Planning Commission Agenda 11-05-2018 (Joint Meeting)������li�d� ��r�����1��� 4����Oi�4A���dh ���t
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
Mayor Stumpf and Monticello City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
NAC FILE NO:
PLANNING CASE NO
PROPERTY ID:
Stephen Grittman / Ryan Saltis
October 30, 2018
Monticello — DSB Ventures (Monticello RV Center) PUD —
Concept Review
191.07 — 18.34
2018-047
155125000040
Application and Proiect Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a
proposed concept plan for a Planned Unit Development on outlot D of the Groveland
addition, a parcel along Chelsea Road West to the north and abutting the single-family
housing of the Groveland neighborhood to the south. East of the outlot is Affordable
Storage, a mini storage facility. The proposed development parcel is 5.98 acres and
currently owned by Ocello. Ocello has entered into a recent purchase agreement to sell
this outlot to DSB Ventures to create a new location for Monticello RV Center.
The applicant asks to rezone this parcel from B-3 to a PUD in order to allow for some
building size flexibility. This would allow one larger facility to be built in 2019, versus two
smaller buildings to be built over a period of time.
For the project to proceed, there are a series of further City approvals that will be
required:
• Development Stage PUD & Preliminary Plat
• Final Stage PUD - Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District
and Final Plat
The current proposal is for a PUD Concept Plan review, which is not a formal zoning
application, but is intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to get City feedback
on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning review and the
extensive supporting materials that such reviews require. The project requires a PUD
as certain aspects of site design may require flexibility including building size. The
Planning Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to review the project,
ask questions of the proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements
raised by the project.
This is not a formal public hearing. This memorandum provides an overview of the
project, and will serve as an outline for the discussion. No formal approval or denial is
offered for a Concept Review.
However, it is vital that Planning Commission and City Council members engage in a
frank and open discussion of the project benefits and potential issues. The Concept
Review process is most valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to
understand how the City is likely to look at the project and the potential issues it
presents. In this way, the subsequent land use and development details can be more
finely tuned to address City policy elements.
To follow is the ordinance information for PUD Concept review.
PUD Concept Review Criteria. The first stage for PUD review consists of an informal
Concept Plan review which is separate from the formal PUD application which will follow the
Concept Review step. The Ordinance identifies the purpose of Planned Unit Development as
follows:
(1) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to provide
greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-residential areas
in order to maximize public values and achieve more creative development
outcomes while remaining economically viable and marketable. This is achieved
by undertaking a process that results in a development outcome exceeding that
which is typically achievable through the conventional zoning district. The City
reserves the right to deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re-apply
under the standard applicable zoning district.
PUD Concept reviews are to proceed as follows:
(a) PUD Concept Proposal
Prior to submitting formal development stage PUD, preliminary plat (as
applicable) and rezoning applications for the proposed development, the
applicant may, at its option, prepare an informal concept plan and present
it to the Planning Commission and City Council at a concurrent work
session, as scheduled by the Community Development Department. The
purpose of the Concept Proposal is to:
1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in collaboration
between the applicant, general public, Planning Commission, and City
Council;
2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a
requirement for extensive engineering and other plans.
3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the
proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD design
and review.
The intent of Concept Proposal review is to consider the general acceptability of the
proposed land use, and identify potential issues that may guide the City's later
consideration of a full PUD application. The Concept Proposal review includes notice to
area property owners, but is not a public hearing. The City Council and Planning
Commission meet in joint session to provide feedback to the developer, and may
include an opportunity for informal public comment as they deem appropriate.
Staff Preliminarv Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary
considerations evident at this point in the process would likely include the following
elements:
Land Use. The proposed land use is considered to be generally consistent
with the directions of the Comprehensive Plan. The property's proximity to
Chelsea Road West would put the parcel in the B-3, Highway Business
District. An RV Center would be an appropriate use in this area due to limited
commercial and service activities and low volume traffic coming into the
establishment. Vehicle Sales & Display is a conditional use in the B-3
District.
One aspect of the site use would be service and repair, which can raise noise
issues for the adjoining residential area, as well as sightlines issues if the
property accumulates damaged or undrivable vehicles. In future applications,
the applicant should detail the nature of all of the uses on the property, as
well as how service vehicles will be stored and screened, where necessary.
Accessory Use Vehicle Repair — Minor is a conditional use in the B-3 District.
Parking. Parking supply is shown at 25 parking spaces around the perimeter
of the building. A parking plan that is drawn to scale and includes dimensions
will need to be submitted at a later stage. The parking plan shall follow all
rules listed in City Ordinance Section 4.8, Off-Street Parking.
iii. Building Height and Architecture. The applicants have provided a conceptual
illustration of the building facades, but have not provided details relating to
building design dimensions at this stage. Staff would note that the B-3 zoning
2
district regulates building height to not exceed 2 stories or 30 feet in height
and that Section 4.11 of City Ordinances also holds regulations for building
materials, and overall design for structures. The applicants anticipate
construction of a structural metal building with a stucco or "EFIS" like finish.
The Planning Commission and Council may wish to discuss building material
expectations, as well as roofline and other techniques that would justify both
the use of PUD in this location, and overall commercial building requirements
for the site.
iv. Site Planning. A preliminary site plan is provided as a part of the PUD
Concept plan. The site plan does not detail dimensions of the building,
proposed access, drive aisles or setbacks. These dimensions are required
on future application plans. Staff notes that specific requirements for
setbacks apply in the B-3 District. These include 30 feet from the front and
rear of the building, 10 feet from the interior side and 20 feet from the street
side. If the applicants propose to vary from the base zoning standards, they
should provide rationale that supports the variation, and note the additional
amenities or elements of the site plan that balance the proposed flexibility.
One issue of specific note is the orientation of the building. As shown on the
concept plan, the main entrance of the structure would face to the west, a
side property line. With this orientation, the side of the building — with a series
of overhead garage doors — would be the predominant view of the building
from Chelsea Road.
Staff would suggest that the building be rotated so the entrance faces
Chelsea Road. This rotation would present the building front to the street and
orient the garage door faces to the side toward commercial-zoned property as
opposed to the street and residential uses.
It is further noted that the concept plan includes a complete encircling of the
site with recreational vehicles displayed for sale. As a part of re-orienting the
building toward Chelsea, staff would suggest eliminating a significant portion
of the display vehicles to provide a view of the building from the street.
Because of the size of the display vehicles, there would be no such view
under the current proposed site plan.
While recreational vehicle dealerships commonly load the property with
display vehicles, it is noted that the City has previously required much larger
buildings, preserving some view to the public.
v. Lighting. Because the site abuts a residential neighborhood, it will be critical
to ensure that site lighting does not impact the adjoining single family homes.
This will require attention to both the buffer as well as lighting design.
3
vi. Access and Circulation. The applicants propose to utilize Chelsea Road West
as the access point. This is proposed as the only entrance in and out of the
site. More details will need to be provided at a later stage.
vii. Signage. There is only one entrance proposed for vehicles to travel in and
out of the site. The north side of the property falls under the highway sign
designation and the applicant looks to put in a sign that complies with those
requirements.
The applicants will propose specific signage for the site that may involve
flexibility from ordinance requirements under the PUD designation. The City
will need to consider the acceptability of such flexibility within the context of
the purpose of PUD zoning. It should be noted that sign permits would be
required to meet the standards of the district unless specifically addressed as
a part of the PUD application.
viii. Landscaping. The site currently does not have any landscaping, wetland or
trees within the outlot. When Ocello built the Groveland addition, they
constructed a berm between the residential neighborhood and the
commercial property for buffering. Ocello also planted several coniferous
trees for additional buffers. It is the applicant's intention to continue with
these trees and add mulch to give a similar look as Affordable Storage which
is located to the east of the property. Affordable Storage will install a
decorative fence on the eastern border of the outlot to separate the
businesses. The applicant has also stated that they would do a rock
landscaping on this border. Along the western border of the property, the
applicant proposes to landscape a long shallow filtration pond to tie into
stormwater facilities provided to the site along Chelsea Road which will then
drain to the regional pond. Across the front of Chelsea Road, the applicant
proposes to have landscaped green space divided by the pathway. A
landscape plan will be provided at a later stage and shall follow the
regulations set forth in Section 4.1 of City Code.
More detailed landscape plans will be a part of the Development Stage PUD
application, and should utilize the standards in Section 4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance as a baseline.
ix. The City's consulting engineer has provided a comment letter regarding
matters of grading, drainage, utilities and site access.
x. Platting: The development site is Outlot D of Groveland and will be required
to be replatted as part of the proposed development. The concept plans
illustrate the proposed platting of three parcels, the development lot, Lot 1,
Block 1, and two outlots. Lot 1, Block 1 is proposed at 5.98 acres and the two
outlots at 5.39 and .10 acres. The smaller of the two outlot parcels is a
remnant originally intended as a trail connection should it be required with
0
development. The City will comment on the process for subdivision and
combination of this outlot with the required preliminary and final plat.
Conditional Use Permit Requirements of Vehicle Sales:
The applicant is applying for a PUD process, so the specifics of the B-3 District
regulations for such use are included here for reference.
Vehicle Sales lots are allowed in the B-3 District by Conditional Use Permit. The zoning
ordinance applies both general performance standards — applicable to all uses — and
specific standards applicable to this conditional use. As with all Conditional Use
Permits, there is a presumption that the use is allowed in the zoning district, subject to
conditions necessary to mitigate specific aspects of the proposed activity. Future
applications will be reviewed per conditional use permit review procedures and
requirements under section 2.4 subsection (D) of City Code along with the specific
requirements for vehicle sales lots as listed below:
Requirements for Vehicle Sales Lots in the B-3 district by Conditional Use Permit:
(31) Vehicle Sales or Rental
(a) The minimum building size for any vehicle sales or rental use shall
comply with the standards in Table 5-3:
■ •
. .
Less than 2 acres 5% 2,500 square feet
2 a�cres to less than � aeres 7% I �,�Of} square feet
4 acres to less than 8 acres 9% 20,04a square feet
$ acres or mar� 9%Q 4p,Df}(} square feet
-, .
(b) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an opaque buffer
(Table 4-2, Buffer Type "D") in accordance with section 4.1(G) of this ordinance.
(c) All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance.
(d) The outside sales and display area shall be hard surfaced (paved).
(e) The outside sales and display area does not utilize parking spaces
which are required for conformance with this ordinance. The site includes
separate customer and employee parking exceeding the ordinance
requirements.
(f) Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic
movement and shall be subj ect to the approval of the Community Development
5
Department. The plans show a single access point from Chelsea Road. The City
Engineer may comment on the location.
(g) There is a minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500) square
feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one hundred thirty
(130) feet. The lot area is 5 acres and more than 400 feet in width, exceeding the
requirements.
(h) A drainage system subject to the approval of the Community Development
Department shall be installed. The City Engineer will review drainage plans.
It is the City's understanding based on discussions with the applicant that the building is
proposed at 18,000 square feet. This size falls beneath the required minimum building
size noted above and is therefore one of the areas for which PUD flexibility is
requested. As previously noted, the applicant is seeking flexibility allow one larger
facility to be built in 2019, versus two smaller buildings to be built over a period of time
on the subject parcel.
Summary. As noted, the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment and
feedback at the Concept Review level. City officials should identify any areas of concern
that would require amendment to avoid the potential for eventual denial, as well as any
elements of the concept that the City would find essential for eventual approval.
Specific comment should address the following potential issues:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Overall Land Use.
Density.
Building Orientation.
Site Lighting.
Parking Supply.
Building Materials and Architecture.
Landscaping, green space, setbacks,
Circulation and Access.
Street Construction and location.
and other site plan improvements.
Engineering comments and recommendations.
The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as
the project proceeds to a more advanced stage of review.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Site Image
B. Applicant Narrative
C. Proposed Lot Configuration
D. Site Concept Plan
E. Proposed Elevations
F. Engineer's Letter, Dated 8/31/18
0
0
�
u
c
O
�
0
�
U
T
�
�
°�
�
U
G
N
C7
C7
G
G
sfl
N
�o � ��`�'��� � � , � � � �
c�w r ` � �'' — — �; + - • �'A�`
� . , _,� �.
� .
Q ., g -
v, ' ... . ,
„� ��,,. ..u„ ,�,.,. , .s
u?
u"1 —
f y,
, � z S
- � �
i �
�
�
:I
�i
�
i
� C3. ;y �
� � � . �' r ,
u7
S7
� � ` L � � � rl
f i' � �
� �
1 �
� r � �� � . _ � . �����.
� � � ���
, � �^ ..
� � �� "� :�
i� . r` �,...._j, ::,i. r �.; �! .•.-� � �h�t �R .
� � � , j � pLr, L.
; �. 5 S ; � � �. pp,R"� � �'
{�� �k � �
� ,/' '�� �� �, � -,'�-� � , ,� ' a ',�' . *='.
� F � ���^R' 4!'��. 4 , ��.` '�� �' ,`�.
F Cy �: � t
� � r � �^- 0 .
� ir � %.� t W.. u7,�``'+ �!f' �e �{ n 0 � N
u7 '^+ �r jr1 �� r i� � G
Q �� u7 • .. � � I � �"" �' � � G
�' � � . ■' -.; ��.,r,., % F :.i , , � � i v
0 . � p� r � - . � I � `� - .. G
x�c� � �
Z
> ���—��__.,, ,-�� � 1 # t, � ; �: y �-� ' $�.
� � t �, �'
N �' ��-,.•� d' � r• ' � . � y � 5���[7�- ,��
� �l � � � ,/ � ,; t�rF {�'�,'r � 4 f � '�� ' ���N .�
� , ` - � . v r ; r �`+ ! ' � 4 Y� � �,,. ' ti �' 4
� r . � � � 'n , , �'
� �.'���1 t=;� ,� �. � ,� �'� `y�.:
� �
� �v`; � �� nf� r� fi� • � � €?`i '' '' c
E? i
� � � ��� r�� �� r!: ��4 �,� • � .�? � lf �,�
� �4 ��`1�' r �u � ' �' � � ��S ' � . �
� w, �`� � ��,n "� C�,� �, . . !� ��� Y �,,� �.
. .
� � �'' .o �
a ��3� ��� �,,, . ��-� � ., r , {, �* � f s,, -r... �
� 4 r
W r � + } � i � ��u _ � /J � ��� r +� • J i rx'� ��``^.'+•� .. , , � V � / � .
� x.
5. •
� ,:: �, ' � R' I'' . ,
:
�. uy • �^ •
C6 Q ' "`� r''� � u7 �t r ' , ��
t ' ¢
+, .• . ,�° �. � .
.,4� � ; r � f
o � . �. ,, �'. µ ! � :.., .
o a +' � ` `�''>t �'
�--� o -�- ,� , _ . r -,,�,,� � � �Q- � �"; � � ,� �
� p i ,.�`-r� , ,w f... � , � � r �
C� N „,�n * � � , ,,�' { � � ,�+� • . � �' ,�0� w
O � '"� � . e� R� . ,�,: . r' r�t ` r' . � ' f
�+/ y� ..� � �� s / � �� � ••� �� �• �
U �ii '� �#�.:•� � � "„7 • - '► ' � '�
L � � � . ' � , ^ � ' cr ,�f' � • , #
� � � � . ; ,. � ��i� � �O � : f .
+, � d��' � � :t��''. � � r r�`�j� �' . .7 �+ ''�..
N — N ?� �r�j� • ?' '�' I S�``' , '
� � Y� �� vV
� o � , '�� .;� , � :° d�" ,.`�� r, � � ~ �� , �
f�� ,�r
�/ � '`��� I '.� + � "r � `Y1 :� CV . .
+' ?L' �
��/ � r ' H- "C7 � " - - .,
L.f Q °x ' � . . � ■w ,��,� � �!�F- . � � 4 � r! �� r ..
I � .'v G� � - :' . ' �, � �r � -w , i•''� �r 1 _ � r �� I rl
� � ��,,, � * � � � ' . • � C7 `'N � ` Yr.1T+l J% r ' ' - �
i � � � �i� '
+� � t �` P r
�--� � �.r E, y,LL7l: L \` . 12 CV t� '!�� c•x� � y ,� �
/, �.ayy� �-y , 1�#�" * .�.- � � �(
� V' .�i►� �,�••.4 ",. � �„t� �� ��.b,. p � .. �. � . �. f� � + , °�, e�-� � w
\ � ��a � • � � : �� "'+' � •"" ca v �
/ `' � �� f` �� tl �'S u�7
m � � s � � � �,._ � � . � l ' �S7
� O � . , f.'�`�� �1 � ; `��� .U'1 � ��,2�.`. �f3 i.f}
�� ` � � " '� • � -<`' '� -_�r *' �
O �s '.� ;,�. *,�".
October 5, 2018
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
'E
�
Re: Replat of out lot D Groveland addition and PUD for DSB Ventures (Monticello RV Center) narrative
OCello and DSB Ventures has entered into a purchase agreement to sell DSB ventures 5.98 acres on the
eastern portion of outlot D Groveland addition PID # 155125000040, 260,488 square feet. This would be
the West border of Affordable Storage presently is zoned B3.
It would be the intention of DSB to develop the site into a second location for Monticello RV Center.
They desire to do this by requesting to rezone from B-3 to a PUD which will allow some flexibility with
building size. It would allow one larger facility be built in 2019, versus 2 smaller buildings to be built
over a period of time.
The goal would be to break ground in early spring of 2019 with a completion date as soon as possible.
It would be our intention to build a quality building similar to the buildings in the neighborhood with
finishes acceptable to the business district requirements. This is one large site zoned B 3 made up of
approximately 11.75 acres (see drawing for exact size) this was developed with the Grove land addition
some years ago as outlot D. As you can see the property fronts Chelsea road and backs up to the Grove
land neighborhood. There are no wetlands and no trees. It's presently being farmed for hay or beans
When Ocello built the Grove Land addition, they built a berm between the residential property and the
commercial property.
The portion of the berm that is on the commercial property is approximately 40 feet by 640 feet
(25,600) square feet of buffer space that is not usable for parking or lot development. Ocello did plant
pine trees at the top on the residential property that have developed into a very nice buffer between
the residential and the commercial properties. It would be our intention to continue with pine tree
plantings and mulch just as affordable storage has done to extend the buffer and the continuity to the
projects.
It is our understanding that Affordable Storage is doing a decorative fence on the East border of this
property. It would be our intention to do rock landscaping on this border. On the West border we
would landscape a long shallow filtration pond to tie into one of the hookups provided to this site on
Chelsea road which ties to the regional pond.
Across the front Boulevard on Chelsea road we will have landscaped green space divided by the regional
trail.
Currently we anticipate only one entrance in and out of the site. The front part of this lot falls under the
highway sign designation, so are plans are to put a sign the complies with those requirements. We have
not finalized our other signage plans, but do not anticipate any extra sign requirements. As the signage
portion of the project develops we will communicate with the city.
We understand we will need a CUP to operate. Should we decide to fence any portion of the property
we would continue with the decorative design of the metal on the East border or similar product.
We feel our project is a good fit to the neighborhood. It's a acceptable use in a 63 zoning with a CUP.
The property is presently zoned B3. There is a good buffer between uses and very little impact to the
area, low traffic and a quiet operation, and brings a good tax base to the city while adding numerable
well-paying jobs.
�� � � � ; _ . � � ,,�
o �� . �
� ,� � , _ �� . i � - �:
a F ��y , N'
, �s, � .. �•
. .,�� i� —�—°R,
�
.. M1,
f � �
n3 — � �
_ � �n
_ � �
- . — �� . � - � `�.
��� `
� i
� �"f ° �
1,
i�
.�r��� i J , ., f
� �rt �
k. 1 �� i. � � �
� � ; �,
� � Y
� � � M� � � � ��
� { 5
° � � ���.. fP.
o- ' L°� ,
. . � '��� � 4�� y , � � � ����� � . �
- , � �:- � �' �� �
� � � � ��r� � "
� � - � � �. `� A
� �� �.�
, � � �� ,� � � �
�. �'�' � � �� �
. �, �"
, . .
, � _
'�, �, � � -�.
�� ;� � �
� � . — �.�a � �
� �' ,$at
,` �'�J � gY � �� . � +� W� ,�•' .
p
��� �� ..
`'
�� � .
4� �`f ����_h� ...
i
� �
� ;�� �� ��
� � ��
.
4 �' a
�`•: � ,r'�- _ _. ��r _ �
�.. �
r .
i _ � • 'k
�_ : �
r
�
�� � �
: � �
� � ��
��` �
� � � 4 �
a
�.� �
�� �
�°�'`� ��� � ; �
� - � �
� �'
��� _
. . .. . � . � � �
�' � : .
���� � ���
:�. ��• � �'v 'sy� � y '
_ -� �s � �*�a
. .. � ' . I ����
�• ��
��v+�i ' � � 41 � � ��
Z
O
F�—
�
h
Z
U
•
�
//�/
`
C►
WZ
Y�
Qw
J�
� o�
V Cn m �� � W
f�l '�, � � m Ca a `
�� mq m.�
�� oy _� �� ow
I � �
���
Z
O
�
�
�
Z
�
•
�
�
�
C�
WZ
Y�
Qw
J�
� �, �
��
z
O
�
¢
>
w
J
� W
r �
�
W
�
N
z
O
�
Q
>
w �
J
W
S
�
�
� �Z
' �.
ar �
Q
� �.L�
J
� W
�
Q
L.LJ
i «r
N
�
q {� �
� �� '�Q
�x °` ��
Ay _�
N
z
O
�
Q
>
w
J
W
S
�
�
�
�
N
O
October 31, 2018
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Lakes Region RV
Concept Plan Review
City Project No. 2018-047
WSB Project No. 012967-00
Dear Ms. Schumann:
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
We have reviewed the conceptual site plan dated October 7, 2018, provided by DSB Ventures and offer
the following comments:
1. The applicant has indicated one access point will be provided off of Chelsea Rd. It is preferred
that the access line up with one of the existing useable access points on the north side of
Chelsea Road to minimize turning movement conflicts accessing the site or have a minimum 250
foot spacing between usable access points along Chelsea Road. The applicant indicated they will
be reviewing the building orientation and circulation within the site and should consider the
access location from Chelsea Road with their review.
2. Multiple sanitary sewer and watermain services are extended from the mains within Chelsea
Road to serve the site. The civil plans should identify which services will serve the sites.
3. The applicant has indicated that the infiltration basin will located on the westerly property line of
Lot 1. A stormwater maintenance agreement will be required to be signed by the property owner
for the basin.
4. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed
development. Criteria and City design standards can be found in the City of Monticello Design
Manual (February 2018).
5. The proposed development discharges to a regional basin to the east along Chelsea Road. The
regional basin is designed to provide rate control for this site based on a CN of 80.
6. There are three existing stormsewer connections to the site that are shown on the submitted
survey. This is consistent with the City's as-built information. The civil plans should identify which
services will be used for the sites.
7. Water quality and infiltration is to be provided on site as it is not provided with the regional
pond. If 1.1 "over the new impervious area is infiltrated on site, then the water quality standards
will be met.
8. A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant submits
complete civil plans, stormwater management report and final plat.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter.
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:�ozs9e-am�nd m���oo��ososv s�em�m i
Lake Region RV
October 31, 2018
Page 2
Thank you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
.
/ ' .�, ��s�
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
Senior Project Manager
K:\012967-000\Admin\Docs\Ltra-schumann LakesRegion RV ConceptReview_103118.doa