 1.9 1.6 7.8 1.2 1.0 2.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 3.6 0.7 0.8 3.2 0.3 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.6 21.1 4.9 14.2 19.7 9.1 11.2 16.1 6.0 15.7 12.9 5.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)13.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 2.9 0.1 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)25.4 28.6 25.4 21.2 26.1 20.7 6.4 10.0 4.4 3.8 7.3 1.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)20.2
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 3.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 7.0 17.6 7.6 2.1 1.9 1.4 0.2 5.3
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 3.8 2.8 1.0 1.0 17.3 10.3 28.8 18.4 6.8
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3
Total Del/Veh (s)40.4
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 223 201 190 200 105 94 210 210 60 312 263 79
Average Queue (ft)131 103 105 107 26 41 130 134 21 167 80 31
95th Queue (ft)199 171 170 173 77 80 191 193 49 277 180 67
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 6 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 8 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 245 208
Average Queue (ft)123 95
95th Queue (ft)209 170
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft)70 88 56 85 57 28
Average Queue (ft)24 41 22 30 6 2
95th Queue (ft)54 72 49 58 32 13
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft)48 52 28 22 4
Average Queue (ft)17 20 5 1 0
95th Queue (ft)41 48 21 11 3
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 170 37 137 120 99 52 154 96 72
Average Queue (ft)75 13 62 53 47 19 72 47 33
95th Queue (ft)133 32 109 91 80 44 131 79 57
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 442 406 61 64 44
Average Queue (ft)169 139 22 33 16
95th Queue (ft)370 328 47 67 37
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 3
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N/Site Access 4
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft)44 246 76 127
Average Queue (ft)17 50 27 50
95th Queue (ft)43 195 58 104
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T T T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)84 5 16 30 9 43 218
Average Queue (ft)39 0 1 2 0 15 95
95th Queue (ft)72 4 9 17 5 36 180
Link Distance (ft)1718 2408 2408 530 262
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 9
NorthPoint Industrial Park – Lake Elmo, MN │Traffic Analysis January 2022 54
Appendix N:
Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)24.9 16.5 3.1 35.3 21.1 2.8 17.5 13.5 4.4 17.6 20.4 15.6
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.3
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 3.0 4.0 2.6 0.5 0.2 6.4 5.3 5.0 3.2
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 3.0 4.0 1.7 1.7 2.3 0.6 0.5 1.5
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 3.7 0.4 0.4 3.4 0.2 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 11.4 2.5 5.4 10.4 4.0 5.6 9.3 2.8 5.2 8.5 2.2
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.3 0.3 4.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 6.9 4.9 5.5 10.4 6.1 1.6 5.0 2.0 2.7 5.7 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 3.6 1.6
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6 4.2 8.0 3.3 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.2 2.6
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 2.8 2.9 0.4 10.9 2.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)20.8
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 67 90 90 36 60 122 120 33 182 103 95
Average Queue (ft)28 23 34 33 2 21 63 65 11 79 28 30
95th Queue (ft)60 54 74 72 19 51 104 106 32 140 70 73
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 139 190
Average Queue (ft)46 71
95th Queue (ft)98 136
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 33 41 35 53 43
Average Queue (ft)10 17 9 14 6
95th Queue (ft)30 34 32 37 28
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 21 37
Average Queue (ft)16 1 3
95th Queue (ft)39 9 19
Link Distance (ft)712 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 23 66 77 67 24 59 63 61
Average Queue (ft)38 6 31 35 32 10 31 28 21
95th Queue (ft)65 22 52 57 53 28 50 51 44
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 83 60 25 48 43
Average Queue (ft)26 12 4 7 9
95th Queue (ft)64 42 17 31 30
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
AM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB
Directions Served LT R LT L
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 207 30 48
Average Queue (ft)15 20 8 13
95th Queue (ft)40 134 28 37
Link Distance (ft)684 315
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement WB NB
Directions Served L LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 26
Average Queue (ft)2 7
95th Queue (ft)13 25
Link Distance (ft)530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)42.7 23.8 6.1 48.9 30.1 4.3 39.0 29.1 14.0 30.2 45.8 19.2
1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)28.8
2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)20.2 7.1 20.6 9.2 5.5 0.7 10.9 7.1 6.7 5.6
3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.9 5.0 14.6 9.2 5.2 1.9 1.6 6.8 1.2 0.7 2.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 3.7 0.7 0.8 3.1 0.2 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 20.5 5.2 12.4 19.4 9.2 14.9 17.7 5.7 16.6 12.4 5.0
4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)13.9
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N 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 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 3.0 0.2 0.2 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s)16.9 20.7 18.1 12.4 17.4 10.9 5.6 9.1 4.1 4.1 7.1 1.7
5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)13.7
SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.7 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.6 5.3 16.0 8.1 2.0 1.6 1.4 0.2 4.6
7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.1 2.9 0.8 10.0 7.1 2.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)35.2
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T T R L T T R L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 239 201 140 145 148 91 163 154 60 305 210 88
Average Queue (ft)131 90 70 77 33 29 86 88 19 167 70 31
95th Queue (ft)210 163 124 131 103 69 136 138 47 275 142 71
Link Distance (ft)3570 3570 1718 1718 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)400 400 275 225 250 200 275
Storage Blk Time (%)7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)9 0
Intersection: 1: Ideal Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 238 179
Average Queue (ft)126 76
95th Queue (ft)208 143
Link Distance (ft)1252 1252
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 2: Ideal Avenue N & 32nd Avenue N/Site Access 2
Movement EB EB WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LTR L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 111 66 78 44 22
Average Queue (ft)24 42 25 33 5 2
95th Queue (ft)49 83 56 61 26 12
Link Distance (ft)886 296 774
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)160 175 275
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection: 3: Ideal Avenue N & 31st Street N/Site Access 3
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 44 48 28 33
Average Queue (ft)16 20 5 2
95th Queue (ft)38 46 22 14
Link Distance (ft)712 317 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)120
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Ideal Avenue N & Stillwater Boulevard N
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R LT R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 159 48 124 127 120 50 176 97 70
Average Queue (ft)72 16 59 55 52 18 73 49 32
95th Queue (ft)131 37 101 98 95 40 136 80 58
Link Distance (ft)1000 1456 1259 503
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)225 225 225 200 225
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Intersection: 5: Stillwater Boulevard N/Jamaca Avenue N & 34th Street N
Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LT R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 297 267 50 50 50
Average Queue (ft)119 74 17 25 15
95th Queue (ft)245 212 43 61 39
Link Distance (ft)908 2662 1828 1170
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Scenario 4
PM Peak Hour
01/25/2022 SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection: 6: Ideal Avenue N & 36th Street N
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LT R LT L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 230 51 154 4
Average Queue (ft)15 41 11 58 0
95th Queue (ft)42 162 35 120 3
Link Distance (ft)684 315 1010
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)350 265
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Site Access 1 & 34th Street N
Movement NB
Directions Served LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34
Average Queue (ft)13
95th Queue (ft)32
Link Distance (ft)530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 10
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix D
Oakdale Sewer Service Agreement
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix E
Responses to Agency and Public Comments
1. Introduction
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 5c, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) shall revise the environmental analysis
document based on comments received during the comment period. The RGU shall include in the document a section specifically
responding to each timely, substantive comment received that indicates in what way the comment has been addressed.
The 30-day Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) comment period began February 1, 2022, and comments were accepted through
March 3, 2022. Five comment letters were received from government agencies and eight comment letters from the public. Responses to
those comments are included in the following sections, and copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix F.
2. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
Comment Response
Historic Properties (Item 14)
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no
properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or
suspected archaeological properties located in the area will be affected by this project.
Comment noted.
3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Comment Response
Land Use (Item 9)
Page 16, Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Please note that the reconstruction of
the sanitary sewer lift station will need a separate DNR Water Appropriation Permit if
the dewatering for the reconstruction will exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one million
gallons per year. The DNR Permit Application should be submitted electronically using
the Minnesota Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) website at:
https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login
Comment noted. A DNR Water Appropriation
Permit will be applied for, if necessary.
Page 17, Water Supply Plan. We appreciate that the development of this area has been
reflected in Part 1 of the City of Lake Elmo Water Supply Plan. Comment noted.
Comment Response
Water Resources (Item 11)
Page 32, Wastewater. If Scenario 4 is ultimately selected and the use of Subsurface
Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) becomes necessary, please be aware that
groundwater mounding can occur beneath septic system drain fields and poses a risk
similar to infiltration basins within areas prone to surface karst feature development.
Comment noted.
Page 33, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that stormwater features be used to
irrigate landscaping in the AUAR area as a means to reduce groundwater use, especially
in an area with known groundwater contamination. For example, please refer to the
Cities of Hugo, Medina, and Minnetrista, all of which successfully reuse stormwater for
irrigation purposes. Please note that the use of stormwater from constructed
stormwater features does not require a DNR Water Appropriation Permit.
Comment noted. Water reuse to irrigate lawn
and landscaping features will be considered for
future development in the area.
Page 33, Stormwater. We recommend that the proposed developments use native seed
mixes and plants in stormwater features and landscaping in order to provide pollinator
habitat. This is especially important since the federally endangered Rusty-patched
Bumble Bee has been documented within the vicinity of the project area. The Board of
Soil and Water Resources’ website contains many great resources for choosing seed
mixes and establishing native plants.
Comment noted. The project proposers will be
encouraged to use native seed mixes and plants
to promote pollinator habitat within the
landscaped areas.
Comment Response
Page 33, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the
amount of road salt used in the project rea. Chloride released into local lakes and
streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially
reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local
business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road
applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and
resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have
attended the Smart Salting training – both from cities and counties and from private
companies – have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their
organizations.
We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the
Statewide Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the
overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a
sample ordinance regarding chloride use.
The developer will look for methods to minimize
chloride use and improve treatment of
stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts
to downstream waters. The project will comply
with all city, watershed district, county, and state
rules for stormwater management, and chloride
use will be addressed in the Stormwater
Management Plan that will be reviewed by the
City for compliance.
Page 34, Water Appropriation. Please note that the details of the future of the water
supply system for the City of Lake Elmo will be subject to the decisions of the Ramsey
County Court and the State Legislature concerning the White Bear Lake Court Decision.
Comment noted.
Page 37, Stormwater. Because the project area is located in an area prone to surface
karst feature development, we urge caution regarding the use of infiltration basins. If
infiltration basins are found to be suitable, we recommend verifying infiltration design
rates by performing an infiltration test at each location prior to construction of the
stormwater feature in order to reduce the chance of infiltration basin failure. We
appreciate that the construction of infiltration basins will only take place on dry soils
and that measures will be taken to preserve soil structure and reduce compaction.
Comment noted.
Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Item 13)
Comment Response
Page 46, Rare Features. The DNR concurs that impacts to rare features are unlikely to
occur as a result of this project. While impacts to rare features are not anticipated, there
is the potential to retain wildlife habitat and reduce fragmentation and loss of habitat
by retaining existing groups of trees and wetlands. Opportunities include: the small
group of trees on the eastern side of the property that are proposed to be incorporated
into a park, the rectangular small chunk of forest on the northwest side of the project
area, the small groupings of trees on the south side of 34th Street N along the eastern
part of the property (especially nearest to the pond), and the small, younger patch of
woods in the northeast corner of the property.
In the metro area, retaining forest, even the small and isolated remnants on the
landscape, is especially important for wildlife habitat, clean water, and for the
recreation/aesthetic values to the residents of Lake Elmo. We encourage the City to
learn more about the DNR’s School Forest Program, which provides and opportunity to
use some of the retained forest as an outdoor classroom in one or more of its schools.
Comment noted.
Page 49, Rare Features. We appreciate that the development will use native seed mixes
and plants in landscaping and encourage the City to utilize native plantings to the
greatest degree possible.
Comment noted.
Air (Item 16)
Page 51, Dust and Odors. Should water for dust control be taken from a lake, wetland,
river, or stream in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons of water in a single day, then a
DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be needed for the taking of water. Please do not
use products containing chloride for dust control in areas that drain to Public Waters.
Comment noted. A DNR Water Appropriation
Permit will be applied for, if necessary. Products
containing chloride will not be used in areas that
drain to Public Waters.
4. Metropolitan Council
Comment Response
Project Description (Item 6)
Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1119). The AUAR states that of the 190-acre study
area, 110 acres lie to the north of 34th Street North. This area is not within the current
2030 MUSA and therefore, not available for extension of wastewater service through the
Metropolitan Disposal System.
The AUAR refers to an intercommunity wastewater flow agreement with the City of
Oakdale for full development of the AUAR to be served with regional sanitary sewer
through Oakdale. A copy of the intercommunity wastewater flow agreement should be
included in the AUAR.
Comment noted. A copy of the intercommunity
wastewater flow agreement will be included in
the final AUAR.
Comment Response
Forecasts (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322). The AUAR discusses four development
scenarios:
• Scenario 1 includes 1.8 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly
business park) and 400 apartments in mixed use development.
• Scenario 2 includes 1.7 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly
business park), 210 apartments in mixed use development, and 180 units in low-
and medium density residential.
• Scenario 3 includes 2.3 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly
business park) and 56 houses in low-density residential.
• Scenario 4, consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, includes 1.1 million
square feet of nonresidential space (business park) on the southern half, and 10
houses, rural residential, on the northern half.
The AUAR study site is part of the Transportation Analysis Zone #2351 (north of 34th
Avenue) and TAZ #2389 (south of 34th Avenue). TAZ allocations for 2040 have been
prepared by the City and were updated following a 2021 plan amendment for the
southern portion of the subject site. The TAZ allocation describes:
• TAZ #2351 will grow by +4 households and will have zero employment during
2020-2040.
• TAZ #2389 will lose -96 households and -310 population; and will grow by +800
jobs during 2020-2040.
Should the City pursue scenarios 1, 2, or 3, Lake Elmo would need to request MUSA
extension and amend its comprehensive plan. The Metropolitan Council would also
expect a households, population, and employment forecast increase; and revised
forecast allocations for Transportation Analysis Zones #2351 and #2389. (None of this is
needed for Scenario 4).
Comment noted. If the City pursues Scenarios 1,
2, or 3, a MUSA extension and adjustments to
forecasts will be requested, and the City will
amend its comprehensive plan.
Comment Response
Land Use (Jake Reilly, 651-602-1822). As stated in the AUAR, scenarios 1 through 3 are
not consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In order to pursue those
scenarios, the City would need to submit an amendment to the City’s Land Use Plan
along with a request for a MUSA extension and adjustments (increases) to forecasts. A
Master Plan for the AUAR study area was completed by the City in 2020. Development
Scenarios 2 and 3 propose land use changes to the area, including increased density of
residential uses. Because the City of Cottage Grove is a Suburban Edge community as
described in Thrive MSP 2040, residential densities for new development and
redevelopment must be built at a minimum of three units per acre.
Comment noted. If the City pursues Scenarios 1,
2, or 3, the City will submit an amendment to the
Land Use Plan and a request for a MUSA
extension and adjustments to forecasts.
Natural Resources (Eric Wojchik, 651-602-1330). The development layout in Scenario 2
represents a more compact, efficient use of land and infrastructure, with a mix of uses,
therefore preserving areas of open space for wildlife habitat and recreation. The three
other scenarios would likely create higher VMT and emissions due to reduced traffic
connectivity and less efficient use of the land. These environmental and infrastructure
considerations should be taken into account in determining the appropriate
development scenario.
Comment noted.
Comment Response
Transit (Stephanie Baisden, 612-349-7361). No bus stops are located within walking
distance of any residential land uses proposed within the various development
scenarios and the AUAR does not include enough information to identify if pedestrian
facilities are proposed within the development. Additional sidewalks should be
considered, as well as providing sidewalks within the proposed development site to
facilitate safe pedestrian access. Right-of-way should be set aside for the eventual
construction of sidewalks if they are not planned to be constructed with the proposed
development.
Long-term, the METRO Gold Line is planned to offer all-day transit service between
downtown Saint Paul and Woodbury; 3.5 miles south at the Helmo Avenue Station.
Additional expansion of the transit system will be considered by means of connecting
local bus routes within Lake Elmo to the METRO Gold Line.
Given the current and planned transit investments in the area and the lower residential
density that exists in this area now, this draft AUAR may have a marginal impact on the
existing transit network depending on which development scenario is chosen (but not
enough to warrant implementation of new transit service). This draft AUAR should not
expect additional expansion of the existing transit network.
Comment noted. As redevelopment proposals
come forth for the northern half of the AUAR
study area, pedestrian and bicycle facilities will
be considered in relation to future development
and transit considerations. The City and Project
Proposers will coordinate transit options with
Met Council as development progresses in the
area.
Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms (Item 10)
Eric Wojchik, 651-602-1330. Item 10b states that earthwork on the study area south of
34th Street North is anticipated to generally balance and be kept onsite. The proposed
project will require approximately 500,000 total cubic yards of excavation. This section
of the EAW does not include detail or mitigation regarding the steep slopes (12-18%
gradient, with some areas exceeding 18% gradient) on the parcel south of 34th Street,
which drains to the east. The EAW should consider mitigation to avoid or minimize
slope erosion, ensure establishment or retention of stabilizing vegetation, and avoid
placement of structures or land alterations near steep slopes. These measures should
apply to all four development scenarios.
Comment noted. The proposed development
within the study area south of 34th Street N will
require compliance with both the City’s and
Valley Branch Watershed District’s erosion and
sediment control standards.
5. Minnesota Department of Transportation
Comment Response
Transportation (Item 18)
Walking and Biking. Washington County is completing trail connections along CSAH
14/34th St further west under I-694. MnDOT recommends that the development of the
study area considers safe and accessible connections to facilities for people walking and
biking.
Comment noted. As redevelopment proposals
come forth for the northern half of the AUAR
study area, pedestrian and bicycle connections
will be considered and incorporated into site
design.
6. Susan Dunn, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
I wish to make comment regarding future use of the 190 acres of 3M land by the
maintenance building. Scenario #4 is the best. The approved comp plan scenarios.
Please do not put truck terminals etc. on that area.
Thank you for the comment.
7. Ann Bucheck, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
I urge the city council to vote for Development Scenario 4. This land uses includes
agricultural, rural residential, public works, and business park. This scenario is the only
scenario that is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. It protects the
existing neighborhoods from the more intense development patterns contemplated in
the other scenarios. The trip generation forecast is the lowest and will have the least
congestion impact on the affected roads and will be the least costly in terms of
roadways. Although not addressed, water supply to this area may be affected by the
decisions regarding allowance of water supply to any lands within five miles of White
Bear Lake. This area is clearly within the five-mile radius and the need for water supply
is of paramount importance. It is also unfortunate the AUAR does not show the buried
pipelines nor the energy lines that will have an impact on any proposed scenario. The
future land use plan as shown in the comprehensive plan continues to be the best plan
at this time and should not be changed. Please vote for scenario 4.
Thank you for the comment. Private utilities will
be located as development occurs and any
potential conflicts will be identified.
8. Ben and Breanna Pepin, Lake Elmo Residents
Comment Response
We are writing to provide feedback to you on the Cyphers Logistic Park draft AUAR per
direction on the Lake Elmo website. Our preference for this area would be that it
remains as open as possible, which would ideally mean maintaining it as agricultural
land and the public works building. We would prefer there to be no business or
residential development in this space. However, if the only path forward is one of the 4
proposed development plans, we would be in favor of the one that develops this space
the least and maintains the open and green spaces that exist today, which would
appear to be development scenario 4 (agriculture and rural residential).
Please keep us updated if there will be specific meetings/sessions where this land use is
discussed.
Thank you for the comment.
9. Tom Henderson, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
I strongly favor Scenario 1. I was contacted and encouraged to write to you in favor of
Scenario 4. I believe that #4 is not practical… to attempt to develop and maintain this
location as “rural residential” is unrealistic. In my opinion, it should be zoned for
commercial and/or industrial due to proximity to the freeway ramps. Maybe a portion
could be successful as high density residential.
Thank you for the comment.
10. Dan Novak, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
The word “criminal activity” isn’t even mentioned in the AUAR. 1.1-2.2 x 10⁶ ft2 of
business park will bring with it some criminal activity. When I think of what is being
proposed, I want to draw an analogy to a truck stop along an interstate. Only this one
will be off the beaten path.
Thank you for the comment.
The smell of diesel engines is not mentioned. There are residences of 3 sides of the
proposed business park. I feel sorry for the people living on the west side of Ideal Ave.
In addition to the train, they now get to bear the noise, lights, and smell of diesel fumes
the business park will bring.
Thank you for the comment. As stated in Section
16 of the AUAR, none of the intersections in the
AUAR study area exceed the air quality
standards criteria in the state of Minnesota.
The intersection of Inwood and Stillwater Blvd., regarding traffic, isn’t even mentioned
in the AUAR. It looks like they are predicting a 5% increase in traffic volume on Inwood.
I live on the corner of Inwood and Ironwood. Right now, today, I often have to wait
minutes (yes, minutes), to turn onto Inwood and get back onto Ironwood from Inwood.
This proposed business park with 10,000 proposed trips per day, is going to be a traffic
nightmare, especially along Ideal. Traffic lights are going to be needed at both
entrances to Tablyn Park. And, what about Regional Park’s west entrance? I don’t want
any more stop lights and more so, I don’t want to have to pay for them. These are the
types of problems that will emerge AFTER the developers are long gone.
Thank you for the comment. The
Inwood/Ironwood intersection was not studied
in this AUAR as it will not be a major intersection
used by the future developments in the AUAR
study area.
Comment Response
The words “traffic accidents” are not at all addressed in the AUAR. Take a look at the
intersections of Inwood and Minnehaha, Inwood and Stillwater, and all intersections
that open onto Inwood.
Thank you for the comment. The
Inwood/Minnehaha and Inwood/Stillwater
intersections were not studied in this AUAR as
they will not be major intersections used by the
future developments in the AUAR study area.
The AUAR looks at traffic capacity and
operations for future development within a
geographic area and does not typically address
current safety concerns.
The City of Lake Elmo has not been able to meet the water needs of its current
residents. How is it going to meet the needs of this new business park? How about
taking care of the residents first? For myself, I’d love to see Tablyn Park sewered FIRST!
Thank you for the comment. The City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan includes a water supply
plan that planned for serving the AUAR study
area with municipal water.
In August 2021, the City of Lake Elmo entered
into a Cooperative Agreement with the City of
Oakdale to serve the AUAR study area with
regional sanitary sewer system through Oakdale.
Ultimately, the sanitary sewer main is connected
to the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services system which discharges to the Metro
Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul.
I am not in favor of amending the city’s comp plan to accommodate this developer!! I
am in favor of amending the city’s comp plan to keep this developer out! I believe that
a developer serves the purpose of maximizing exploitation of a city and leaving the city
with mitigation costs for decades to come.
Thank you for the comment.
Comment Response
My taxes are up 39.8% this year! We are on fixed incomes! I hope the city council will do
everything in its power to stop this proposed business park. This developer is proposing
to implement this development over an 18-year period. There is no one who can
anticipate all the problems this development will bring. The city will be mitigating
problems this business park brings for decades to come. Increased revenue from more
businesses and homes do not offset the cost of services that will be needed. City
council members, please tell me my city taxes are not going to go up next year and the
next, and the next…
Thank you for the comment.
11. Steve DeLapp, Lake Elmo Resident
Comment Response
I have some comments and a drawing that after 7 years on the Planning Commission, 2
on the Planning Commission, 16 on the Council, 10 years on the County Planning
Commission, and 36 years as a City resident, I am convinced the people living within ½
mile of this land will want and most benefit from the attached draft plan as a first
choice. The earlier proposal for tax exempted, 1 million s.f. warehouse with hundreds of
cars, low paid workers and semis is beyond belief. Who would move to wooded, 1 to 5
acre lots to have a 24 hour a day trucking operation surrounded by an 8 foot high, barb
wire topped chain link fence and intense floodlights anywhere near them. Neither our
voters, our environment, or our taxpayers should be forced to accept something totally
inappropriate for a city once called the Orono of the East Metro by the Minneapolis
Tribune.
Comment Response
Here is my response to your offer to let residents consider development, and the 3M
property directly impacts at least 200 semi-rural households, including mine.
Instead, I am certain that my proposal, an extension of Wildflower Shores real OP
ordinance, is consistent with the long-time values of the City for development above
10th St.
This alternative would have many key advantages over alternative proposals. It would:
1. Be consistent with our desire to maintain our low public service, semi-rural
lifestyle
2. Reduce traffic impacts far below what alternative proposals would impose
3. Provide far more in taxes than the cost of required services from the City
4. Eliminate any need for Met Council sewer extension from Oakdale, which would
be strongly opposed by area voters when the costs and future implications were
made known
5. Provide considerably improved environmental enhancement over current or
alternatively proposed land uses
6. Greatly reduce the noise to existing city residents from train and highway traffic
Thank you for the comment. Scenario 4 is
consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive
Plan, which permits the development of the
parcels south of 34th Street N for Business Park
uses and the parcels north of 34th Street N for
rural residential uses, continued agriculture,
and the public works facility.
7. Put new commercial development in the Old Village, which was planned to
become a viable center with a completely planned downtown, instead of
putting commercial business that typically provides NO BENEFITS to residents.
(If it did, the local taxes on my house, with no city water or sewer and a fine,
rural road, would not have gone up almost 40% last year.)
Thank you for the comment.
Comment Response
8. Allow a few residents to build a house that reflects their interests rather than
the monolithic, solely financial, interests of national tract housing builders.
The development proposal below was superimposed on existing maps from the County
and shows the addition of 110 houses on 172.6 acres, including City and County rights
of way and wetlands, but excluding the intermittent stream and permanent wetlands
adjacent to CSAH 6 that were retained by 3M according to current County maps. 110
houses is about 20 more houses than would have been permitted in our existing
nationally recognized Open Space developments, one of which was awarded First Place
for National Developments with Under 100 Houses by the National Builders
Association. The extra houses were drawn to show an extreme level of development
that would preferably be reduced to be comparable to Wildflower Shores and all other
OP developments and account for wetlands created locally and from additional water
coming from the 1,100 adjacent housing units under construction in Oakdale and
additional associated runoff from a major expansion of CSAH 13B.
Comment Response
Thank you for the comment.
Having been instrumental in the creation of the Open Space Ordinance, and as an
architect, who studied city planning extensively over 23 years on the Planning
Commission and Council and attending many seminars with regional and national
experts, I would be glad to work with the Council – at no cost to our residents – to
further alter and develop this initial concept plan with more accurate delineation of
undevelopable wetlands, the power highline, the gas pipeline, rights of way, and any
other undevelopable land. I have no expectation that this would be a final design. A
rough model of this proposed Open Space development is the design of Prairie Ridge,
right next to Highway 36. With heavy planting by the owner, power lines over the site,
and custom, tasteful housing, I think we can all agree this OP development is one of
many developments worth learning from. The trees planted over 20 years ago by the
owner/developer are impressive and benefit the residents on 56th and 58th Streets to
the south of Prairie Ridge.
Comment Response
The former 3M site may be the largest opportunity for the City residents to provide
what have become rare homesite opportunities, where quality and environmental
sensitivity are joined and which are unavailable in Woodbury, Oakdale and yet provide
easy access to major north-south and east-west highways. They will be highly sought
after. It should be an example for the nation to see.
Thank you for the comment.
Because of the train and County road traffic, it is imperative that future residents be
provided with extensive noise screening from trees and maybe some berming. It will
take some time, but I helped plant the trees on Cty 14 provided by the State and they
are doing a great job of visual screening but need more trees to be a better noise
barrier.
Thank you for the comment. Any future
development of the AUAR study area will be
required to comply with the Lake Elmo Code of
Ordinances, which regulates mechanical noise
associated with building operation by the
standards set by the state of Minnesota and
Washington County.
Currently, both former 3M parcels are an environmental wasteland for both adjacent
residents and wildlife, which is soon to lose hundreds of acres of seasonal hunting
grounds across Ideal Ave in Oakdale where most of us know the “resident” red-tailed
hawk and where I observed a Sandhill Crane a couple years ago.
Thank you for the comment.
This proposal is a win-win for the city budget, for new residents looking for a less dense
development and our greatly threatened remaining environment. As a bonus, the new
tree cover will greatly reduce the incessant highway and train noise that row crops and
wither snow cover barely muffle.
Thanks. I hope this helps in rejuvenating our City. Becoming “North Woodbury” or a re-
imagined East Oakdale is not our destination.
Thank you for the comment.
12. The Wildflower Shores Homeowners Association Board
Comment Response
We, the Board, represent the 25 homes of the Wildflower Shores development
immediately east of the property on the north side of Hwy 14 and east of Ideal Ave. We
love our little corner of Lake Elmo; in particular, the serenity of the area amid the
suburbs, the greenery and the exceptionally low light pollution in our corner of the city
comes to mind. We would like to maintain as much of that as possible.
We realize that development is inevitable on the property but hope that you will
endeavor to incorporate the following into any development option chosen:
To attempt to keep any new development consistent with the housing developments to
both the north and east of the property. Given the 80 acres of business park
development planned for the property south of Hwy 14, we ask that the development
plan is majority residential, lots of trees/greenery, and landscaping.
• To be aware of the difference in land elevation. Wildflower Shores is roughly 30
feet below the property to our west, so any construction will tower over our
neighborhood
• To include a park area on the east side of any development option
• To keep the light pollution to a minimum
• To keep the increase in traffic away from residential areas and traffic noise to a
minimum. Noted on page 57, three of the development options introduce an
additional 10,000 vehicle trips into/out of the area daily
• To limit the entrance/exit to our association to the one existing entrance. This
would eliminate any new traffic into our association and to continue to provide
a safe neighborhood for the young kids to play
Thank you for the comment.
Cyphers Logistic Park AUAR March 2022
Appendix F
Agency and Public Comment Letters
MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287
mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER
March 1, 2022
Molly Just
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Cyphers Logistic Park Draft AUAR
T29 R21 S16 & S21, Lake Elmo, Washington County
SHPO Number: 2022-0774
Dear Molly Just:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Cyphers Logistic Park Draft Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR).
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the
National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties
located in the area that will be affected by this project.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial
assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need
to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by
our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal
agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106.
Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Program Specialist, at
kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project.
Sincerely,
Sarah J. Beimers
Environmental Review Program Manager
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
March 3, 2022
Kristina Handt, City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3880 Laverne Ave N, Suite 100
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Kristina Handt,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Cyphers Logistic Park Draft Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) located within the City of Lake Elmo in Washington County. The DNR respectfully
submits the following comments for your consideration:
1. Page 16, Lake Elmo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Please note that the reconstruction of the
sanitary sewer lift station will need a separate DNR Water Appropriation Permit if the
dewatering for the reconstruction will exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one million gallons per
year. The DNR Permit Application be submitted electronically using the Minnesota Permitting
and Reporting System (MPARS) website at:
https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login
2. Page 17, Water Supply Plan. We appreciate that the development of this area has been
reflected in Part 1 of the City of Lake Elmo Water Supply Plan.
3. Page 32, Wastewater. If Scenario 4 is ultimately selected and the use of Subsurface Sewage
Treatment Systems (SSTS) becomes necessary, please be aware that groundwater mounding
can occur beneath septic system drainfields, and poses a risk similar to infiltration basins within
areas prone to surface karst feature development.
4. Page 33, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that stormwater features be used to irrigate
landscaping in the AUAR area as a means to reduce groundwater use, especially in an area with
known groundwater contamination. For examples, please refer to the Cities of Hugo, Medina,
and Minnetrista, all of which successfully reuse stormwater for irrigation purposes. Please note
that the use of stormwater from constructed stormwater features does not require a DNR
Water Appropriation Permit.
5. Page 33, Stormwater. We recommend that the proposed developments use native seed mixes
and plants in stormwater features and landscaping in order to provide pollinator habitat. This is
especially important since the federally endangered Rusty-patched Bumble Bee has been
documented within the vicinity of the project area. The Board of Soil and Water Resources’
website contains many great resources for choosing seed mixes and establishing native plants.
6. Page 33, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the
amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams
does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels
that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city
participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and
property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter
maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and
counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save
money for their organizations.
We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the Statewide
Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here
are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride
use.
7. Page 34, Water Appropriation. Please note that the details of the future of the water supply
system for the City of Lake Elmo will be subject to the decisions of the Ramsey County Court
and the State Legislature concerning the White Bear Lake Court Decision.
8. Page 37, Stormwater. Because the project area is located in an area prone to surface karst
feature development, we urge caution regarding the use of infiltration basins. If infiltration
basins are found to suitable, we recommend verifying infiltration design rates by performing an
infiltration test at each location prior to construction of the stormwater feature in order to
reduce the chance of infiltration basin failure. We appreciate that construction of infiltration
basins will only take place on dry soils and that measures will be taken to preserve soil structure
and reduce compaction.
9. Page 46, Rare Features. The DNR concurs that impacts to rare features are unlikely to occur as
a result of this project. While impacts to rare features are not anticipated, there is the potential
to retain wildlife habitat and reduce fragmentation and loss of habitat by retaining existing
groups of trees and wetlands. Opportunities include: the small group of trees on the eastern
side of the property that are proposed to be incorporated into a park, the rectangular small
chunk of forest on the northwest side of the project area, the small groupings of trees on the
south side of 34th Street N along the eastern part of the property (especially nearest to the
pond), and the small, younger patch of woods in the northeast corner of the property.
In the metro area, retaining forest, even the small and isolated remnants on the landscape, is
especially important for wildlife habitat, clean water, and for the recreation/aesthetic values to
the residents of Lake Elmo. We encourage the City to learn more about the DNR’s School Forest
Program, which provides an opportunity to use some of the retained forest as an outdoor
classroom in one or more of its schools.
10. Page 19, Rare Features. We appreciate that the development will use native seed mixes and
plants in landscaping and encourage the City to utilize native plantings to the greatest degree
possible.
11. Page 51, Dust and Odors. Should water for dust control be taken from a lake, wetland, river or
stream in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons of water in a single day, then a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit will be needed for the taking of the water. Please do not use products
containing chloride for dust control in areas that drain to Public Waters.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Collins
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us
CC: Christina Hubacek, NorthPoint Development
Equal Opportunity Employer
March 3, 2022 Kristina Handt, City Administrator City of Lake Elmo 3880 Laverne Avenue North, Suite 100 Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: City of Lake Elmo – Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) – Cyphers Logistic
Park Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22724-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 12 Dear Kristina Handt: Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the Cyphers Logistic Park Draft AUAR to determine its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Staff concludes that the Draft AUAR is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff offers the following comments for your consideration:
Item 6, Project Description Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1119) The AUAR states that of the 190-acre study area, 110 acres lie to the north of 34th Street North. This area is not within the current 2030 MUSA and therefore, not available for extension of wastewater service through the Metropolitan Disposal System. The AUAR refers to an intercommunity wastewater flow agreement with the City of Oakdale for full development of the AUAR to be served with regional sanitary sewer through Oakdale. A copy of the intercommunity wastewater flow agreement should be included in the AUAR. Forecasts, (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322) The AUAR discusses four development scenarios:
• Scenario 1 includes 1.8 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly business park) and 400 apartments in mixed use development.
• Scenario 2 includes 1.7 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly business park), 210 apartments in mixed use development, and 180 units in low- and medium density residential.
• Scenario 3 includes 2.3 million square feet of nonresidential space (mostly business park) and 56 houses in low-density residential.
• Scenario 4, consistent with current Comprehensive Plan, includes 1.1 million square feet of nonresidential space (business park) on the southern half, and 10 houses, rural residential, on the northern half. The AUAR study site is part of Transportation Analysis Zone #2351 (north of 34th Avenue) and TAZ #2389 (south of 34th Avenue). TAZ allocations for 2040 have been prepared by the City and were updated following a 2021 plan amendment for the southern portion of the subject site. The TAZ allocation describes:
Page - 2 | March 3, 2022 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
• TAZ #2351 will grow by +4 households and will have zero employment during 2020-2040. • TAZ #2389 will lose -96 households and -310 population; and will grow by +800 jobs during 2020-2040. Should the City pursue scenarios 1, 2, or 3, Lake Elmo would need to request MUSA extension and amend its comprehensive plan. The Metropolitan Council would also expect a households, population and employment forecast increase; and revised forecast allocations for Transportation Analysis Zones #2351 and #2389. (None of this is needed for Scenario 4.) Land Use (Jake Reilly, 651-602-1822): As stated in the AUAR, scenarios 1 through 3 are not consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In order to pursue those scenarios, the City would need to submit an amendment to the City’s Land Use plan along with a request for a MUSA extension and adjustments (increases) to forecasts. A Master Plan for the AUAR study area was completed by the City in 2020. Development Scenarios 2 and 3 propose land use changes to the area, including increased density of residential uses. Because the City of Cottage Grove is a Suburban Edge community as described in Thrive MSP 2040, residential densities for new development and redevelopment must be built at a minimum of three units per acre. Natural Resources (Eric Wojchik, 651-602-1330): The development layout in Scenario 2 represents a more compact, efficient use of land and infrastructure, with a mix of uses, therefore preserving areas of open space for wildlife habitat and recreation. The three other scenarios would likely create higher VMT and emissions due to reduced traffic connectivity and less efficient use of the land. These environmental and infrastructure considerations should be taken into account in determining the appropriate development scenario. Transit (Stephen Baisden, 612-349-7361) No bus stops are located within walking distance of any residential land uses proposed within the various development scenarios and the AUAR does not include enough information to identify if pedestrian facilities are proposed within the development. Additional sidewalks should be considered, as well as providing sidewalks within the proposed development site to facilitate safe pedestrian access. Right-of-way should be set aside for the eventual construction of sidewalks if they are not planned to be constructed with the proposed development. Long-term, the METRO Gold Line is planned to offer all-day transit service between downtown Saint Paul and Woodbury; 3.5 miles south at the Helmo Avenue Station. Additional expansion of the transit system will be considered by means of connecting local bus routes within Lake Elmo to the METRO Gold Line. Given the current and planned transit investments in the area and the lower residential density that exists in this area now, this draft AUAR may have a marginal impact on the existing transit network depending on which development scenario is chosen (but not enough to warrant implementation of new transit service). This draft AUAR should not expect additional expansion of the existing transit network.
Item 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms (Eric Wojchik, 651-602-1330): Item 10b states that earthwork on the study area south of 34th Street North is anticipated to generally balance and be kept onsite. The proposed project will require approximately 500,000 total cubic yards of excavation. This section of the EAW does not include detail or mitigation regarding the steep slopes (12-18% gradient, with some areas exceeding 18% gradient) on the
Page - 3 | March 3, 2022 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
parcel south of 34th Street, which drains to the east. The EAW should consider mitigation to avoid or minimize slope erosion, ensure establishment or retention of stabilizing vegetation, and avoid placement of structures or land alterations near steep slopes. These measures should apply to all four development scenarios. The Council will not take formal action on the Draft AUAR. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Jake Reilly, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1822 or via email at jake.reilly@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely,
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Francisco J. Gonzalez, Metropolitan Council District No.12 Judy Sventek, Water Resources Manager Jake Reilly, Sector Representative/ Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Lake Elmo\Letters\Lake Elmo 2022 Cyphers Logistic Park Draft AUAR 22724-1.docx
Metropolitan District
1500 County Road B-2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
Page 1 of 2
February 16, 2022
Molly Just City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 SUBJECT: Cyphers Logistic Park MnDOT Review #AUAR22-001
Roughly 3/4 of a mile east of I-694 and Hwy 14 in west-central Lake Elmo Control Section: 8286 Lake Elmo, Washington County
Dear Molly Just, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Cyphers Logistic Park Draft alternative urban areawide review (AUAR). Please note that the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) review of this AUAR does not constitute approval of a regional traffic analysis and is not a specific approval for
roadway modifications. As plans are refined, we would like the opportunity to review the updated information. MnDOT has reviewed the submitted documents and has the following comments: Walking and Biking Washington County is completing trail connections along CSAH 14/34th St further west under I-694.
MnDOT recommends that the development of the study area considers safe and accessible connections to facilities for people walking and biking. For questions regarding these comments, contact Jesse Thornsen, Metro Multimodal, at Jesse.Thornsen@state.mn.us or 651-234-7788.
Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of
preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message.
2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s) to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff using the same email above for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded.
Page 2 of 2
You are welcome to contact me at 651 234-7785, or Jake.Schutt@state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely,
Jake Schutt
Principal Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources
Buck Craig, Permits Michael Lynch, Right of Way Ashley Hansen, Traffic Brandi Kastner, Traffic Jason Junge, Transit
Ryan Coddington, Area Engineer Lance Schowalter, Design Mike Samuelson, Ped/Bike Planning
Mackenzie Turner Barger, Multimodal Planning Jesse Thornsen, Ped/Bike Planning Tod Sherman, Planning Cameron Muhic, Planning David Elvin, Planning
David Kratz, Planning Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council Molly Just, City of Lake Elmo
From:djbucheck@comcast.net
To:Molly Just
Subject:Comments on Draft AUAR
Date:Sunday, February 27, 2022 6:22:02 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
I urge the city council to vote for Development Scenario 4. This land uses includesagricultural, rural residential, public works, and business park. This scenario is the
only scenario that is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. It protects the
existing neighborhoods from the more intense development patterns contemplated in
the other scenarios. The trip generation forecast is the lowest and will have the least
congestion impact on the affected roads and will be the least costly in terms ofroadways. Although not addressed, water supply to this area may be affected by the
decisions regarding allowance of water supply to any lands within five miles of White
Bear Lake. This area is clearly within the five-mile radius and the need for water
supply is of paramount importance. It is also unfortunate the AUAR does not show theburied pipelines nor the energy lines that will have an impact on any proposed
scenario. The future land use plan as shown in the comprehensive plan continues to
be the best plan at this time and should not be changed. Please vote for scenario 4.
Ann Bucheck
2301 Legion Avenue N.
Lake Elmo MN 55042
From:Benjamin Pepin
To:Molly Just
Cc:Breanna Pepin
Subject:Cyphers Logistic Park Draft AUAR Feedback
Date:Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:47:59 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hello Ms. Just,
We are writing to provide feedback to you on the Cyphers Logistic Park draft AUAR perdirection on the Lake Elmo website. Our preference for this area would be that it remains asopen as possible, which would ideally mean maintaining it as agricultural land and the publicworks building. We would prefer there to be no business or residential development in thisspace. However, if the only path forward is one of the 4 proposed development plans, wewould be in favor of the one that develops this space the least and maintains the open andgreen spaces that exist today, which would appear to be development scenario 4 (agricultureand rural residential).
Please keep us updated if there will be specific meetings/sessions where this land use isdiscussed.
Thank you,Ben and Breanna Pepin8690 Lake Jane Trl N
From:tomhenderson136@comcast.net
To:Molly Just
Subject:Cyphers Logistic Park
Date:Saturday, February 26, 2022 1:30:54 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
I strongly favor Scenario 1.
Tom Henderson
11070 39th St N. apt 313
Lake Elmo, MN
I was contacted and encouraged to write to you in favor of Scenario 4. I believe
that #4 is not practical…to attempt to develop and maintain this location as
“rural residential” is unrealistic. In my opinion, it should be zoned for
commercial and/or industrial due to proximity to the freeway ramps. Maybe a
portion could be successful as high density residential.
Tom Henderson
From:Steve DeLapp
To:Molly Just
Subject:Revised: Proposal for former 3M land surrounding Public Works.
Date:Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:22:05 AM
Attachments:3M Property Development 3-02--22.jpg
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
REVISED
Steve DeLapp
8468 Lake Jane Trail
777-1001 or 651-999-9940
Molly,
I have some comments and a drawing that after 7 years on the Planning
Commission, 2 on the Planning Commission, 16 on the Council, 10 years on
the County Planning Commission, and 36 years as a City resident, I am
convinced the people living within 1/2 mile of this land will want and most
benefit from the attached draft plan as a first choice. The earlier proposal for
a tax exempted, 1 million s.f. foot warehouse with hundreds of cars, low paid
workers and semi's is beyond belief. Who would move to wooded, 1 to 5 acre
lots to have a 24 hour a day trucking operation surrounded by an 8 foot
high, barb wire topped chain link fence and intense, floodlights anywhere
near them. Neither our voters, our environment or our taxpayers, should be
forced to accept something totally inappropriate for a city once called the
Orono of the East Metro by the Minneapolis Tribune.
To the Lake Elmo City Council:
Here is my response to your offer to let residents consider development, and
the 3M property directly impacts at least 200 semi-rural
households, including mine.
Instead, I am certain that my proposal, an extension of Wildflower
Shores real OP ordinance, is consistent with the long time values of the
City for development above 10th St.
This alternative would have many key advantages over alternative
proposals. It would:
1. be consistent with our desire to maintain our low public service, semi-
rural lifestyle,
2. reduce traffic impacts far below what alternative proposals would
impose,
3. provide far more in taxes than the cost of required services from the
City,
4. eliminate any need for Met Council sewer extension from Oakdale,
which would be strongly opposed by area voters when the costs and
future implications were made known.
5. provide considerably improved environmental enhancement over
current or alternatively proposed land uses.
6. greatly reduce the spread of noise to existing city residents from train
and highway traffic.
7. put new commercial development in the Old Village, which was
planned to become a viable center with a completely planned
downtown, instead of putting commercial business that typically
provides NO BENEFITS to the residents. (If it did, the local taxes on
my house, with no city water or sewer and a fine, rural road, would not
have gone up almost 40% last year.)
8. Allow a few residents to build a house that reflects their interests
rather than the monolithic, solely financial, interests of national tract
housing builders.
The development proposal below was superimposed on existing maps from
the County, and shows the addition of 110 houses on 172.6 acres, including
City and County rights of way and wetlands, but excluding the intermittent
stream and permanent wetlands adjacent to CSAH 6 that were retained
by 3M according to current County maps. 110 houses is about 20 more
than would have been permitted in our existing nationally recognized Open
Space developments, one of which was awarded First Place for National
Developments with Under 100 Houses by the National Builders
Association. The extra houses were drawn to show an extreme level of
development that would preferably be reduced to be comparable to
Wildflower Shores and all other OP developments and account for wetlands
created locally and from additional water coming from the 1,100 adjacent
housing units under construction in Oakdale and additional associated
runoff from a major expansion of CSAH 13B.
Having been instrumental in the creation of the Open Space Ordinance, and
as an architect, who studied city planning extensively over 23 years on the
Planning Commission and Council and attending many seminars with
regional and national experts, I would be glad to work with the Council - at
no cost to our residents - to further alter and develop this initial concept
plan, with more accurate delineation of undevelopable wetlands, the power
highline, the gas pipeline, rights of way, and any other undevelopable land.
I have no expectation that this would be a final design. A rough model of
this proposed Open Space development is the design of Prairie Ridge, right
next to Highway 36. With heavy planting by the owner, power lines over the
site, and custom, tasteful housing, I think we can all agree this OP
development is one of many developments worth learning form. The trees
planted over 20 years ago by the owner/developer are impressive and
benefit the residents on 56th and 58th Streets to the south of Prairie Ridge.
The former 3M site may be the largest opportunity for the City residents to
provide what have become rare homesite opportunities, where quality and
environmental sensitivity are joined and which are unavailable in
Woodbury, Oakdale and yet provide easy access to major north-south and
east-west highways. They will be highly sought after. It should be an
example for the nation to see.
Because of the train and County road traffic, it is imperative that future
residents be provided with extensive noise screening from trees and maybe
some berming. It will take some time, but I helped plant the trees on Cty 14
provided by the State and they are doing a great job of visual screening, but
need more trees to be an even better noise barrier.
Currently, both former 3M parcels are an environmental wasteland for both
adjacent residents and wildlife, which is soon to lose hundreds of acres of
seasonal hunting grounds across Ideal Ave in Oakdale where most of us
know the "resident" red tailed hawk and where I observed a Sandhill Crane a
couple years ago.
This proposal is a win-win for the city budget, for new residents looking for
a less dense development and our greatly threatened remaining
environment. As a bonus, the new tree cover will greatly reduce the
incessant highway and train noise that row crops and winter snow cover
barely muffle.
Thanks. I hope this helps in rejuvenating our City. Becoming "North
Woodbury" or a re-imagined East Oakdale is not our destination.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From:C. Case Jr
To:Molly Just
Cc:Jeff Strong; D K; LEE BLOOMQUIST; Mary Pat; Daniel Gerding; Comcast; Jennifer Stoltenow; Scott Smith; Jeff;
Shari; Tim; Lorrie; Mark A Johnson; Dennis; Brad; Mark; Mary; Gus; Tim; Hayden; Jackie; JOHN HEALY; Lora
Sempf; Mary; Nate and Jen Stoltenow; Gina Kalis; Kathy; Scott Mellick; Jill Gerding; Michael Karcher; Lisa; Bill;
Margaret Heininger; Erin C; Lainie
Subject:Wildflower Shores HOA Feedback on Cyphers Logistics Park AUAR
Date:Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:02:35 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Dear Ms. Just:
We, the Board, represent the 25 homes of the Wildflower Shores developmentimmediately east of the property on the north side of Hwy 14 and east of Ideal Ave.
We love our little corner of Lake Elmo; in particular, the serenity of the area amid the
suburbs, the greenery and the exceptionally low light pollution in our corner of the city
comes to mind. We would like to maintain as much of that as possible.
We realize that development is inevitable on the property but hope that you will
endeavor to incorporate the following into any development option chosen:
To attempt to keep any new development consistent with the housing developmentsto both the north and east of the property. Given the 80 acres of business park
development planned for the property south of Hwy 14, we ask that the development
plan is majority residential, lots of trees / greenery, and landscaping.
To be aware of the difference in land elevation. Wildflower Shores is roughly 30
feet below the property to our west, so any construction will tower over our
neighborhood.
To include a park area on the east side of any development option.
To keep the light pollution to a minimum.
To keep the increase in traffic away from residential areas and traffic noise to a
minimum. Noted on page 57, three of the development options introduce an
additional 10,000 vehicle trips into/out of the area daily.
To limit the entrance/exit to our association to the one existing entrance. This
would eliminate any new traffic into our association and to continue to provide a
safe neighborhood for the young kids to play.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
The Wildflower Shores Homeowners Association Board
Dan Gerding, President (3693 37th Street N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042)
Karen Schwingler, Treasurer (3923 Ironwood Tr N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042)
Cullen Case Jr., Secretary (4083 35th St. N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042)
CC: all homes within the Wildflower Shores development.
1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 04/55/2022
REGULAR
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Molly Just, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Plan Amendments – MUSA Boundary Change, Update to
City’s Wastewater Facilities and Land Use Plans – Tapestry Sewer Service Area Extension and Re-guidance to Rural Single Family Sewered
BACKGROUND: The City Council recently approved a public improvement project to extend sanitary sewer to the existing Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision. This residential subdivision is located north of Sunfish Lake
Park off of 45th Street North and is currently served by a private association owned community wastewater treatment system for the 65 residential properties. The proposed public improvement project would provide sewer service by connecting the private community system to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The City is planning this improvement project for the 2022 construction season.
This sewer change requires City Council and Met Council approval of several changes to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The changes are required because the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision is not now included in the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) nor had the City included these 65 properties in the Wastewater calculations in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments require a 4/5th affirmative vote by the City Council and approval by the Metropolitan Council. Please see the attached maps and tables for more information about the proposed changes.
On March 28, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan
for the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove sanitary sewer project. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing. There were no speakers on the item and staff has not received public comment. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the necessary amendments to add Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove to the municipal sanitary sewer system.
ISSUE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL:
Should the City amend the MUSA Boundary and other relevant sections of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to include the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision in the sanitary sewer service area? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Amendment to the MUSA Boundary. The MUSA Boundaries for the sanitary sewer service areas in the City of Lake Elmo are depicted on the maps on Pages 3-11 (Map 3-2), 3-17 (Map 3-3), 3-24 (Map 3-7), 3-21 (Map 3-4) and 9-5 (Map 9-1) of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision is not now included in the MUSA in the City. As noted above, the City needs to change the
MUSA boundary on all relevant maps in the Comprehensive Plan to include this subdivision as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order for the sanitary sewer project to proceed. Amendment to Wastewater Services and Facilities Plan. As part of their feasibility study, Engineering reviewed the possibility and effects of adding the 65 properties to the sanitary sewer system. They
2
determined the sanitary system can accommodate these additional properties on the system. The City will
need to amend several tables in the existing Comprehensive Plan to show the addition of 65 single-family properties to the sanitary sewer system. They include Table 3-4 (page 3-21), Table 9-2 (page 9-8), Tables 9-3 and 9-4 (on page 9-9) and Table 9-5 (on page 9-10).
Amendment to Land Use Plan. The City will need to re-guide (change the land use designation) of aforementioned single-family properties in the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision from RAD (rural
area development) to RSFS (rural single family sewered). This is because the RAD land use designation is for areas not in the MUSA while the RSFS designation is planned for areas within the Village Planning Area that were previously unsewered. Met Council Review. The Met Council has confirmed that the usual jurisdictional review period for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment will likely not be required. Additionally, the request may qualify for administrative review by the Met Council, rather than full Council review, meaning that the approval process for this request may take a shorter time period than a typical Comprehensive Plan Amendment. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will be assessing the full cost (100%) of the sanitary sewer extension project to the 65 benefitting properties. The additional 65 properties on the City sanitary sewer system also will generate additional Sewer Access Charge (SAC) fees to the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan and to the Wastewater Services and Facilities Plan of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by adding the 65 existing single-family home sites in the Tapestry subdivision to the City’s sanitary sewer area. “Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-035 approving all necessary amendments to the 2040 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan (including those to the Land Use Plan and to Wastewater Services Plan) to add the existing 65 single-family properties in the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision to the City’s sanitary sewer area.” Additionally, Staff recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, re-guiding the aforementioned existing 65 single-family properties from RAD (Rural Area Development) to RSFS (Rural Single Family Sewered). “Motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment re-guiding the City’s Land Use Plan for the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision from RAD (Rural Area Development) to RSFS
(Rural Single Family Sewered).” ATTACHMENTS: Location Map Page 3-11 (Map 3-2) Page 3-17 (Map 3-3) Page 3-24 (Map 3-7) Page 3-21 (Table 3-4) Page 9-5 (Map 9-1) Page 9-8 (Table 9-2)
Page 9-9 (Tables 9-3 and 9-4) Page 9-10 (Table 9-5) Existing Land Use Map
Proposed Land Use Map Amendment to RSFS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022- 035 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAPS INCLUDING AMENDING THE MUSA
BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE THE TAPESTRY AT CHARLOTTE’S GROVE SUBDIVISION AND AMENDING THE WASTEWATER SERVICES PLAN.
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, several residents in the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision petitioned the City to have the City extend sanitary sewer to their properties: and
WHEREAS, in 2022, the Lake Elmo City Council ordered a public improvement project
to extend sanitary sewer to serve the 65 single-family homes in Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove; and WHEREAS, the extension of sanitary sewer to the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision requires amendments to the MUSA boundary, the Wastewater Services and Facilities
Plan and to the land use map in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a map of the proposed MUSA expansion showing the affected properties to be added to the MUSA of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared amendments to the Wastewater Services and Facilities
Plan and to the Land Use Map that reflect the addition of the 65 single-family homes to the sanitary sewer service area in Lake Elmo; 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 amendments on March 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its recommendation of
approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the said matter at its April 5, 2022 meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and the information received, the
City makes the following:
Findings
1. Several of the property owners in the Tapestry subdivision petitioned the City to have
the City extend sanitary sewer to their neighborhood.
2. The Lake Elmo City Council has ordered a public improvement project that will
extend sanitary sewer to the neighborhood in 2022.
3. The City will be assessing the affected property owners for the costs associated with
the public improvement project.
4. The proposed sanitary sewer extension project for the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove
subdivision requires amendments to the MUSA boundary and to the Wastewater
Services and Facilities plan in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan.
5. The expansion of the MUSA to include the additional 65 single-family properties is
consistent with goals and policies of the City.
6. The expansion of the MUSA for the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove subdivision is
consistent with improving the health, safety and welfare of the City of Lake Elmo
residents.
7. The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the proposed amendment and has no
objection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the foregoing, the Lake Elmo City
Council does hereby approve the necessary Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove sanitary sewer improvement project including the expansion the MUSA, subject to and contingent upon the following:
1. The Metropolitan Council’s approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on this 5th day of April, 2022.
_____________________________
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor ATTEST:
___________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk
10th
5th Keats$YHLake Elmo50th
15th Inwood34th
20th
27th
53rd
Jane
Lake Jane
Jamaca47th
7th
31st
51st
43rd
39th
45th
38th
ManningStillwater
24th
26th
42nd
Island9th
30th
32ndKimbro
21st
e6t
hIvoryIsleOlson
Lak
e
8th
Julep
12th
Jewel
44th
56th
Iris22nd
37th
36th
35th LaverneJuniperAnnikaJasmineJamley LegionLilyKlondike16th
Upper 33Rd
Imperial3rdKirkwood 33rd
Deer Pond
IrvingHidden Bay4thJerome
14th
June28th VillageTapestryJasper
Eagle Poi
n
t
Jonquil
Wildflower
LaytonPrivateKelvinIronwoodJaneroLe
ew
a
r
d
Cimarron10th Street/DQHKin
d
r
e
d
JamesIrishPrairi
e
v
i
e
wJack Pine49th
JayLower 31stIrvin LilacMonarchLower 8th LisbonBirch Bark40thLavender
KraftLampertBlazingstarWhistling Valle
y
5RDG
JuncoLittle Bluestem
11thLady Slipper5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Windbreak
Sunfish Lake Park InboundIvywoodInnsdale3rd Street MarLang
ly
JunoLa
n
s
i
n
g
JulianneUpper 30th
6t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Lisbon AvenueIrwinSunflower
41st
WB I
9
4
To
I
Upper
7
t
h
Queen
Upper 9th 57th SUpper 42Nd
27t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
15th St
r
e
e
t
Cherryw
o
o
d
44th Street
41st Stree
t
Ja
sm
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e HummingbirdJer
o
m
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
4
Hill Trail
30th Street33rd Street24
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
20th StreetLegion Lane
Lar
k
s
p
u
r
Demontreville T
r
a
i
l
Hummingbord21st
Laverne32nd
Irish35th
34th LilyLilac
55th
Jamaca
35th
Laverne56th
Lake ElmLanglyLaytonLilac33rd Lily10th StreetMa
n
n
i
ng
6th StreetIsle21st
9th
36th
Kirkwoo
d
Lin
d
e
n
Whistl ing Valley 7UDLO Manning
50th
5th
33rd
6th StreetInnsdale
Ir
onw
ood
Linden
LindenPrivate
Julep28th VillageLilac
IvyInnsdaleLower 8th
31st
Lisbon
9th
39thKeats55th
IsleJulepIrvinManning32nd
Laverne37thManningLegion9th
Ivy
34th
LaytonLindenJade5th
36th
39t
h
DOWNSLAKE
LAKE ELMOREGIONALPARK RESERVE
LAKE ELMO
LAKE JANE
SUNFISH LAKE
OLSONLAKE
LAKE DEMONTREVILLE
CLEARLAKE
HORSESHOELAKE
ROSELAKE
REIDPARK
VFWPARK
LIONS PARK
TANA RIDGEPARK
STONEGATE
PARK
KRAMERLAKE
GOOSELAKEARMSTRONGLAKE
RIDGEPARK
KEATS AVE NEAGLE POINTLAKE
TABLYNPARK
HEIGHTSPARK
LAKE JANEHILLS PARK
PEBBLEPARK
f
le
KLEISPARK
SUNFISH LAKEPARK
HOMESTEDPARK
HERITAGEPARK
VERONICAPOND
GOETSCHEL'SPOND
TablynPark
Eagle Point
Creek Estates
Lake Elmo
Heights
Torre Pines
Farms of
Lake Elmo
Parkview Estates
Wildflowers
Shores
Huppert
Add
Beaut
Crest Estates
Friedrich
Hghts
Kenridge Add
Prairie Ridge
Office Park
Eagle PointBusiness Park
Stonegate
Hammes Country
Vista
Whistling Valley
Midland
Meadows
David
Nelson Est
The
Homestead
Tartan
Meadows
The Forest
Schwartz-
Martinco Add
Packard
Park
EdenPark
Heritage
Farm
Lones
Pine A
Down
Lake
Myron
Ellman
Elmo
View
Cty Aud
Plat No. 8
Lake Elmo Park
Brookman Add
Sunfish Ponds
Hamlet OnSunfish Lake
Park
Meadows
Tapestry At
Charlottes' Grove
Berschen's
Shores
DawcinAcres
Lake
Jane
Highlands
Teal
Pass Est
Fox Fire
Estates
Meyer's
Pineridge
KrausesAdd
Springborn's
Green Acres
Arabian Hills
Lake Elmo Vista
MeadowsOf Lake Elmo
Jesse's
Hideaway
Arvold's
Acres Tamarack
Farm Est
Carriage
Station
Tana
RidgeJohn M Day
Farm Add
The Fields of
St. Croix
2nd Add
The Fieldsof St. Croix
Blue
At The
of St
Lane's Demontreville
Country Club
d
Olson
Lake Add
Oace Acres
Add
LakeJaneHills
Lake Jane
Manor No. 1
Three
Lakes
Farm Add
Bordners Garner
Farmettes
Royal Golf Club
Southwind
Hunters Crossing
Hammes
Estates
Savona
Boulder
Ponds
Inwood
Lakewood Crossing
2nd Addition
Easton Village
Wildflower
Cimarron
Legacy At Northstar
Village
Preserve
ST. CROIX SANCTUARY PARK
EDENPARK
PILOTPARK
HAMMES
PARK
GOOSE LAKEPARK
10th6WUHHW1
3-11
LAND USE
City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040
Map 3-2. 2018 – 2040 MUSA IDEALAVEN60TH ST N
10TH ST N
LAKEELMOAVENSTILLWATER BLVD N
30TH ST N
KEATSAVENOLSONLAKETRL
N50TH ST N
MANNING AVE N
47TH ST N
34TH ST N
LAKE JANE TRL N
45T H ST N
INWOODAVENHorseshoe
Clear
Unnamed
DeMontreville
Olson
Jane
Berschen's
Pond
Elmo
Sunfish
Friedrich
Pond
Eagle
Point
Downs
H.J.
Brown
Pond
RoseGoose
Goose
Armstrong
Armstrong
Kramer
Goetschel
KlawitterPond
Deer
Pond
Crombie
Pond
Hedge's
Pond
Dirk's
Pond
Beutel'sPond
Legion
Pond
FD ft D t R 5 2 2018VVEENNNNNNNVILLAGE PLANNING AREA
(MUSA)LLLAAAKKKEEEEELKKEEAAATTAAAKrKKarrmmmeerr
SOUTH PLANNING AREA
(MUSA)
3-17
LAND USE
City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040IDEALAVENINWOODAVEN60THSTN
10TH ST N
LAKEELMOAVENSTILLWATER BLVD N
30TH ST N
KEATSAVE NOLSONLAKETRL
N50TH ST N
MANNING AVE N
47TH ST N
34TH ST N
LAKE JANE TRL N
45 TH ST N
Horseshoe
Clear
Unnamed
DeMontreville
Olson
Jane
Berschen's
Pond
Elmo
Sunfish
FriedrichPond
Eagle
Point
Downs
H.J.
Brown
Pond
RoseGoose
Goose
Armstrong
Armstrong
Kramer
Goetschel
KlawitterPond
DeerPond
CrombiePond
Hedge's
Pond
Dirk's
Pond
Beutel'sPond
Legion
Pond
FDraft Date: Rev. 6.11.2018Source: Washington County, MNGEO, City of Lake Elmo, SHC
2040 Future Land UseAP
RAD
RSF
RSFS
GC
LDR
MDR
HDR
MU-BP
MU-C
V-LDR
V-MDR
V-HDR
V-MU
LB
BP
C
Closed Landfill
Institutional
Park
PSP
ROW
MUSA 2040 (Revised)
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15 Miles
Map 3-3. Future Land Use Map
Legend KEATAASPlanned Roadway (Parkway)
3-24
LAND USE
City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040
Phasing & Staged Growth
The majority of the City’s growth in households and employment is anticipated to occur within
the designated MUSA boundaries; however, there will be some continued development in the
rural residential areas of the community consistent with the community’s land use designations.
Table 3-6 identifies gross acreages per land use designation, while calculations found in
Table 3-3 provide net acreage calculations for each residential land use designation within
the designated MUSA as noted. The City’s objective is to plan for phased, contiguous growth
to ensure adequate infrastructure and capacity are available to support development. Map
3-7 identifies four staging areas consistent with existing and planned water, wastewater and
transportation infrastructure. The City acknowledges that market conditions, as well as other IDEALAAVAAENINWOODAVAAEN60TH STN
11100TTHHSSTT NNN
LLLAAMMOOAVVVAAEEENNSTILLWAWWTAAERBLVLLD NN 50THSTN
47THSTN
34THSTN
LAKE JANE TRL N
45TH STN
Horsssrreeeshoe
Clellar
Unnamed
DeMontrtterrvivvlllle
n
JaJne
Bersrrchen's'Pond
ElEEmllo
Sunfiffsiih
FFrFFiirreddrddiirrciihhPond
EaEEgle
Point
Downwws
H.J.BrorrwnwwPond
RoseGGoose
Armrrstrttorrng
Armrrstrttorrng
KrKKarrmmeeerr
GGooeettsstttcchheell
KlKKallwiwwtiiterPond
DeerPondCrorrmbiePond
Hedgde's'
Pond
Diriikrr's'PPondd
BBBeeeuuutttteellll''ss''PPoonndd
Pond
IINNWWOOOOODDAAVVAAAEENNKKEEAATTAASSAAAVVAAEENNNGoose
AAAKKEEEEEEEEEEEELK EEEEELKKCurrent (2020)CCC2020 - 20302030-20402035-2040 +
30TTHHHHHH SSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTNNNNNNNNNNN MMAANNNNIINNGGLegioonnnnn
Pondd
hhh
Staging/PhaseOOOLLLLSSSSSOOOOONNNNNNNLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAKKKKKEEEETTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRLLLNOlson GGAAVVVAAEEENNNNNNNMap 3-7. MUSA Growth & Phasing Plan
3-21
LAND USE
City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040
Revised Population & Household Projections
As noted in Table 3-3 the number of households, and thus the corresponding projected
population, is consistent with the revised forecasts for the City as agreed to with the
Metropolitan Council in June of 2019. As denoted in subsequent sections of this
Chapter and the Sanitary Sewer Chapter, the City’s infrastructure may need additional
improvements to its infrastructure to serve the entire MUSA area depending on the
ultimate commercial and/or business user and density of the residential neighborhoods.
Thus capacity of the infrastructure within later staging areas will need to be evaluated,
and development approvals contingent on appropriate system upgrades. Regardless,
this Plan identifies and guides all land within the MUSA with an urbanized land use
designation.
Table 3-4. Revised Population & Household Projections
2020 2030 2040
Population Unsewered 6,502 7,319 7,457
Population Sewered 4,518 10,686 14,847
Total Population 11,020 18,005 22,304
Households Unsewered 2,242 2,642 2,742
Households Sewered 1,558 3,858 5,458
Total Households 3,800 6,500 8,200
Source: Metropolitan Council, SHC, City of Lake Elmo
9-5
WASTEWATER SERVICES
City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040
Map 9-1. Existing and Future Sanitary Sewer System
City of Woodbury
City of
Oakdale
West
Lakeland
Township
Baytown
Township
City of
Oak ParkHeights
City of GrantCity of
Pine Springs
g
Stillwater
Township
City of
Afton
EXISTING & FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
F
Created By: Planning Department
Map Date: May 2019 010.5 Miles
DOWNSLAKE
LAKE ELMO
LAKE JANE
SUNFISH LAKE
OLSONLAKE
LAKE DEMONTREVILLE
CLEARLAKE
HORSESHOELAKE
ROSELAKE
KRAMERLAKE
GOOSELAKEARMSTRONGLAKE
EAGLE POINTLAKE
VERONICAPOND
GOETSCHEL'SPOND
#1
#2
#4
#3
#5
Royal GolfLift Station
Service Area #1
Royal GolfLift Station
Service Area #2
Royal GolfLift Station
Service Area #3
Kramer Lake
Lift StationService Area
5th StreetLift Station
Service AreaKeats
Lift Station
Service Area
I-94
Lift StationService Area
Lisbon
Lift StationService Area
OakdaleService Connection
OakdaleMCES Connection
Cottage Grove
RavineMCES Connection
#1
#2
#3#4
#5
I-94 Lift Station
Keats Ave Lift Station
Royal Golf South Lift Station Royal Golf North Lift Station
Lisbon Lift Station
Future Trunk Sewer Main
Future Lift Station
Existing Sewer Main
OV-5
OV-4`_
OV-3
OV-2
OV-1
SE-3SE-4
SE-2
SE-1
SW-4SW-3SW-2
SW-1
SW-5
SE-5
SE-6
RG-3 RG-2
RG-1
`_
`_
`_
`_`_
`_`_`_`_
`_Capacity Reference Point
Existing Lift Station
Future Force Main
Old Village MUSAOlson Lake MUSA
South East MUSASouth West MUSAExisting Force Main
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
9-8
WASTEWATER SERVICES
City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040
FORECASTS
Population
The Metropolitan Council projects and publishes population and sewer usage forecasts for each
City in the Metropolitan Area. This allocation is used in projecting future wastewater flows and
system capacity to plan for additional infrastructure needs. Table 9-2 shows such forecasts for
Lake Elmo.
Table 9-2. Population Forecasts for Lake Elmo
Forecast
Year Forecast Component Population Households Employment
2010 MCES Sewered 0 0 623
Unsewered 8,061 2,776 1,318
2020 MCES Sewered 4,834 1,667 2,338
Unsewered 6,185 2,133 562
2030 MCES Sewered 11,003 3,967 2,788
Unsewered 7,002 2,533 562
2040 MCES Sewered 15,162 5,567 3,238
Unsewered 7,142 2,633 562
Projections, Capacity and Staging for Regional Sewer Service
Wastewater flow projections were generated for each MUSA area and regional interceptor
for the 2020, 2030 and 2040 planning periods based on the anticipated land uses. Table 9-3
outlines these projections by sewer REC units, average day wastewater flows, and peak day
wastewater flows. Table 9-4 summarizes projected flows for each MCES interceptor.
Table 9-5 then provides the capacity and design flow information for each major trunk sewer
and lift station together with the estimated 2040 design flows. The Existing and Future Sanitary
Plan Map (Map 9-1) shows sewer service staging in four phases in accordance with the Future
Land Use Plan in Chapter 3.
9-9
WASTEWATER SERVICES
City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040
Table 9-3. Projections by Sewer REC Units
Current (2020) Wastewater Flows by Interceptor
MCES WONE Interceptor/Oakdale MCES Cottage Grove Ravine Interceptor
REC
Units
Average
Day Projected
Flow (MGD)
Peak Day
Projected
Flow (GPM)
REC
Units
Average
Day Projected
Flow (MGD)
Peak Day
Projected
Flow (GPM)
Old Village MUSA 930 0.25 655
Southeast
Planning MUSA 150 0.04 114
Southwest
Planning MUSA 821 0.22 594
TOTALS 821 0.22 594 1,080 0.30 740
2020-2030 Wastewater Flows by Interceptor
MCES WONE Interceptor/Oakdale MCES Cottage Grove Ravine Interceptor
REC
Units
Average
Day Projected
Flow (MGD)
Peak Day
Projected
Flow (GPM)
REC
Units
Average
Day Projected
Flow (MGD)
Peak Day
Projected
Flow (GPM)
Old Village MUSA 1,988 0.54 1,286
Southeast
Planning MUSA 437 0.12 324
Southwest
Planning MUSA 1,821 0.50 1,178
TOTALS 1,821 0.50 1,178 2,425 0.66 1,523
2030-2040 Wastewater Flows by Interceptor
MCES WONE Interceptor/Oakdale MCES Cottage Grove Ravine Interceptor
REC
Units
Average
Day Projected
Flow (MGD)
Peak Day
Projected
Flow (GPM)
REC
Units
Average
Day Projected
Flow (MGD)
Peak Day
Projected
Flow (GPM)
Old Village MUSA 2,218 0.61 1,435
Southeast
Planning MUSA 1,383 0.38 947
Southwest
Planning MUSA 2,290 0.63 1,482
TOTALS 2,290 0.63 1,482 3,601 0.99 2,193
Table 9-4. Projected Flows for Each MCES Interceptor Service Area (MGD)
Average Day Projected Wastewater
Flows by Interceptor (MGD)
Peak Day Projected Wastewater
Flows by Interceptor (GPM)
Year WONE Cottage Grove Year WONE Cottage Grove
2020 0.22 0.30 2020 594 740
2030 0.50 0.66 2030 1,178 1,523
2040 0.63 0.99 2040 1,482 2,193
EASTERN LOCAL SEWER SERVICE DISTRICT: MCES COTTAGE GROVE RAVINE METER STATION
TRUNK SEWER / LIFT
STATION SERVICE
AREA
DESIGN CAPACITY ESTIMATED 2040 REC ESTIMATED
EXCESS CAPACITY
TRUNK SEWER DIAMETER REC FLOW (MGD) PEAK FLOW (GPM) REC FLOW (MGD) PEAK FACTOR PEAK FLOW (GPM) REC FLOW (MGD)
OV-5 12-inch Gravity Sewer 1,158 0.317 895 0.245 3.7 630 263 0.07
OV-4 15-inch Gravity Sewer 1,795 0.492 1,414 0.387 3.6 969 381 0.10
OV-3 18-inch Gravity Sewer 3,570 0.978 1,884 0.516 3.4 1,219 1,686 0.46
OV-2 15-inch Gravity Sewer 1,105 0.303 290 0.079 4.0 221 815 0.22
OV-1 (Lisbon LS) 16-inch Forcemain 2,580 0.707 1620 2,218 0.608 3.4 1,435 362 0.10
RG-3 (RG LS-1) 4-inch Forcemain 88 0.024 100 88 0.024 4.0 67 0 0.00
RG-2 (RG LS-2) 4-inch Forcemain 73 0.020 100 73 0.020 4.0 56 0 0.00
RG-1 (RG LS-3) 6-inch Forcemain 291 0.080 327 291 0.080 4.0 221 0 0.00
SE-6 (5th Street LS) -
Future LS Post 2040
Forcemain Size TBD
855 0.234 620 0 0.000 4.0 0 855 0.23
SE-5 (Kramer Lk LS) Forcemain Size TBD 1,479 0.405 990 220 0.060 4.0 167 1,259 0.34
SE-4 (MH 3-3) 24-inch Gravity Sewer 5,124 1.404 2,606 0.714 1,600* 2,518 0.69
SE-3 18-inch Gravity Sewer 2,453 0.672 500 0.137 3.9 371 1,953 0.54
SE-2 (MH 0-2) 24-inch Gravity Sewer 8,261 2.264 3,381 0.926 3.2 2,059 4,880 1.34
MCES CONNECTION LOCATION
SE-1 (MH 0-1) 24-inch Gravity Sewer 9,740 3,601 6,139 1.68
*Peak flow based on combined lift station flow rates pumping into the system WESTERN LOCAL SEWER SERVICE DISTRICT: MCES WONE INTERCEPTOR (CONNECTION THROUGH CITY OF OAKDALE)
TRUNK SEWER / LIFT
STATION SERVICE
AREA
EXISTING DESIGN CAPACITY ESTIMATED 2040 REC ESTIMATED
EXCESS CAPACITY
TRUNK SEWER
DIAMETER REC FLOW
(MGD)
PEAK FLOW
(GPM) REC FLOW
(MGD)
PEAK
FACTOR
PEAK FLOW
(GPM) REC FLOW
(MGD)
SW-5 (KEATS LS) 8-inch Forcemain 600 0.164 388 600 0.164 338* 0 0.00
SW-4 12-inch Gravity Sewer 1,065 0.292 1220 0.334 3.6 836 -155 -0.04
SW-3 12-inch Gravity Sewer 1,104 0.302 452 0.124 3.9 335 652 0.18
SW-2 15-inch Gravity Sewer 3,526 0.966 2290 0.627 3.4 1,482 1,236 0.34
MCES CONNECTION LOCATION
SW-1 (I-94 LS) 8-inch Forcemain 1,500 0.411 1,000 2,290 0.627 1,482 -790 -0.22
*Peak flow based on combined lift station flow rates pumping into the system TABLE 9-5 Capacity and Design Flows for Local Trunk Sewers and Lift Stations
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oakdale
Inwood Avenue North10th Street North
5th Street North
Eagle Point BoulevardLakeOlson Lake Jane
LakeElmoSunfish LakeE
a
gle
P
oint L
a
k
e
DownsLake
0 1800 3600 5400 7200Ft ´
Future Land Use Map
2040 Future Land Use
Map Date: January 2021 Planned Roadway (Parkway)MUSA Boundary
C
Closed Landfill
Institutional
ParkBP
LB
V-HDR
V-MU
PSP
ROW
AP
RAD
RSF
RSFS
GC
LDR
MDR
HDR
MU-BP
MU-C
V-LDR
V-MDR
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oakdale
Inwood Avenue North10th Street North
5th Street North
Eagle Point BoulevardLakeOlson Lake Jane
LakeElmoSunfish LakeE
a
gle
P
oint L
a
k
e
DownsLake
0 1800 3600 5400 7200Ft ´
Future Land Use Map
2040 Future Land Use
Map Date: January 2021 Planned Roadway (Parkway)MUSA Boundary
C
Closed Landfill
Institutional
ParkBP
LB
V-HDR
V-MU
PSP
ROW
AP
RAD
RSF
RSFS
GC
LDR
MDR
HDR
MU-BP
MU-C
V-LDR
V-MDR
LA515-57-755589.v1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 5, 2022
REGULAR
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Molly Just, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Crossroads East 1st Addition - Development Agreement Amendment
INTRODUCTION:
Airlake Development, Inc and Crossroads East, LLC (Developer) are proposing an Amendment to the Development Agreement for Crossroads East 1st Addition. BACKGROUND:
On November 3, 2021 the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution 2021-115 approving the Final Plat and PUD Plans for Crossroads East 1st Addition. On December 7, 2021, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-134 approving the Development Agreement for Crossroads East 1st Addition. ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL: Should the City Council adopt Resolution 2022 – 034 approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for Crossroads East 1st Addition? REVIEW/ANALYSIS: Since the Development Agreement was approved and executed by the City and the Developer on February
15, 2022 the developer has subsequently requested that the City allow it to proceed with vertical
construction of the buildings on the platted property prior to completion of the public improvements. The
current development agreement states that the City will only issue a permit for vertical construction (more
than footing and foundation) once all on-site utilities have been inspected and approved by the City,
including as-built surveys of all storm and sanitary sewer structure. City staff is willing to support some
flexibility in order to allow work to be occurring concurrently to meet a fall deadline for occupancy. The
amendment would allow a permit to go vertical on the buildings provided the timeline for completing tasks
as outlined in the exhibit are met. If a deadline is not met, the city will be able to issue a stop work order
immediately until required improvements are completed.
OPTIONS:
2
LA515-57-755589.v1
The City Council has the following options:
1) Adopt Resolution 2022-034 approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for Crossroads East 1st Addition; or
2) Direct Staff to revise the First Amendment to bring back to a future City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-034 approving the First Amendment to the
Development Agreement for Crossroads East 1st Addition.
“Move to adopt Resolution 2022-034 approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement
for Crossroads East 1s Addition.”
ATTACHMENTS:
• First Amendment to the Development Agreement
• Resolution 2022 – 034
LA515-93-787546.v1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This First Amendment to Development Agreement (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into this 5th day of April, 2022, by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “City”) and Airlake Development, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation and Crossroads East, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (collectively, the
“Developer”). RECITALS:
A. The City and the Developer have entered into a Development Agreement dated
February 15, 2022 and recorded with Washington County on _____________, 2022 as Document No. _________ (the “Development Agreement”); and B. The Development Agreement relates to that subdivision located in Lake Elmo,
Minnesota known as Crossroads East 1st Addition and the property is legally described on Exhibit
A attached hereto (the “Property”); and C. The Developer has requested that the City allow it to proceed with vertical construction of the buildings on the Property prior to the completion of the public improvements;
and
D. The City is willing to agree to allow vertical construction of the buildings on the Property prior to the completion of the public improvements provided that the Developer agree to enter into an amendment to the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, which are expressly
incorporated herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency which is hereby acknowledged, the City and the Developer agree to amend the Development Agreement as follows:
LA515-93-787546.v1 2
1. Paragraph 23 of the Development Agreement is hereby repealed in its entirety and
replaced with the following paragraph:
23. BUILDING PERMITS/CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
A. The City will issue a footing and foundation permit for a building within
the Subdivision provided that the final plat has been recorded with
Washington County. The City will issue a vertical construction permit for
a building within the Subdivision prior to the on-site utilities within the
Subdivision having been installed. With respect to the construction of the
on-site utilities, the Developer must adhere to the schedule set forth in the
attached Exhibit D (the “Installation Schedule”). Should any of the work
set forth in the Installation Schedule not be done within the timeframes set
forth in the Installation Schedule, the Developer understands and agrees
that the City will immediately issue a stop work order on any building
construction and any other private improvements within the Subdivision
until the work set forth in the Installation Schedule is completed and the
utilities that are to be completed within the timeframe set forth in the
Installation Schedule are installed, inspected, and approved by the City.
The City will not issue a certificate of occupancy for any building within
the Subdivision until all public Subdivision Improvements (including, but
not limited to the emergency vehicle access) have been installed by the
Developer and accepted by the City. For the purposes of this Agreement,
the City will not accept any Subdivision Improvements until as-built
record drawings are submitted for review and are approved by the City
verifying that the Subdivision Improvements have been installed in
accordance with the approved Plans.
B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer, including
LA515-93-787546.v1 3
nonpayment of billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of
building permits, certificates of occupancy, and withholding of other
permits, inspections, or actions and the halting of all work in the
Subdivision.
C. If the City issues building permits before the acceptance of the public
Subdivision Improvements by the City, the Developer assumes all liability
and costs resulting in delays in completion of public Subdivision
Improvements and damage to public Subdivision Improvements caused by
the City, the Developer, the Developer’s contractors, subcontractors,
materialmen, employees, agents, or any third parties.
D. No sewer and water connection permits may be issued until the streets
needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the
utilities are tested and approved by the City Engineer.
2. A new Exhibit D is hereby added to the Development Agreement. It is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3. Paragraph (E) of Section 32 of the Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety.
4. All other terms and conditions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
LA515-93-787546.v1 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have executed this First
Amendment to the Development Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By:_________________________________ Charles Cadenhead, Mayor By:_________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by Charles Cadenhead and Julie Johnson, the Mayor and the City Clerk, respectively of the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City.
__________________________________ Notary Public
LA515-93-787546.v1 5
AIRLAKE DEVELOPMENT, INC. By:________________________________
Its: _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss.
COUNTY OF ________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _________, 2022, by ___________________, the _______________ of Airlake Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
___________________________________ Notary Public
LA515-93-787546.v1 6
CROSSROADS EAST, LLC
By:________________________________
Its: _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _________, 2022, by ___________________, the _______________ of Crossroads East, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
___________________________________
Notary Public
This document was drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (SJS) Fifth Street Towers
150 South 5th Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300
LA515-93-787546.v1
EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property
All lots and outlots located within the plat of Crossroads East First Addition, according to the
recorded plat thereof, County of Washington, State of Minnesota.
LA515-93-787546.v1
EXHIBIT B New Exhibit D to the Development Agreement EXHIBIT D TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Installation Schedule
IDTask ModeTask Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors1ENTITLEMENTS118 daysWed 10/13/21Mon 3/28/222PHASE 1 EARTHWORK-APPROVAL TO START0 daysWed 10/13/21Wed 10/13/213FOUNDATION PERMIT RELEASED0 daysMon 1/24/22Mon 1/24/224FINAL PUD/PLAT APPROVAL4 daysTue 10/19/21Fri 10/22/215PHASE 2 UTILITY-APPROVAL TO START0 daysWed 3/9/22Wed 3/9/226"VERTICAL" UNCONDITIONAL PERMITRELEASED0 daysMon 3/28/22Mon 3/28/227MASS GRADING/SITE UTILITIES238 daysWed 10/13/21Fri 9/9/228MASS GRADING/SOIL CORRECTION33 daysWed 10/13/21Fri 11/26/2129PUBLIC SITE UTILITIES70 daysWed 3/9/22Tue 6/14/228SS+10 days,4,510SANITARY COMPLETION0 daysFri 5/13/22Fri 5/13/2211STORM COMPLETION0 daysFri 5/27/22Fri 5/27/2212WATER COMPLETION0 daysFri 6/10/22Fri 6/10/2213AS-BUILT UTILITY DRAWING REVIEW/APPROVAL10 daysWed 6/1/22Tue 6/14/2214HUDSON BLVD UTILITY WORK60 daysWed 3/30/22Tue 6/21/229SS+15 days15HUDSON BLVD RECONSTRUCTION20 daysWed 6/8/22Tue 7/5/2214FS-10 days16PARKING LOT GRADING10 daysMon 5/23/22Fri 6/3/222517CL5/CURB/BASE COURSE PAVING15 daysMon 6/6/22Fri 6/24/221618FINAL GRADING5 daysMon 6/27/22Fri 7/1/221719SITE CONCRETE5 daysTue 8/9/22Mon 8/15/221820LANDSCAPING10 daysTue 8/23/22Mon 9/5/221921WEAR COURSE PAVING4 daysTue 9/6/22Fri 9/9/222022LAKE ELMO INDUSTRIAL130 daysMon 3/21/22Fri 9/16/2223FOOTING/FOUNDATIONS20 daysMon 3/21/22Fri 4/15/226FS-5 days24PRECAST ERECTION15 daysMon 4/18/22Fri 5/6/222325STEEL ERECTION15 daysMon 5/2/22Fri 5/20/2224FS-5 days26ROOFING15 daysMon 5/23/22Fri 6/10/222527UNDERGROUND MEP ROUGH-IN20 daysMon 6/13/22Fri 7/8/222628BUILDING PAD PREP10 daysMon 7/4/22Fri 7/15/2227FS-5 days29POUR SOG15 daysMon 7/18/22Fri 8/5/222830GLASS/OH DOORS/DOCK EQUIPMENT20 daysMon 8/8/22Fri 9/2/222931ABOVE GRADE MEP ROUGH-IN30 daysMon 8/8/22Fri 9/16/222932EXTERIOR PAINT25 daysMon 5/30/22Fri 7/1/2224FS+15 days33TENANT BUILD OUT100 daysMon 8/8/22Fri 12/23/222934SHELL SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION0 daysFri 9/16/22Fri 9/16/2222ENTITLEMENTSPHASE 1 EARTHWORK-APPROVAL TO STARTFOUNDATION PERMIT RELEASEDFINAL PUD/PLAT APPROVALPHASE 2 UTILITY-APPROVAL TO START3/289/9MASS GRADING/SITE UTILITIESMASS GRADING/SOIL CORRECTIONPUBLIC SITE UTILITIES5/135/276/10AS-BUILT UTILITY DRAWING REVIEW/APPROVALHUDSON BLVD UTILITY WORKHUDSON BLVD RECONSTRUCTIONPARKING LOT GRADINGCL5/CURB/BASE COURSE PAVINGFINAL GRADINGSITE CONCRETELANDSCAPINGWEAR COURSE PAVINGLAKE ELMO INDUSTRIALFOOTING/FOUNDATIONSPRECAST ERECTIONSTEEL ERECTIONROOFINGUNDERGROUND MEP ROUGH-INBUILDING PAD PREPPOUR SOGGLASS/OH DOORS/DOCK EQUIPMENTABOVE GRADE MEP ROUGH-INEXTERIOR PAINTTENANT BUILD OUT9/16SepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayQtr 4, 2021Qtr 1, 2022Qtr 2, 2022Qtr 3, 2022Qtr 4, 2022Qtr 1, 2023Qtr 2, 2023LAUNCH AND CROSSROADS PROPERTIES-LAKE ELMO INDUSTRIALCONSTRUCTION SCHEDULEEXPEDITED VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION START3/15/2022Page 1
1
LA515-57-755583.v1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-034
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CROSSROADS EAST 1ST ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Airlake Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and Crossroads East,
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (collectively, the “Developer”) previously submitted
an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for a final plat for Crossroads East 1st Addition; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-115 on November
3, 2021 approving the final plat for Crossroads East 1st Addition; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-134 on December 7, 2021, approving the Development Agreement for Crossroads East 1st Addition; and
WHEREAS, The Developer has subsequently requested that the City allow it to proceed with vertical construction of the buildings on the platted property prior to completion of the public improvements; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to agree to allow vertical construction of the buildings on
the platted property prior to the completion of the public improvements provided that the Developer agree to enter into an amendment to the approved Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the information received, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo does hereby approve the First Amendment to Development Agreement for Crossroads
East 1st Addition and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the First Amendment. Passed and duly adopted this 5th day of April 2022 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________ Charles Cadenhead, Mayor ATTEST:
________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 04/5/2022
REGULAR
TO: City Council
FROM: Molly Just, Planning Director AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Medium Density Residential District (MDR) and High Density Residential District (HDR) Minimum Lot Area and Density REVIEWED BY: Molly Just, Planning Director
INTRODUCTION: The City of Lake Elmo has initiated a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for Article 7 – Urban Residential Districts – that shall reduce the minimum lot size standards for certain single-family attached and multi-family housing in order to comply with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendment will increase the maximum density of the
MDR District to eight dwelling units permit acre. The density range guided by the
Comprehensive Plan is 4-8 units per acre in the MDR and 8-12 units per acre in the HDR District. The proposed amendment will also decrease the minimum required lot area for single-family attached dwellings to 1,750 square feet per unit in the MDR and HDR districts and decrease the minimum lot area for multifamily dwellings to 3,000 square feet per unit in the
MDR district. The proposed minimum lot area for single-family attached dwellings
(townhouses) is consistent with the Bentley Village townhouse project along 5th Street (Union Park 2nd Addition). The proposed zoning ordinance amendment would apply citywide to all land zoned MDR and HDR. ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council is being asked to review and consider the proposed amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance. TEXT AMENDMENT DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Zoning regulations allow cities to ensure that new or redevelopment meets the standards of the
city for a safe, functional and enjoyable community.
Sections for review:
1. 105.12.700 Purpose and District Descriptions The proposed changes to this section will increase the maximum development density in the MDR District from seven dwelling units per acre to eight dwelling units per acre. This increase was approved with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this section of the ordinance is to describe the four districts that are included in the Urban Residential Districts section of the code.
2. 105.12.720 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements The proposed changes to this section will alter Table 10-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, Residential Districts
as follows:
2
Table 10-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, Residential Districts
LDR MDR HDR
Minimum Lot Area (square feet)
Single-family
attached (per unit) b - 4,0001,750 2,5001,750
Multifamily dwelling
(per unit) - 4,000 3,000 1,800
PUBLIC COMMENT: A hearing notice was published in the Stillwater Gazette on March 4, 2022. Staff has received
no comments from the public on the proposed text amendments. At their March 14 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing. There was no public comment. After some discussion and consideration, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed amendments with a 4-0 vote.
FISCAL IMPACT: None OPTIONS: The City Council may:
• Approve the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance.
• Approve the proposed changes to the ordinance with changes to the proposed language.
• Deny the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the proposed changes to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance.
“Motion to adopt Ordinance 2022-02 an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance as proposed by City staff and recommended by the Planning Commission.” Because of the length and inclusion of charts in the ordinance amendments, staff also is recommending Council approval to publish a summary ordinance.
“Motion to approve summary publication of Ordinance 2202-02 (the Zoning Ordinance
amendments) with approval of Resolution 2022-032”
ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance No. 2022-02 B. Resolution No. 2022-032
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY
REDUCING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN SINGLE-
FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TO COMPLY WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title 105 Zoning; Chapter 105.12: Zoning Code, Sections 700 and 720 are hereby amended by changing the following sections (Proposed language is underlined, deleted language is shown with strikethrough):
105.12.700 Purpose and District Descriptions
MDR Urban Medium Density Residential District. The MDR district is established to provide for a
diversity of housing types in those areas where such development is consistent with the medium
density residential designation of the comprehensive plan and compatible with the development
pattern of the surrounding area. Clustering of buildings to permit more orderly development and to
preserve open space within new developments is encouraged. Development within the district
shall occur at densities in the range of four to seven eight dwelling units per acre, with two-family
dwellings and townhouses permitted. The city will determine the allowed density for a piece of
property at the time of the development application, and this determination will be based upon the
site-specific characteristics of the property and the requested development. Factors to be
considered in increasing or decreasing the allowed density include the existing environmental
conditions such as wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, significant trees; the specific site plan; the
amount of open space preserved, and the type of housing units proposed, including whether
greater density is desirable because the development contains housing that is consistent with the
city's housing goals. The burden of establishing the appropriateness of the high end of the density
range will be on the applicant.
105.12.720 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements
Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 10-2, Lot Dimension and Setback
Requirements.
2
Table 10-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, Residential Districts
GCC LDR MDR HDR
Minimum Lot Area (square feet)
Single-family
detached dwelling 9,000 8,000 7,000 5,000
Two-family
dwelling (per
unit) a
- 5,000 4,000 3,000
Single-family
attached (per
unit) b
- - 4,0001,750 2,5001,750
Multifamily
dwelling (per
unit)
- - 4,000 3,000 1,800
Secondary
dwelling
See LEC
105.12.740(c)
See LEC
105.12.740(c)
See LEC
105.12.740(c)
See LEC
105.12.740(c)
Live-work unit - - - 3,600
Congregate
housing - - See LEC
105.12.500(c)
See LEC
105.12.500(c)
Manufactured
home park - -
See LEC
105.12.170--LEC
105.12.340
See LEC
105.12.170--LEC
105.12.340
Minimum Lot Width (feet)
Single-family
detached dwelling 70 60 50 50
Two-family
dwelling (per
unit) a
- 35 30 20
Single-family
attached (per
unit) b
- - 25 20
Multifamily
dwelling (per
building)
- - 75 60
3
Live-work unit - - - 25
Maximum Height
(feet) 35 35 35 50
Maximum
Impervious
Coverage
30% 40 percent 50 percent 75 percent
Minimum Building Setbacks (feet)
Front yard 25 25 c 25 c 20 c
Interior side yard e
Principal
Buildings f, g 10 10 10 10d
Minimum Building Setbacks (feet)
Interior side yard
Attached garage
or accessory
structures f, g
5 5 5 10d
Corner side yard
g, h 15 15 15 15
Rear yard 20 20 20 20
Notes to Urban Residential Districts Table:
a. Common open space areas may be used in the determining whether or not
the minimum lot areas within a development are met, when provided as part
of an overall development plan.
b. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall between them
(twin) or located on separate floors in a building on a single lot (duplex). The
per-unit measurements in this table apply to twin units, whether on a single
lot or separate lots. The standards for single-family detached dwelling shall
apply to a duplex containing two vertically-separated units on a single lot.
c. In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situated on
individual lots, minimum lot size shall be applied to each unit as a measure
of density; i.e., one unit per 2,500 square feet. This standard is also used for
multifamily dwellings.
d. Single-family dwellings (both attached and detached) and two-family
dwellings may use the side yard setbacks within MDR zoning districts.
4
e. In a block where the majority of the block face has been developed with
the same or similar setbacks, the front setback for the remaining lots on that
block face shall fall within the range established by the existing setbacks.
f. In situations where a garage or accessory building is set back less than
seven feet from a side property line, the maximum permitted encroachment
for anything attached to said building (including eaves, overhangs, steps,
chimneys, and other appurtenances as described in LEC 105.12.200) will be
two feet.
g. Side yards setbacks shall apply to the ends of attached or two-family
dwellings.
h. Corner properties: The side facade of a corner building adjoining a public
street shall maintain the front setback of the adjacent property fronting upon
the same public street, or the required front yard setback, whichever is less.
If no structure exists on the adjacent property, the setback shall be as shown
in the table.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 2022-02 was adopted on this 5th day of April, 2022,
by a vote of __ Ayes and ___Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL _________________________________
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-032
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF A SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 2022-02 WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 2022-02, an ordinance that amends the City’s Zoning Code Sections 105.12.700 and 105.12.720.
WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy and contains charts; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 2022-02 to be published in
the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 2022-02, an ordinance that
amends the City Code language in the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance alters language in the
City Code about residential density in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and the High Density Residential (HDR) District. The following is a summary of the adopted ordinance language:
Ordinance 2022-03 includes the following elements:
1. Revisions to City Code Section 105.12.700 Purpose and District Descriptions that increases the allowed residential density in the MDR District to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Revisions to City Code Section 105.12.720 Table 10-2 that reduces the lot size requirement for single-family attached units in the MDR and HDR Districts to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. A revision to City Code Section 105.12.720 Table 10-2 to reduce the land area required per multiple family dwelling in the MDR District to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The full text of Ordinance 2022-02, is available for inspection at Lake Elmo City Offices during
regular business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full copy of
the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City.
Dated: April 5, 2022
___________________________________
Charles Cadenhead, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk (SEAL)