Loading...
6.1. - 6.5. SR 08-27-2001City ~ lkiver MEMORANDUM ItemNs6'l' - 6.5. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Scott Harlicker, Senior Plannerq[~' DATE: August 27, 2001 SUBJECT: Elk River Station, LLP Requests: Waiver to the townhouse moratorium Case No. LU 01-02 - for Land Use Amendment Case No. ZC 01-03- Rezoning from Rlaand Al to PUD Case No. P 01-05 - Preliminary Plat Case NO. CU 01-08 - Conditional Use Permit Request Consider a request by Elk River Station, LLP. For the following: · A waiver to the townhouse moratorium A land use plan amendment to change the land use from LR (Low Density Residential) and LI (Light Industrial) to MR (Medium Density Residential) and CC (Community Commercial) and to bring the property into the urban service area · A rezoning from Rla (Rural Residential), A (Agricultural Conservation) and I1 (Light Industrial to PUD (Planned Unit Development) · Preliminary plat · Conditional use permit · The project also meets the threshold standards for a mandatory EAW Location East of Twin Lakes Road and north of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks at 171st Avenue Zoning/Land Use Rla (Rural Residential), A (Agricultural Conservation) and I1 (Light Industrial / LR (Low Density Residential) and LI (Light Industrial) Attachments Location map Zoning map Development plans Building elevations Park dedication map Development standards Memos from the City Engineer Memo from the Police Department Memo from the Utilities Manager Memo from the Fire Chief Memo from the Streets/Parks Superintendent Memo from the developer regarding park dedication requirements Memo from the developer regarding traffic and phasing Resolution No. 01- Overview The proposal includes approximately 62.5 acres on the east side of Twin Lakes Road, northeast of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks at 171~ Avenue. The property is adjacent to the proposed commuter rail station, which is to be located on the west side of Twin Lakes Road. The project is a mixed use development that includes townhomes, apartments, a commercial/office component and senior housing. In order for the project to move forward, six actions are required. First, the applicant must be granted a waiver from the townhouse moratorium. The second action that is required is a land use plan amendment to include property in the Urban Service District and to change the land use plan designation from LI (Light Industrial) and LR (Low Density Residential) to CC (Community Commercial) and MR (Medium Density Residential). The third action needed is a zone change from I1 (Light Industrial), A1 (Agricukural Conservation) and Rla (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The fourth action is review of the EAW. The fifth action is approval of the plat, and the sixth action is a conditional use permit for the PUD. Waiver to Townhouse Moratorium Staff believes that the applicant should be granted a waiver to the townhouse moratorium. This is a mixed use development that will include commercial, office, apartments and townhouse components. Even though the applicant had not made a formal application prior to the townhouse moratorium taking effect, they had been having discussion with the city regarding their project and had made presentations to both the City Council and the Planning Commission prior to the moratorium taking effect. Land Use Plan Amendment For this project to be developed a change in the land use plan is required. The east 3/4 of the property (50 acres) is currently not included in the Urban Service District; the District boundary will have to be adjusted so that the entire project is in the Urban Service District. The land use designation is also a mix of Light Industrial and Low Density Residential. The land use designation for the property west of Tyler Street, adjacent to the MnDoT park & ride facility, and the proposed commercial/office portion of the project on the east side of Tyler Street should be changed to Community Commercial. The land use designation of the residential portion of the project should be changed to Medium Density Residential. Zone Change The developer is requesting a zone change from Light Industrial, Agricukural Conservation and Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development. Most of the property is currently zoned Rla (Single Family Residential). An area extending about 300 feet from and parallel to the railroad tracks is zoned Light Industrial, and a small, approximately 4.5 acre portion, located adjacent to the proposed park & ride facility is zoned Agricultural. Environmental Review The applicant has submitted an EAW for this project that is being reviewed by the City. Staff has reviewed the initial draft of the EAW, determined it was incomplete and did not accept it for distribution. There were numerous inconsistencies throughout the report and the exhibits. A site survey is needed to provide information on rare and endangered species and habitats that exist in the area. Dewatering on the site has been proposed, the impacts of that dewatering on adjacent off-site wells will have to be assessed. Sections of the report regarding open space preservation have to be changed to reflect a realistic picture of the project. The traffic section has to be updated to include the most recent traffic and project phasing information. Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat Proposed Uses Apartments The project includes 208 apartments that overlook the large wetland. The apartments will consist of four, 4 story buildings. There will be underground parking in each of the buildings. The density of the apartment portion is about 15.2 units per buildable acre. (208 units/13.68 buildable acres) Buildable acres are the total area of the apartment portion minus the wetlands and streets. The apartments will be a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. There will also be some two-story townhouse style units. Building elevations The design of the building includes a stepped down design at the ends of the buildings. The architectural character of the apartments reflects a railroad theme and incorporates components of the craftsman design style. The buildings are also "bent" so they will not provide the appearance of an extremely long facade. The developer/designers have stated that the roof would not be nearly as visible nor appear as large from street level as it does in an architectural elevation. Staff would concur with this statement. The applicant would like to reserve the option of possibly stepping down the building another level. This would further break up the massing of the building but would create a larger building footprint. The number of units would remain the same. Two parking spaces will be provided for each apartment (416 total spaces). Underground parking will be provided at a ratio one space for each unit. There will also be surface parking provided at a ratio of one space per unit. The parking requirements found in the zoning code for apartments are 2.5 spaces per unit (520 spaces required). The developer will show "proof of parking" on the site plan to meet the additional 104 spaces. Should parking become a problem, the City will require the developer to install the parking as shown on the site plan as "proof of parking". Townhouses There are 191 townhouses proposed. The townhomes will be a mix of row style homes and back-to-back style homes. The density of the townhouse portion is about 7.7 units/acre (192 units/24.85 acres) Building Elevations The townhouses should be a mix of exterior building materials, colors and attention to details that would make each unit appear individual. Without the variation in materials and details, the townhouses lack any appearance of individuality and appear as one large building with a few entrance doors. The applicant is proposing a "Craftsman Style" of design that is quite different from the original Georgetown Theme". The current elevations seemed to lack the texture and architectural detail that was initially presented. The earlier versions of the row homes have good detail work, personable scale and variation in materials at each unit. The same level of detail can and should be achieved with the proposed "Craftsman Style". Four off street parking spaces will be provided for each unit. Each unit will have a two car garage and there will be room for two cars in the driveway. On street parking will be allowed on the public streets. Parking on the private streets will be restricted, depending on the street width, to allow for emergency access. Commercial/Office A mix of office and commercial space is being proposed along the east and west sides of Tyler Street. · East side of Tyler Street The convenience and retail space proposed near the railroad tracks is about 5,800 square feet. There are also two mixed use buildings located along Tyler street. The applicant is proposing a mix of uses including office/retail and apartments. One of the buildings (Building 1) has a footprint of 8,125 square feet and is proposed to be a 2 story building. The first story is proposed to be retail/office and the second story apartments. The other building (Building 2) has a footprint of 13,124 square feet. It is also proposed to be a 2 story building with a similar mix of uses as building 1. Parking and access Building 1 has 23 underground spaces and 19 surface spaces for a total of 42 spaces. Building 2 has 29 underground spaces and 22 surface spaces for a total of 51 spaces. Surface parking is provide in a central court area on the east side of the building. No parking is proposed in front of the building, between the building and Tyler Street. Since the exact mix of the uses is not finalized at this time. It is difficult to assess if the proposed parking is adequate. If, for Building 1, a ratio of 1 space for every 250 square feet is used, then 32 spaces are needed for the 8,125 square feet of office/retail space. That leaves 10 spaces for apartments; with 2 spaces needed for each apartment, 5 apartments are possible. If, for Building 2, a ratio of 1 space for every 250 square feet is used, then 52 spaces are needed for the 13,124 square feet of office/retail space. Since 51 spaces are provided, the maximum size building allowed will be 12,750 square feet. Traffic and Streets Traffic and street issues are included in the City Engineer's two memos. The number of trips generated by this project and the number of access points are two crucial issues. The project includes a mix of private and public streets. The public streets include the main loop road through the project. The drives that service most of the townhouses will be private. Street right-of-ways will need to be platted to allow for future road connection to the properties to the north, east and south. Additional comments regarding streets are in the attached memo from the Streets/Parks Superintendent. Grading, Drainage and Utilities Grading, drainage and utility issues are in the City Engineer's two memos and the memo from the Utilities Manager Public Safety Public safety comments are included in the attached memos from the Police Department and the Fire Chief. Pedestrian Access A comprehensive sidewalk system is proposed. It will connect all residential areas with the commercial/office area and the commuter station. There is also the possibility of a pedestrian overpass for Twin Lakes Road. This will provide a grade separated pedestrian connection with the west side of Twin Lakes Road. Design Standards Attached are the design standards proposed by the developer. These standards will be incorporated into the PUD Agreement and will be used to guide future development in this PUD. The signage standards are quite liberal and are more applicable to a highway commercial type of development. The lighting standards should be modified to reflect the neighborhood scale and pedestrian atmosphere that the developer is trying to create. Additional language regarding the style of architecture and character of the development should be included. For instance, the commercial/office buildings should appear as though they are multiple smaller buildings, similar to those downtown on Jackson Street, instead of one large building. It is important that the Council is comfortable with the design standards as they will establish the character of this development. Landscaping A concept landscape plan has been submitted and is acceptable. Staff will be working with the developer on details of the final landscape plan. Detailed planting plans for the townhomes and apartments will be required. Detailed landscaping plans for the commercial/office buildings and the senior housing complex will be reviewed when they apply for conditional use permits for those uses. Park Dedication Elk River Station was presented to the Park and Recreation Commission on August 8th. The Commission approved staff's recommendation of cash dedication of $384,980 along with 2.97 acres of parkland. The 2.97 acres is divided between 5 neighborhood parks. The developer will be given park dedication credit for installing improvements in the parks and constructing an asphalt trail. The following is a breakdown on how the cash dedication amount was determined: Total Cash Dedication: $755,640.00 (1/2 equals $377,820.00) Credits: Park Green 2 $ 63,300.00 (.28 acres) Park Green 4 $ 70,660.00 (.44 acres) Park Green 5 $154,200.00 (.53 acres dry) Park Green 7 $ 95,800.00 (1.27 acres) Park Green 8 $ 69,600.00 (.45 acres) Asphalt Trail $ 43,200.00 Total Credits: $453,560.00 (2.97 acres) Total Cash to City: $302,080.00 The above credits are based on the amenities budget. To add back the 75,740.00, the Commission deleted credit for the mailbox structures, shrubs, and flowers that are included above. This adds back to the total cash to the City $82,900.00; making the total cash to the City $384,980.00. The Commission assumed no credit for the land at this juncture. The above green areas would become public parks, with the exception of the water in Green #5. Attached is a request from the developer that they receive cash credit for the value of the parkland that is being accepted by the city. The city is accepting 2.97 acres of parkland that the developers feel has a value of $30,000 an acre or $84,980. If this value is accepted by the city, the cash dedication total would be reduced to $300,000. Maintenance Staff met with the applicant to discuss maintenance issues. It was agreed that the homeowner's association would maintain the irrigation system, the flowers, and mow the green areas not accepted as parks. City staff would plow the public street, the primary sidewalk adjacent to the street, and mow the boulevards. Levd of"Public" A number of Commissioners expressed concern that this subdivision would act like a"gated community" and that the general public would not be welcome in the proposed parks. In all subdivisions within the City, the Commission has attempted to provide neighborhood parks for a specific number of residents that are not intended to draw from far corners of the City. Some neighborhood parks serve a several hundred residents while others may serve less than a hundred. In this case, there will be eight "neighborhood" parks serving a population of approximately 1,000 people. Planning Commission This project has been before the Commission at several workshops and at 3 public hearings. The developer has made many revisions to the project in response to the Commission's comments. The latest plans have been revised in response to the concerns raised by staff and the Commission at the August 14~h Planning Commission meeting. Other than some initial curiosity at the first public hearing, there has been little interest expressed by residents at the public hearings. The design of the apartment buildings and the townhouses has been one of the focal points of discussion by the Planning Commission. The final stepped down design and the angled footprint of the apartment buildings was in response to the Commission's concern about the appearance of the building. Reaching a consensus on the design of the townhouses has been more difficult. Given the unique character of this development, the Commission wanted townhouse design that was also unique. They wanted a mix of exterior building materials, colors and attention to details that would make each unit appear individual. Without the variation in materials and details, the townhouses lack any appearance of individuality and appear as one large building with a few entrance doors. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission initially expressed a desire to table the requests until the outstanding issues regarding traffic/access, grading and drainage, townhouse design the design of the commercial component were addressed. In response the developer's request to move the project forward to the City Council, the Commission made the following recommendations: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the following requests: 1. The request for a waiver to the townhouse moratorium. The request for the land use plan amendment to include the entire project in the urban service area and change the land use plan designation from Light Industrial and Low Density Residential to Community Commercial and Medium Density Residential. The Planning Commission, because of concerns regarding traffic/access, grading and drainage, townhouse design and the design of the commercial component, recommended denial of the following requests: 1. The request for a zone change from Light Industrial, Agricultural Conservation and Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development. 2. The request for preliminary plat approval for Elk River Station 3. The request for a conditional use permit for the Planned Unit Development. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the applicant's request for a waiver to the townhouse moratorium. Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 01-__ approving the applicant's request for the land use plan amendment to include the entire project in the urban service area and change the land use plan designation from Light Industrial and Low Density Residential to Community Commercial and Medium Density Residential Staff recommends that the City Council postpone action on the following applications until the issues identified during the environmental review have been addressed. 1. The request for a zone change from Light Industrial, Agricultural Conservation and Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development. 2. The request for preliminary plat approval for Elk River Station. 3. The request for a conditional use permit for the Planned Unit Development. CITY OF ELK RIVER RESOLUTION NO. 01 - A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AND TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Case No. LU 01-02 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.355, Subdivision 2, prescribes the procedure for amending the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 14, 2001, and recommended approval regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment request for the property generally described as: (See Attached Exhibit A) and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment request and finds the following: 1. A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT; 2. URBAN SERVICES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR EXTENSION TO THE PROPERTY FROM TYLER STREET; 3. THERE IS NO FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR THE EXTENSION OF URBAN SERVICES TO THIS PARCEL; 4. THE PARCEL CAN BE SERVICED WITHOUT IMPACT TO OTHER PARCELS WITHIN THIS AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River that the Land Use Plan be amended to change the land use designation from Light Industrial and Low Density Residential to Community Commercial and Medium Density Residential PASSED by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 27th day of August, 2001. ATTEST: Stephanie ~Klinzing, Mayor Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\reslu01-02.doc EXHIBIT A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 175TH 174TH 17~C~D 172ND 1715T 170~1 16gTH 16BTH 167TH 166 TH 16513't COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL m~m URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY t / Case Number:. Location P 01-05 Map N I1 Fi18  ZONING Ell~~River ~~P 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box a90 Elk River, &[!'q 55330 179TH 78TH ITT~I 173R0 172ND 171ST 7013-1 j168TH 1,~7T1-1 16633't 185'n.'1 478.19 L=14.85 70'4-8'27"W I ! EL K RI VER S TA TIO N I 288. EB~ =q. fto 241,848 Y~7~4ND DEZINE~TION ~P~L 2001 DITCH ~L. 212.405 aq.f& I I I I 2,,~3.099 aq.f& ELK RIVER STATION L.L.P. 1611 HIGHWAY 10 N.E SPRING LAKE PAR/(, MINNESOTA 554J2 PHONE: (76.7) 780-4996 PA$.,~E FJ~GINE£RING, /NC. 1611 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 N.E', SPRING LAKE PAtB~, MINNESOTA 554J2 PHONE: (765) 780-4100 Nsg'42'52'W ~ ~,JSJ sq. fL ! b 2204.59 SITE DESCRIPTION %11'I~!'!'I I II) Cl PROJECT t/ - 20-96 COMPUTE~I I~RAWING - 20-.9EES~WG ELK Flit/ER STATION ELK RIVER STATION DITCH MA TERMJ_S SANITARY 8' MAIN - SDR J5 & SDR 26 PVC SERVICE - SCHEDULE 4,0 WATERMAIN 8° CL 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE 6' CL 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE SERVICE - 4", 6", 8" AS REQUIRED AU.. 8' SANITARY MA~ DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PLACED OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES BY EITHER PLATTED DESCRIPTION OR BLANKET EASEMENT. ALL EMERGENCY OVERFLOWS AND PONDING AREAS WILL BE UNDERS EASEMENTS ALSO. DITCH ELK RIVER STATION C2 / / ELK RIVER STATION DITCH ~- DITCH 2 BE O0,VPLE1ED U571~ APPROVe) AS REOUIRE~ BY 77~ (2TY. YE'RIflED BY IH£ CON~7~ACTrSO. r'URTH~U~. 07~t~R UT~J~ES ~IAY F_XlST ELK RIVER STATION C$ PRO,,ECT ~* - 20-~6 CO~ER OP, AWING - 20-96ESGWG PROJECT # - 2~-96 COMPUTER DRAI4,1NG - 20-~ES. DWG '..O.F'. ~ ~CH = ~o F~ET ¢2.?.' x ~" ~-'r) .( PROJECT ~ - 20-9~ CO~'PU/'ER DRAW/NG - ~.o C~ iNC~.~ = 50 ,c'E--'-T ( INCH = 100 FEET ELK RIVER STATION SCALE IN = 5O ~ - ~00 ,~ZT [.° X ~Z' ~'~] G$ ££K RII~'~ STATION ELK RIVER STATION ElK RIVER, MN 12 July 2001 PRELIMINARY UNIT MIX Unit 2 Bedroom Townhome 3 Bedroom Townhome 1- BR Flat 2 BR Flat 3 BR Flat Total Square Feet 4/Units Square Feet 1,400 80 1t2,000 1,600 16 25,600 880 32 28,160 1,080 48 51,840 1,280 32 40,960 per building 208 258,560 52 64,640 25'-0" ,I, 25'-0' ~ATH 2 BEDROOM TOWNHOME ELK RIVER STATION ELK RIVER, MN 12 July 2001 II II II II 3 BEDROOM TOWNHOME ELK RIVER STATION ELK RIVER, MN '12 July 200'1 25'-0" -- ~ATH II I. IVIN~ 1 BEDROOM FLAT ELK RIVER STATION ELK RIVER, MN i2 July 2001 {~3ATH I LIVlN~ 2 BEDROOM FLAT ELK RIVER STATION ELK RIVER, MN 12 July 2001 I~ININ~ 3 BEDROOM FLAT ELK RIVER STATION ELK RIVER, MN 12 July 2001 CONCEPTUAL APARTMENT BUILDING ELEVATION JULY DOM~N~UM DEVELOPMENT & ACQUiSiTiON, LLC BOARMAN KROOS VOGEL GROUP CONCEPTUAL CLUBHOUSE ELEVATION JULY 24, 2001 DOM1N~UM DEVELOPMENT & ACQUiSITiON, LLC BOARMAN KROOS VOGEL GROUP ORR.tN THOMPSON HOMES Minneaota Calla U* Home ELK RIVER LODGE PRODUCT STREET SCAPE . END UNIT VIEW' .. UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 FRONT STREET SCAPE ORRIN THOMPSON Elk River Row Homes M~l--'lg~me A Division of U.S. Home ©Copyright 2001, U.S. Home SIDE VIEW ORRIN THOMPSON Elk River Row Homes M~Up~me A Division o£U.S. Home ~X~opyright 2001, U.S. Home REAR VIEW ORRIN THOMPSON Elk River Row Homes MmHes°Om~me A Division o~'U.S. Home ©Copyright 2001, U.S. Home MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 DINING  ~ GAR/~G STORAGE STUDY UNIT 1 ORRIN THOMI~ON Elk River Row Homes A Division of U.S. Home ~opyright 2001, U.S. Home BEDROOM 3 IEDROOM 2 MASTER BEDROOM KEEPING i ;1'~ T t-I' :~'r-f~- ~_~. ~u,~, ~-- - ~.~ ~ LIVING I GARAGE UNIT 2 ORRIN THOMI'X3ON Elk River Row Homes M~l-l~?~me A Division otrU.S. Home ~2opyright 2001, U.S. Home MASTER BEDROOM DN COMP. CTR BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 6'-0" g 20'-0" , _ , '" ~ co: ,~ DINING ~~~ LIVING GARAGE LU MECH. STUDY UNIT 3 ORRIN THOMPSON Elk River Row Homes A Division c fU.S. Home ~)Copyright 2001, U.S. Home ELK RIVER STATION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Architectural Character 1. Facades and Exterior Walls The Elk River Station development will be located southeast of the Central Business District where Highway 10 and Twin Lakes Road intersect. The exterior appearance of the buildings should include elements of buildings found in historic rural railroad stations. The project will have a transportation theme. Facades should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and uniform impersonal appearances of large retail buildings and provide visual interest. Buildings over 100 feet in length should incorporate recesses, off-sets, pilasters or angular forms so that no uninterrupted length exceeds 50 feet. The wall projection or recess should be a depth of approximately 3% of the length of the uninterrupted building length. Buildings should have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest at a pedestrian scale. The features should be an integral part of the building fabric, and not be applied trim, graphics or paint. Variations to roof lines and cornice details should also be used to add interest to buildings. Exterior building materials and colors comprise a significant part of the visual impact of a building. Tllerefore, they should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used elsewhere in the City of Elk River. FaCade colors should be subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The development shall use a consistent palate of materials and colors throughout. Facades of a building which are visible form adjoining properties or public streets shall include certain design elements found on the front facades. Predominant exterior fagade materials should include, but not limited to, one or more of the following: brick native stone tinted, textured, integrally colored concrete masonry units stucco tilt-up concrete panels with exterior facades as referred to in these standards Predominant exterior building materials shall not include the following: - smooth faced concrete block - smooth faced or raked faced tilt up concrete panels - prefabricated steel panels. I 07/16/01 ?. Entry Signs These signs shall be a monument style sign with a maximum height of 8 feet and a width of 16 feet. Total sign area shall not exceed 128 square feet. The sign shall be constructed of brick, face brick or colored rock faced block and may include decorative brick and/or decorative glazed block as accents. 8. Monument and Wall Signs for Freestanding Sites Each of the freestanding buildings within Elk River Station will be allowed to have a freestanding and/or wall sign. The freestanding sign must be a monument style with a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum area of 100 square feet. The sign shall be constructed ofbr/ck or face brick and it may include decorative brick and/or decorative glazed block as accents. Wall signs for each freestanding building must consist of individual letters and shall not have more than one wall sign for each principle building, except that where a pr/ncipal building abuts two or more public streets, two wall signs will be allowed. Awning signs and canopy signs, including canopies over gas pumps, shall be included as wall signs. Awning and canopy signs shall not be illuminated. The sign area shall not exceed seven (7) percent of the area of the building wall, including doors and windows, to which the sign is to be affixed. 9. Major Tenant Wall Signage Total wall sign area for major tenants shall not exceed seven (7) percent of the front fagade of the principle structure and must consist of individually mounted letters and corporate logos. Letters shall not exceed 6 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 10 feet in height. All signage shall be internally illuminated. 10. Other Signs All other signage that may occur within Elk River Station and not specifically mentioned herein shall comply with the City of Elk River Sign Ordinance. The City may deny all requests that are not consistent with conditions, character and intent of the Elk River Station PUD. 3 07/16/01 Howard R, Green Qompany August 22, 2001 File: 812620J-0240 Mr. Scott Harlicker Senior Planner City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330-0490 RE: ELK RIVER STATION ADDITION Dear Mr. Harlicker: · We have received a revised Grading Plan from Passe Engineering dated August 20, 2001. We have also received revised storm drainage calculations for the Eastern Pond in the Elk River Station development. Finally, we have received a letter dated August 16, 2001, from Elk River Station LLP signed by Len Pratt and John Peterson regarding their proposal for phasing as it pertains to traffic considerations. Based upon our review of this revised information, this correspondence will attempt to address the issues that have changed since ourAugust 9, 2001, letter. The changes are as follows: A. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION The changing of the development as proposed in the August 16, 2001, letter would construct all four apartment buildings (208 units) and all 191 townhomes on the east side of Tyler Street, and all of the commercial/office buildings on the west side of Tyler Street. Based on their traffic engineer's projections of trip generations, this would generate approximately 2,000 tdps on the east side of Tyler Street and just under 1,400 trips on the west side of Tyler Street. The letter goes on to propose that a traffic study be undertaken after these units are substantially complete and occupied. If by "generally accepted traffic engineering standards" a second full access is needed on the east side of Tyler Street to complete the development, the Developers, Elk River Station LLP, indicate that they will commit to removing the northerly partial access and replace it with a service road which will run parallel to Tyler Street up to 173rd Avenue where a full access can be accomplished in conjunction with the northerly access point of the North Star Corridor parking lot. The final point in their letter says that they will be obligated to provide a letter of credit to guarantee payment of costs associated with the possible future extension of the service road. We find this proposal to be acceptable with the phasing plan that we have been proposing. We would suggest that the Final Plat for Phase 1 only include the apartment units, townhomes, and commercial/office space as proposed .in the letter. All other portions of the proposed development should be required to be shown as outlots on the First Addition Final Plat. We also suggest that the northerly access which is currently Ltr 8-22-01 HadickerLtr 8-22-01 Hadicker Page 1 1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389 proposed as a three-quarter access with a right-in/right-out and left turn-in movements be initially constructed as only a right-in/right-out. We do not feel that the left turn-in will add significantly to the traffic movements in this development and will require substantial modification to the median and irrigation system in Tyler Street. 2. The access onto Tyler Street from the west side of the development (Outlot C) has been removed. 3. A left turn lane is shown as being developed for southbound Tyler Street at the southerly full access of Elk River Station. No additional traffic information as it pertains to the proposed round-about internal to Elk River Station has been submitted. As we indicated at the Planning Commission, our major concern is that if traffic backs up from Tyler Street through the round-about, the efficient operation of the round-about will be compromised. We question whether or not, with the number of trains passing through Elk River, traffic on Tyler Street may queue up as a train crosses Tyler Street, precluding left tums out of Elk River Station. At the same time, when the train has passed Tyler Street, the queue of traffic heading north on Tyler Street may continue to preclude left tums out of Elk River Station. This may cause isolated times when the left turn movements waiting to enter onto Tyler Street may back up through the round-about. B. DRAINAGE ISSUES Revised drainage calculations for the internal storm sewer system have not been resubmitted. However, we have met with the Developer's engineer and additional catch basins have been shown on the Grading Plan where appropriate. The Developer's engineer has assured us that the revised storm drainage calculations will take into consideration our eadier comments. The eastedy ponding system has been revised so that the retaining wall is only on three sides of the southerly smaller pond. Therefore, a means to egress the pond area is provided on the southerly side of the pond. The Barrett property has been removed from the Site Plan for Outlot C (west side of Tyler Street) because the Developer has not acquired this property as yet. A small area has been designated as a possible ponding area. In reality, if this area develops without the Barrett property, more detail will need to be provided especially relative to the drainage system. Hopefully, the Developer will be able to acquire the Barrett property and provide an overall Drainage and Development Plan that is consistent with MnDOT's plans for the North Star Corridor parking area. The Developer's engineer has revised the emergency overflow elevations throughout the development after meeting with us to discuss our issue relative to the road flooding. The emergency overflow now is acceptable and will only provide minor flooding of the street system in order to operate effectively. Howard R, Green Company Ltr 8-22-01 HadickerUtr 8-22-01 Harlicker CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 2 C. UTILITY ISSUES 1. The Developer's engineer has assured us that they understand they will need to provide more watermain looping around the townhouse buildings and apartment buildings for the strategic placement of hydrants and providing of fire flow. 2. The Grading Plan has been revised to show the fire lanes that Bruce West had requested. Further discussion needs to be held with the Developer to ensure that these will be kept clear of snow in the winter months and that Bruce West is satisfied that his equipment can operate on this areas in case of a fire. However, what is shown is suitable in a preliminary fashion to deal with the issue raised by the Fire Chief. D. GRADING PLAN ISSUES 1. The Developer's engineer has made all of the modifications necessary to address the issues we raised relative to the last Grading Plan submitted. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call. Sincerely, Howard R. Green Company Te~. TJM:tw Howard R, Green Qompany Ltr 8-22-01 HadickerLtr 8-22-01 Harlicker CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 3 oward R. Green Oompany August 9, 2001 File: 812620J-0240 Mr. Scott Harlicker Senior Planner City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, Minnesota 55330-0490 RE: ELK RIVER STATION Dear Mr. Harlicker: As requested, we have reviewed the revised submittal package for the Elk River station development. The package consisted of a preliminary plat, preliminary utility plan, preliminary grading plan in both 50 scale and 100 scale, storm sewer design calculations for the pipe system, and a draft environmental assessment worksheet. All of the revised plans were dated August 6, 2001 and were prepared by Passe Engineering Inc. Based upon our review and comments received at the staff reView'meeting, we would offer the following comments: A. Traffic/Transportation Issues 1. At full development, this project is expected to generate over 5,200 trips per day. Approximately 4,000 of these trips will come from the area east of Tyler Street. In several meetings with the developers and their traffic engineer, we insisted that a development generating this much traffic would need two full access points on the east side of Tyler Street. Several options were discussed for the second full access. Through negotiation, it was determined that a compromise would be to allow the development to plat enough property to generate 2,000 trips per day total. Any trips beyond 2,000 trips per day would require the development of a second full access. No revised traffic analysis was submitted with this revised package, nor was there any information regarding what the developers propose to plat in the first phase to cap total trips generated on the east side of Tyler Street at 2,000 per day. One of the suggested alternatives for a second access was to build a frontage road up to the intersection of 173rd Avenue with Tyler Street. This is the location of the second (northerly) access to the Northstar Corridor parking lot. We asked the developers to show on their revised plan how this second access could be developed in the future without impacting any of the proposed buildings/parking lots anticipated in the first addition. We also asked that they show how the 1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389 Mr. Scott Harlicker August 9, 2001 Page Two second initial access, the right-in/right-out onto Tyler Street, could be closed .and made to fit with the second full access. None of this information was provided on the revised drawings. The only additional information that is shown is a 50-foot roadway easement immediately adjacent to Tyler Street that makes a 90-degree intersection with the northerly internal road. We believe that this easement is unacceptable and that any development of 173rd Avenue as the second full access should have a curve included that would accommodate traffic at a reasonable speed. We. also believe that, if 173'd Avenue is to be developed as the second full access point and if the northerly right-in/right-out at Tyler Street is to act as an interim second access (eventually being closed), it should not be allowed to be developed' as a three-quarter access with a southbound left turn. This movement should be eliminated from this interim access. No access should be allowed from Outlot C onto Tyler Street with the exception of the two access points anticipated for the Northstar Corridor parking area. No left turn is shown being developed for southbound Tyler street at the southerly full access into Elk River Station. The right-in/right-out off of Tyler Street into Outlot B has been eliminated. There still is a right-in only off of the access road into Outlot B approximately 100 feet from Tyler Street. This is a reasonable traffic movement to allow; however, the possibility of a right-out must be totally eliminated through the redesign of this access point. The development proposes a traffic circle on the main access route to Tyler Street approximately 200 feet east of the Tyler Street intersection. No traffic information was provided to document how this traffic circle will operate safely and improve vehicle movement on this roadway. Typically, 'traffic circles are utilized at intersections in lieu of signalization. At this point in the development, it can hardly be considered a candidate for signalization. In fact, it really is not even an intersection; it only has two driveways abutting the main access road at the point of the traffic circle. Therefore, this traffic circle can only be considered an architectural statement for the development and should only be allowed if sufficient traffic information can be provided to show that it will operate as efficiently and as safely as a roadway with no traffic circle. Just as a point of reference, numerous projects in the City of Elk River have been allowed to plat an outlot at the project entrance to be developed as a median with the width determined by the developers. The outlot then' has been utilized for development monuments and landscaping to create the entrance statement. Howard R, Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Scott Harlicker August 9, 2001 Page Three No traffic information has been provided relative to the proposed widths of the roadways and the narrower rights-of-way contained within the development. In fact, none of the submittal documents even indicate the proposed width of the internal roadways. By scale from the preliminary plat, it appears that most of the roadways are proposed at 28 feet wide with the roadway around the park/pond in Lot 6 being 20 feet wide in a 50-foot right-of-way. Clearly, this width is not wide enough for two-way traffic; however, the submittal does not indicate that one-way traffic is anticipated around Lot 6. This most recent submittal appears to change the first north-south street in the development from a proposed public street to a private street. It appears that there is a lot line through the middle of the street, and no right-of-way is provided. This change is perfectly acceptable to City staff. The Street Department had a concern with the original submittal regarding maintenance of a street that would act more as a parking lot, given the amount of head-in parking provided. B. Drainage Issues A detailed design summary of the internal storm sewer has been provided with the most recent submittal. There are a couple areas where the storm sewer design calculations do not match the grading plan. These areas should be revisited, and the storm drainage calculations resubmitted or the grading plan revised. There are several drainage areas where areas sized from 0.50-1.86 acres drain to a single catchbasin. From our experience, it is difficult to get more than 0.5 acres of drainage area into a single catchbasin. Any area with more than 0.5 acres should be revisited and additional inlet capacity provided. Aisc, there still are a couple of areas where additional catchbasins need to be provided to pick up drainage before it sheets onto the internal public roadway system. An example of this would be by Buildings 104-112 and, likewise on the west side of the street, the parking area for Buildings 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24. The grading plan has been revised around the two major pond areas to eliminate the retaining wall from the north side of each of these ponds. The' north side is now a 3:1 slope with a ten-foot bench at the normal high water level. Both of these ponds would still need some type of fencing around the three sides that have retaining walls due to the fact that there is sidewalk immediately adjacent to the retaining wall. However, the fence could be more of a decorative nature just to eliminate accidental falls off of the sidewalk over the retaining wall. The secondary smaller ponding area south of the east pond/park area still has a double six-foot high retaining wall around its entire perimeter. We still question whether or not this type of installation should be allowed, and if so, we would recommend a five- to six-foot high cyclone fence around the entire perimeter to Howard R, Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Scott Harlicker August 9, 2001 Page Four preclude access to the pond since there is no way for a small child to exit from the pond. We also question how maintenance will be accomplished in this pond since the double retaining wall around the entire perimeter seems to preclude maintenance access to the pond itself or the area between the two retaining walls. We question the construction material for these retaining walls. The normal water level in all these ponds would be at the base of the lowest retaining wall. The high water level in these ponds would overtop the lowest retaining wall. It is our experience that modular block walls will not withstand exposure to this type of water. Are these walls to be poured in place, or will some other measure be taken to counteract the exposure to water? The drainage pond on the west side of Tyler Street also has a double retaining wall around its entire perimeter. There is no outlet shown from the pond nor was this area included in the drainage calculations. Aisc, there is no way possible to build this pond as shown on the grading plan. There is a grading difference of over ten feet across this pond. Plus, it is built immediately adjacent to an existing wetland. Either one side of the retaining wall is ten feet above natural ground, or the other side is 16 feet into the ground. We still question the overall storm drainage design for this development. As I have indicated in my past memos, when the ponds reach the hundred-year flood elevation of 887.3, there will be a number of catchbasins in this system where water will be surcharged to within one foot of the casting. As you are aware, in all developments we require an emergency overflow route to be provided so that in the event of a larger frequency storm or back-to-back storms the route for stormwater flow can be determined such that no buildings will be endangered. In this development, if the emergency overflow route needs to be utilized because of a larger frequency storm or back-to-back storms, a major portion of the roadway system will be flooded and access may actually be cut off to the eastern part of the development. The attached drawing indicates the area according to the grading/drainage plan that would be flooded in the event that the emergency overflow route needs to be utilized. C. Utility Issues No design analysis has been provided to indicate to determine whether an eight- inch water main Iccp through the development can deliver sufficient water necessary for domestic consumption and fire fighting capabilities. In addition to the water main loop shown through the public street area, additional water main loops need to be provided through the buildings themselves in order to strategically place hydrants for fire fighting capabilities throughout the development. Howard R, Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS S -r'A TI O N TYPICAL XTRE~-T S~'CtrrlN Mr. Scott Harlicker August 9, 2001 Page Five Bruce West, Fire Chief, has indicated that on the four apartment buildings he needs the ability to get a fire engine within 150 feet of all areas on the building perimeter. The building scale of approximately 330 feet long which means that a fire access road needs to be provided airing the sides of the building and at least partially along the back of the building. City policy states that any water main containing hydrants is a public facility and, therefore, must fall within easements so that the Elk River Municipal Utilities can maintain and operate the water system. Therefore, the common areas either need a blanket drainage and utility easement or specified easements need to be provided on all utility routes. The row houses and back-to-back units either need to be provided individual sanitary sewer and water services to each unit or the association needs to be the responsible party for sewer and water use fees. D. Grading Plan Issues 1. The access roads to all of the row houses and back-to-back units should include concrete curb and gutter. We have been working with the developer's engineer on grading plan issues, most of which have been addressed. There are still a few minor issues such as missing contours or mislabeled elevations. These issues can be corrected as the project moves forward. On the south property line behind building units 8-15, there is a single retaining wall shown. By elevation, that wall would reach a maximum height of six feet. The wall should be tiered. In the same general location, the existing topography indicates a line of power poles. Is there an easement to a utility company for these power poles? Can the retaining wall and potentially the buildings encroach into the power line easement? 5. All sidewalks within the development should be six feet wide. If you have any questions regarding any of these issues, please call. Sincerely, Howard R. Green Company Howard R, Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS ELK RIVER S TA TION River Police Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Cheryll Edinger, Elk River Police Department August 8, 2001 Elk River Station We see a positive opportunity for the police department to utilize its Community Oriented Policing (C.O.P.) services in a development as unique as this. Programs such as foot patrol, bike patrol and other neighborhood crime prevention units could be utilized in this environ- ment. We do, however, have a concern about providing parking spots in the tennis and volleyball courts as well as the pool area. We realize that this development is designed to encourage people to walk to these areas, but 'know it ,xdll not happen all the time and that some parking must be provided. The police department would like to review detailed plans of the apartment complexes and surrounding parking areas. We will be looking for safety concerns such as lighting and security. £1k tLiver Municipal Utilities 322 King Avenue Elk River, MN 55330 August g, 2001 phone: 763.441.2020 Fax: 763.441.8099 To: From: Michele McPherson - City Planner/City of Elk River Bryan C. Adams Subject: Elk River Station This memo is in follow-up to our plan review meeting on August 8, 2001 for Elk River Station. The latest revision to these drawings are dated August 6, 2001. My comments are as follows: Water - Drawing C-2 1) Due to the size of the project, calculation to verify the proposed main size of 8" and 6" should be provided. 2) Main location and sizes m'e only shown for the main streets ('Bowtie") Water Main System must also be looped through the tow2house areas and apartment complex areas. Proposed location for valves and hydrm~ts should also be shown. 3) Revised water main layout should also take into account appropriate fire hydrant locations and spacing to satisfy fire code and fire chief requirements. 4) Will the town_houses be metered individually or through 1 building meter paid by the association. Latter is typical for Elk River. 5) Is underground lawn sprinkling being considered and if so, where are the feed points. Electric 1) Com~exus Energy will be the electric utility provider for this development. 2) Street Lighting plan should follow ERMU standards. 3) Utility easement are only shown adjacent to the main roads ("Bowtie"). How will the tov~2aouses and apartment complex be served. 4) Adequate easements must be provided to all tox~,ouses and apartments for electric, telephone, cable TV, gas, etc. See attached pictures for typical easement installations. Keep in mind there may be 2 or more different telephone providers and cable TV providers. Paver MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning Bruce A. West, Fire Chief August I 0, 200 I Elk River Station Under the 1997 Un/form Fire Code, 3902 Fire Department Access, I would like to highlight a couple of issues the Planning Department should consider that pertain to the proposed Elk River Station. 9902.2.1 Required Access for a Fire Apparatus Access Road states, fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance w/th 9901 and 3902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a building here- after constructed into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than .150' from fire apparatus access as mea- sured by an approved route around the exterior Of the building or fac/i/ty. See also 2902.3 for Personnel Access to Buildings. Under [902.2.2 Specification for Fire Department Access Roads, ~902.2.2.1 Dimensions StartS, fire apparatus access road shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20' and an unobstructed verdcal clearance of not less than 13'.6". Also rake into consideration 9901.4~2 Fire Apparatus Access Roads as stated, when required by the Chief approved signs or other approved nodces shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both. I also want to address [902.3.1 Requ/red Access to Building Openings which states, exterior doors and openings required by dais code or the building code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the Fire Department. An approved access walkway leading from the fire access apparatus road to exterior openings required by this code or the building code shall be provided when required by the Chef. Maintaining the required access under 6902.2.1 shall be an issue of Fire Department access to any pordon of the buildings within Elk River Stadon. Under the provisions of the fire code the turning radius and dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150' in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around a fire apparatus. The turning radius of fire apparatus access roads shall be approved by the Chief. Water supplies and fire hydrants shall be in accordance with 9901 and [903 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. An approved water supply capable of supplying the fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises within the proposed development Elk Privet Station. The proposed water supplies and fire hydrants shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief along w/th the City Engineer for approval by the Chief. If you have any questions with these issues, please feel free to call me at the Elk River Fire Department, 763.441.4919. S/offs. ite/fire/elks ration City MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Michelle McPherson, Director of Planning Phil Hals, Street/Park Superintended' DATE: August I 0, 2001 SUBJECT: Elk River Station Issues that concern me regarding this plat are as follows: Streets: ~ Developer provide adequate right of way to permit snow storage between curb and sidewalks. > All City maintained sidewalks be a minimum of 6 feet in width. ~,- City administration consider adding an additional maintenance person to provide snow removal for the streets, sidewalks and bituminous trails. ~- Group mail boxes. > Homeowners association mow boulevards. Parks: City maintain the bituminous pathways. City maintain park areas 4, 7 and 8. Homeowners association maintain the pool (9), tennis cou~ volleyball court and ponding area (.5), ponding area (6), ponding area(3), ponding area (2), and monument area (I). Homeowners association maintain the irrigation system. ELK RIVER STATION LLP 1611 Highway 10 NB Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michelle McPherson Len Pratt and John Peterson August 20, 2001 Elk Kiver Station- Park Dedication It is our understanding that the $384,980 cash dedication was determined by giving credit of $365,000 for certain physical improvements to parks numbered 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. We would request that the 2.97 acres ofparldand associated with said parks be given a valUe as well. We would propose a credit for land of $84,980. This equates to approximately $30,000 per acre and would reduce cash dedication to a grand total of $300,000. ELK RIVER STATION, LLP 1611 Highway 10 NE Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 Augustl6,2001 Ms Michelle McPherson Director of Plannin, g City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Elk River Station - Phasing Dear Ms. McPherson: This letter is intended ~to outline our proposal for a phasing plan, which will address the Elk River Station (ERS) traffic issues, which have been raised by the City Engineer. As you know, in spite of all of the data, which has been generated regarding Elk River Station traffic, the City Engineer's position has remained unchanged. It is our t~nderstanding that the City Engineers position is that the part the Elk River Station development that lies east of Tyler Street will accommodate only 2000'trips per day with. one full access and one ~ access. We have hired expert traffic engineers who disagree with the City Engineer's position. Therefore we are proposing the following: Elk River Station will be phased so as to limit the first phase to the development to all 208-apartment units, all 191 townhome units and all of the commercial/office buildings west of Tyler Street. The amount of projected traffic generated by this phasing plan is shown on Exhibit A. After the 208 apartments and 191 townhomes are constructed and substantially occupied, the C. ity of Elk River and Elk River Station LLP will commence a traffic study to evaluate the impact of the actual traffic generated by our phase one development. If by generally accepted traffic engineering design standards, the actual phase one traffic results in excess congestion, ERs will be obligated to remove the north access and replace it with a "service" road which will run parallel to Tyler Street north to 173rd Avenue. See attached Exhibit B. Elk River Station will be obligat'ed to provide a letter of credit to guarantee payment of the costs associated with the Possible future extension of the "service road". If it is determined that this "service road" is not necessary, the letter of credit ~will be released after the completion of phase one. This letter is our attempt to suggest a way to work around and through,our significant difference of opinion as it r,elates to traffic at ERS. As you know, both City and Developer representatives have had numerous and on going discussions about the various parts of this proposal. Our plan as outlined about enables final design solutions to evolve when the reality of traffic conditions are physically in place. We look forward to your response to the ideas contained in this letter. Sincerely, Len~P~t 'a~nd Jo~n Partners H0.625 P.1/i AUG.22.2001 9:12AM TRIP GENERATION ELK RIVER STATION City of Elk River (Updated 8122101) Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Tril:s Land Usa No. of Trip Gen. No, of Trip Gen, No, of Trip Gen.i No, of Units Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips I,DEVEL[3PMEN~ WEST OF TYLER STRIr-~ i ,Retail 15,100 40.67 614 6.41 97 2.59 39 ISpe~al{'/Rata-il -- - sq. ft. "'~er 1,000 50% in-(307~ 48% In-(47) 43~ in-(17) sq, ft. 50% out-(307~ 52Q/~ cut-(50) 5._7% out-(22) General Offic ~ Bldg - 69,400 11.01 764 1.56 108 1.49 103 sq; ff, per 1,o00 50~ 1n.~(3~_2) 88% In-(95) 17% sq, ft. 50% out-(382) 12% out-(13) 83% out-(86) 689 In 142 in 34 in  689 out 63 out 108 out ~'~ENT EAST O T II. DEVELOP YLER STREET Backto Bac'-----~T~ 191 (1'-----'-~- 5.88 1120 (1) 0.44 84 (1) 0.54 103 (1) units trip~/unit .50% in-(560) trips/unit 17% in-(14) trips/unit 67% In-(69) --- 50% out-(560) 83% out-(70) 33% out-(34) A'-pt]/Ccndo o'/er Retail 208 (1) 4.18 870 (1) 0.34 71 (1) 0.38 79 (1) Hi~lh dso Re-~i. CondoFF,H. units trips/unit 50%in-(435) triF~slunit 19% in-(14) trips/unit I 62% in-(49) 50% 0ut;.(435)_ 81% out-(57) 38% out-(,30) Congregate C are Facility 70 (1) 2.15 150 (1) 0.06 4 (1) 0.17 12 (1) '- units trips/unit 50 % In-(7~5)_ Vips/unit 81% In-(3) trips/unit 58% In-t7~] 50% out-(75) 39% out-(l) ¢4% out-(5) ,, Gas/Service ~tation wi "[~ 152.84-' 918 10.64 64 13.19 80 ~onv. Market & Car Wash pumps )er 1,000 50% In-(459~ 51% in-(33) 50% wi6 13uml0s _ _ pump 50% out-(459) 49% out-(31) 50% out-(40) General Offic~ Bulldlng 16800 11.01 206 -- '--~.5._.___~__6 29 1,49 28._..~.~ ~'-----"--'------ s~--'. ~ 3er 1,000 50% ~ ~ -88~A in-(2§) 17% in-(5._._~..) ~ 50% cut-(103} ~ ~ 83% out-(23) Day Cam Ce ~ter 5,~ 79.26 428 12,71 69 13.2 --'----------' sq, ft, _per 1,000 50% in-(214'T' ~ ~ 47°/° in-(33) ~----"-----"- sq. ff. ~ ~ 47% ~ut-(32...__..~.~) EAST SIDE L UBTOTAL ;369~..~.~ ~ 32~ d) 373 (1) -------------- ~ ~ 1846 in 127 In 203 in ------------'-'---'"-"-'-'-- ------- 1846 out 194 out 170 out DEVELOPMI tNT TOTAL ~ 5070 (1 ] 526 (1)._..[... .....__.--- ~- 2E36 In 269 in 237 in_...~ ~ 2636 out ~- 257 out 278 out ---------- ...--- ..:Z ..... ~~.-- i ,, (~) 812210t Revlel.ons 2844.02-, 'RIP-GEN.xI$ /I DITCH 255, 886 sq. ft. 5 44,262 S.F. 5 (4 STORY) Cl APARTMENT ELEVATION CLUBHOUSE ELEVATION END VIEW STREET VIEW OWNERS ENTRANCE VIEW ORRIN THO~ HOMES ELK RIVER ROW HOMES BEDROOM 2 MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 3 GREAT ROOM II II II II II II ECH. 26'-0" STUDY GARAGE L UNIT 1 MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 3 FAMILY LIVING DINING STORAGE GARAGE STUDY UNIT 2 CLOSET BEDROOM 3 MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 2 STUDY GREAT ROOM. II II GARAGE FAMILY UNIT 3 UpPer Level Plan the o!>~ions aw~ilnble fbr the l~lan 3'o~ are in~er~.~ed in. The ,~d~ject ~o chang, e. Mi~:ne,~or~ Buiider Licen,se ~t968 Main Level Plan Entry Level Plan Upper Leve~ P~an lhe apr o s availa[~le j~r the p on y ~u are r~tere~ d Mirmesotc~ Builder Lk ense ~]968 Main Level PLan Entry Level Plan Upper Level Plan Main Level Plan Ent?y Level Plan Upper Level P~an e p ~ s ~ho~ '~ re art st's' >w dit on and mm ~,a~3 fh,n actual plan~ Dimensions and .~quare are a/~pn~imn, e and plon,~ are ,~d~ject ~o ch~m~,e. Mhtneso~a B~dlder Lh'ens~ Main Level Plan Upper Level Plan Main Level Plan ~e~ne~t~ry S~on~roc~k Course 101 ST AVE Sc~oo~ AVE ~. / LA~E ~ AVE EL~ CREEK ~LYD I! ii X W W W rr I , ,4/, ~ --.~ ....... ~ ,/' /" ~ , 0 ~a I 75-510.-0655 75--510-.~50 75-510-0625 75--510-0170 75-510--01~ LU ~O-~O~-g£ tO-~Ol,-gZ. 1 Lg~O-~O~-gZ. t~ LO-~Ot,-SZ ~ I.O-~Of-SL LO-EOt, -Si OL~O--g~'t,--gL OgtO-~O'~-~L ~ Og~o~g~ iO~o~ LL LO--~Ot,-~L EZtO-ZO~-~L '- I I I LU >. 0 ~ NIYH gO I.O-Otg-gz. LU Z I i j 'qJ_VAl~ld (,.)z Zu~ >. 0