The URL can be used to link to this page

9.1 SR 02-16-2021it ci Elk* River Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 9.1 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session February 16, 2021 Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Tiered Park Dedication Cal Portner, City Administrator Reviewed by Action Requested Discuss a tiered park dedication fee for high density apartment projects. Background/Discussion Last January, the City Council discussed park dedication for a proposed apartment project on the former Saxon Motors site. The meeting included topics specific to that project, trail easement and land dedication for the proposal, but also discussed the city's Park Dedication Fee as it related to high density residential uses (apartments) . Council directed staff to complete an appraisal study to review possible updates to the Park Dedication Fee and identify a possible tiered fee for high density uses. In July of 220, the findings were reviewed and unfortunately, the study did not identify enough high -density sales to create a tiered rate specific to high density uses. The findings would have increased park dedication for all tiers (low, medium, and high) and Council ultimately recommended no changes. The city has received a proposal for a 178-unit project on the same site with a net density of roughly 32 units/acre. This is a much higher density than recent apartment projects and would require $871,673.12 in Park Dedication Fees. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended cash dedication with a 20-foot trail easement. Current park dedication information from nearby communities is outlined below — Ramsey was the only community that provided a reduction for higher densities. Please provide staff with direction regarding a capped Park Dedication Fee or a tiered fee for the highest density projects. City Fee Note Ramsey $2,550/unit 20+ units per acre Big Lake $2,500/unit flat fee across densities Otsego $2,640/unit flat fee across densities Rogers $3,500/unit flat fee across densities Andover $4,400/unit flat fee across densities Anoka $2,543/unit flat fee across densities Dayton $3,885/unit flat fee across densities The Elk River Vision A n elcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity. PR�ERER Ri [NATURE Updated. August 2020 Financial Impact A reduced fee will impact the amount of park dedication funds collected from large apartment projects, and no change may impact the number of development proposals received. Mission/Policy/Goal The city's fee schedule supports the growth and development of the city. Attachments ■ Applicant Letter Received February 11, 2021 ■ January 21, 2020, Agenda Item and Minutes ■ July 20, 2020, Agenda Item and Minutes N:\Public Bodies\Agenda Packets\02-16-2021\Final\Laserfiche\x9.1 sr Park Dedication.docx DocuSign Envelope ID: 9465913E-30E2-48B0-B18B-2E9679B2929B 0 P E R T I E S Zachary Carlton Planning Mananger City of Elk River 13065 Grano Parkway, Elk River, MN 55330 Good morning Zachery: Thank you again for sending the background information and meeting minutes regarding park dedication fees and in particular, how they relate to the prospective Saxon Redevelopment project. We have since had the opportunity to review the study completed by Hosington Koegler Group and the various minutes from the meetings that have since taken place on the topic of Park Dedication. This is in addition to the internal research that we completed over the last couple of months as to the cost of construction, market demand, and ultimately the overall economic feasibility of the project. Although we are accustomed to the complexities involved with projects of this magnitude we have to admit that this project represents a first for us in terms of the background and effort that has taken place prior to us joining the process. From the outset we would like to thank everyone involved and for everyone to know that we sincerely appreciate their efforts to this point. As for the economic feasibility research much of our time has been spent evaluating the financial analysis completed by Patrick Briggs involving the total cost of construction of the redevelopment, market demand, and the corresponding proformas that he has created. We commend Mr. Briggs for the detail and comprehensive approach with which he evaluated the economic viability of the redevelopment and we agree with his conclusions. That is, In order for the Saxon Redevelopment project to be economically viable consideration needs to be given to the overall cost of the park dedication fees given the size and density of the proposed project. In short, the financial numbers have to work in order for the project to be sustainable and, as the developer, for us to meet our financial obligations to the City of Elk River as well as others. The alternative is that the project ends up being put on hold, as has been the case in the past, with the subject property. That being said, we fully understand how important a vibrant park system is to a City such as Elk River and our obligation, as well as our desire, to contribute to the cost associated with maintaining the current parks and providing for new parks as the city continues to grow. We look forward to continuing the discussion at the meeting next Tuesday as to how we can work together to find a mutually agreeable solution to the long needed redevelopment of the Saxon Site. tfmlllyl, b1'( J '►t`/1�r�?�B'�lj�lz Stonewood Developement Gly *f Elk Diver Request for Action To Item Number Nla�-or and Cite Council 19.1 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session January- 21, 2020 Zack Carlton, Planning NIana er Item Description Reviewed by Joint Meeting '"Fith Parks and Recreation Cal Portner, City Administrator Commission to Discuss Park Dedication for River Reviewed by Walk Apartments Action Requested Discuss park dedication requirements for development of the. former Saxon Motors site as high -density residential. Background/Discussion On December 16, 2019, the City Council and Pat Brings (representing the property owner Sun Rae Apartments, LLC) discussed park dedication requirements for redeveloping the Saxon Motors property and the two vacant lots to the north as a 200-unit high -density residential development. There is also the possibility of incorporating climate -controlled storage as part of the project. Mr. Briggs also submitted a proposal to dedicate 12.2 acres of land to satisfy the park dedication requirements for the residential development. Around 80 percent the proposed land dedication is within the floodplain along the Mississippi River as the buildable area outside of the floodplain is approximately 2.3 acres. State statute states that only buildable land should qualif= for dedication. Flood plain and steep slopes (bluff areas) are not considered buildable land. River Walk Projcct A conceptual 200-unit residential development on the former Saxon Motor site would require payment of a Park Dedication Fee. Previous direction from the Part: and Recreation Commission and City Council called for a trail easement and cash dedication. The trail easement is not required to count as land dedication and it was not included as such during previous discussions. The cash dedication for this project would account for the 200 units and discount what has been satisfied as an existing commercial use. 200 units x $4,897.04 ® ($35,392.00 credit for commercial use) = $944,016.00 If the city chooses to accept land to satisfy park dedication requirements, ordinance requires 9.48 acres. Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission may accept land to satisfy some or all the required dedication, but the previous recommendation did not include direction for park land 111 the subject area., which is also consistent with the Parks Master Plan. The Elk River Vision -1 vvlcolvvrg coiwmingy aY ill) yet hihoutuy arud .s pIIiled iesowtr fulness, exceptional p u w E R E 0 8 r scirlt-e, and cvliviut zily el ggagemenl l)al ens vinclges and il7Vir es pi -spew 'ty JNAfUR Financial Impact Adjustments to the Park Dedication Fee will impact the Park Dedication Fund, of which desigrlated funds are eligible for park expansions and additions. Attachments City Council Packet and Minutes dated December 16, 2019 Agenda submitted by Pat Briggs dated December 16, 2019 N:\PubLc Bodies\Agenda Packets\01-21-2020\Fina1\9.1 sr Park Dedicadoiadocq Elk Diver Request for ► ction To Item Number -N 4.3 \car and City- Council 0. ? Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session December 16, 2019 /ack Carlton, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Park Dedication Cal Portncr, City Administrator Reviewed by Action Requested Receive information and provide staff with direction regarding park dedication requirements and future development projects. Background/Discussion As part of the update the Park and Recreation Parks Master Plan, our consultant recommended review of the city's Park Dedication Fee due to concerns with recent changes to the state statute governing dedication of property for public purposes. Council directed staff to review the fee and explore options for calculating the cash in lieu of land dedication. That process and methodology used to update the fee is outlined in the attached Council Packets, and the following per unit rates were added to the city's fee schedule: Low Density (C4 DU/ acre) $1,425.93/dwelling unit Medium Density (4 to c7 DU/ acre) $1,075.79/dwelling unit High Density (>7 DU/ acre) $4,897.€34/dwelling unit Prior to updating the fee, park dedication for residential developments was a flat $3,712/unit regardless of density. A survey of surrounding communities found the folio,,ving cash dedication rates for residential development: Park Dedication Comparisons City Residential Cash Dedication Requirement Ramsey Base cash dedication rate $3,500/unit exceed 12+ units/acre $2,775/unit exceed 20+ units/acre $2,550/unit Rogers fee for all densities $3,500/unit Otsego fee for all densities $1,968/unit Big Lake Min. fee or 10% land value $2,500/unit Monticello % of land value (appraisal) 11% St. Michael fee for all densities $3,200/unit Dayton fee for all densities $3,156/unit The Elk River Vision _1 melcolviag mimwtniy will) ievolutiovag and .epi, led iexomry;dnets, exceptional P. o w E e t a a service, wzd corrrmrttaity e gage 8ent that ettcorrtages twirl insp' es p7ospefitp+ JNAfUR River Walk Pmsect A conceptual 200-unit residential development on the farmer Saxon Motor site would require payment of a Park: Dedication I'ce. Previous direction front the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council called for a trail casement and cash dedication. The trail easement is not required to count as land dedication and it was not included as such during previous discussions. The cash dedication for this project would account for the 200 units and discount what has been satisfied as a commercial use. 200 units x $4,897.04 --- ($35,392.00 credit for commercial use) = $944,016.00 Council may discuss accepting land to satisfy a portion of the dedication, but the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation did not include a desire for park land in the subject area, which is also consistent with the Parks Master flan. State statute notes that only buildable land should qualify for dedication. Flood plain and steep slopes are not considered buildable land. The city attorney will review statute guidance for Park Dedication Fees and staff will review how the current fees were established. Financial Impact Adjustments to the Park Dedication Fee will impact the Park Improvement Fund. Attachments ■ City Council agenda item October 19, 2015 ■ City Council agenda item July 5, 2016 ■ Park and Recreation agenda and Minutes from November 14, 2018 ■ City Council agenda item and Minutes from February 19, 2019 N:\Public Bodies\Agenda Packets\ 12-16-20191,Final\9.2 sr Park Dedicatioiadocx City of Elk z River Request for Action To Item Number Mai or and City Council 9.1 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session October 19, 2015 Michael [ lecker, Parks and Recreation Director Item Description Reviewed by Park Dedication Fees Cal Portner, CityAdministrator Reviewed by Action Requested Discussion of Park Dedication Ordinance language. Background/Discussion Based on City Council direction in June 2015, staff worked with I IItiG1 to update the city's Park Dedication ordinance. This work provided includes potential approaches for the determination of Park Dedication and recommended revisions to the City Code. HKGi Planner Rita Trapp ,kill lead a presentation with City Council on recommendations and updates to the city's Park Dedication Ordinance Financial Impact N/A Attachments ■ 111tiG1 Update Memo on Park Dedication 'template Updated 4/14 INAYUR� Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ®© fu To: Elk River City Council and City Staff From: Rita Trapp AICP Subject: Update on Park Dedication Study Date: October 14, 2015 As was directed at the June 15`h City Council Work Session, HKGi has been working with City Staff on evaluating potential approaches for the determination of park dedication and recommended revisions to City Code Sections regarding park dedication. Park Dedication Rates Residential Dedication Rate As was identified in the initial park dedication review, the City currently has one park dedication rate for all residential densities. Given the difference in need and impact of the various types of residential development, it is recommended that the City use a graduated system for its park dedication rate. As shown in the previous PowerPoint presentation, the residential park dedication rates in other communities vary between 10% and 20%with a few outliers in some communities. The following table was developed to illustrate the amount of park land needed to serve medium and high density housing developments and the corresponding percentage of park dedication that would need to be required to meet this need. The analysis uses the National Recreation and Park Association standard of 10 acres per 1,000 people. It also assumes that medium density projects like town homes have 2.25 people per unit and multifamily projects like apartments have 1.75 people per unit. Staff recommends that the City establish a park dedication rate based on density ranges rather than zoning districts. This is recommended because different densities can occur within the same zoning district. The following chart shows Staffs recommendation based on the analysis and comparisons with other communities. Density Units per Acre Park Dedication Rate Low Under 4 units/acre 10% Medium 4 to 7 units/acre 13% High More than 7 units/acre 16% 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-3800 Fx (612) 338-6838 A-Nw.hkgi.com Page Commercial and Industrial Dedication Rate The City currently has a park dedication rate of ten (10) percent for commercial and industrial properties. As was noted in at the June City Council Workshop, the park dedication survey HKGi completed this spring found communities had park dedication rates ranging from two (2) to ten (10) percent with half using 10%. It is recommended that the rate be maintained at 10% at this time. Method of Cash in Lieu Dedication The following table was developed to provide an overview, as well as the pros and cons of each potential method for collecting cash in lieu of a land dedication. Method Oven'iew Pros COFIS Set based on Use the fees set by other ■ Easy to implement ■ May not be reflective of real neighboring communities as the basis for ■ Ensures City is estate market communities the fee in Elk River competitive ■ Potential for legal challenge as does not meet state statute requirements County Assessors Use estimated market value of ■ Easy to identify ■ Lags behind marketplace so Value the land for fee collection ■ Generally accepted may collect too much or too method little Appraisal Study Hire an appraisal firm to ■ More accurate to ■ Study estimated to cost conduct a study evaluating the market conditions $5,000 to $15,000 depending average market value of vacant ■ Established fee that on the number of classes and properties by class. The study developers can be firm selected would take about 2 to 3 certain of ■ Potential for market lag months to complete and could depending on the frequency be paid for from park that City conducts study dedication. This would be used to set the fee amounts. Require appraisal Require that the developer ■ Establishes fee at ■ Adds time to development at time of submit an appraisal as part of exact land value process development the final platting process. Fee ■ Reflects each unique ■ Additional cost for developer collection would then be based situation — one firm estimated an on that value. appraisal to cost $2,500+ for commercial/multi-family projects Sale Price of Require that the developer ■ Relatively simple to ■ May not include value gained Property provide the sale price of the implement through entitlement process property and use that value for ■ Sale may have occurred a fee collection. significant time ago ■ Potential for developers to manipulate Negotiation Require that each park ■ Uncertainty for ■ Potential to be challenging to dedication fee be agreed to developers come to an agreement through negotiation between ■ Starting point will still need the developer and the City. to be established ■ Staff time ■ Potential for legal challenge Page 3 MethodPros Coils Allow developer Allow developer to select ■ Provides more legal ■ Will end up with lowest to select from whether they want to use the protection as amount of park dedication options park dedication fee or submit developers have possible. Impact depends on an appraisal opportunity to select options provide. preferred option Require "higher" List multiple options and ■ Best potential to ■ Potential for legal challenge of multiple require the one with the maximize park remains if options are not options highest park dedication dedication with the based on market realities amount be selected least amount of ■ Adds time and cost to effort by City developer City Staff and HKGi did attempt to quantify the difference between the various methods. However, the City does not have enough example appraisals to do such a comparison. If such a comparison is desired, the City may want to consider conducting an appraisal study as was described in the third option. Such a study would cost between $5,000 and $10,000 and take two to three months to complete. City Staff has considered all of the options and recommends that the City Council use the County Assessors Value to estimated market value of the land for the collection of cash in lieu of the land dedication. Staff recommends this method as it is the easiest to administer and is generally accepted in the planning and development community. Recommended City Code Revisions Once direction is received from the City Council regarding the industrial park dedication, residential park dedication, and methodology for the cash dedication, proposed ordinance amendments will be developed. City Staff did review all of the references to park dedication to identify any additional changes needed. This review identified the following needs: 1) As shown below the section regarding the use of the cash dedication specifically references the payment of funds for trails. The City does not have a trail fee, nor does it intend to require fees for trails. Thus, it is recommended that the sentence be struck to eliminate any confusion. Sec. 30-327. - Dedication of land or contribution of cash for public purpose (e) Use of cash contributions. Any monies paid to the city in lieu of park dedication shall be placed in a special fund and used only for the acquisition of land for parks, playgrounds, trails, and public open space; for the development of such areas and sites; and for debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired or developed for such public purposes. Any monies specifically paid to the city for trails shall be used only for the acquisition of land for trails and far the development of such land. 2) Currently the City Code requires that as part of the development process the Parks and Recreation Commission advise the City Council on the acquisition of land. The vision identified in the recent Parks and Recreation Master Plan is that the City will be emphasizing larger, community parks rather than smaller, neighborhood parks over the next 20 years. To support that vision, it is anticipated that more park dedication will be collected through the cash fee rather than through land acquisition. Because the Parks and Recreation Master Plan provides Page 4 clear direction regarding when park land is the preferred form of park dedication, Staff is recommending that all references requiring Parks and Recreation Commission involvement in the platting process be removed. Staff will continue to make a recommendation regarding park dedication to the City Council and will use the Park and Recreation System Master Plan as a guide. 3) As shown below, the Open Space Preservation Plats requirements include specific provisions for park dedication. Staff has reviewed that section and recommends that it be stricken. The approach for park dedication for these plats will be the same as other residential plats. Sec. 30-515 (4) Park dedication fee requirements. Park dedication fee requirements shall be based upon the total number of house lots platted if fees are paid in lieu of land. •�s Rive Request for Action To Item Number flavor and City Council. ! Agenda section Meeting Date Prepared by Public Hearin s tilt/ 5, 2016 Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Ordinance Amendment Regarding Park Dedication Pctcr Beck, City Attorney Fees Reviewed by Cal Portner, City Administrator Action Requested Adopt, b} Motion, an ordinance amendment modifying the park dedication requirements described in Section 30-327 of the City Code. Background/Discussion Staff has bcen working with a number of consultants over the past six -plus months to draft an amendment to the city's park dedication ordinance. The need for the change was identified during the Parks and Recreation Master Plan project, and this update is the final component of the larger master plan. After a number of discussions with the City Council and outside consultants, the following changes to the park dedication ordinance are recommended. Residential park Dedication The current park dedication requirements require a dedication of 10% of land, or a per unit cash dedication described in the city's fee schedule. Staff is recommending a change to both the land. dedication requirement and the current fee schedule. The new residential rates are based to factors unique to Elk River, and do not rely on comparisons to peer cities generalizations. The land dedication rate is based on the average acres of park land required per resident, as described in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and the average household size for three residential land classes. The household size was calculated using information sourced from the latest census, and Till be updated with future census data. The results are shown in the table below: Acres of land Persons per Acres of land Land Use Designation dedicated per Household dedicated per person dwelling unit Law Density Residential 0.03 X 2.82 m 0.0846 Medium Density Residential 0.03 X 1.80 - 0.0540 High Density Residential 0.03 X 1.58 = 0.0474 The land dedication will be based on impacts to the park system created by each new dwelling unit, rather than a flat 10% dedication rate. P 0 W E 9 E R B C NAWREJ The cash dedication fee is established by multiplying the land dedication and the fair market value of the land. The fair market value for the current update was established with an appraisal study from. Patchin, Messner, Dodd, & Brumm. The study identified the average fair market value of three residential land classes in communities similar to Elk River. The fee, as included in the fee schedule, is described below: Low Density (<4 DU/ acre) $1,425.93/dwelling unit Medium Density (4 to <7 DU/ acre) $1,075.79/dwelling unit High Density (>7 DU/ acre) $4,897.04/dwelling unit The appraisal study will be completed every five years, or as market conditions warrant, to ensure consistent application of a fair land valuation. Specialized Housing Uses Staff recognizes and anticipates an increase in the development of facilities providing 24/7 care, such as assisted living, nursing, or memory care facilities, and that the park dedication impacts resulting from these facilities are not the same as other housing types. Staff views these types of facilities similar to commercial (service) or office uses, and recommends using the commercial dedication rates for these facilities. The dedication rate for facilities with a mix of independent and 24/7 care units will dedicate the proportionate share of the different uses. The same practice will be applied to other mixed -use facilities, commercial and residential uses for example. Commercial and Industrial Uses Current land dedication rates for commercial and industrial rates utilize a flat 10% rate, and cash rates are established annually in the fee schedule. The current proposal modifies both rates and is tied to the county assessed value of the property. Commercial and office uses will dedicate 8% o of the buildable land, or 8% of the county assessed value of the property. Industrial uses will dedicate G%a of the buildable land, or G%Q of the county assessed value of the property. The fee, as included in the fee schedule, is described below: Commercial Industrial 8% of county assessed value G% of county assessed value Financial Impact The proposed changes to the cash dedication rate will result in an overall decrease in the total amount of money collected. The goal of this update is to be in compliance with state statute, and reviews by the City Attorney and others show that this goal has been met. Attachments ■ Ordinance Amendment for Section 30-327 — Redlincd Copy • Ordinance Amendment for Section 30-327 — Clean Copy ■ Residential Park Dedication Calculations N:1Puhlic Bodieslrlgenda Packets\07-05-20141Final\7'.1 sr Park pedication.docx Park Dedication Calculation Assumptions for Park Dedication 2.82, 1.80, and 1.58 Average Household size for City of Elk River (based on 2014 AC5 Data) 0.03 Acres of park land per resident as identified by Parks and Rec Master Plan $ 16,855.00 Mean per acre value of low density residential land established by appraisal study $ 19,922.00 Mean per acre value of medium density residential land established by appraisal study $ 103,313.00 Mean per acre value of high density residential land established by appraisal study Land dedication required low density 2.82 x 0.03 = 0.0846 acres of land per residential unit med density 1.80 x 0.03 = 0.054 acres of land per residential unit high density 1.58 x 0.03 = 0.0474 acres of land per residential unit Cash dedication required low density 0.0846 x $ 16,855.00 = $ 1,425.93 cash dedication per residential unit med density 0.0540 x $ 19,922.00 = $ 1,075.79 cash dedication per residential unit high density 0.0474 x $ 103,313.00 = $ 4,897.04 cash dedication per residential unit Cit. *ivt ERr Request for Action To Item Number Darks and Recreation Commission 5.1 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Action Item November 14, 2018 Chris Leeseberg, Senior Planner Item Description Reviewed by River Walk Apartment - Park Dedication Steve Benoit, Recreation Manager Reviewed by 117ichael Hecker, Parks and Recreation Director Action Requested Recotrunend, by motion, park dedication be paid in the form of cash for the number of units approved by the City Council at the rate applicable when the subdivision is released for recording. (This will be $4,897.04/unit at the 2018 high density rate) And a 50-foot trail easement from under the Highway 101 bridge to the southern property line of the site shall be provided. The majority of the easement shall be located above and along the bluff line. Background/Discussion The subject property is located on Zane Street along the 1746, Avenue alignment (see red dot on Figure 1). It is between the previous Saxon site and the Lodge (apartments). The applicant has not provided the proposed park land acreage. It is guessed to be approximately 12 acres in size. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan The Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates adding or protecting prairie bluff lands that offer river views, as the opportunity arises in this area. The land the applicant is proposing to donate, in lieu of park dedication, is below the bluff line and much of it is in the floodplain (unbuildable). The limited areas that are not in floodplain are on steep slopes. Park Dedication - Cash The submitted drawings for the September 12, 2018, Parks and Recreation meeting had 103 units. This would require $504,395.12 in park dedication. This is calculated with the High density rate of $4,897.04/dwelling unit. Flo" I The Elk River Vision A welcormng community midi remlutienary and ipiriled resounrfolness, exG-eplional serasrce, and rommunity engagement that encourages and inspirres pmspenly 6 tIIEIEI I NATURE Park Dedication - Land The submitted drawings for the September 12, 2018, Parks and Recreation meeting had 103 units. This would require 4.88 acres of land. This is calculated with the high density rate of 0.0474 acres dwelling unit. Section 30-327 (c) states; Buildable land. For the purposes of calculating the required dedication described in this section, shall be defined as the gross acres less the area of wetlands, lakes, and streams below the ®HWL. The land can be donated but cannot be calculated toward required dedication. Master "frail flail The Master Trail Plait shows a conceptual connection in this area. The location is not definitive and could occur on a sidewalk or above the bluff line providing river views, achieving the goals of the Master Plan in this area. Parkin It is unclear if the proposed driveway to the parking lot is feasible. Further detail on the grades in the area will be needed. The DNR memo discusses this further. The slopes will also need to be evaluated for ADA compliance before the proposed public park was obtained. ADA slopes are more restrictive that those for vehicles. Environmental The applicant states in their narrative about working together to provide walkable paths, canoe racks, fishing docks, and bathroom facilities. The attached memo from the Environmental Coordinator & Stormwater Coordinator begins to discuss the complexities of what can/cannot be completed in proposed park area_ The DNR memo discusses this further. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the project for park dedication requirements during their September 12, 2018, regular meeting. They recommend a cash donation equal to the number of units within the apartment building and a 50-foot trail easement from under the Highway 101 bridge to the southern property line of the site. The majority of the easement shall be located above and along the. bluff line. The Commission had no interest in receiving any park land in the subject area. Attachments ■ I..ocation Map • Site Flan ■ Schematic Rendering ■ Memo from the Environmental Coordinator & Stormwater Coordinator dated September 6, 2018 ■ Memo from the DNR dated August 31, 2018 7s�21�r11a 75421-0124 i w Rivenvalk- Apartments - Briggs Plat') ; ZC 73-7404105. '� e 7S-740-0110 '•tea .` •� i3.7W-0115 i-7 7S•462�3flS � :. � �" . S4 1► , =001 Ufa r Z r ' e7 � 0215 71i-b t;5 y '� 75-tl�Uz�7z;k Pti t 7a4-#1105 '+ 11R AiVF. NW 75-011-2250 75 79.0112 1 -01OS Case No: P 18-12 Cu I8-15 Ev 18-05 Elk ZC I8-05 River I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i e 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 lf•, It I 4RM-111C WALK �' I4 _21 NOTES: '. BASE PLAN USED IS A SURVEY PRF,PARED BY SWAffT. PnIERSOH & ASSOCTA7iS ALL Umst c UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS STHO144 ARE APPMOMATE O11i.Y CONTRACTOR S1ikl CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS ...� PRIOR TO CONSrRUCTM CONTRACTOR S1ALT. CONTACT UTILITY COMPANIES ,AA COPIITR STATE ONE -CALL ONLINE OR B" CAILINSI ail a:z • 1-aGO-2u-1166, S- ALL CONSTRUCTION SMALL CONFORM TO [HE YO57 RESIRICT VE 01 -HE PROJECT SPLC1f1CJlRrlla rME StANOARp SP'ECIFI CATIONS OF THE CITY DF ELK RIYTR AND THE LAIEST FBITION OF MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION yJy t IMF &5 7 _— r mar-h�"�_ � �_ 'L - `�_` _..- �. - __ �� City of Ells Pdver To: Parks and Recreation Commission Memorandum From: Amanda Bednar, Environmental Coordinator & Brandon Wisner, Stormwater Coordinator Date: September G, 2018 Subject: Riverwalk Apartments shoreland and floodplain information The proposed parking lot, driveway and park location on the River Walk Apartments is located along the Mississippi River and very near to floodplain and wetland areas. Locating a parking lot at or near the 100 year flood elevation could require meeting Sec. 30-1913 paragraph 5 and Sec. 30- 1914 conditional uses of the city code. Vehicles could also be viewed as equipment that is flammable, explosive or potentially hazardous to humans, animals or plant communities especially near the floodplain area. Additionally there are concerns in relation to the bluff area. The driveway and roadway would require significant grading and manipulation to establish those structures. This would also cause erosion issues and destabilize the bluff, altering stormwater runoff. City code requires all structures including roads, parking lots and park structures be 30 feet from the top of the bluff. Stairways and landings are the only items exempt from the bluff and top of bluff setbacks. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to driveways in accessing land below the bluff and steep slopes. Specific requirements for such access are outlined in the city code. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Limited clearing is allowed to provide view of the water, stairways or landings, picnic areas or access paths. Walking paths and park amenities may be permitted in this area. Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones. Documentation shall be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters. Public and private roads and parking areas shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. All plans would also require review and possible permits from the Department of Natural Resources. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES August 31, 2018 City of Elk River Planning Commission 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River MN 55330 Ecological and Water Resources Division RE: MISSISSIPPI RIVER DEVELOPMENT CUP for PI # 75-521-0110 and 75-521-0120 Dear City of Elk River Planning Commission, 1035 5 Benton Dr. Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 I have reviewed the submitted plans for a CUP to construct a multi -family development unit along the Mississippi River, I have found the following issues. The construction plans do not show the height of the building but the plans do show that the building will be a 4 story building. I do not know if this building will meet the height restriction of 30 feet per Sec 30-2022 (c). A Height greater than 30 feet could alter the scenic, historical, natural value that was outlined in Minnesota Statute 103F.315. Typically 4 story buildings are a greater height then 30 feet. The location of the building along with subsequent water retention ponds and other infrastructure could destabilize the bluff. The location of the retention pond is of concern as it will be placing head pressure on the side slopes of the pond along with more water being placed in the pore spaces of the soil in this location which could destabilize the bluff. The retention pond plans show that they removing what appears to be the top of the bluff. I would advise having the applicant change the placement of the retention pond to the side of the building and further away from the bluff. In addition to the above mentioned structures, placing a parking lot at the 100 year flood elevation or slightly above could require the applicant to meet sec 30-1913 paragraph 5. Vehicles could be viewed as equipment that is flammable, explosive or potentially injurious to humans, animals or plant life. This would require a plan approved by the city council. In addition to the floodplain concern placing a driveway/roadway on the bluff is not recommended due to the level of grading and manipulation required to establish said driveway/road. This could also cause erosional issues and destabilize the bluff from having a smooth surface for the water run long which would increase the velocity of this runoff. Since this is a semi-public space there are safety concerns for vehicle and pedestrian traffic due to the slope. Creating a parking lot in this location could also conflict with you clearcutting code. Sincerely, James Bedell Area Hydrologist 11035 S Benton Dr.1 Sauk Rapids, MN 53379 j (320) 223-7850 1 ;arnes.bedell state.ntn.us I Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Ecological and Water Resources 800 Oak Savanna Ln. SW Cambridge MN 55008 CC: Tim Crocker DNR EWR Region 3 North District Manager Dan Petrik DNR EWR Land Use Specialist Ceil Strauss DNR EWR Floodplain Hydrologist Minnesota Department of Natural Resources e Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1035 5 Benton ❑r. Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 Gty of River Members Present: Council liaison: Meeting of the Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission Held at the Elk River City !-fall Wednesday, November 14, 2018 Chair Anderson, Commission members Ahlness, Hohngren, Niziolek, Rathbun, Soltvedt, and Williams Mr. Olsen Staff Present: Parks and Recreation Director, Michael Hecker, Recreation Manager Steve Benoit, Parks Superintendent Tim Sevcik, Senior Planner Chris Leeseberg, Recreation Coordinator Tonya Love, and Recreation Assistant Dawn Larson I. Call Meeting to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Anderson. 2. Consider I 1 / 14/ 18 Agenda Moved by Commissioner Ahlness and seconded by Commissioner Soltvedt to approve the November 14, 2018, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting agenda. Motion carried 7-8. 3.1 Consider 11 /3/ 18 Regular PRC Minutes Commissioner Ahlness requested the following change to Item 7.1; change Commissioner Ahlness to Commissioner Rathbun for being on the Woodland Trails Regional Park Committee. Moved by Commissioner Niziolek and seconded by Commissioner Williams to approve the following October 3, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes with the suggested changes. Motion carried 7-4. 4. Open Forum - None 5 Riverwalk Apartment Park Concept Mr. Leeseberg presented his staff report. Chair Anderson asked for clarification on what the different colored boundaries meant on the Qoodplain map. Mr. Leeseberg explained it was required setbacks. Mr. Leeseberg also cxplained that the map that the Commission had seen two months prior Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes November 14, 2018 Page 2 did not have the current ma.p°s additional building with 67 units on the other side of the proposed storage facility. Chair Anderson asked the Commission if the request could be approved next month or if it had to be this month considering the change of plans and additional apartment emits. Also asking if the new information presented would change the Con=ssions point of view from the general consensus by the Commission at the September 12, 2019 meeting to receive cash dedication for the property. Dan Anderson, Briggs Companies, stated that the process does not make or break the project of having park dedication and it is expected to have that. Their Biggest concern is regarding the transient action in the area with 28-30 reports a month to the police department. The vandalism is over the top and damage is overwhelming. Issue is more about when we put people there that they are safe, creating a safe environment for them. The commission discussed the proposed drive to the western portion of the property but ultimately decided not to provide input on it as they recommended only cash dedication. They discussed the need for a trail easement running north and south along the bluff line and how to access this easement from 'Zane Street. The commission also had a discussion on the need for a future location of a boat landing (once Babcock closes) and did not think this property was a good location. They agreed the city should focus on an area further south near the proximity of the proposed interchange of 1676 .avenue and Highway 169. Moved by Commissioner Niziolek and seconded by Commissioner Rathbun to accept staff recommendation of park dedication to be paid in the form of cash for the number of units approved by the City Council at the rate applicable when the subdivision is released for recording. (This will be $4,897.02/unit at the 2018 high density rate) A 50- foot trail easement from under Highway 101 Bridge to the southern property line of the site shall be provided with the majority of the easement being located above and along_ the bluff line. The final location shall be approved by city staff. Adding that a 30-foot wide trail easement, connecting the 50-foot easement to Zane Street, shall be provided. Motion carried 7-0. 5. Discussion Items — None I��rtaEe �r NAYUREJ Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 17.5 Agenda section Meeting Date Prepared by Public I learin s February 19, 2019 Zack Carlton, Plarming Manager Item Description Reviewed by River Walk Apartments — 17354 Lane Street NW Chris Leeseberg, Senior Phinner A. Right-of-way Vacation: Zane Street NW Reviewed by B. Simple Plat: River Walk Cal Portner, City Adnuristrator C. Zone Change to PUD D. Conditional Use Permit for PUD Action Requested A. Continue, by motion, the request to vacate a portion of the Zane Street Right -of -Way to the March 18, 2419, Council meeting. B. Continue, by motion, the request for approval of a Simple Plat to the March 18, 2019, Council meeting. C. Continue, by motion, the request for approval of a Zone Change to the April 15, 2019, Council meeting. D. Continue, by motion, the request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit establishing a Planned Unit Development to the April 15, 2019, Council meeting. Background/Discussion The applicant submitted updated plans on February 14, 2419, which include a cul-de-sac and work to address some of the comments from staffs comment letter dated January 14, 2019, and the feedback from the January 22, 2019, work session. Park Dedication The updated plan includes a 15-foot trail easement along the north edge of the project, but does not reflect the direction given by the Parks and Recreation Commission on November 14, 2618. Prior to the motion to continue, the applicant would like to discuss the park dedication and trail easement recommendations as they further refine the plans. A representative from the Parks Commission will be at the meeting. The applicant has also submitted a written extension request for all four of the applications associated with project. The extension pushes the last date for a decision by the City Council to April 17, 2019. The Elk River Vision CR 33 RR 1 Hwy 10 CR 12. Figure l A wekcovibg c•oly vlinily Frith ivm1utionag and spinled irsoiarefulness, exceptional service, and coFrirmrnity ergageinetrl lhal erncownges and insph-es pivi ieiiy P o w [ H [ o O X INATURE-1 Statutory Review Period The applicant extended the review period, by written request, to April 17, 2019. Attachments • Updated Plans received February 14, 2019 ■ Parr and Recreation Commission Minutes from November 14, 2018 r Written Extension Request to April 17, 2019 ■ Staff Comment Fetter dated. January* 14, 2019 \'�tPuhfic Bodies\Agenda Packets \02-19-20t91Final\x7.j sr River Walk Apartments 2-19-2019.docx I I i } I 1 � � 1 ------------------ TRACT C -------------------------- T ------------- 1 i ' + 1 1 e4 1 11 V j -- ------ 1 T_-- 1 + - j r ~ I cmulk TRACT C} I ' woa.rra5n Y I I , 6 N _ --------- --- — ----------- U 1 I I tn 44444111111 - y. ., ./i: �l A I �lnn,w r�r.�wr ______________ 1 I j- E� rlk 5k'HIF' W%I.F NOTES: I RASE PLAN USED IS A SURVEY PREPARED BY BOGART. PEDERSON & ASSOCIATES. t 2ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE Ei (P APPROXIMATE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTILITY COMPANIES VIA GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL g ONLINE OR BY CALLING $11 OR i 600 2.52-1166 3 ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RESTRTCTIvE_s6� OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS- THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER AND THE LATEST EDITION OF MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. z b ZF= 00Z La Q N C. a REVIEW FLAN �- -0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION � +L 1 ' NINES: + I BASE PLAN USED IS A SURVEY PREPARED BY BOGART. PEDERSON & ASSOCIATES. +, ?. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOM ARE +� APPROXIMATE ONLY, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTILITY COMPANIES VIA GOPHER STATE ONE —CALL t ONLINE OR BY CALLING 817 OR 1-900-252-1166.. .� 3� ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM i0 THE MOST RESTRICTIVE _ OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS - + •'" OF THE CITY Of ELK RIVER AND THE LATEST EDITION Of MNDOT _ STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. x �, -•x 4, EXISTING ZONING: FOCUSED AREA STUDY (FAST), .i. PROPOSED: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA (SF) M4SRWALIS APTS RIVER PLAZA TO-W EAISTING 60t,711 130.M 1 IwjI9 PERCENT - IS -OS PROPOSED 74.559 67.205 161.764 PERCENT 19.55 42 8=9 2769 LOT AREA ]82,]02 201.926 SW.22II PARKING STALL COUNTS RIVERWALY. APTS RIVER PLAZA COVERED1D 95 SIJRFd 93 too TOTAL 2O0 2O3 UNITS 707 d5 RATID 1.94 2.39 r K fsj LA Q. 4 4 N R N W LO LLL a. z O N �+ L0 < w (� 7 � REVIEW FLAN_, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NOTES: I BASE PLAN USED IS A SURVEY PREPARED BY BOGART. PEDERSON & ASSOCIATES. 2ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTILITY COMPANIES VIA GOPHER STATE ONE —CALL ONLINE OR BY CALLING $11 OR 1-600-2.52-1166 3 ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS- THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER AND THE LATEST EDITION OF MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 4. THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE AND PROTOCOLS SHALL BE FOLLOWED FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: A. INSTALL PERIMETER CONTROLS (SILT FENCE & ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE) AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS PRIOR TO START OF WORK, B SOIL STOCKPILES OR CONCRETE WASHOUTS ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THE PROJECT SITE. C MAINTAIN ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IN PLACE UNTIL THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN STASILTZED.INSPECT TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ON A WEEKLY 'OASIS AND AFTER EACH 1/2- OR MORE RAIN EVENT CLEAN OR MAINTAIN THESE DEVICES AS NEEDED TO BE EFFECTIVE REPLACE DETERIORATED. DAMAGED OR ROTTED EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IMMEDIATELY. D. REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENTS DEPOSITED ONTO PUBLIC AND/OP. PRIVATE PAVEMENT AREAS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DEPOSITION REMOVAL OF TRACKING MATERIALS SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE END OF EACII WORK DAY WIiEN IT OCCURS. SWEEPING MAY BE ORDERED AT ANY TIME IF CONDITIONS WARRANT E, PERFORM SITE REMOVALS. GRADING. EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT SEED AND MULCH ALL DISTURBED AREAS. OUTSIDE OF PROPOSED PAVEMENT AND BUILDING AREAS WITHIN 72 HOURS Of THIS WORK. F INSTALL BUILDING AND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION FINE GRADE SIT£ .AND RESTORE GREEN AREAS WTH PERMANENT VEGETATION PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. G. STORMWATER BMPS SHALL NOT BE EXCAVATED TO FINAL GRADE UNTIL CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND FULLY STABILIZED. H REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES AFTER SITE HAS UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION AND PERMANENT VEGETATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH AT LEAST 70% COVERAGE Id AAlf N Q 4 N q LJJ F } WG iL [Y y Q 41LA J � � yJ c9 r1c TZI w W. REVIEW PLAN �_2 city of ""I ► T4!1jflk &U%0-, � River Members Present: Council liaison: Meeting of the Elk, River Parkas and Recreation Commission Held at the Elk River City Hall Wednesday, November 14, 2018 Chair Andersen, Commission members Ahlness, Holmgren, Niziolek, Rathbun, Soltvedt, and Williams Mr. Olsen Staff Present: Parks and Recreation Director, Michael Hecker, Recreation Manager Steve Benoit, Parks Superintendent Tim Sevcik, Senior Planner Chris Leeseberg, Recreation Coordinator Tonya Love, and Recreation Assistant Dawn Larson I. Call Meeting to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Anderson. 2. Consider 11 J 14/ 1 S Agenda Moved by Commissioner Ahlness and seconded by Commissioner Soltvedt to approve the November 14, 2018, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 3.1 Consider 1013118 Regular PRC Minutes Commissioner Ahlness requested the following change to Item 7.1; change Commissioner Ahlness to Commissioner Rathbun for being on the Woodland' Trails Regional Park Committee. Moved by Commissioner Nixiolek and seconded by Commissioner Williams to approve the following October 3, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission. Minutes with the suggested changes. Motion carried 7-0. 4. Open Forum - None 5 Riverwalk Apartment Park Concept Mr. Leeseberg presented his staff report. Chair Anderson asked for clarification on what the different colored boundaries meant on the Qoodplain map. Mr. Leeseberg explained it was required setbacks. Mr. Leeseberg also explained that the map that the Commission had seen two months prior Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes November 14, 2018 Page 2 did not have the current map's additional building with 67 units on the other side of the proposed storage facility. Chair Anderson asked the Commission if the request could be approved next .month or if it had to be this month considering the change of plans and additional apartment units. Also asking if the new information presented would change the Commissions point of view from the general consensus by the Commission at the September 12, 2019 meeting to receive cash dedication for the property. Dan Anderson, Briggs Companies, stated that the process does not make or break the project of having park dedication and it is expected to have that, Their biggest concern is regarding the transient action in the area with 28-30 reports a month to the police department. The vandalism is over the top and damage is overwhelming. Issue is more about when we put people there that they are safe, creating a safe environment for them. The commission discussed the proposed drive to the western portion of the property but ultimately decided not to provide input on it as they recommended only cash dedication. They discussed the need for a trail easement running north and south along the bluff line and how to access this easement from Zane Street. The cornmission also had a discussion on the need for a future location of a boat landing (once Babcock closes) and did not think this property was a good location. They agreed the city should focus on an area further south near the proximity of the proposed interchange of 1 b7`s Avenue and Highway 169. Moved by Commissioner Nixiolek and seconded by Commissioner Rathbun to accept staff recommendation of park dedication to be paid in the form of cash for the number of units approved by the City Council at the rate applicable when the subdivision is released for recording. ('Phis will be $4,$97.02/unit at the 2018 high density rate) A 50- foot trail easement from under Highway 101 Bridge to the southern property line of the site shall be provided with the majority of the easement being located above and along the bluff line. The final location shall be approved by city staf Adding that a 30-foot wide trail easement, connecting the 50-foot easement to Zane Street, shall be provided. Motion carried 7-0. G. Discussion Items — None it I I E R i I I i NAWREJ Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes Page 3 November 14, 2018 7. Parks and Recreation Director Update Mr. Hecker presented his staff report. Mr. Hecker also thanked Commissioner Williams for his leadership and hard work over the past year in support of the Active Elk River campaign. 8.1 Recreation Manager's Update Mr. Benoit presented his staff report. Mr. Benoit also presented his power point on the 19'' Annual Family Spooktacular 2018 pointing out that this year's event had record attendance. 8.2 Street and Park Superintendent Update Mr. Sevcik presented his staff report. Chair Anderson asked if the group remembered the discussions in the past about the park signs being horizontal instead of vertical signs Mr. Sevcik presented. He stated, that the vertical signs were not the ones approved by the Commission and requested if he could get a copy of the cornmission recommendations regarding the wayfinding project. Mr. Hecker explained that the City Council approved the Vertical ones and the process of installation is already underway. 9. Announcements 10. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting of the Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission work session at 7.52 p.m. Minutes rdenared bWDawn Larson. Dave Andersorn_ Chair Tina Allard, City Clerk P I I E I E I 1► NA Daniel J. Andersen Briggs Companies 633 Lipton Ave, Ells River MN RE City of Elk River — Rverwalk Apartments Case Numbers: EV 18-05, P 18-12, ZC 18-05, and CU 18- 15 To whom it may concern, This letter is to request and consent to extension of the time periods provided under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99 and section 462.358 for approval or denial of the four applications listed above to April 17, 2019. it is our intent to amend the applications to provide added information per the site plan more in beeping of the requirements allowed is this region and use. Regards Daniel J. Andersen Briggs Companies 633 Upland Ave, Ells River MN City Comcg Minutes Page 4 February 19, 2019 ---------------------------- Moved by Councilmember Westgaard and seconded by Councilmember Wagner to adopt Resolution 19-07 granting Final Plat of ER Ventures Second Addition, with the condition that Variance No. V 19-01 is recorded with Lot 1, Block 1, ER Ventures Second Addition. Motion carried 5-0. 7.5 River Walk Apartments — 17354 Zane Street A. Right-of-way Vacation: Zane Street B. Simple Plat: River Walk C. Zone Change to Planned Unit Development D. Conditional Use Permit to Planned Unit Development Mr. I.eeseberg presented the staff report on behalf of Planning Manager Mack Carlton. Mayor Dietz opened the public hearing. Dan Anderson, Briggs Company, 633 L'pland Avenue —risked for clarification about park dedication stating the Parks and 1iccrcation Commission provided different feedback then Council. He stated lie would prefer to give land for a park versus giving cash or easements. Dave Anderson, Parks and Recreation Commissioner — Stated the commission chose to preserve an easement for a trail and not take land. He stated the. commission further recommended taking cash for the park dedication. He stated they want the easement because it is highlighted in the Park and Recreation Master Plan as a river bluff trail heading from downtown Elk River to a City of Ramsey trail connection. Mayor Dietz asked Mr. Beck about the trail casement. Mr. Beck sated when land is being flatted, the city has the authority to Obtain easements. He stated it is a reasonable condition because it's in city plans. Moved by Councilmember Westgaard and seconded by Councilmember Wagner to continue the request to vacate a portion of the Zane Street Right - of -Way and the Simple Plat to the March 18, 2019, Council meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Councihnember Wagner asked for further discussion of Council's desire for a trail easement. She stated it is an important trail connection along the river that is a great benefit to the residents of the community. Councilmc tuber Westgaard stated he supports the commission's recommendation Moved by Councilmember Westgaard and seconded by Councilmember Wagner to continue the request for approval of a Zone Change and the a I R t 1 1 1 ►A►TURE Ciry Council ,Minutes 1=ebru;m 19, 2019 Page 5 Conditional Use Permit establishing a Pl,inned Unit Development to the April 15, 2019, Council meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 8.1 Resolution for Finding of Fact: Conditional Use Permit Request by ResCare Minnesota Mr. beck provided summary of the history/timelines for this application. He reviewed Council options for action. He expressed concern with having factually - supported legal reasons to deny the application. He explained the Conditional Use Permit process and how it is a legislative versus a discretionary decision. fie stated there are two key components: 1) there has to be a legally -sufficient reason for which there is a factual basis in the record to deny the application. He stated in this case there are a lot of facts and impact to surrounding areas, but they are likely not sufficient to support denial; 2) this case involves a protective class of people under federal law. He explained how these laws apply to this application. Mr. Beck Further noted the exposure to the city is exponential and can include additional fees and costly damages when federal rights are involved. He stated he consulted with attorneys in our partnering law firm and the League of Minnesota Cities and they concurred. Councdmember Christianson stared he spent many hours on this and feels this typo of care facility is not appropriate at this location and his position hasn't changed on the matter. Councibnember Westgaard stated he felt the applicant met the conditions and struggler to find reasons not to approve. it. Councilmember Ovall stated he reviewed this matter deeply and lie thanked everyone for their assistance. He stated initially, this seemed like a straightforward case for him until he heard the evidence From the communM% He stated he focused on what he believed to be the facts of this case based on policing and local neighborhood impact. He stated as he continued review and worked with multiple groups for information, he learned a lot about the federal fair Housing Act. He stated because Council can't consider police and neighborhood concerns, he feels the conditions of the request are met and he would support the Conditional Use Permit. He further stated he stands by his feelings this is not the befit location for this type of use but the application meets the terms of the ordinance as written. Councilmember Wagner stated she will not be supporting die denial because there are not any legal reasons to factually support it. Mayor Dietz stated this is an extremely difficult decision he has thought about a great deal. He stated he is confident the Council will change the Toning in the downtown district so ResCare could again consider the former school district property. He urged ResCare to give the site strong consideration. He discussed the Conditional L'se Permit process and the legal reasons for denial. He felt there would be a good chance ResCare would sue the city if their application is denied. He stated K E8E8 4io� jo 140. 14 j69 0 140- POO FICA' 4t -ja o ww CS C Ile City Council Minutes Page 7 December 16, 2019 ----------------------------- 9.2 Park Dedication Mr. Carlton presented the staff report. Attorney Beck presented background on park dedication limits. He noted not many cities have gone through the effort Flk River did to get to a number that complies with constitutional requirements. He added in his experience our approach is as development friendly as any other city with a few exceptions. Pat Briggs, Briggs Companies, handed out and reviewed his development projects. Mayor Dietz asked Parks and Recreation Commission Dave Anderson to weigh in on how the city accepting Mr. Brigg's 12 acres of land to reduce his park dedication would benefit the parks. Chair .Anderson indicated the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the request twice and did not come up with a good enough use for the land and instead requested the park dedication be paid in cash. He stated they could review the request again but he's not sure the decision would change. Councilmember Westgaard questioned how many of the 12 acres is floodplain. Mr. Carlton stated 9.6 acres is in the flood plain. The Council expressed concern wiry accepting flood plain as park dedication. Mr. Briggs explained he envisions the area be used for a wild and scenic use and he is not interested in bringing pedestrian traffic to private property. Councilmember Christianson questioned what the city can do to work with the developer to develop this vacant property. Attorney Beck explained the Council can waive whatever requirements they wish but in order to not set precedent, the Council should outline good, rational findings in a resolution.. Mr. Briggs stated he is very interested in putting together a joint venture with the city to create a win -win for everyone. He has concerns with ruining the wildlife area by creating a walking path. He stated he is not interested in owning property with a trail due to risk management and would like the city to own and police the property if they insist on putting a trail in. Council consensus was to schedule this item for an upcoming City Council meeting night with a light agenda to alloivv ample time for discussion. Mr. Portner indicated staff should be able to add to a January meeting. PUWERf0 6Y VAIATUR AGENDA 12-16-19 6:30PM Time & Place: City of Elk River Subject: Deed land or dedicate easements in- lieu of Park Dedication Fee Attendees: Council Pat Briggs with Briggs Companies represents Both Owners 1. Saxon Lot Approximately 700 ft of Waterfront. 3.5 Acres Sun Rae is open to giving up private ownership of land for benefit of the public enjoyment. SunRae would consider Deeding land or dedicate easements in- lieu of Park Dedication Fee of subject property. 2. Two Finger Lots Approximately 300 ft of waterfront. 2.7 Acres Sun Rae is open to giving up private ownership of land for benefit of the public enjoyment. Sun Rae would consider Deeding land or dedicate easements in- lieu of Park Dedication Fee of subject property. 3. Elk River Lodge Lot Approximately 420 ft 6 Acres ERL is open to giving up private ownership of land for benefit of the public enjoyment. ERi. would consider Deeding land or dedicate easements in- lieu of Park Dedication Fee of subject property. Easements are less desirable due to Risk Management and Policing of Domestic Issues and remaining abuse of existing Private Property. Example would the city build a fence. So public stays off private property? If an easement is granted the public will stray onto private property. The private quiet environment will no longer be in existence. Owners are not excited to engage in this kind of relationship. Think about it this way. What would you want if it was in. your backyard? Portner, Cal From: Westgaard, Matt Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:30 PM To: Partner, Cal Subject: RE: 52339A18 Ca I, Could you please forward my comments for Tuesdays meeting on to the rest of the Council for their consideration during Tuesday evenings discussions. 8.1: Naming Rights: As previously stated, I think the council should consider engaging one of these consultants to develop the framework for securing opportunities for not only naming rights but all options of advertising etc. I don't believe we have staff that is experienced with this type of promotion nor has the time to dedicate to developing and maximizing our opportunity here. We have an opportunity to secure some funding for this facility to offset the expense of operating. All three firms show specific experience with like and kind facilities. After review of the attached proposals my instinct would he to lean favorably toward the Front Burner Sports Group based on their team, experience and fee structure. 9.1: Park Dedication Fees: I believe our PD fee schedule is well substantiated in structure as to how we determined the rates far each tier. I don't believe we should or are compelled to provide any concessions. The only area I feel we could provide some relief would be on the High Density rate after a certain threshold was achieved or on a graduated scale or a cap after a certain dollar amount. To be more specific; The impact of a 40-unit complex is vastly different than the fee impact of a 300-unit complex. It's a drastically different dollar amount and can understand how it becomes significant for a developer. 9.2: Religious uses in the FAST area: Based on my own contemplation without your dialogue, I am not in favor of allowing them in the district. We made an exception several years ago for an educational use that has proven to be more challenging than ever imagined and would strongly oppose allowing it again unless there was further dialogue and discussion with Staff, Planning and Existing Businesses. I hope this is helpful input for your discussion, and again my apologies for the scheduling error on my behalf and not being able to attend. Sincerely, Matt Park Dedication Background ■ Park Dedication fees updated in 2016 ■ State statue changes and recominendation ■ Created formula with city specific variables ■ An appraisal study identified per/unit values (HH Size) x (acres park/person) _ Acres of land for dedication (Land Dedication) x (Average property value) _ $$ due per unit Development Fees ■ Fund impacts 'improvements resulting; from an increased demand on existing systems due to development. • SAC /WA.C, Stormwater ■ Park Dedication — more users in the park system ■ only pays for CcneW77 ■ Cutting development fees directly impacts the city's ability to fund increased demand for services. Increased demand on system Park Dedication Calculation Assumptions for Park DVv--e ic ' n L 2.2.821 1.80, and 1.58 rage Household size far City of Elk River (based ❑n 2014 ACS Data) 0.03 ores of park land per resident as identified by Parks and Rec Master Plan $ 16,855.00 Mean per acre value of low density residential land established by appraisal study $ 19,922.00 Mean per acre value of medium density residential land established by appraisal study $ 103,313.00 Mean per acre value of high density residential land established by appraisal study Land dedication required love density 2.82 x 0.03 med density 1.80 x 0.03 high density 1.58 x 0.03 Cash dedication required low density 0.0846 x $ 16,855.00 med density 0.0540 x $ 19,922.00 high density 0.0474 x $ 103,313.00 0.0846 acres of land per residential unit 0.054 acres of land per residential unit 0.0474 acres of land per residential unit _ $ 1,425.93 cash dedication per residential unit $ 1,075.79 cash dedication per residential unit $ 4,897.04 cash dedication per residential unit Previous rate $3,712/unit RiverWalk Parle. Dedication ■ Assuming a 200 unit residential development (possible comm.) ■ Land Dedication — 9.48 acres ■ Cash Dedication — $944,1016.00 (with credit for ex_tsting) ■ Park dedication not paid with previous plat/use ■ Parr and Rec Commission recommended a trail easement ■ Park plans do not identify a park i.n the development area RiverWalk Park Dedication (cont.) ■ owner proposed dedicating — 1 2.? acres of land to satisfy dedication requirements. ■ Approximately 80% of dedication proposal in floodplain ■ Dedicated land should be buildable —2.3 acres ■ Proposal by owner to reduce dedication by half and dedicate trail casement. ■ Reduced from $944,016 to $472,008 ■ Add tiered dedication schedule or a cap for multi -family developments. 7�\/r © .� �, �x }�� y ,3,� � � � �. \��---. _. fA 11.81 ac 3.461 -42 ft �} \ � L � ][ — - • �00 L-j\�kƒ\ /� � \� ~ & - i �� , �\ \ \^��,�� . 0 Q, M tw 5 R 5 Ul `5 d pia o law City Comparison ■ 0 Residential {Cash Dedication Requirement Base cash dedication rate $3,500/unit exceed 12+ units/acre exceed 20+ units/acre fee for all densities fee for all densities Min. fee or 10% land value % of Find value (appraisal) fee for all densities fee for all densities $2,775/unit $2,550/unit $31,500/unit $11968/unit $23500/unit 11% $3,200/11nit $3,156/unit 11 Riverwalk Land Dedication Scenarios Potential Sources of Land Dedication and Impact to Cash Dedication Type Acres Park Dedication Amount Due Impact (Acres Due) (dollars) 30' trail easement - approx. 50' x 850' 0.98 8.50 $ 846,826.17 All land from 30 above bluff' to river 7 2.48 $ 24611957.77 Area noted above less the flood plain 2.6 6.88 $ 6855108.66 Estimated useable area For park/trail 1.5 7.98 $ 794,646.38 City Council Minutes .January 21, 2020 Page 4 Councilmember Wagner agreed her preference would be to have interviews with the Front Burner and The Superlative Group since the Council already had a presentation from Staley Consulting. Mayor Dietz wondered if there was any guarantee the city would receive more money from naming rights than they were spending. Mr. Portner stated it was in the best interest of the companies to raise money as they were working on commission. He added the Council could arrange a special meeting to hear from these two groups or add the interviews to a work session. Mr. Hecker stated he would reach out to Front Burner and The Superlative Group to arrange interviews. Council recessed at 7:00 p.m. in order to go into work session. Council reconvened at 7:07 p.m. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chair Anderson. 9.1 Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission to Discuss Park Dedication for River Walk Apartments Mr. Carlton presented the staff report. Pat Briggs, property owner, was in attendance. Mayor Dietz stated at the Council's last discussion concerning River Walk Apartments, the Council talked about the possibility of using land as part of the park dedication. The Council heard the Parks and Recreation Commission had recommended only cash, therefore the Council wanted to hear more from the Commission concerning their recommendation. Chair Anderson stated he had an opportunity to tour the land in question, however, his opinion has not changed, and he does not recommend taking land as part of the park dedication. He stated maintaining the land would be challenging and require substantial staff time. Commission Member Niziolek agreed and added the trail corridor at the top would be an amenity. Mayor Dietz wants to see this development work but is not in favor of changing the rules just for this development as it could cause problems in the future by setting a precedence. He suggested capping the fee at $500,000 as there are not many projects that surpass 102 units. He is not in favor of taking land in lieu of cash. L I R I I IYI City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 Councilmember Wagner wanted to figure out how to make this work for the developer. She brought up the idea of a graduated fee scale that would be in line with the current park dedication system. She is not willing to waiver from having a trail easement. Councilmember Christianson asked if the idea of capping would coincide with state statute. City Attorney Beck stated there is nothing legally to prevent capping and the graduated system has some logic, especially as projects get bigger. The city can go below the constitutional standards but not above them. Councilmember Christianson pointed out that, based on the information from similar cities, the City of Ramsey appears to welcome high density housing while the City of Elk River appears to focus on low to medium density. Mayor Dietz stated that, in 2012, when the comprehensive plan was created, it was planned for a city of 35,000. Mr. Carlton also offered the option of moving the planned appraisal study from 2021 to 2020 for more accurate numbers. Councilmember Ovall stated the challenge with this project is that it is a redevelopment vs a development. He felt the cost would deter people from high density development and didn't even factor in permit fees. Mr. Carlton suggested redefining the types of high density to achieve more precision. Councilmember Wagner clarified the city is not trying to stop high density development. Mayor Dietz agreed there are not many places high density could be placed within the urban service district area. Mayor Dietz asked Mr. Carlton to explore the ideas of both a capped fee and a graduated fee and bring it back to the Parks and Recreation Commission as well as the Council. 9.3 County State Aid Highway 12 (181 st Ave) Improvements and Proposed Hillside Park Access Change Ms. Fabish presented the staff report. Sherburne County is looking to start construction in June. Chair Anderson stated the user group was concerned about the Right In, Right Out access and was focused on the Tyler Street option to access the current parking lot. p„o� ®r w M City of Elk* River Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 9.5 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session July 20, 2020 Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Park Dedication Fees Cal Portner, City Administrator Reviewed by Action Requested Review the results of the land valuation study and discuss updates to the Park Dedication Fee. Background/Discussion Earlier this year, the City Council directed staff to complete a residential land appraisal study for use in evaluating and updating the current Park Dedication Fee. The appraisal study was completed in June and the results generally show an increase in the park dedication fee. One of the hopes for the appraisal study had been to further break down the high -density fee into different unit or dwelling unit/acre categories to reduce the fee for the high -density category. Due to the limited number of sales and the ultimate densities of those projects it will be difficult to adjust for smaller apartment buildings and achieve the goal of reducing the fee. Staff will present options for calculating the per -unit fee during the work session and will look for direction on the update to the fee schedule. Financial Impact A change to the Park Dedication Fee will likely increase park dedication revenue. Attachments ■ Draft Appraisal Study received June 12, 2020 The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional,` 01 e service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires pi ospei ly INAMIRE1 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Zack Carlton, City of Elk River From: Jason L. Messner, MAI, and Randy J. Deones Date: June 12, 2020 Subject: Average fair market value of un-platted residential land At your request, this memorandum is intended to summarize our research and analysis of residential land sales proximate to Elk River in order to arrive at an indication of average market values for un-platted residential land in the City of Elk River. It is noted that this consultation is not intended to be an appraisal of any particular property within the City of Elk River. Rather, the function of this memorandum is to provide guidance to the City in determining appropriate park dedication fees. SCOPE OF WORK The following data and information pertaining to the review of park dedication fees have been examined. I • Reviewed City of Elk River zoning and land use information • Reviewed Minnesota Statute 462.358 Subd. 2b. regarding park dedication fees • Investigated comparable high -density, medium -density and single-family residential land sales • Completed statistical analysis on observed market -transacted sale prices 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 2 ZONING Single-family residential development in the City of Elk River is allowed within the R1a-R1d residential zoning districts. However, the R1 a and R1 b zoning districts allow single family residential development without public utilities. Alternatively, the RI and RI Districts are intended for land that is, or will be, served by municipal sanitary sewer, storm sewer and municipal water. Potential density in these areas is expected to be less than four units per acre. The land sales summarized on the following single-family residential sales grid are considered to have zoning and potential uses consistent with the R1 c and R1 d zoning districts. Alternatively, medium -density residential development in the City of Elk River is allowed within the R2 and R3 zoning districts. These districts are categorized as the Two Family Residential District and the Townhouse/Multiple Family Residential District, respectively. Development densities for these districts are expected to range from four to seven units per acre. The land sales summarized on the following rnediurn-density residential sales grid are considered to have zoning and potential uses consistent with R2 and R3 zoning districts. Lastly, high -density residential development in the City of Elk River is allowed in the R4 and PUD zoning districts. These districts generally comprise the high -density residential category, which includes multi -family development such as apartments and senior housing, with densities over seven units per acre. The land sales summarized on the following high -density residential sales grid are considered to have zoning and potential density similar to the R4 and PUD zoning districts. Due to the differences in potential density and the corresponding values perceived by the market, the single-family, mediurn-density and high -density comparable land sales are presented on separate summary grids. The respective land sales are considered to have zoning and potential densities consistent with the corresponding residential zoning districts in Elk River as stated previously. Lands guided for residential development in the City of Elk River are identified on the City's Land Use map on the following page. As depicted on the City's land use map, the majority of the land available for development is located in the eastern portion of the City. PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 3 PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 4 PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 5 PARK DEDICATION FEES The City of Elk River is reviewing its park dedication fee requirements applicable to new subdivisions to ensure consistency with the State's statute. The purpose of this memorandum is to aid in determining the need for updating the City's market value estimates of residential land. These land use market values are vital for establishing cash fees in lieu of park land dedication. I;tatP 1;tatl ItP Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subd. 2b. enables the City to require dedication of a portion of a subdivision to the public for parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open space. Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subd. 2b. (c). further requires that there be an essential nexus between the dedication of land or payment of fees based upon the City's purpose for the dedication and that the dedication or fee must be roughly proportional to the need created by the development and, where fees are to be dedicated in lieu of land, that the fee be "based on the average fair market value of the un platted land for which park fees have not already been paid." DEVELOPMENT LAND SALES The purpose of this consultation was to investigate land sales in order to develop average fair market values of residential development land in the City of Elk River. The average market value is necessary for the City of Elk River to complete their review of park dedication fees and determine if modification of the current fee structure is needed. The sales comparison approach is the preferred, and most common, technique for developing a market value estimate for land. Typically, the sales comparison approach compares vacant land sales to value a particular property. However, in this case, there is no specific subject property. As such, no adjustments are made to the comparable sales. PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 6 DEVELOPMENT LAND SALES In general, the sales selected for analysis are un-platted land, or land defined as outlots reserved forfuture development. However, in some cases, previously platted land is included that was replatted for a higher density use. As a group, the comparable sales are expected to indicate a range of unit values established by informed buyers and sellers in the marketplace. The average market value can then be utilized as a reasonable estimation of average fair market values for land in Elk River, thereby meeting the guidelines of Minnesota statute. Sales of land in Sherburne County and surrounding areas were researched using the eCRV database, Northstar Multiple Listing Service and the REDIComps database. Information has been sought on recent sales of parcels that are similar in terms of potential use consistent with the residential zoning categories within the City of Elk River. The search for development land sales focused on un-platted land and outlots in outer -ring suburban areas that closed after February 2016. It is noted that the regional market has a limited number of recent sales of medium -density residential land for analysis. Townhome developments have experienced limited demand since the 2008 housing recession. While townhome units are gradually being absorbed by the market, developers have so far been hesitant to produce more of this property type. The unit of comparison used for each of these property types is price per acre. The sales used in this analysis are presented on location maps, followed by summary grids, and statistical analysis. PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 7 @I COMPARABLE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SALES LOCATION MAP PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors .1 lK eeW 000'LK 89L'SGS 01 Z50'b1Y ug " .-N ."R Isamu!oW P. lsey&y pmJ eyl6u!pnpx3 B'Z CZ —ZbS 000464 wantl ueaW elpaW pV Z9"Ob EZ"L4 'IOMOluawazea N!I!N Pue aBeu!wp aB+ele Pue sip,,Wuap!sw lol-B zW (suo!Ingywoa+alla5l BmpuaUup 1.. 83pin¢p NW'au!el0 yo!ym'u0!c!Npgns puod+aaa ayl se pa0¢,d I—se pue, s!41 9'1 Ow�.3 o...K 005'K 000'Bfi14 a,gel!entl da ay 009 BLOZ/E 011 n0u,B+eIS.,j IN syqunp OSBZI 4Z n s!yl v! 4a!ym'Bu!u0z 6u!APapin aT'(NW)Ilegoa Zd3tlSl NW'IaeYalry lS ayl u0 paseq s!afld eu!Pamolle N!suep wnwlxew ayL - Ll.,- OOD'050'IS OS OOOOSO'LS aIge,— and atl ZB'£Z g40Z IOL .qul luew olanap uoeyea'tl cq nea 3N A.-. y0lxuwjrn OZ a!Puel s1411.%66 Ngew!.gddv S.I."glE up luvwdo1. P oil Yaegsu!eW N. Iepyap,sa+lol"9L6'Newa!wnW aq+al umpPaVry lvy ayl s!c141 5'L OZb'LZY 9C6'SOZ'ES OS 9Cb'SOZ'Cf 'bea'p3 and Z9'fibl LIOZIs ---aawaH-s'S'n fl ul u-,,—a-,,—aa9UZLI4 61 s1p106+oI Paawfi sem lvnadde all'sp0oM—H saryedad aWN NW' Wolg0od A+eu,w!u up!YPPv WE I d spopM lwnH a1010 b.p. s, s,yl Io wnw xaw b'C 009'ISS 000'0095 Of 000'0095 alq Pl v 4'tl atl 10"IL LLOZ/9 aT sawoH U—Leal 'M gawa al8!l l0pl IL v clrytl Isayp 'SZOZ Pue OZOpZ.- uaamlaofqalnp 0awtlovnep+q pwels Md., u0z yZ aBelS eyl v!'le!luapsa+ Npuap_ Papw6 s! Puel%,Vl L'0 SL9'OZ4 000'OOE4 OS O00'OOC4 Igel!b lS'b LOi/ leeT--13 lP3 ryry'saPyUeZl9OM Ll —pgns A,!wel e,6u!s l j., lse4PWllgq ANsya NW'av! , smapeaW sueP9 se Paged uaaq Pn dun%ql GZ Z90'ZLS OOO'SLCS 04 0.V" apry,enb d0 ab lSb G{OLI L aTeswauglcanPW8 ula p3 waleM IN'ISwednH 158Z1 91 al6gsbnu!pauetlsem uma%lol Al!wry 1 Ila aBpv ayl up Ayadwd slyl B'Z 946'684 000 OL44 OS 0000E44 awellentl alld atl bCl Ll0i 16 all 'sW!ploH+assplY05 pll NW sa91a apHa NWoBwo 1 'ul mauawad OOL Sl 'Nap unpq "dad -410. -1 OSZ A,aPw,xadde papualxa aq of PBPBau sa99!In 'Ou!%saa age" awdp,anap Pad0l ,pue ONd Wuozsem Ayadwd eyl'wpe+atl sl!un 04910 N!cuepe sa+atl s,yp!a NW'uwwmp %mope Wlym'le!luep!saypaxlW PapinB aem Ayadwtls!q al!YM Z'Z G6L'ZCS 000'006'lS W pp0'O0b'44 be ' a'13 and atl sS'Cb G40ZI6 all lned'1Slelosauw,Wla sawoH lNl OI HtlSalll!H altleW a35 bl v14 luawtl0,anap Buol a aneV q D..... s! luawtl0lanap aVl'llnan0 'luawdplanap uewn wnln/ sol Pauasw sl_eBewae Bu!a!eww ayl woi,p ,uia6p3p to asWE le la uAvnW'S anPled NW'%puwd'IS lu0 aq a!n!m Payeld wam Hal lellDeP!%w ueyn v J'N.. S. 14S'64 OOOOO6S 0Y 000'WO a,g.IPAtl .,u atl o0'bfi BIOZI C aT luew olanap puel s!0uwj N, 'PNB+.Na wnarn CL ,e!Iwp!aw OB 4Bm payed uaaq se4 (zu0Mgv1v0a...) d,ywauyed Pglw!1—N!wej—a NW'+anopuy Ayadad eVl'uog!pptl puL ZZ nw,wWAlo ylapap sl s,VL 0'L BSL'lK 000'069'44 000'o0f 000'OSG'l5 alg¢I!¢ntl Iblo. ay Lb'O1 K01I I 1 oa awoH'S'N 'u141051rn ZL '%plN!we-alfiu!s Neu!w!Ivd 311 SGNadad SHIM uaPA%H NW'uay(ea SEZlpns,suoO lrytl ayl 6'Z ZLO'm 00,—L4 0E 000'.W's vlgepentl oad[-a atl OL'OB BIOZ/b all s11!HuapeHlpwewpue1 N'ul Poonuaaa Osl[l LL s!nlpgns Al!wry —1H l Hll NW'aBas10 a15u!s le,-LL e'uny lswue H %e Payeld uaeglcay lolln0 s!yl g'4 Z50'13 000'OL9S OS 0 00OLBS elgeBvny s'a atl B9'Lb 9{OZI b all anda lsea augs ea n 3N'eV svwnb sox 01 '.."d evol ce umouV'IuauNolanap Nlwry-a16u,s10,e+o1 Wnadde,eld leu0 pan!eaw seY aI,s s!yl a L.'CK OOS'9ZLY aIgll!eny 11-H ysp 2 NW'sp,deN u0oa OS OOS'9ZIS ZNal atlMZ OIM I L all s uploH 19 MN'u1415Z4rn 6 e+etl sl!M bl0 wnw!xew a pue was +atl sl!un Z IP wnw,u!w a sa!nbw p!ys!p C-a eyL 'uo!s!nrygns upulO�Poluupe Nrv'ueycep smopeeW ma!nau!d aw se pape,d Alleryed uaaq sey al!s s!yL bqZ LZ9'O65 000'DOLS 0Y 000'OOLS Ige!en v I tl E-tl atlfZ'L{ 8402IL P.., all Ivnaa ual tlSMO pa+an!a ugNp LSOEL B s!upgnsq, elBu!%Iq-ZI e'selels3 all yvawd0,anap puel ywwnS W•vu!gg ueap YaaS p seayeld uaaseV Pw1l,0u!Peye1dun s!Vl 4Z Wb'685 000'OBLS OS 000'osu alq,l,,W j0 ov— g10Z/B 'aul %awoH aurys ea 3N'IS --N-H MM L sn!P4ns poomycy eyl se pad0,anap uaaq sey Puel %!Vl L'Z 000'IIE OSZ'Cb9'44 OS OgYE49'lS Igv!en a I tl gPo atl BO'Ob g40Z / 6 @!4wauyad pvywe+wey05 losauu!Wau, uoyOH'a'a NW'oBOeO 9 N'antl ueap,0 LL6G sW,pg0s Iq-ZZ e'selld\oAowtl se p 1d u aa4 apu!s say pan eyLl d.,ewp N!wn albu!c+ol levee sIYl Plps Pue Puel N!we/91nw Wl Parynw aallae eVl+a!paa all'sluawyetltl lu!od+epea NW'eu!ry9 Vluowelawl6ggofpe ue pue pury%!41 Pase4and+q,a%Wl Z'b BSL'SLS 000'006f OS 000'OOK e1ge,!eny d0 atl9Z5 BIOZIZ ------ganap+a uetl 3N'IS eaecA,O xl01 5 '.lq AI!we1-a!Bu!c 89 YI!m yadeanap em pue •pyls!o AI!wed —Pue al6u!S le!1Wp!sva'S-a Pauoz !+eW Www aVl 'UWcla IeupOnl!I%ul-SNI Pauoz sem'g 10pn0 --u-, u0!yp, Ausdw0a •oBasp puZ Bu!puel a!Iou6eW ze Papd uaaq sey Ayadwd sryL yz 466'E. 000,wns OS 000'oM'14 algry!eny SNI'S-a atl LS Zb BLOZIE pa0medeW elouW-ul uyH NW b wpOld a una aBpaa9ou! pyryd uq ey Nwd ay 6t SLb'L93 0009LS 04 000 ZZ af MN S+a9lAZl rnY34 E a elel Pauueldslot 6 leuop!PPe ue NW' qd Iwo ayl u!siol al0a9l" 64+a+e wayl'ua!ppPV P+C aePIHPue148lHloglopnO s!s!yL B'4 00000SY 04 04 alge,nb BLI ZI vu�yuw3lrna Z "Id.pa+el papadxa s uozua4 luvwdolanap 6u0, e'Iyatlatl w8)0 ens a61e1 eVI ueu0 'pZOZ ulluawdo,anap 1p eseytl Iv8 a41 uo up11p111uw yeis q cpualq+ q ayl am luawlsanu! 08as10 uawdo!anep WBuep!sw pea. 101-114—P"I Pue N,suap q�ul YuawdganeO xawwe45 NW'o8aryp mo, sold B-B'wq-sy Pauoz%! Ayatlwd s I[WA gZ OSb'BS OOE'-,3 Off OOC'S6L'LS alq¢Pvntl 11 atl 65'801 fiIOZ/Z4 all cluewisangpuelo asp 3N lS Yb09L541 4 slpewatl watllnwN watl azyd ale8 wa— aed u,u a ¢way v p Sle IIaS "oN es(1 Pue N!zuab atl ud ml 1ytlpa ryes qea ; ne leool l'dwga pug ewwnS Sa1eS puel Iepueplfaa llwej-el u!S 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 9 mu, ■ 2 19.7 3 — tomPlymoutil Minneapolis P,Fk _ i St pai.fl 77 m COMPARABLE MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SALES LOCATION MAP Y 10 I Zk I PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors 22014 - City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 10 Medium Density Residential Land Sales Summary Grid Comp. Location Buyer Date Sale Spcl Asni Total Price Per Density No. Intended Use Seller of Sale Acreage Zoning Utilities Price Demo Cost, etc. Sale Price Acre Units/Acre Remarks 1 513-515 Elm St. Jerid J. & Katrina M. Adickes 7 / 2019 1.69 AC R-2 Available $140,000 $0 $140.000 $82,840 4.3 to 6.7 The base density for this zoning district is 4.3 to 6.7 units per Monticello, MN AIIenJackson Properties, LLC acre, depending on the type of residential housing. 2 18461 Twin Lakes Rd. NW Pines at Elk River, LLC 51 2019 6.33 AC PUD Available $317,777 $0 $317,777 $50,202 6.2 This site was advertised as potential medium density residential Elk River, MN Estate of Ronald L. Guenther land, but zoned Business Park. However, the City has approved a 39-unit townhome development and rezoning to PUD. 3 xxx Riverdale Dr. NW Paxmar, LLC 10 / 2018 9.34 AC MU-PUD Available $450.000 $0 $450,000 $48,180 7- The Mixed Use PUD District allows residential development per Ramsey, MN Faye Construction Company LP the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts. 4 xxx 185th Street Jordan, MN PineView Townhomes, LLC MAS Trust 8 / 2018 3.45 AC R-3 Available $199,000 $D $199,000 $57,681 7.0 Outlet C of Wexford Square was approved for a 24-unit townhome complex at the time of sale. 5 xxx Kola St. 31CO, Inc. 6 / 2018 19.42 AC Residential Available $227,000 $0 $227,000 $11.689 3 to 8 This land has not yet been platted. There are numerous Greenfield, MN First R.E. Holdings, LLC Townhouse townhome lots in Greenfield that were platted in the early 2000's that have not been absorbed. 6 8601 Great Plains Blvd, Pulte Homes of Minnesota. LLC 8 / 2017 6.22 AC PUDR Available $750,O00 $25,000 $775,000 $124,598 10.3 The buyer planned to develop 64 attached townhome units. Chanhassen, MN Necon Enterprises, LLC The buyer also had a pending purchase for an additional 2.43 acres to the south, with plans to develop an additional 24 attached townhome units. The cost adjustment is for demolition costs incurred by the buyer. 7 xxx Alpine Dr. NW Riverstone Development, LLC 7 / 2017 89.08 AC R2, R3 Available $2,182,770 $0 $2,182,770 $24,503 4 to 7 Approximately 25% of this tract is zoned R-3, which allows a Ramsey, MN Pearson Properties of Ramsey, LLC density of 7+ units per acre. However, given the mixture of zoning classifications, overall density is likely to be medium density. Gary W. Crosby and Lynn M. Crosby 8 xxx Commerce Drive Revocable Trust, dated February26, 2015 6 / 2017 16.40 AC R-7 Available $405,000 $0 $405.000 $24,695 9.5 This unplatted parcel is being developed with 156 condominium Belle Plaine, MN Charles Edward Townsend and townhome units. 9 xxx Village Dr. Lino Lakes, MN DR Horton Inc. Minnesota Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority 9 / 2016 11.22 AC PUD Available $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $89,127 10.0 Outlots B and D of the Village No. 3 subdivision, have been replatted as Woods Edge, a 112-unit townhome development. 10 8753 Neal Ave. N The Ponds at Heifort Hills, LLC 91 2016 9.20 AC RB Available $1,079,000 $0 $1,079,000 $117,283 2.6 This property has been platted with 24 condominium pads, with Stillwater, MN The Estate of Marie L. Heifort (Usable) large common areas and open space. 11 NEC Elmcrest Ave./Rosemary Way Kettler Construction, Inc. 7 / 2016 8.50 AC PUD Available $750.000 $0 $750,000 $88,235 3.9 This parcel is Outlets A and B of Victor Gardens North Village Hugo, MN JA Elmquist, LLC at al. 5th Addition. The land has been replatted with 33 townhome pads. 9.20 AC Median $57,681 7.0 16.44 AC Mean (Average) $65,367 7.1 Excluding highest and lowest indicator (Sales 5 & 6) Range $24,503 to $117,283 Median $57,681 Mean $64,750 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 11 4 Plyr'w,-j:. atl Minneapolis Mrmiel rikur Edina I 13 3 l xi i� i~ COMPARABLE HIGH -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SALES LOCATION MAP PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors 22014 - City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 12 High Density Residential Land Sales Summary Grid Comp. Location Buyer Date Sale Spcl Asmnt, Total Price Per Density No. Intended Use Seller of Sale Acreage Zoning Utilities Price Demo Cost, etc. Sale Price Acre UnitsfAcre Remarks 1 861 Vista Blvd. Waconia, MN MV/F Properties, LLC City of Waconia 9 / 2019 2.60 AC (Usable) R-5 Available $547,621 $0 $547,621 $210,623 28.3 This is two outlots in the Legacy Village at Waconia subdivision. The total land area sold is approximately 8.9 acres; however, due to several ponds and wetlands the usable area is limited to approximately 2.6 acres along Vista Blvd. 2 SWC Hwy 610/CSAH 47 Coon Rapids AH I, LLLP 8 / 2019 4.62 AC PORT Available $1,125.000 $0 $1,125,000 $243,506 8 to 30 Reportedly, the City had approved a senior housing project. Coon Rapids, MN Gaughan Land Incorporated Zoning allows a range of 8 units per acre to 30 units per acre. 3 NWC Dodd Blvd./Cedar Ave. Continental 476 Fund, LLC 8 / 2019 15.45 AC C-3 Available $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 $258,900 16.8 This property is Outlots C and D of Cherry Highlands Third. Lakeville, MN The State Bank of Faribault The proprosed development plan is 13 buildings, with 20 rental townhome units per building, for a total of 260 units. 4 19131 Taylor St. NE East Bethel ALF Partners, LLC 2 / 2019 6.01 AC CC Available $375,000 $0 $375,000 $62,396 11.6 A three-story, 70-unit senior living complex is planned for this East Bethel, MN Our Savior's Evangelical Lutheran Church site. 5 1100 115th Ave. NE Cedar Point Apartments, LLC 1 / 2019 6.06 AC DF Available $804,500 $0 $804,500 $132,756 Open This is an allocated sale price. Cedar Point purchased several Blaine, MN Joel William & Susan Jane Petersen parcels for $1,204,500 and sold the single-family development land a month later for $400,000. This site is the remainder retained by Cedar Point Apartments, LLC. 6 xxx James Parkway Global Properties of New Market, LLC 12 / 2018 3.19 AC R-4 Available $266,000 $0 $266,000 $83,386 21.3 This development includes two buildings with 68 apartment Elko New Market, MN City of Elko New Market units. 7 4175 Lovell Rd. Lexington Leased Housing Associates I, LLLP 11 / 2018 4,39 AC 61 Available $200,000 $0 $200,000 $45,558 41.0 The property was zoned 131; however, M1-Central Business Lexington, MN City of Lexington District zoning is proposed. The proposed use is a 180-unit apartment complex, which includes an affordable housing component. 8 20159 Iberia Ave. JHF Investments, LLC 10 / 2018 1.17 AC C3 Available $345,000 $0 $345,000 $294,872 17.1 This Outlol was developed with a 20-unit memory care Lakeville, MN EREP Heritage Commons I, LLC apartment building. 9 114 Brick St. S Ecumen 61 2018 3.59 AC RA, PUD Available $625,000 $0 $625,000 $174,095 11 +/- Senior living is proposed for this site. The City planner reported Stillwater, MN Daniel I. & Gretchen G-Y Smith the initial application proposed 50-60 units. However, the current plan is for 30 to 40 units. The project has not been approved yet. 10 12595 Fremont Ave. PSD, LLC 5 / 2018 1.63 AC C-1 Available $149,000 $0 $149,000 $91,411 39.9 This parcel has been developed with an apartment complex Zimmerman, MN FRE, LLC known as Ice House Village, which contains 65 units. 11 27 10th St. W City Homes on 10th, LLC 1 / 2018 1.57 AC R-3 Available $230.000 $0 $230,000 $146,497 11.5 This is a previously unplatted parcel developed with 18 rental Waconia, MN Waterford Holdings, LLC units in two buildings. 12 xxx Station St. NW Aeon Big Lake Station, LLC 12 / 2017 6.10 AC TOD Available $680,000 $0 $680,000 $111,475 8+ This site is Outlol A of Station Street Acres East. The zoning is Big Lake, MN First National Bank of Elk River Transit Oriented Development District. Reportedly, the intended use is to develop apartments. 13 xxx Vierling Dr. Marystown Village, LLC 81 2017 6.25 AC R-4 Available $900,000 $400,000 $1,300,000 $208,000 20.8 This parcel is Outlots B and D of West Vierling Acres First Shakopee, MN Hy-Vee, Inc. Addition. The seller estimated that the buyer incurred approximately $400,000 in road and utility extension fees. West Vierling Apartments is a 130-unit apartment complex. 4.39 AC Median $146,497 20.8 4.82 Al- Mean Avera a $158,729 23.1 Excluding highest and lowest indicator (Sales 7 & 8) Range $62,396 to $258,900 Median $146,497 Mean $156640 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 13 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS It is important to note that the comparable sales have not been adjusted to a specific subject property and not all of the comparable sales presented herein have been verified. Based on our investigation, unit sale prices for single-family, medium -density and high - density residential land proximate to Elk River are summarized as follows: Single -Family Residential Land Range: $8,450 to $84,444 per Acre Median: $41,000 per Acre Mean: $42,223 per Acre (Average 40.62 Acres with a Density of 2.5 Units per Acre) Excluding Outliers Sales 1, 7, 13, 15 Range: Median: Mean: (Average 32.15 Acres with a Density of 2.4 Units per Acre) $14,052 to $75,758 per Acre $41,000 per Acre $41,164 per Acre Mediurn-Density Residential Land Range: $1 1,689 to $124,598 per Acre Median: $57,681 per Acre Mean: $65,367 per Acre (Average 16.44 Acres with a Density of 7.1 Units per Acre) Excluding Outliers Sales 5 and 6 Range: Median: Mean: (Average 17.25 Acres with a Density of 6.5 Units per Acre) $24,503 to $1 17,283 per Acre $57,681 per Acre $64,750 per Acre PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors 22014 -City of Elk River Land Analysis June 12, 2020 Page 14 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS High -Density Residential Land Range: Median: Mean: (Average 4.82 Acres with a Denisty of 23.1 Units per Acre) Excluding Outliers 7 and 8 Range: Median: Mean: (Average 5.19 Acres with a Density of 21.5 Units per Acre) $45,558 to $294,872 per Acre $146,497 per Acre $158,729 per Acre $62,396 to $258,900 $146,497 $15 6, 640 PATCHER MESSNER Valuation Counselors City Council Minutes July 20, 2020 Mr. Carlton presented the staff report. Page 7 Council questioned why the Park and Recreation Commission had not been shown all of the documentation. Some of the materials had not be available for the last Park and Recreation Commission meeting. Dave Williams, Park and Recreation Commission Chair, stated a majority of the commissioners were in favor of what they had seen, and a few felt they needed additional information. The motion to request more information failed by vote and the motion to deny the land swap failed for lack of a second. Mr. Williams went out to the property to see what it looked like. Council asked that the updated proposal go to the August 12, 2020, Park and Recreation Commission meeting and then return to the August 17, 2020, City Council meeting. Councilmember Christianson asked about the environmental impact and if the city must do soil testing before putting in a park. 9.5 Park Dedication Fees Mr. Carlton presented the staff report. He outlined a possibility that would help incentivize high density housing. City Attorney Beck stated this would be a policy decision. The cost changes would be a factor of land value. Council commented that the amount seems to go up and down every few years. City Attorney Beck stated that 10% was a standard almost statewide but most cities have adjusted away from a percentage. Councilmember Wagner asked why we are charging park dedication fees. Councilmember Ovall would like to know if there is a surplus or deficit of park land based on population. Council asked that the Parks and Recreation Commission do a needs analysis to see if there was sufficient park land, the land met the needs of the population, and there was enough distribution. This can occur at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan process. II. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Dietz adjourned the meeting of the Elk River City Council at 9:26 p.m. Park Dedication Background ■ January 2020 — Park dedication specific to Riverwalk ■ Cash dedication as no land was recommended ■ Concerns with HD rate - $4,897.04/unit ■ Discussed tiered HD rate and appraisal updates ■ Capped fee for any project - $500,000 noted. ■ Appraisal study did not identify enough varied rates to justify multiple rates for HD — in addition to low/med. ■ Findings showed an increase to all tiers. ■ July 2020 — Council reviewed findings of appraisal study ■ No changes recommended to park dedication fee Background ■ Riverwalk project re -submitted in January ■ Two 89-unit buildings for 178 total units. ■ Net density of 32 units/acre ■ Park dedication is $871,673.12 under current fee schedule ■ Park and Rec reviewed project and recommended cash donation along with a trail easement. ■ Easements do not provide credit towards fee. ■ Applicant narrative notes that current fee may make the project economically unworkable. ■ Reconsider discussion on tiered or capped fee. Increased demand on system Park Dedication Calculation Assumptions for Park Dedic ' n 2.82, 1.80, and 1.58 verage Household size for City of Elk River (based on 2014 ACS Data) 0.03 cres of park land per resident as identified by Parks and Rec Master Plan $ 16,85S.00 Mean per acre value of low density residential land established by appraisal study $ 19,922.00 Mean per acre value of medium density residential land established by appraisal study $ 103,313.00 Mean per acre value of high density residential land established by appraisal study Land dedication required low density 2.82 x 0.03 = 0.0846 acres of land per residential unit med density 1.80 x 0.03 = 0.054 acres of land per residential unit high density 1.58 x 0.03 = 0.0474 acres of land per residential unit Cash dedication required low density 0.0846 x $ 16,855.00 = $ 1,425.93 cash dedication per residential unit med density 0.0540 x $ 19,922.00 = $ 1,075.79 cash dedication per residential unit high density 0.0474 x $ 103,313.00 = $ 4,897.04 cash dedication per residential unit Previous rate $3,712/unit Neighboring City Comparison City Fee Note Ramsey $2,550/unit 20+ units per acre Big Lake $2,500/unit flat fee across densities Otsego $2,640/unit flat fee across densities Rogers $3,500/unit flat fee across densities Andover $4,400/unit flat fee across densities Anoka $2,543/unit flat fee across densities Dayton $3,885/unit flat fee across densities Action Requested ■ Review the applicant's request and provide staff with direction. ■ Fee adjustment for this project only. ■ Ordinance amendment for all projects going forward. I i—I 1 : tm I- —ENCLOSURE CONCRETE ""k BIill1AINOUS \ VAULT \SHED II \I^ \ F } N\ �� eFll tM[wtm '7-) , \ ML I \\\ t I i f II 30 FT TOP OF_�— n7 - hv-eoi,�i BLUFF SE 1\ I TBACKI y I I PHASE 2 1O0 FT. SETBACK FROM 1 y + 89—UNIT t `� -ELEV = 893.1 ]'` loa YN eASE E>_aoo 0 APARTMENT 1 ELEvenon ewNo,wY II BUILDING - A-27,Li22 p FFE-890.00 i GFE=879.50 ar�vAUEnr f _ 1 t 1W YR EASE HLOW ELEVATION (N L BINOARY 7Pr 1 O y E=esz.B Aw SS 'I—wnus,n WOODED BM NH 1 II FT iggf OF \ , u Te Acre- cutna naccss ll• _ rii hFimanau ensh I! f 1 III 1 w II I as IMPPHASE I A 89—UNIT l j { APARTMENT _ I f BUILDING I A-27.743 SIF T ` FIFE-887.00 GIFE-875.50 �— c I I BNnn a $ �ELEVNN I 89000 I I ( I I � as ,j Tne hE eL4FE� T 111111 I \ � I f \l f I GRAPHIC SCALE NOTES: 1. BASE PLAN USED IS A SURVEY PREPARED BY BOGART, PEDERSON & ASSOCIATES. 2. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTILITY COMPANIES VIA GOPHER STATE ONE —CALL ONLINE OR BY CALLING 811 OR 1-800-252-1166. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER AND THE LATEST EDITION OF MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION, 4. EXISTING ZONING: FOCUSED AREA STUDY (FAST). PROPOSED: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA (SF) RIVERWALK APES RIVERWALK APTS 2 TOTAL EXISTING 130,009 60,711 190,719 PERCENT 64.4% 15.8% 32.5% PROP05ED 74,397 52,225 156,522 PERCENT 32.2% 23.2% 26.7% LOT AREA 231,056 355.172 586,228 PARKING STALL COUNTS RIVERWALK APTS RIVERWALK APTS 2 COVERED 90 90 SURFACE 100 103 TOTAL 190 193 UNITS 89 89 RATIO 2.13 2.17 REVIEW PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION