Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/05/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. MAY 6, 2015 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of April 15, 2015 3. Hearings A. Bridgewater - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Location: 4400 and 4424 Excelsior Boulevard and 3742 Monterey Drive Applicant: Dominium Development Case No.: 15-15-CP B. Preliminary and Final Plat; Preliminary and Final PUD Location: 3907 & 3915 Hwy. 7; 3031 Glenhurst Avenue; 3914 & 3918 31st Street W. Applicant: Bader Development Case Nos.: 15-11-S and 15-12-PUD 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952/924-2575 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA APRIL 15, 2015 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m. by Vice Chair Johnston-Madison. 2. Approval of Minutes of April 1, 2015 Commissioner Carper moved approval of the minutes of April 1, 2015. The minutes were seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 (Tatalovich abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Brewery Taproom – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Applicant: Steel Toe Brewery Case No.: 15-14-ZA Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The proposed amendment would increase the maximum amount a brewery can produce from 3,500 barrels per year to 20,000 barrels per year in the Business Park (BP) and Industrial Park (IP) Zoning Districts. Commissioner Tatalovich asked if the request was made to make it more in line with Minnesota statute or if the applicant is coming up against the 3,500 barrel maximum. Mr. Morrison responded that the applicant hasn’t reached the 3,500 barrel maximum yet. They have nearly doubled their space, including the taproom. They are experiencing a high demand for their product. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison opened the hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 2 Commissioner Robertson remarked that the amendment is keeping up with state law. He said Steel Toe Brewing is a great asset to the community. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to Breweries in the Industrial Park and Business Park zoning districts. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. B. Preliminary and Final Plat of Minnota Addition Location: 4903 Cedar Lake Road S. Applicant: Erdogan Akguc Case No.: 15-09-S Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The applicant, Erdogan Akguc, stated that he has owned the property for 10 years and he is looking forward to building on it. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carper made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition, subject to conditions. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. C. Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances and Preliminary PUD Zoning Location: 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Oppidan, Inc. Case No.: 15-03-S and 15-04-PUD Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The request would allow construction of a six-story, mixed use building with 28,228 square feet of commercial (specialty grocery store possibly including a liquor store), 189 apartment units, and structured parking. The PUD is a rezoning of the property under the City’s new PUD ordinance. Mr. Walther spoke about the grade of the site sloping from south to north. The building is six stories tall. At the sides of the property along Quentin and Princeton the building does step down, but as the grade changes, the underground parking below the building becomes exposed. Essentially the building will look about 75 feet and about 6 stories tall on both the north and south sides of the development. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 3 In his discussion about landscaping, Mr. Walther spoke about vine plantings which are proposed along some of the building walls especially along the north side where the exposed parking walls are located. He also spoke about a proposed partial “green wall” element along the Quentin Ave. side. Mr. Walther noted that staff is recommending some additional improvements to the landscaping. Mr. Walther discussed parking, access and the traffic study. He stated that the traffic study concluded the proposed development will have little impact on the adjacent street operations and intersections. Mr. Walther said the staff report includes a number of suggested revisions to the proposed plan including landscaping, utility plan, the removal of stairways proposed along Princeton Ave., and additional attention to waste storage and handling. Staff is requesting that those revisions be incorporated before the request goes to the City Council. Commissioner Robertson asked for the rationale behind the subdivision variance request. Mr. Walther explained that five feet appears to be adequate along Quentin Ave. S., Park Commons Dr., and Princeton Ave. S. for proposed and future utility needs surrounding the property. The 10-foot easements along Excelsior Blvd. and the existing 66 ft. wide right-of-way of Quentin Ave. S. also provide adequate space for future utility needs to serve both the site and the surrounding area. Commissioner Carper spoke about the transit service parking reduction and asked where the bus stops are located. Mr. Walther responded that an existing bus stop is in front of the building site on the northeast corner of Quentin and Excelsior (Route 12). There is also a bus stop on the southwest corner of Quentin and Excelsior (Route 12). He added that there are also two other circulator routes in that area. Commissioner Carper asked about proposed parking spaces and bus pull-out lane. Mr. Walther stated that bus drivers prefer to stay out in the lane and to stop along the street curb. Commissioner Carper asked why that doesn’t occur at Excelsior & Grand. Mr. Walther responded that was probably a local preference and Metro Transit agreed to do so. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner Carper asked about building heights from Monterey down to the Bally’s site. Mr. Walther said the Trader Joe’s building at Monterey is a five-story building and is 63 feet tall. The first and second phases of Excelsior & Grand are four- story buildings and 50 feet tall. The proposed development is 75 feet tall to the roof and 85 feet tall to the roof top terrace structures. Commissioner Carper asked about the Excelsior & Grand easement. Mr. Walther said no drainage and utility easements were provided in the Excelsior and Grand development, although the buildings are set back 5 feet from the property lines. He added that the City did require additional right-of-way dedications, but there are no drainage and utility easements provided. He noted that similar reductions were done for the Ellipse development as well as the Shops at West End. Commissioner Carper asked why the main entrance to the grocery store is on Excelsior Blvd. when the majority of the parking is behind the building. Mr. Walther responded this relates to how the building design addresses the street and sidewalks along the front of the building in order to create a more pedestrian- friendly environment along that public space. He spoke about the other access point from the parking lot that will allow customers to come into a vestibule space and move into the grocery store. While there may be more customers entering from the parking spaces behind the grocery store, having an entry from Excelsior Boulevard and maintaining access into the building from the public sidewalk is needed and required to encourage use of the on-street parking and transit to access the site. Commissioner Carper asked if the long wall would be made out of Class I materials. He asked if there would be any textural elements on the wall. Mr. Walther said there are some details added at the corners of the building. It changes from the brick material to the stucco material in the center, and both are considered Class I materials. Boulevard landscaping and trees will be located there. Vine plantings are proposed along the foundation of the wall to soften the appearance of the wall at the pedestrian level. Commissioner Carper asked if any kind of differentiation on the wall can be required. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Walther stated that the developer is meeting the minimum Class I material requirement on the site. He added that as a Planned Unit Development there is the ability to request or require additional changes to the project. Commissioner Carper spoke about the short growing season for vine plantings. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison discussed the Excelsior & Grand concept of four stories which she said seems more appropriate for the area. Commissioner Robertson asked about adaptability of the grocery store space if the use needs to change. Mr. Walther stated that building does have some flexibility. The struggle may be more about the access from the rear of the property. A common corridor might be needed for multiple uses for both customers and shared use of the loading dock. He added that there are opportunities for additional entrances along the street as well as along Quentin Ave. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison said the location of the liquor sales portion of the store will be important regarding deliveries. She asked hours of operation for the store. Mr. Walther said deliveries will be made off of Quentin Ave. Trucks would enter from Quentin, and back into the loading dock area. Delivery times could be included as a condition of approval if desired. The developer stated at the neighborhood meeting that the grocery store hours of operation could be from 6 a.m. to midnight. The applicant Paul Tucci, Oppidan, said the architectural element going up to 85 feet is trellis, but rooftop decks are not proposed in those areas. He said they anticipate having 20 affordable units in the building. He discussed parking and said they are comfortable that they have met the City’s parking ordinance requirements. Mr. Tucci discussed the traffic study conducted by Spack Consulting. Mr. Tucci said at one time they looked at doing four stories but in order to include affordable housing and make their numbers work they needed to increase their unit count. He spoke about working with the setback, the ability to get the unit count necessary and the resulting elevation. Mr. Tucci said there is some potential to do a planted wall area. He described a series of small potted vines which are not designed to be 12 month vines. A mural was a possibility. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Tucci discussed the retail and the market study. Delivery restrictions have not been discussed with the grocery company yet. Reasonable delivery times can be accommodated. Commissioner Carper asked for more information about the sixth story. Mr. Tucci said the sixth story is primarily on the front 25% of the building with 12 residential units. There is a decorative trellis element on the ends of the building. Commissioner Carper asked how the proposed stairway area would be redesigned. Mr. Tucci explained there wouldn’t be a full foundation at the bottom of the stairs. It would be more like a patio footing. He said they requested the variance with the caveat that they would do some kind of encroachment agreement so if the city needed to do work it would be the developer’s responsibility to pay for the removal and reconstruction of the stairway. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison said she is concerned that the traffic study is very positive in its assumptions. She said residents at the neighborhood meeting expressed concern about cut-through traffic. Mr. Walther said the trip distributions indicated in his presentation indicate that about 5% of vehicle trips from the apartment would be using Quentin Ave. About 15% of trips associated with the grocery store would also use Quentin. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison asked about lighting on the building. Mr. Tucci said internal lighting would come from the grocery store and apartment units. No street lights will be added and no lighting on the building is currently proposed. He said there may be a name put on the building which could be lit. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison said residents were concerned about what the site would look like during winter and spring months. She asked if the developer would do a study on that and meet with the residents again. Mr. Tucci said residents would see the building with some street level landscaping. He said site line studies could be done, but the view would be as the elevations indicate. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 7 Commissioners received copies of e-mail correspondence from the following residents: Janice Goldstein, 4730 Park Commons Dr., #313; Dan Steeves, 4034 Quentin Ave. S.; Lyn Wik, 3965 Quentin Ave. S.; Matt Stangl; and Steven Katkov, 3904 Kipling Ave. S. Four indicated concerns with the proposal and/or opposition to the proposal, and Mr. Steeves’s email supported the application, but questioned the sustainability of another grocery store. Jim Beneke, 3934 Ottawa Ave. S., stated there were several signs that the development is way too big. He said there were several tricks on the parking such as tandem parking and shared parking. He said even with the tricks they were kind of iffy on parking spaces. He said if it was developed according to high density residential zoning it would have been restricted to 110 units. He said he doesn’t think it should even be taken as a starting point for negotiations. Mr. Beneke stated he didn’t think it was a serious development offer at all. Robert Reinhardt, 4713 Vallacher Ave. S., said he overlooks the Bally’s site. He spoke about ice, snow and water falling from overhangs. He said he is very concerned about the height of the building. He said if Excelsior & Grand can make the numbers work with four stories then the new proposal should be able to do so. Mr. Reinhardt said the trellis adds another story. He added that he does see the Excelsior & Grand design element from his house so he will see the six story design element on the proposed development. Mr. Reinhardt stated that he hopes another developer can make a four story project work. He asked if the traffic study was done during MEA week in October. Catherine Kedzuf, 4755 Park Commons Dr., said her apartment overlooks the grassy area. She said she frequently makes the left hand turn from Excelsior to Quentin. The stop light is very lengthy. She said the Bally’s parking ramp is currently used, including overnight parking. Parking occurs on Quentin on the Bally’s side by employees of the Park Nicollet building. Ms. Kedzuf said on- street parking is not permitted on Princeton during the winter overnight. Those units then park at Bally’s lot or the Excelsior & Grand lot. When overnight parking is allowed parking occurs on both sides of the road. Ms. Kedzuf said she hoped a traffic study would be conducted regarding safety and day-to-day walkability for the neighborhood. She suggested double checking the on-street designated parking especially during the winter months as well as double checking the stacking numbers. Ms. Kedzuf said she questioned the entrance to the parking ramp on the Quentin Ave. side and the impact that will have on people coming and going. She suggested looking at parking spaces/unit. She said in her building most, but not all, of the underground parking spaces are full and a number of residents utilize the public lot, including overnight. Ms. Kedzuf recommended standards around construction noise and traffic. She stated she is in favor of new development but feels further evaluation needs to be done. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 8 Carol Sandberg, 4820 Park Commons Dr., #29, said she is concerned about the width of Quentin and Princeton Avenues. She asked if the development will use some of its property as egress and ingress to their parking rather than using the two lanes on each street. She stated that rush hour is actually from 7 – 9 a.m. and 4 – 6 p.m. Mr. Walther said turn lanes on the side streets are not proposed. Ms. Sandberg said she wondered if this small area can support another grocery in addition to Byerly’s, Target, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and Linden Hills Co-op. She said she does not feel another grocery store is a viable and good use of the property. She suggested that a clinic would be a good use. Sharon Tilden, 4820 Park Commons Dr., #224, asked to see the slide illustrating the slope. She said her building’s parking is underground. Drivers go down the slope and cut in and go down further. She said the slope goes all the way down through her building’s property and is not a gradual slope. She said to say the proposed building is a five story building is not true. Residents in her building will be looking at a building which looks to be six or seven stories. Ms. Tilden said drivers park in her building’s parking spaces all the time to get to the park. She said she spoke with the developer at the neighborhood meeting about more problems of people parking in her building’s lot. She said the response was to have those cars towed. She said she was not happy with the response. Antonio Spargo, 4860 Park Commons Dr., #104, said looking at the corner of Park Commons Dr. and Princeton it appears to be closer to seven stories than six on the back side. The height is much taller than Excelsior & Grand. He said a lot of the current street parking is by Park Nicollet employees and patients which was probably not accounted for in the parking study. Mr. Spargo said he rides the Route 12 bus every day and currently it does pull into a cut-out and pulls out of traffic to let people on and off. He said the circulator often parks around the block and takes up two parking spots. Mr. Spargo said parking needs to be considered in the whole study of this development. Eleanore Merton, 4820 Park Commons Dr., said that six stories is two stories too many. She said 189 units are too many rental apartments which could add up to 380 extra cars to the mix, increasing traffic jams and pollution. Ms. Merton suggested a fabric store would be a good addition to the area. Nancy Bartsch, 3754 Inglewood Ave. S., said she is concerned about the height, density, existing traffic at Traffic Joe’s and Excelsior & Grand to Monterey is already crazy, and cut-through traffic through 38th St. to France. Ms. Bartsch said the cut-through traffic is already unsafe. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 9 Rita Wagner, 4820 Park Commons Dr., #135, said her main objection is pollution with all the cars idling. She said she lives on the first floor on the north side of the building. The proposed building will appear to be eight stories high from her side and it will block all of her winter sun. Denise Davis, 4820 Park Commons Dr., a 32-year resident, said she is surprised by the number of units proposed for the Bally’s site, in addition to the proposed development units on Monterey. She asked about studies on the effects of high density housing on neighborhoods. She said she is concerned that Wolfe Park will no longer be a place of peace and quiet. Ms. Davis stated she is concerned about traffic throughout the development and Excelsior & Grand area. Patti Carlson, 3801 Inglewood Ave. S., said she is concerned about the 38th St. cut-through. She added that the Monterey intersection is currently problematic. She said her main concern regards the possibility of another liquor store in the grocery store. She said she thinks there are too many liquor stores in the area as it is. She listed Miracle Mile, Trader Joe’s, Jennings and Byerly’s. She said Excelsior Blvd. used to be known as a liquor place and she doesn’t think it is necessary to have another liquor store. Ms. Carlson said the neighborhood doesn’t need the height of the proposed building. Michelle Barry, 4524 W. 39th St., stated she is concerned about cut-through traffic on 39th St. She said drivers go too fast and she has seen a lot of near accidents. Her area doesn’t have stop signs. She stated other concerns regard the mix of affordable units, average projected square footage per unit, price/square foot, all rental units, delivery, recycling management, trash, loading dock size, landscaping of 10% of trees required, vines, and loss of park view. Ms. Barry said she is concerned about building a canyon wall along Excelsior Blvd. with Bally’s site proposed development, Excelsior & Grand, Ellipse, and proposed development at Monterey. She said she does not think that is the character of the city. She said she wanted everyone to think 20 years in the future when the south side of Excelsior Blvd. starts to get developed. Ms. Barry said she was concerned about another grocery store being the main tenant. She said snow removal is already an issue. She said developers are continuing to push the limits of the original plan for the north side of Excelsior Blvd. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison asked Mr. Walther to answer some of Ms. Barry’s questions. Mr. Walther said all apartments will be rental units. He said staff is also concerned about the space provided for trash and recycling management. He stated that snow will be required to be hauled off-site, similar to Excelsior & Grand. The developer would be responsible for clearing out the parking bays. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 10 The applicant, Paul Tucci, said the traffic study was done Tues., Oct. 14. MEA started at the end of that week. He said in reference to the comment about towing at the condos, Mr. Tucci said he believed he asked the resident if the management company did any enforcement with towing. In regards to cut-through traffic he said the traffic distribution (Figure A4) is mentioned in the traffic study. He said he would inform Bally’s that people are parking at the site. He commented that if just Bally’s were to open at the current site, Oppidan’s traffic engineer estimates that using the ITE trip generation formula for that use at that location would generate 1,000 cars in/day and 1,000 cars out/day. Mr. Tucci said liquor store numbers and proximity is a city licensing issue. He said affordable units will be 1-bedroom and alcove units. Average square footage of 1-bedrooms will be about 700. Average square footage of 2-bedrooms will be about 1,050. Trash for residential is inside the parking garage. The exterior trash area is for cardboard and trash area for grocery store only. The 10% tree replacement will be made up with cash payment. He said proposed spacing of trees is similar to Excelsior & Grand. Mr. Tucci said Oppidan has done 35 grocery stores and detailed market analyses are very accurate. He said the current RC and MX zoning allows six stories with the qualification that five stories is more keeping in line with Trader Joe’s, Ellipse and E2. He stated that Oppidan is trying to work within boundaries and setbacks to try to make a viable project. He said that balconies do not hang over the sidewalk or easement area, with the exception of 1 or 2 that may just catch the back corner of a sidewalk. Mr. Walther said as shown currently on the plan the sidewalk is continuous from the street curb to the building especially along Excelsior Blvd. There are three stacks of decks that hang out from the building. There is a similar situation on the north side. Erik Gerrits, 4904 Vallacher, said four stories were established for Excelsior & Grand. Trader Joe building and Ellipse are five stories and the neighborhood would like to actually stay with what the city started with which is four stories. Mr. Gerrits said he is concerned with the turn onto Quentin. It is already a hard turn to make with angled parking located there. There will be back-ups onto Excelsior. He commented there is not enough room for the density proposed. He said he has concerns about a brand new grocery store chain. Sharon Tilden, 4820 Park Commons Dr., #224, said she wished to add to her earlier comments that when she moved to the area they were told Excelsior & Grand would be three stories. Then it became four stories. She said the newest proposal is for 5-6 stories and the neighborhood is very upset about this. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 11 As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Vice Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson said the height does not bother him but the development feels like it is a little too big all around. He said it is short on trees, short on parking, and a variance requested to get closer. A 10 foot easement would allow more room for trees. He said he likes the idea of the stairs coming out from the units along Princeton but they are on the easement. If the building was pulled back just a little bit, a little bit smaller and relaxed, then the stair amenity would fit. Commissioner Robertson said the architecture is what is trendy today. He said he understands a developer’s need to maximize. He said he would vote to approve the plat. He stated he was cautious about the variance saying if the building was a bit smaller a variance wouldn’t be necessary. He said the PUD is preliminary but there are issues to work on. He said he probably would approve the PUD but by not approving the variance and with his other comments he would hope the final comes back with improvements. Mr. Walther reviewed the next steps of the new Planned Unit Development process. After this public hearing the request will go forward to the City Council. If Council approves the preliminary plat and PUD, the PUD does not come back to Planning Commission. Commissioner Carper said the traffic study seems to be reliable. Parking may be tight. He commented that the city doesn’t choose the retail tenants. He said his primary concern is the height of the building. He said the city wants to try to increase the amount of affordable housing in the city. The only way for the developer to make that work is to have more units. Commissioner Tatalovich said he agreed with most of Commissioner Robertson’s concerns. He said he is also concerned about height, traffic and landscaping. He added there are too many questions. He said he would not be in favor of an overall motion. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison said she shared the concerns of the other commissioners. She said she is concerned about height, density and unanswered questions about the project. She commented that staff has itemized those questions very well. She discussed needing to ask the City Council about the Comprehensive Plan and why changes to height are being proposed for this development. She said she understood why additional units are being proposed to accommodate affordable housing. She stated all of those things have to be taken back to the City Council for further study. She asked what could be done by the Planning Commission at this meeting without recommending the project. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 15, 2015 Page 12 Commissioner Robertson said he would be willing to make a motion to approve the preliminary plat, deny the variance and recommend denial of the PUD as it currently is presented. He noted there are lots of recommendations by staff as well as recommendations and comments by the Commission and before it goes to Council, and if those things are changed, the Council can look at it at that point. He said he was okay with denying and moving it forward as it currently is. Commissioner Carper said he supported that idea. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat with the conditions stated in the staff report, denial of the Subdivision Variances, and denial of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD). Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. Vice Chair Johnston-Madison asked when the request would go to the City Council. Mr. Walther said the request is tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration on May 18, but with requests for amending items, possible consideration of TIF financing, and study sessions, that date could change. Staff will update the schedule on the City website when it is known. A mailing with the new date will also go out. 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 Agenda Item 3A. 3A. Bridgewater – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4400 & 4424 Excelsior Boulevard and 3742 Monterey Drive Case No.: 15-15-CP Applicant: Dominium Development Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: COM – Commercial Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation: MX – Mixed Use Proposed Project Density: 71 units per acre Existing Zoning: C2 – General Commercial R-4 Multiple-Family Residence Property Owner: 4400 & 4424 Excelsior Blvd – Bridgewater Bank 3742 Monterey Dr – St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Description of Request: Dominium Development has requested an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for 4400 & 4424 Excelsior Blvd and 3742 Monterey Dr. If recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council, this amendment would: • Modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for these parcels from Commercial to Mixed Use. • Allow the applicant to combine the parcels through a preliminary and final plat. • Allow the applicant to request a rezoning of the property to a Planned Unit Development. The combined size of all parcels is 2.42 acres, including the parcel currently owned by the Economic Development Authority. The development proposal for the site includes a mixed-use building consisting of approximately 173 units, 10,000 square feet of commercial space, to be used by Bridgewater Bank, and approximately 7,500 square feet of commercial/retail space. The proposed building is six stories tall along Excelsior Boulevard and along a portion of Monterey Drive, with the sixth story stepped back from Excelsior Boulevard. The building also steps down Agenda Item No. 3A –Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bridgewater Page 2 Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 to four stories at the north end of the property along Monterey Dr. Concept development images and a map depicting the Comprehensive Plan map amendment are attached. Background: Bridgewater Bank purchased 4424 Excelsior Blvd, that contains several small retail stores, and 4400 Excelsior Blvd, where it has opened a local branch. The Economic Development Authority (EDA) owns 3742 Monterey Dr and has indicated to Bridgewater Bank and Dominium Development that it would be willing to sell the property in order to facilitate the proposed development. Bridgewater Bank and Dominium Development are owner partners in this project, with Dominium Development leading the redevelopment of the properties. Site Conditions: The three combined parcels are 2.42 acres in size and feature a single-story commercial building that houses several retail businesses and a two-story building that has recently been renovated and in which Bridgewater Bank has opened a local branch. The EDA-owned property is currently vacant. The proposed development is in the Wolfe Park Neighborhood and is just over one-half mile of the proposed Beltline Southwest LRT station. The site is also served by the number 12 bus route. The site is on the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive, across Monterey Drive from Trader Joe’s. The properties are zoned C-2 Commercial, with 4400 Excelsior Boulevard split-zoned C-2 on the southern portion and R-4 Multiple Family Residence on the north. The site is generally flat along Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive for approximately 90 feet toward the interior of the site, at which point there is an approximately 20 foot retaining wall. The northern portions of the site are also generally flat, but lying approximately 20 feet below the grade of Excelsior Boulevard. This northern portion of the site is predominantly a paved parking area. The site lies within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Development Proposal: The developer proposes to remove the single-story commercial building and retain the two-story building where Bridgewater Bank is currently located. The development concept consists of approximately 170 apartment units, including 20% affordable units at 50% of the area median income (AMI). The concept also includes approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space where Bridgewater Bank would relocate their St. Louis Park branch, and approximately 7,000 square feet of general commercial/retail space. The development also includes three levels of structured parking, with the upper-most level at grade with Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. The proposed building would front Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. The building would be six stories along Excelsior Boulevard, with the sixth story stepped back from the front façade, and the building would step down to four stories as it extends north along Monterey Drive. Graphics and plans depicting the proposed buildings are included as attachments. The current site plan indicates the arrangement and footprint of the buildings as well as parking areas. The developer is working with an engineer to evaluate stormwater management on site and is communicating with the City’s Water Resources Manager. Agenda Item No. 3A –Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bridgewater Page 3 Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 Parking for residents would be provided in a ramp structure that would be under the building. Due to the topography, the two lower levels of parking would be visible from the interior, north side of the site. The proposal also includes on-site surface parking for the bank, retail and guest parking off-street at grade with Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. As proposed, the development exceeds the parking requirements found in the Zoning Ordinance, with a total of 383 spaces provided while 339 are required. The development is eligible for a transit reduction to the parking requirements for the bank and retail uses. The reduction is 10%, which would decrease the total required parking spaces required to 61. Access to the commercial parking is proposed from Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. Parking to the two levels of structured residential parking is proposed off of Monterey Drive and potentially to the north of the site to 36 ½ St. via a private access easement. Further analysis by City engineering staff will be conducted in order to make a recommendation on the exact configuration for parking access to the residential parking. The concept site plan was designed to enhance the street frontage along Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive by placing parking areas toward the rear of the site, and improving the landscaping and building design along each street frontage. The design also provides an additional ten to twelve feet of setback between the building and Monterey Drive to allow for a wider sidewalk and landscaped boulevard. The building design also steps the sixth story back from the front façade to reduce overall height perceived from Excelsior Boulevard, and steps the building down to four stories along to the north along Monterey Drive. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long range vision and broad goals. This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The request is for residential development at a density of 70 units per acre, which is considered High Density (RH) in the Comprehensive Plan. Due to the proposed inclusion of the bank and commercial/retail use in the project, a change to MX – Mixed Use would be most appropriate. General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The City’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the requested change. The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan map meets many of the goals found in the Land Use chapter, including: - human scale development - increase mix of housing types and housing choices - promote medium and high density residential development near commercial centers - ensure that new medium and high density residential development is near transit service Agenda Item No. 3A –Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bridgewater Page 4 Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 Changing the Comprehensive Plan map will allow for additional housing units, including affordable units, in an area that is well served by transit, and along a vibrant commercial corridor. The general area of the development proposal consists of Excelsior & Grand to the west, multiple-family residential and a nursing home directly to the north, and a mix of commercial and single-family houses to the east. To the south, across Excelsior Boulevard is a mix of commercial, retail, office, and single-family uses. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an increase in the availability of neighborhood housing choices, mixed-use redevelopment and transit-oriented development. The proposed development would provide higher density apartment housing, including affordable units, in a building that enhances the street frontage along Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive and demonstrates principles of pedestrian- and transit-oriented development. Availability of Infrastructure The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed development concept and found the public water and sewer infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. A traffic study was completed and is attached to this report. A revised traffic study was completed to analyze an alternative parking and access design scenario. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Excelsior Boulevard as an “A Minor Augmentor”, which has sufficient capacity for the proposed development. The development will of course generate additional trips based on an increase in residential units on the site. There are no significant changes to the intersection capacities and level of service (LOS) analyzed in the study. The impacts that would be realized are for people leaving the Bridgewater Development turning onto Monterey Drive. Staff understands that there is existing traffic congestion for vehicles turning off of Park Commons Drive onto Excelsior Boulevard. The Bridgewater Development is across the street from this intersection, and is not projected to have further impacts on this intersection. Further analysis and review of the study will be carried out if the project moves forward, but engineering and planning Staff concur with the traffic study results that no further mitigation is warranted. Staff have considered at this point, that placing a sign stating “Do Not Block Intersection” on southbound Monterey Drive at Park Commons Drive may be helpful, and Staff will continue to evaluate other potential options in this area. Impacts to Surrounding Properties and the Physical Character of the Neighborhood Removal of the existing buildings will change the character of the site. The proposed development generally follows the height, density and ground floor area ratio of the C-2 Commercial Zoning District, of which a majority of the site is currently zoned. The current development concept includes stepping back the sixth floor of the building as well as building in order to provide a more interesting building façade, and reduce the perception of a sixth story. It is anticipated that the property would be rezoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The most noticeable impact to the area would be the addition of a greater number of residents. An increase in residents provides a greater number of customers for local retail and activates the street frontage. Traffic of course is also increased, but not in a manner inconsistent with an urban environment and adjacent to a major County highway. Additionally, the site design provides more parking than the City’s minimum requirements. Agenda Item No. 3A –Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bridgewater Page 5 Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 Public Input: A neighborhood meeting was held April 21, 2015. Approximately 25 people attended the meeting to review the concept development drawings and talk through the project. There were some attendees who supported the concept and others with concerns. Concerns generally related to: an increase in traffic, intersection congestion, a six-story building, shadowing, general redevelopment of properties, the loss of the existing retail tenants and concerns about losing the view from Excelsior & Grand. Comments of support generally included: like the overall building; appreciate that the sixth story is stepped back from Excelsior Boulevard; like the additional setback and landscaping along Monterey Drive; excited to have more people in the neighborhood to further support local commercial/retail businesses. Public Process: • July 14, 2014 : Council discussion at Study Session • April 13, 2015: Council report at Study Session • April 21, 2015: Neighborhood Meeting, City Hall Community Room • May 6, 2015: Planning Commission Public Hearing • June 1, 2015: Council action on Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Request After the Planning Commission reviews the request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map and holds a public hearing, the request will go before the City Council. If the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is approved, the developer intends to apply for a plat and PUD. Summary: Requested is a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment to change the property at 4400 & 4424 Excelsior Blvd and 3742 Monterey Dr. from COM – Commercial and RM – Medium Density Residential to MX – Mixed Use. The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved prior to submission of other applications that would allow the developer’s proposal to continue through the public review process. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment. The proposed development provides for mixed-use, transit-oriented development in the project area and meets the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of increasing medium-density and high-density housing near transit service and enhancing the vibrancy and identify of the Excelsior Boulevard and Excelsior & Grand commercial areas.. Attachments: Aerial Photo Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Existing – Proposed Project Area Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Proposed – Proposed Project Area Concept Development Plans Traffic Study Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Agenda Item No. 3A –Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bridgewater Page 6 Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 Aerial Agenda Item No. 3A –Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bridgewater Page 7 Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - Existing Agenda Item No. 3A –Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bridgewater Page 8 Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Proposed EXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVENeighborhood Meeting 04/21/2015Perspective View - Excelsior & Monterey IntersectionExcelsior View - Looking West Monterey View - Residential EntryMonterey View - Looking North EXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVENeighborhood Meeting 04/21/2015Site Landscape Plan EXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVENeighborhood Meeting 04/21/2015Level 1 EXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVENeighborhood Meeting 04/21/2015Level 2 EXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVENeighborhood Meeting 04/21/2015South ElevationEast ElevationWest ElevationNorth Elevation Memorandum SRF No. 0158804 To: Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A, Associate Planner City of St. Louis Park From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Jordan Schwarze, PE, Senior Engineer Date: May 1, 2015 Subject: 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Introduction SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed 4400 Excelsior Boulevard development located in the City of St. Louis Park (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate the traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway network, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. The following sections provide the assumptions, analysis, and study conclusions/recommendations offered for consideration. Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify any future impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes peak period intersection turning movement counts, field observations, and an intersection capacity analysis. Data Collection Peak period turning movement and pedestrian counts were collected by SRF during the week of March 23, 2015 at the following study intersections: • Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive • Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street • Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive • Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street It should be noted that Minnetonka Boulevard over MN Highway 100 was closed at the time of these counts. However, traffic volumes within the study area did not appear to be impacted by the closure. Historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes within the study area were provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM 0158804 May 2015 Project Location 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 1H:\Projects\8804\TS\Figures\Fig01_Project Location.cdr100 France AveExcel si o r Bl v d CSAH 2 5 Mo n t e r e y D r 36th St Belt Line BlvdProject LocationNORTHNorth Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS In addition to the intersection turning movement counts, observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls). Currently, Excelsior Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph). Monterey Drive, north of Park Commons Drive, is a four-lane undivided roadway. South of Park Commons Drive, Monterey Drive is a two-lane divided roadway with turn lanes. The posted speed limit along Monterey Drive is 30 mph. Remaining study roadways are relatively low-speed, two-lane undivided local streets. The Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection is signalized and the other study intersections are side-street stop controlled. According to the St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan, Excelsior Boulevard is functionally classified as a minor arterial (A Minor Augmentor). Monterey Drive is functionally classified as a major collector, while both 38th Street and Park Commons Drive are functionally classified as minor collectors. Other study roadways are functionally classified as local streets. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 2. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed to establish baseline conditions to which future traffic operations can be compared. The capacity analysis was completed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the study intersections. The study intersections were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic software (V8.0). Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities area. Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 Page 3 0158804 May 2015 Existing Conditions 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 2H:\Projects\8804\TS\Figures\Fig02_Existing Conditions.cdrExcel si o r Bl v dMo n t e r e y D r Kipling Ave36th-1/2 St Park C o m m o n s D rNORTHNorth XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Pedestrian Peak Hour Volumes - Estimated Year 2015 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes - Side-Street Stop Control - Signalized Control LEGEND X,XXX Project Location K i p l i n g A v e 38th St4,200 36th- 1/ 2 St SLP Re c C e nt er Mo n t e r e y D r(8) 5(0) 0 (19) 3 180 ( 11 1)0 (0)6 ( 1 0) 3 ( 1 9 ) 3 6 3 ( 4 0 5 ) 2 ( 1 ) ( 8 2 ) 4 1 ( 7 3 6 ) 2 5 8 ( 1 ) 2 36th-1/2 St Excelsior Blvd(1,203) 469105 (73)697 (743)(18) 8 Excelsior Blvd4 (11)694 (708)4 (19)3 (23)(11) 3(43) 12(1,149) 449(8) 41 0 ( 1 1 ) 3 ( 1 ) 6 ( 2 ) (2 0 ) 7 (2 ) 3 (2 7 ) 1 3 Park C o m m o n s Dr Mon t e r e y D r (72) 6 7 (108) 4 0 3 0 1 ( 3 5 3 ) 2 6 ( 9 5 ) ( 6 0 7 ) 2 0 8 ( 1 5 8 ) 5 9 3 8 t h S t Excelsi or Bl v d 164 (195)548 (544)4 (6)0 (3)(38) 5(153) 49(827) 349 (43) 26 2 ( 5 ) 1 1 4 ( 1 0 0 ) 6 1 ( 5 4 ) ( 3 7 6 ) 1 1 7 ( 2 0 8 ) 6 4 ( 1 3 1 ) 6 7 Mo n t e r e y D r 19,2001 1 , 0 0 0 18,00 0 2,500 900X (X) 1 ( 0 )1 (7)3 ( 8 )0 (1)0 ( 1 )0 (5)0 ( 3 )0 (2)0 ( 0 )1 (10)0 ( 0 )4 (0) 0 ( 3 ) 0 (1) 2 ( 4 ) 0 (0) 1 (0)1 (4 ) Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS For side-street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, several queuing issues were observed in the field and traffic simulation. Southbound queues along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard were observed to extend through the adjacent Park Commons Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hour (i.e. approximately 10 to 15 percent of the p.m. peak hour). These queues impact motorists along Park Commons Drive as they attempt to access Monterey Drive, resulting in increased delay and queues. No other significant delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulation at the study intersections. It should be noted that the queuing issues identified are existing issues and not related to the proposed development. Table 2. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive B 19 sec. C 32 sec. Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue(1) A/B 10 sec. A/D 29 sec. Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street(1) A/A 4 sec. A/A 4 sec. Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive(1) A/A 7 sec. A/D 32 sec. Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street(1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 9 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. Page 5 Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS Proposed Development The proposed development is located at 4400 Excelsior Boulevard in the City of St. Louis Park. The site is currently occupied by retail land uses, which are planned to be replaced. The proposed development (shown in Figure 3) consists of approximately 173 apartment units, 7,500 square feet of retail space, and a 10,000 square foot bank. Construction of the proposed development is expected to be complete by the end of the year 2016. It should be noted that onsite parking is currently proposed on three unconnected ramp levels served by different points of access. The base access scenario is proposed as follows: • Excelsior Boulevard: o Access A – A right-in/right-out access serving surface level parking (Level 1), located approximately 300 feet east of Monterey Drive  Access A is expected to replace an existing site access in the same location • Monterey Drive: o Access B – A full-access serving surface-level parking (Level 1), located approximately 270 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard o Access C – A full-access serving mid-level parking (Level P1), located approximately 410 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard  Access B and Access C are expected to replace an existing site access located along Monterey Drive approximately 185 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard • 36th-1/2 Street: o Access D – A full-access serving lower-level parking (Level P2), located approximately 190 feet west of Kipling Avenue  Access D is expected to utilize an existing cross access easement through the property immediately north of the proposed development An alternate access scenario was also reviewed. Further discussion regarding the alternate access scenario and general site access is documented later in this study. Year 2017 Conditions To help determine impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts were developed for year 2017 conditions (i.e. one year after expected completion). Year 2017 conditions take into account general area background growth and traffic generated by the proposed development. The evaluation of year 2017 conditions includes details on the traffic forecasts and an intersection capacity analysis. Page 6 0158804 May 2015 Site Plan 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 3H:\Projects\8804\TS\Figures\Fig03_Site Plan.cdrExcelsior BlvdMo n t e r e y D r Kipling Ave36th-1/2 StNORTHNorth Access A Access B Access C Access D Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS Year 2017 Traffic Forecasts To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2017 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate is consistent with historical growth in the study area (based on MnDOT AADT volumes). To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, trip generation estimates for both the existing and proposed land uses were developed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a daily basis. These estimates, shown in Table 3, were developed using a combination of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition and peak period field observations. The existing trip generation estimates were developed to provide a comparison between existing and proposed land uses and to determine the approximate number of net new roadway system trips. Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates – Proposed Development Land Use Type ITE Code Size A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out Existing Land Uses Retail(1) 820 – Shopping Center 9,000 Square Feet 5 3 16 17 384 890 – Furniture Store 9,000 Square Feet 1 0 2 2 46 Total Existing Site Trips (6) (3) (18) (19) (430) Proposed Land Uses Apartments 220 - Apartment 173 Dwelling Units 18 71 70 38 1,150 Retail 820 – Shopping Center 7,500 Square Feet 4 3 13 14 320 Bank 710 – Office Building 5,000 Square Feet 2 0 0 2 18 911 – Walk-In Bank 5,000 Square Feet 15 14 27 34 368 Subtotal 39 88 110 88 1,856 Modal Reduction (10%) (4) (9) (11) (9) (186) Total Site Trips 35 79 99 79 1,670 Pass-By Trip Reduction (Retail and Bank Only) (5) (5) (14) (14) (204) Existing Trip Reduction (6) (3) (18) (19) (430) Net New System Trips 24 71 67 46 1,036 (1) Trip generation estimates supported by a.m. and p.m. peak period field observations. Page 8 Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS It should be noted that a 10 percent modal reduction, based on the methodology described in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, was applied to account for available transit options in the vicinity of the proposed development (i.e. Metro Transit Routes 12, 114, and 615). Accounting for the modal reduction, the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 114 a.m. peak hour, 178 p.m. peak hour and 1,670 daily trips. Although a small number of apartment residents would be expected to visit the onsite retail and/or bank, no multi-use reduction factor was applied in order to provide a conservative trip generation estimate. Furthermore, no reductions for the future Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Green Line Extension were included since it is not expected to be in operation until the year 2020. Further discussion regarding SWLRT is documented later in this study. The trips generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 4, which was developed based on existing travel patterns and engineering judgment. The estimated development trips at each proposed site access location for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are shown in Figure 5. It should be noted that a portion of the development trips are expected to be from vehicles already traveling along Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive that will now divert their trips to the proposed development before continuing on to their destination (i.e. pass-by trips). To account for these trips, pass-by percentages for each land use from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition were utilized. Taking into account these pass-by trips, as well as the existing site trips, the resultant net new traffic volume impact to the adjacent roadway system is approximately 95 a.m. peak hour, 113 p.m. peak hour, and 1,036 daily trips. The resultant year 2017 peak hour traffic forecasts, which include general area background growth and traffic generated by the proposed development, are shown in Figure 6. Year 2017 Intersection Capacity Analysis – Base Access Scenario To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2017 traffic forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic control. Southbound Monterey Drive queues at Excelsior Boulevard are expected to increase slightly during the p.m. peak hour (i.e. extending through the Park Commons Drive intersection approximately 15 to 20 percent of the p.m. peak hour). These queues will continue to impact access from Park Commons Drive, as well as Access B, to Monterey Drive during the p.m. peak hour. However, the side-street delays and queues along Park Commons Drive are relatively common during the p.m. peak hour and do not warrant mitigation, particularly given the spacing to the adjacent Excelsior Boulevard signalized intersection. Page 9 0158804 May 2015 Directional Distribution 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 4H:\Projects\8804\TS\Figures\Fig04_Directional Distribution.cdrExcel si o r Bl v dMo n t e r e y D r Kipling Ave36th-1/2 St Park C o m m o n s D rNORTHNorth 38th St 2 5% 40% 7.5%27.5% Excelsior BlvdMo n t e r e y D r Kipling Ave36th-1/2 St 0158804 May 2015 Development Trips - Base Access Scenario 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 5H:\Projects\8804\TS\Figures\Fig05_Development Trips - Base Access Scenario.cdrNORTHNorthMo n t e r e y D r 6 ( 2 3 ) ( 8 ) 2 XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Site Access LEGENDMon t e r e y D r Acc es s C Acce s s B 8 ( 4)24 (13)4 ( 8 ) ( 9 ) 5 3 (9) 3 (1 0) A c c e s s A Excelsior Blvd10 (19)(2 6 ) 9 36th-1/2 St 6 (24)Access D(4) 8(13) 24(8) 2 0158804 May 2015 Year 2017 Conditions - Base Access Scenario 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 6H:\Projects\8804\TS\Figures\Fig06_Year 2017 Conditions - Base Access Scenario.cdrExcel si o r Bl v dMo n t e r e y D r Kipling Ave36th-1/2 St Park C o m m o n s D rNORTHNorth 38th St4,400(8) 5 (0) 0(19) 3190 (116) 0 ( 0) 6 ( 1 0) 3 ( 1 9 ) 3 7 9 ( 4 2 6 ) 2 ( 1 ) ( 9 1 ) 4 3 ( 7 6 1 ) 2 6 8 ( 1 ) 2 4 (11)705 (726)4 (19)3 (23)(18) 7(56) 15(1,171) 465(8) 41 0 ( 1 1) 4 ( 3 ) 7 ( 4 ) (2 5 ) 1 6 (3 ) 5 (3 4 ) 2 6 169 (208)568 (563)4 (8) 3 (1 0)(38) 5(175) 5 6 (848) 35 8 (43) 26 2 ( 5 ) 1 1 6 ( 1 0 4 ) 6 2 ( 5 5 ) ( 3 9 0 ) 1 2 8 ( 2 1 3 ) 6 8 ( 1 4 2 ) 8 1 19,7001 1 , 5 0 0 18,80 0 2,900 1,200(73) 6 8 (109) 4 0 3 1 1 ( 3 8 3 ) 2 6 ( 9 6 ) ( 6 2 6 ) 2 3 4 ( 1 6 0 ) 6 0 XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Pedestrian Peak Hour Volumes - Estimated Year 2017 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes - Side-Street Stop Control - Signalized Control LEGEND X,XXX X (X) 3 8 t h S t Excelsi or Bl v dMo n t e r e y D r 1 ( 0 )1 (7)3 ( 8 )0 (1)K i p l i n g A v e Excelsior Blvd0 ( 1 )0 (5)0 ( 3 )0 (2)36th-1/2 St Excelsior Blvd0 ( 0 )1 (10)0 ( 0 ) 36th- 1/ 2 St SLP Re c C e nt er Mo n t e r e y D r4 (0) 0 ( 3 ) 0 (1) 2 ( 4 ) Park C o m m o n s Dr Mon t e r e y D r 0 (0) 1 (0)1 (4 )(1,230) 494108 (83)708 (761)(18) 8 Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS Table 4. Year 2017 Intersection Capacity Analysis – Base Access Scenario Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive B 19 sec. C 34 sec. Excelsior Boulevard and Access A(1) A/A 5 sec. A/A 7 sec. Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue(1) A/B 13 sec. A/E 45 sec. Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street(1) A/A 4 sec. A/A 4 sec. Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive/Access B(1) A/A 7 sec. A/E 48 sec. Monterey Drive and Access C(1) A/A 8 sec. A/C 15 sec. Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street(1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 9 sec. 36th-1/2 Street and Access D(1) A/A 3 sec. A/A 3 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. It should be noted that motorists along Park Commons Drive familiar with the area are likely to utilize alternate routes to the west versus accessing Monterey Drive via Park Commons Drive during the p.m. peak hour. Alternative routes in the area have sufficient capacity to accommodate any diversion. No other significant delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulation at the study intersections. Therefore, given the minimal anticipated impact from the proposed development on study area traffic operations, no roadway improvements are required under year 2017 conditions from a traffic operations perspective. Alternate Access Scenario An alternate access scenario for the development has also been proposed that would route all residential trips through Access C and limit the number of trips through Access D and the adjacent property to the north. The alternate access scenario is proposed as follows: • Excelsior Boulevard: o Access A – No change • Monterey Drive: o Access B – No change o Access C – A full-access serving mid- and lower-level residential parking (Levels P1/P2)  It should be noted parking levels P1 and P2 would be connected under this alternate access scenario and that all residential traffic would be expected to utilize Access C • 36th-1/2 Street: o Access D – A full-access providing service/emergency access  Access D would still be expected to utilize an existing cross access easement through the property immediately north of the proposed development Page 13 Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS Considering the alternate access scenario, the estimated development trips were redistributed to the proposed site access locations and study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours as shown in Figure 7. The resultant year 2017 peak hour traffic forecasts under the alternate access scenario are shown in Figure 8. Year 2017 Conditions – Alternate Access Scenario Year 2017 Intersection Capacity Analysis – Alternate Access Scenario To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2017 traffic forecasts under the alternate access scenario, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/ SimTraffic software. Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 5 indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic control under the alternate access scenario. A slight increase in the 95th percentile queues (i.e. <10 feet) on the southbound approach of the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection is expected under the alternate access scenario when compared to the base access scenario. This has an impact to motorists accessing Monterey Drive via Park Commons Drive/Access B. However, no mitigation is recommended as this is a similar situation to the base access scenario. Table 5. Year 2017 Intersection Capacity Analysis – Alternate Access Scenario Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive C 20 sec. C 34 sec. Excelsior Boulevard and Access A(1) A/A 4 sec. A/A 9 sec. Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue(1) A/B 12 sec. A/D 27 sec. Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street(1) A/A 4 sec. A/A 4 sec. Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive/Access B(1) A/A 7 sec. B/F 89 sec. Monterey Drive and Access C(1) A/A 9 sec. A/C 18 sec. Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street(1) A/A 8 sec. A/B 11 sec. 36th-1/2 Street and Access D(2) N/A N/A N/A N/A (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. (2) Access D is not expected to consistently generate development trips under the alternate access scenario. Page 14 Excelsior BlvdMo n t e r e y D r Kipling Ave36th-1/2 St 0158804 May 2015 Development Trips - Alternate Access Scenario 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 7H:\Projects\8804\TS\Figures\Fig07_Development Trips - Alternate Access Scenario.cdrNORTHNorthMo n t e r e y D r 1 2 ( 4 7 ) ( 1 6 ) 4 XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Site Access LEGENDMon t e r e y D r Acc es s C Acce s s B 16 ( 9)48 (25)4 ( 8 ) ( 9 ) 5 3 (9) 3 (1 0) A c c e s s A Excelsior Blvd10 (19)(2 6 ) 9 36th-1/2 St *0 (0)Access D(0) 0*(0) 0*(0) 0* *Note: Access D is not expected to consistently generate development trips under the alternate access scenario. 0158804 May 2015 Year 2017 Conditions - Alternate Access Scenario 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 8H:\Projects\8804\TS\Figures\Fig08_Year 2017 Conditions - Alternate Access Scenario.cdrExcel si o r Bl v dMo n t e r e y D r Kipling Ave36th-1/2 St Park C o m m o n s D rNORTHNorth 38th St4,400(8) 5 (0) 0(19) 3182 (112) 0 ( 0) 6 ( 1 0) 3 ( 2 0 ) 3 8 7 ( 4 3 0 ) 2 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 ) 4 1 ( 7 6 9 ) 2 7 0 ( 1 ) 2 4 (11)708 (735)4 (19)3 (23)(18) 6(43) 12(1,176) 474(8) 41 0 ( 1 1) 3 ( 1 ) 7 ( 4 ) (2 0 ) 7 (2 ) 3 (2 7 ) 1 3 171 (217)555 (556)4 (7) 3 (11)(38) 5(187) 5 9 (835) 35 4 (43) 26 2 ( 5 ) 1 1 7 ( 1 0 7 ) 6 2 ( 5 5 ) ( 3 9 4 ) 1 3 7 ( 2 1 4 ) 7 0 ( 1 4 9 ) 9 4 19,7001 1 , 6 0 0 18,80 0 2,500 900(73) 6 8 (109) 4 0 3 1 7 ( 4 0 7 ) 2 6 ( 9 6 ) ( 6 3 8 ) 2 5 8 ( 1 6 0 ) 6 0 XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Pedestrian Peak Hour Volumes - Estimated Year 2017 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes - Side-Street Stop Control - Signalized Control LEGEND X,XXX X (X) 3 8 t h S t Excelsi or Bl v dMo n t e r e y D r 1 ( 0 )1 (7)3 ( 8 )0 (1)K i p l i n g A v e Excelsior Blvd0 ( 1 )0 (5)0 ( 3 )0 (2)36th-1/2 St Excelsior Blvd0 ( 0 )1 (10)0 ( 0 ) 36th- 1/ 2 St SLP Re c C e nt er Mo n t e r e y D r4 (0) 0 ( 3 ) 0 (1) 2 ( 4 ) Park C o m m o n s Dr Mon t e r e y D r 0 (0) 1 (0)1 (4 )(1,230) 494106 (74)711 (770)(18) 8 Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS Southwest Light Rail Transit Green Line Extension The SWLRT Green Line Extension is expected to be operational between Minneapolis and Eden Prairie in the year 2020. The Beltline Station is expected to be constructed along the SWLRT route at Beltline Avenue approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the proposed development. While the SWLRT Beltline Station is expected to draw some site users to light rail, a significant increase in transit use to/from the proposed development is not anticipated. Rather, a slight redistribution of existing transit users to/from the proposed development is expected upon SWLRT opening. Site Plan/Access Review A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to site access, traffic control, and circulation. Based on this review, the following issues were identified that should be discussed further and/or incorporated: 1) The proposed Access B does not align well with Park Commons Drive. a. Align Access B opposite Park Commons Drive to minimize vehicle conflicts and reduce driver confusion within the area. 2) Access B and Access C are proposed approximately 140 feet apart along Monterey Drive. According to MnDOT access spacing guidelines, the minimum recommended spacing along a collector roadway in an urban area is 330 feet. While the minimum recommended spacing guideline is not met, similar access spacing exists on other collector roadways in the City of St. Louis Park and the access can function adequately as currently shown. The following alternative access configurations could be considered based on discussion with project stakeholders, although not required to provide adequate operations: a. Consolidate Access B and Access C into one location if possible, directly across from Park Commons Drive to reduce potential conflicts. b. Restripe Monterey Drive to include a southbound left-turn lane at Access B and Access C, as well as construct a northbound right-turn lane into Access C to reduce potential conflicts. 3) Truck maneuverability should be reviewed to ensure that delivery/moving vehicles have adequate onsite accommodations. 4) Install “Do Not Block Intersection” signing at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection to minimize side-street queueing as southbound queues at the Excelsior Boulevard signalized intersection extend through Park Commons Drive. Page 17 Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS Adjacent Development An adjacent development at the site of a former Bally Total Fitness at 4900 Excelsior Boulevard is expected to be completed in approximately the same timeframe as the proposed development. The adjacent development is expected to consist of 189 apartment units and a 28,000 square foot grocery store. Trip generation estimates for both the existing and proposed land uses were developed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a daily basis. These estimates, shown in Table 6, were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. The existing trip generation estimates were developed to provide a comparison between existing and proposed land uses and to determine the approximate number of net new roadway system trips. Table 6. Trip Generation Estimates – Adjacent Development Land Use Type ITE Code Size A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out Proposed Land Uses - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard Apartments 220 – Apartment 189 Dwelling Units 19 77 77 41 1,257 Grocery Store 850 – Supermarket 28,000 Square Feet 59 36 135 130 2,863 Subtotal 78 113 212 171 4,120 Multi-Use Reduction (10%) (8) (11) (21) (17) (412) Modal Reduction (10%) (8) (11) (21) (17) (412) Total Site Trips 62 91 170 137 3,296 Pass-By Trip Reduction (Grocery Store Only) (14) (14) (38) (38) (824) Existing Trip Reduction (Fitness Club) (14) (14) (40) (30) (658) Net New System Trips 34 63 92 69 1,814 The trip generation estimates for the adjacent development were not included in the year 2017 conditions analysis. However, the assumed background growth in the study area is expected to account for these adjacent development trips. It should be noted that the proposed grocery store is likely to serve a more immediate area and could potentially draw traffic away from the Trader Joes near the proposed development. The adjacent development at 4900 Excelsior Boulevard is expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations within the study area. Page 18 Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS Summary and Conclusions The following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: • Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, several queuing issues were observed in the field and traffic simulation: o Southbound queues along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard were observed to extend through the adjacent Park Commons Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hour (i.e. approximately 10-15 percent of the p.m. peak hour). These queues impact motorists along Park Commons Drive as they attempt to access Monterey Drive, resulting in increased delays and queues. o No other significant delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulation at the study intersections. It should be noted that the queuing issues identified are existing issues and not related to the proposed development. • The proposed development is located at 4400 Excelsior Boulevard in the City of St. Louis Park. The site is currently occupied by retail land uses, which are planned to be replaced. The proposed development consists of approximately 173 apartment units, 7,500 square feet of retail space, and a 10,000 square foot bank. Construction of the proposed development is expected to be complete by the end of the year 2016. It should be noted that onsite parking is currently proposed on three unconnected ramp levels served by different points of access. Access to the development is proposed along Excelsior Boulevard, Monterey Drive, and 36th-1/2 Street. • To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2017 (i.e. one year after construction) background traffic forecasts. • The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 114 a.m. peak hour, 178 p.m. peak hour and 1,670 daily trips. This includes a 10 percent modal reduction to account for available transit options in the area. o Taking into account pass-by trips and trips generated by existing land uses which are already distributed to the adjacent roadway network, the resultant net new traffic volume impact is approximately 95 a.m. peak hour, 113 p.m. peak hour, and 1,036 daily trips. • Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis (base access scenario) indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic control. o Southbound Monterey Drive queues at Excelsior Boulevard are expected to increase during the p.m. peak hour (i.e. extending through the Park Commons Drive intersection approximately 15 to 20 percent of the p.m. peak hour). These queues will continue to impact access from Park Commons Drive, as well as Access B, to Monterey Drive during the p.m. peak hour. However, the side-street delay and queues along Park Commons Drive are relatively common during the p.m. peak hour and do not warrant mitigation, particularly given the spacing to the adjacent Excelsior Boulevard signalized intersection. Page 19 Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park 4400 Excelsior Boulevard TS o It should be noted that motorists familiar with the area are likely to utilize alternate routes to the west versus accessing Monterey Drive via Park Commons Drive during the p.m. peak hour. Alternative routes in the area have sufficient capacity to accommodate any diversion. o No other significant delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulation at the study intersections. Therefore, given the minimal anticipated impact from the proposed development on study area traffic operations, no roadway improvements are required under year 2017 conditions from a traffic operations perspective. • SWLRT operations, expected to begin in the year 2020, are likely to cause a slight redistribution of existing transit users to/from the proposed development. However, a significant increase in transit use to/from the proposed development is not anticipated as a result of SWLRT operations. • A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to site access, traffic control, and circulation. Based on this review, the following issues were identified that should be discussed further and/or incorporated: o The proposed Access B does not align well with Park Commons Drive.  Align Access B opposite Park Commons Drive to minimize vehicle conflicts and reduce driver confusion within the area. o Access B and Access C are proposed approximately 140 feet apart along Monterey Drive. According to MnDOT access spacing guidelines, the minimum recommended spacing along a collector roadway in an urban area is 330 feet. While the minimum recommended spacing guideline is not met, similar access spacing exists on other collector roadways in the City of St. Louis Park and the access can function adequately as currently shown. The following alternative access configurations could be considered based on discussion with project stakeholders, although not required to provide adequate operations:  Consolidate Access B and Access C into one location if possible, directly across from Park Commons Drive to reduce potential conflicts.  Restripe Monterey Drive to include a southbound left-turn lane at Access B/Access C, as well as construct a northbound right-turn lane into Access C to reduce potential conflicts. o Truck maneuverability should be reviewed to ensure that delivery/moving vehicles have adequate onsite accommodations. o Install “Do Not Block Intersection” signing at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection to minimize side-street queueing as southbound queues at the Excelsior Boulevard signalized intersection extend through Park Commons Drive. • An adjacent development at 4900 Excelsior Boulevard is expected to consist of 189 apartment units and a 28,000 square foot grocery store. Trips for the adjacent development were not included in the year 2017 conditions analysis. However, the assumed background growth in the study area is expected to account for these adjacent development trips. The adjacent development is expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations within the study area. H:\Projects\8804\TS\Report\8804_4400ExcelsiorBlvdTrafficStudy_150501.docx Page 20 Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 6, 2015 Agenda Item: 3B. 3B. “The Shoreham” – Preliminary and Final Plat; Preliminary and Final PUD; Location: 3907 & 3915 Highway 7; 3031 Glenhurst Avenue; 3914 & 3918 31st Street West Case Nos.: 15-11-S, 15-12-PUD Applicant: Bader Development Recommended Motions: • Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat with Subdivision Variance and subject to the conditions recommended by Staff. • Motion to recommend approval of the Shoreham Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development, subject to the conditions recommended by Staf.: REQUEST: Bader Development is requesting a Preliminary and Final Plat and a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow construction of a mixed-use building that includes 150 residential units, and 20,000 square feet of general office and medical office uses. The applicant, Bader Development, intends to occupy the general office space. The building would be five stories along the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25 Frontage Road and three stories along 31st Street West. The PUD is a rezoning of the property under the City’s new PUD ordinance. SITE INFORMATION: Site Area: 2.23 acres Current Zoning: C-2 General Commercial and R-4 Multiple-Family Proposed Zoning: PUD-Planned Unit Development Comprehensive Plan: M-X Mixed Use Current Use: Commercial, Retail, Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Surrounding Land Uses: North: County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25 and CSAH 25 Frontage Road. East: France Avenue, Apartments and single- family housing in Minneapolis South: 31st St, single-family and multi-family housing West: Glenhurst Avenue, Commercial, Single- family and multi-family housing Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 2 Subject: The Shoreham BACKGROUND: The proposed redevelopment site lies in the very eastern side of the City adjacent to the Minneapolis Municipal Boundary, between France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue. The site includes six parcels which house: two single-family homes, a duplex, a parking lot, Battlefield Memorabilia Store and ASAP Printing. Currently, the Minneapolis-St. Louis Park Municipal Boundary extends approximately down the centerline of France Avenue in this area. France Avenue presently exists as a typical city street from CSAH 25 to the Frontage Road, lying in the right of way (ROW) of both Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. As the street extends south of the Frontage Rd, it is paved only in the St. Louis Park ROW and turns into the alley behind the ASAP building. Between the point where France Avenue turns into the alley and West 31st Street, there is an approximately 13 foot grade change up to 31st, with various trees and shrubs. The site also has an alley running east-west between France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue, which the developer has requested the City to vacate. Staff supports the Vacation request and a public hearing will be held before the City Council for final action. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS: Description The developer requests a preliminary and final plat to combine eight parcels into one single parcel, for 2.23 acres known as “The Shoreham Addition.” The plat also includes reconstruction of France Avenue adjacent to the development. The lot in the proposed plat meets all subdivision requirements for minimum lot size, shape, and dimension. Uses The proposed uses on the plat include multi-family residential, office and medical office, all of which will be allowed through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning. Utility Easements The plat provides 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements adjacent to all public streets except for a portion on the southeast side of the site along France Avenue. Drainage and utility easements are also provided over the access locations to the underground storm water management system. A subdivision variance is requested to reduce the drainage and utility easement from 10 feet to 3 feet, for approximately 115 feet along France Avenue in the southeast portion of the site, as indicated on the final plat. The developer provided the following arguments to support the request for the subdivision variance: 1. The proposed improvements in the France Avenue ROW and possible future connection to 31st Street exacerbated a grade change on the south and east side of the property. In the effort to allow the connection of France Avenue, grades will be adjusted on the east side of the property, raising them by nearly 4 feet from existing conditions at the street’s connection to the projects on-grade parking and access to underground parking. This change necessitated a higher and more robust retaining wall be located in this position to Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 3 Subject: The Shoreham allow access to the underground parking, requiring more room for its safe function of the ramp and retaining wall. 2. The variance requested for the reduced D/U setback will not affect the health, safety or welfare of the community or other properties in the area. There are additional options for utilities around the site, including under the sidewalk and boulevard at the reduced easement location. 3. The easement variance for the ramp and wall results from a grading issue and significant topography changes. The elevation for these walk-up units on the south was raised to allow for a future connection of France Avenue which significantly changes the grade on the east side of the property and affects the height of the second level of the building – due to the change in finished grade for the drive under portion of the building. Because the drive under area is changed to accommodate future changes to the France Avenue ROW, the existing grade at the curb cut into the property was raised by nearly 4 feet from the existing condition. 4. The variance for the reductions in the drainage and utility easements are not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff support the requested preliminary and final plat with variance based on the information provided above. The overall site design provides a more pedestrian friendly development, including underground parking, while providing the 10 foot easement in all other locations while also providing building setbacks consistent with the neighborhood and allowing for significant boulevard landscaping. Alley Vacation An alley currently runs through the site between France Ave and Glenhurst Ave. Bader Development has applied for an alley vacation. The vacation allows the developer to construct a driveway through the site with access to parking areas. The City Council will consider that application and hold a public hearing at a future meeting. Construction of the buildings cannot proceed until this easement is vacated. Park & Trail Dedication Park dedication fees that will be due for the proposed Shoreham Addition subdivision will be $219,000. Trail dedication fees will be $32,850. The City will collect these fees prior to signing the final plat. Staff’s recommendation of accepting cash-in-lieu of land will be presented to The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) at its next meeting, scheduled for May 13. Staff will have a PRAC recommendation prior to Council action. Tree Preservation Nearly all the existing trees on the site will be removed. The developer will meet the tree replacement requirements. Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 4 Subject: The Shoreham PUD ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed-Use and the current zoning map contemplates mixed-use and high-density residential development on the property. The proposed PUD would create a new zoning district and zoning regulations for uses and dimensional standards that are unique to this site and the proposed site and building plans. The intent of the Mixed Use land use designation and the City’s Livable Communities design principles is to create compact, pedestrian-scale, mixed-use buildings, typically with retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on upper floors. Mixed-use is intended to accommodate mixed-income housing, a mix of housing types on the same block, and higher density development. Staff finds that this site is suitable for the proposed mixed-use development and multiple-family housing and meets many of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The development will follow the City’s Green Building Policy and will include 20% of the units as affordable to households earning 50% of the area median income which provides a mixed-income development and expands housing choices for the community. The site has convenient access to good bus service, other services and businesses along Minnetonka Blvd, and is within walking and biking distance of the SWLRT regional trail and future LRT Beltline and West Lake stations. The proposed development is a mixed-use building that promotes efficient use of the land, existing infrastructure, and existing roadway system. The plan places the majority of the parking under the building screened from view. Building and Site Design Analysis: The PUD ordinance requires the City to find that the quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. ZONING ANALYSIS: The following table provides the development metrics. The property will be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed performance and Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 5 Subject: The Shoreham development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the development requirements for this property if approved. Zoning Compliance Table: Factor Required Proposed Met? Use Multiple-Family Residential, Office and Medical Office Multiple-Family Residential, Office and Medical Office Yes Lot Area 2.0 acres 2.23 acres Yes Height None with PUD 65 feet at CSAH 25 Frontage Road 32 feet at 31st Street Yes Building Materials Minimum of 60% Class I materials Minimum of 61%. Yes Residential Density 50 units per acre; more with a PUD 66 units per acre Yes Floor Area Ratio 1.5, None with PUD 1.83 Yes Ground Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.27 Yes Off-Street Parking Residential – 198 Office/Medical Office – 81* Residential – 200 Office/Medical Office - 93 Yes Bicycle Parking Residential – 167 Office/Medical Office - 9 Residential – 176 Office/Medical Office - 12 Yes Open Area/DORA 11,676 sq. ft. (12% of gross lot area) 13,292 sq. ft. (13.7% of gross lot area) Yes Landscaping See Landscaping section Yes Setbacks None with PUD Varies from 18’ 6” – 25’ to building wall. 3’ setback to retaining wall for underground parking driveway on southeast corner along France Ave. 10’ setback to retaining wall on southwest corner along Glenhurst Ave. Yes Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Rooftop equipment has been placed in center of building so as not visible from off-site. See exhibits. Yes Sidewalks Required along all streets and building frontages Provided along all streets and building frontages Yes Refuse handling Full screening required Within buildings Yes Transit service None required Served by route 17 Yes Stormwater Management Required Provided underground and includes other best management practices Yes * Includes 10% Transit Reduction Uses The Encore Development includes multi-family residential, general office and medical office uses. The applicant, Bader Development, intends to occupy the general office space. The affected properties are currently zoned C-2 Commercial north of the existing alley to the CSAH 25 Frontage Rd and R-4 Multiple Family Residence south of the alley to W 31st St. A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guidance change from COM-Commercial and RM-Medium Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 6 Subject: The Shoreham Density Residential to M-X Mixed Use was approved by the City Council on January 20, 2015. The proposed uses are consistent with the M-X Land Use Guidance, and a rezoning to PUD permits such uses. The PUD for this district will limit uses along W 31st St to multiple-family dwelling units. General commercial, retail office and medical office uses will be permitted north of the driveway through the property. Specific uses on the site are governed by the PUD Zoning Ordinance. A draft of the ordinance is attached to this report. Architectural Design The development plans all demonstrate a high quality image with design considerations demonstrating sensitivity to the surrounding uses and character. The building is five stories along the CSAH 25 Frontage Rd, with the second through fourth stories stepped back from the front façade. The building is reduced to three stories along W 31st St which is more in character with the residential context around this portion of the redevelopment site. Further attention was given to creating a more pedestrian scale environment by providing multiple entrances to the building from adjacent sidewalks, creating façade articulation to break up the mass of street facing walls, the generous use of glass to provide transparency and locating the parking lot on the interior of the site. The building exteriors include a generous use of glass, brick and other quality materials. Glass, stucco and brick are counted as Class I materials on all buildings. The City requires a minimum of 60% Class I material coverage on each façade visible from off-site. The minimum Class I material coverage is 61%, which is on an interior courtyard elevation. The minimum Class I material coverage of the four primary exterior facades is 75%. The building exceeds City Code architectural standards. Parking Residential: Parking is provided under almost the entirety of the building footprint with some covered parking provided under the southernmost building along W 31st St. The City requires one space per bedroom, for a total of 198 spaces. The applicant is providing 193 spaces plus nine tandem spaces for a total of 202 spaces, meeting the City requirements. The applicant is also providing secured bike storage located on both parking levels. The City’s bicycle parking requirements are met. Office: Office parking is provided in a surface lot on the interior of the site, as well as in the covered parking area under the southernmost building along W 31st St and five dedicated spaces in the underground level. The applicant also proposes six parking spaces in their “circle drive” on the north side of the property and seven on-street parking stalls along France Ave adjacent to the Shoreham site. The office and medical office vehicular parking requirements are exceeded by three spaces. Bicycle parking will be provided along the northwest portion of the building and exceeds the City’s requirements by three spaces. Access The plan provides a driveway that connects east-west through the site between France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue and a circle driveway on the front side of the building off of the CSAH 25 Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 7 Subject: The Shoreham Frontage Road. The driveway through the site provides access to the off-street parking areas that primarily serve the non-residential uses. The access drive to the underground residential parking is also off of this driveway. The circle driveway provides parking spaces that can be used for the non-residential uses or residential guest parking. Parking along France Avenue can also be used for residential and non-residential uses. Traffic Study A traffic study was completed when the applicant applied for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment. The traffic study included an analysis of how the proposed development may impact the overall number of vehicle trips in the area and turning movements and the level of service of the following intersections: Glenhurst Ave/CSAH 25 Frontage Rd; France Ave/CSAH 25 Frontage Rd; France Ave/CSAH 25. The traffic study was updated to reflect the addition of the medical office use. The updated study results indicate that the proposed development will have a minimal impact on traffic compared to the existing uses. The level of service for each of the studied intersections is not projected to change and the number of number of vehicle trips is projected to increase over existing conditions as follows: 93 a.m. peak period, 110 p.m. peak period and 1,158 daily. The study also indicates that “connecting France Avenue to 31st St would likely result in a slight redistribution of local traffic patterns.” “...An additional 200 – 400 daily local vehicles would be expected to utilize France Avenue, which are primarily expected to be existing local residents.” The traffic study is attached to this report. France Avenue Currently, France Ave ROW exists in both Minneapolis and St. Louis Park connecting between CSAH 25 and 31st Street. The actual pavement is essentially a driveway south of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road and is entirely in the St. Louis Park ROW. France Ave does not connect to 31st St, but extends approximately half-way down this block, and then curves behind the ASAP Building, at 3907 Hwy 7, and connects to an alley. This street segment has two-way traffic and haphazard parking on both sides, which is used by the apartment building on the east side of France Ave, in Minneapolis. The current configuration would not be allowed with the Shoreham Development project due to the width of this roadway segment, the limited access to the site in relation to the proposed development, traffic circulation and a lack of pedestrian and bike connectivity. France Ave needs to be reconstructed to provide minimum lane widths for vehicular travel, and additionally, to contain City required sidewalks and boulevards, as well as potential bike facilities. The Connect the Park! Plan indicates a bikeway on France Ave, north of CSAH 25, and Staff would like to see this extended to 31st St as a logical connection for the development and the surrounding neighborhood. In order to build the desired roadway segment, which allows two-way traffic, on-street parking on at least one side, and the above mentioned elements, use of the City of Minneapolis’s ROW is needed. Minneapolis staff have indicated they would at a minimum support allowing use of their ROW to align the intersection of France Ave and the CSAH 25 Frontage Rd. Additionally, the developer supports the connection. St. Louis Park planning, engineering, police and fire departments support connecting France Ave in an effort to provide greater circulation and access in the area, particularly due to an intensification of development with the Shoreham project. The connection of France Ave to 31st Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 8 Subject: The Shoreham St is further supported to achieve the following St. Louis Park Livable Community Vision and Principles: • Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods • Higher density, mixed-use development • Human scale development • Transit-oriented development • Multi-modal streets and pathways Additionally, connecting France Avenue to 31st Street results in the optimum block size promoted in the Subdivision Code. The existing block size slightly exceeds St. Louis Park’s maximum length and perimeter performance standards, which are intended to create more pedestrian friendly, or walkable, block sizes. The submitted plans show France Avenue as a two-way road, with on-street parking on both sides, a sidewalk and boulevard on the St. Louis Park side and shared bike lanes all connected to 31st Street. Staff required that the development design and grades allow France Avenue to be connected, either now or in the future, so that the project itself would not be a barrier. Further design and engineering work would be required for exactly how France Avenue may look. The plans show the maximum build scenario. There is a chance the on-street parking on the Minneapolis side could go away. If Minneapolis would not allow France Avenue to connect to 31st Street, then France Avenue would dead end just north of the driveway access into the Shorham site. The City would require the dead-end road to be privately maintained. In this case, a multi-use trail would still be connected to 31st Street. Please see the “Public Input” section below for comments related to France Avenue. Loading/Service Areas The development plans show that trash service areas are located within the building and parking structure and full y screened from off-site. The number and size of loading areas for the office meet City Code requirements. The move-in area is located on the east side of the building and serves as the residential service access as well. Landscaping The landscape plan indicates 97 new trees, 648 shrubs and over 1,000 perennials and grasses. The project exceeds the City’s minimum tree replacement calculations by providing 415 caliper inches of trees when 346 caliper inches are required. The base landscaping formula would require 209 trees and 1,068 shrubs to be planted based on the development density for this site. The development relies upon the alternative landscaping provisions of the zoning code. The plan provides a number of alternative landscaping elements. Two of the more prominent features are landscaped seating areas on the northwest and northeastern corners of the development site providing an enhanced public realm adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road. The area on the northeast corner of the site has been designed in a manner intended to mark the round ASAP building which currently exists on the site. This Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 9 Subject: The Shoreham landscaped area is circular in nature and will contain a historical marker, of which details are to be determined. The development also includes a large patio area with a number of amenities including a pool, outdoor seating, and landscaping. Also, a private at-grade dog run will be provided on the southwest corner of the site. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) The proposed development plans illustrate an integration of landscaping and DORA elements. The elements provided to meet the City’s DORA requirements include a dog run on the southeastern portion of the site, an open lawn area intended for unprogrammed activity, and a private pool amenity area. The portion of the aforementioned landscaped historical marker area that is located on the development property is also included in the DORA calculations. The plan exceeds the City’s minimum 12% DORA requirement, providing 13.7% of the lot area. Signage A sign plan was not submitted for review. Signs will require permits and must comply with the M-X zoning district standards. Utilities All small utilities will be placed underground. Utility service structures, such as a generator and transformer, will be screened completely from off-site with materials consistent with main building facade. Per the redevelopment agreement, buildings will also provide the necessary infrastructure to take advantage of fiber-optic service lines in the vicinity of the development. Historic Documentation The existing “ASAP Building” has been found to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This eligibility was discussed through the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment process related to the Encore Development. Through that process, the City expressed an interest in having documentation performed for historic record. Bader Development has received a Scope and Fee Budget from Preservation Design Works, LLC to provide such documentation of the building. Staff has recommended a condition of approval that requires completing this work prior to the demolition of any existing buildings on the site. PUBLIC INPUT: A neighborhood meeting was held January 6, 2015 on the proposed project during the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment process. At that time there was some concern of the neighborhood related to increased traffic and a concern of losing on-street parking. A number of attendees also expressed their appreciation for reducing the building height to three stories along W 31st Street and that they were excited for the redevelopment of these properties. An additional meeting was held April 28, 2015 more specifically related to options for the reconstruction of France Avenue. Three St. Louis park residents were in attendance and two Minneapolis representatives. The Minneapolis representatives were a property owner of the property adjacent to France Avenue and the property manager. Staff received feedback from people that both supported and opposed the extension of France Avenue to 31st Street. The general reason for opposition has been a concern from residents living between France and Glenhurst of increased traffic along 31st Street. The Minneapolis property owner is opposed to Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 10 Subject: The Shoreham the connection, both with a concern of increased traffic, and also due to their interest in Minneapolis vacating a portion of the France Avenue ROW in the future so that the property owner can use it for redevelopment. The St. Louis Park ward Councilmember also opposes the connection. STAFF RECOMMENDATONS: Staff recommends approval of the Encore Addition preliminary and final plat with subdivision variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this resolution, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 2. The on-site underground stormwater management system shall be a privately-owned and privately maintained. Public drainage and utility easements over access points to said systems shall be provided, and said easements shall connect to a public right-of-way. The public easements are needed for public inspection and emergency access. 3. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 4. Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: a. Park dedication fees totaling $219,000 and trail dedication fees totaling $32,850 shall be paid to the City of St. Louis Park. b. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City. c. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the City and Developer that addresses, at a minimum: i. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to: sidewalks, boulevards, France Avenue improvements and the execution of necessary easements related to such improvements. ii. A performance guarantee for 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements, placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. d. The applicant shall reimburse City Attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Planning Development Contract. 5. Prior to the demolition of any existing structures on-site, the following conditions must be met: Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 11 Subject: The Shoreham a. Historic documentation must be completed according to the “Scope and Fee Budget” from Preservation Design Works, LLC, provided to the City, dated December 1, 2014. 6. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, excluding demolition, the following conditions shall be met: a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner. c. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. e. All necessary permits must be obtained. f. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (street, sidewalks, boulevards, utility, street lights, landscaping, etc.) and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the Encore preliminary and final planned unit development subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 2. The on-site underground storm water management system shall be privately-owned and privately maintained. Public drainage and utility easements over access points to said systems shall be provided, and said easements shall connect to a public right-of-way. The public easements are needed for public inspection and emergency access. 3. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 4. Prior to the demolition of any existing structures on-site, the following conditions must be met: a. Historic documentation must be completed according to the “Scope and Fee Budget” from Preservation Design Works, LLC, provided to the City, dated December 1, 2014. 5. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, excluding demolition, the following conditions shall be met: a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner. Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 12 Subject: The Shoreham c. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. d. All necessary permits must be obtained. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall sign the City's Assent Form and the Official Exhibits. b. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the Developer and City that addresses, at a minimum: i. The conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate. ii. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to: sidewalks, boulevards, France Avenue improvements and the execution of necessary easements related to the maintenance of, and access to such improvements. iii. Easements related to electronic communication and fiber infrastructure. iv. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times of the costs of all public improvements (street, sidewalks, utilities, street lights, landscaping, etc.), and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. v. The developer shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final PUD approval. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said Planning Development Contract. c. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. d. Vacation of any public and private easements conflicting with the work is required. e. Building material samples and colors must be submitted to the City for review and approval. 7. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighborhing properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the Director of Engineering (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. The developer and general contractor shall implement and enforce a parking plan for construction equipment and vehicles, and workers’ vehicles, which minimizes or eliminates parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 13 Subject: The Shoreham g. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. h. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. i. Pedestrian access along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road and to the existing bus stop shall be maintained during construction. Any expected disruptions shall be limited in duration and scope, and communicated to the City, County, and Metropolitan Transit well in advance. 8. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the following shall be completed: a. Public improvements, private site landscaping and irrigation, and storm water management system shall be installed in accordance with the Official Exhibits. 9. All utilities servicing the site shall be buried underground. 10. All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened. Rooftop equipment may be located as indicated in the Official Exhibits so as not to be visible from off-site. 11. The materials used in, and placement of, all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. ATTACHMENTS: • Existing and Proposed Zoning • Draft PUD Ordinance • Draft Plat Resolution • Cover Sheet • Final Plat • Preliminary Plat • Site Plan • Grading and Erosion Control • Utility Plan • Landscape Site Plan • Architectural Site Plan • A100 – Level P1 Floor Plan • A110 – Level 1 Floor Plan • A160 – Roof Plan • A200 – Elevations • A201 – Elevations • A202 – Elevations • A310 – Building Sections • Historic Documentation Scope and Fee Budget • Traffic Study Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Meeting of May 6, 2015 Page 14 Subject: The Shoreham Existing and Proposed Zoning 1 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD 2 AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3907 AND 3915 HIGHWAY 7, 3031 GLENHURST AVENUE, AND 3914 AND 3918 31ST STREET WEST THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 15-11-S, 15-12-PUD and 15-13-VAC) for amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use. Sec. 3. The legal description for the property this PUD applies to is as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, The Shoreham Addition; Hennepin County, Minnesota; and to the center line of all adjacent right-of-way. Sec. 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD 2. (a) Development Plan The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. G000 – Cover Sheet 2. C1.01 – Title Sheet 3. C2.01 – Preliminary Plat 4. C3.01 – Site Plan 5. C4.01 – Grading and Erosion Control 6. C6.01 – Utility Plan 7. C8.01 – France Avenue Plan and Profile 8. L000 – Tree Preservation Plan 9. L100 – Landscape Site Plan 10. L101 – Planting Details 11. AS100 – Architectural Site Plan 12. A100 – Level P1 Floor Plan 13. A110 – Level 1 Floor Plan 2 14. A120 – Level 2 Floor Plan 15. A130 – Level 3 Floor Plan 16. A140 – Level 4 Floor Plan 17. A150 – Level 5 Floor Plan 18. A160 – Roof Plan 19. A200 – Elevations 20. A201 – Elevations 21. A202 – Elevations 22. A310 – Building Sections 23. Site Lighting Photometric Plan 24. Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit The site shall also conform to the following requirements: (1) The property shall be divided into two zones, using Sheet C3.01 Site Plan of the Official Exhibits for reference. The zones shall be established by dividing the site into a north side and south side, with the dividing line being the centerline of the east-west driveway, crossing through the property, which connects France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue. The north side shall be called Zone A and the south side shall be called Zone B. (2) Affordable housing units are included in the development with 20% of the residential units reserved as affordable at 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). (3) Parking will be provided off-street in a surface lot and structured parking, and on- street. A total of two-hundred-ninety-three (293) parking spaces will be provided: 200 spaces for residential units and 90 spaces for non-residential uses. (4) The maximum building height in Zone A shall not exceed 65 feet in five floors. The maximum building height in Zone B shall not exceed 35 feet in three stories. (5) The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor recreation area based on private developable land area. (b) Permitted Uses Zone A (1) Multiple-family dwellings. Zone B (1) Multiple-family dwellings. Dwelling units are not permitted on the first floor. Uses associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including, but not limited to the 3 residential office, fitness facility, mail room, assembly rooms or general amenity space are limited to a maximum of 50% of the building first floor. (2) Commercial uses. Commercial uses are only permitted on the first floor, and are limited to the following: office, medical or dental office, adult day care, group day care/nursery school, group home/nonstatutory, banks without drive-up facilities, food service, private entertainment (indoor), retail shops, service, showrooms and studios. a. All parking requirements must be met for each use. b. Hours of operation for commercial uses shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. c. No drive up facilities are allowed. (3) Civic and institutional uses. Civic and institutional uses are limited to the following: education/academic, library, museums/art galleries, indoor public parks/open space, police service substations, post office customer service facilities, public studios and performance theaters. (c) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are as follows: (1) Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted use and not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the associated permitted use. (2) Home occupations complying with all of the conditions in the R-C district. (3) Catering, if accessory to food service, delicatessen, grocery store or retail bakery. (4) No outdoor uses or storage allowed. (d) Special Performance Standards (1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking and screening requirements. (2) All trash handling and loading areas shall be inside of the building and screened from view. (3) Signage shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with the following conditions: a. Pylon signs are prohibited; b. Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as the principal buildings and shall not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle or automobile circulation and visibility; 4 c. Pedestrian-scale signs visible from public sidewalks shall be encouraged. Such signs shall be no more than three feet in vertical dimension unless flush with the building wall; and d. Maximum allowable number, sizes and heights of signs shall be regulated by section 36-362, M-X requirements, except as specifically modified by the redevelopment plan or final PUD site plan and development agreement at the sole discretion of the city council. e. The total area of all wall signs on a building, which meets the following outlined conditions, shall not be included in calculating the aggregate sign area on the lot: 1. The area of all wall, canopy or awning signs permitted by this section shall not exceed seven percent of the wall area of each building façade occupied by an individual tenant. 2. No individual wall sign shall exceed 150 square feet in area. (4) Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential facades located in Zone B: a. Façade Transparency. Windows and doors shall meet the following requirements: 1. For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signage. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. 2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Display windows may be used to meet the transparency requirement. (5) Awnings. a. Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. b. Backlit awnings are prohibited. Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 15-11-S, 15-12-PUD and 15-13-VAC are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing May 6, 2015 First Reading May 18, 2015 Second Reading June 1, 2015 Date of Publication June 11, 2015 Date Ordinance takes effect June 26, 2015 5 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council ___________ City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF THE SHOREHAM ADDITION WITH VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR 3907 AND 3915 HIGHWAY 7, 3031 GLENHURST AVENUE, AND 3914 AND 3918 31ST STREET WEST BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Bader Development, subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as The Shoreham Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for reduced drainage and utility easements (Section 26-154) in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Parcel 1: Lot 1, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 2: The South 27 feet of Lot 10 and all of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, Also Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, except the Westerly 100 feet thereof, Also the South 27 feet of Lot 21, except the Westerly 100 feet thereof; All in Block 2, Calhoun Lake Side Park, Minneapolis, Minn.; And the North and South alley adjoining said Lots 16 through 20 and the South 27 feet of Lot 21, vacated by Ordinance No. 591 adopted October 14, 1957, filed November 21, 1957, as Document No. 3093976 in Book 791 of Misc., Page 313. Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 3: Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 801865 Parcel 4: The Westerly 100 feet of Lots 16 through 20 inclusive, and the Westerly 100 feet of the South 27 feet of Lot 21, all in Block 2, Calhoun Lake Side Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 5: Lot 4, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 6: Lot 5, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 7: Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 8: That part of the alley lying northerly of Block 2, as dedicated in the recorded plat of Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., lying westerly of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 2, said plat, and lying easterly of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 7, Block 2, said plat. (to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, The Shoreham Addition) 4. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land. Such circumstances arise due to the topography of the France Avenue right-of-way and adjacent land, along with the related improvements required by the City to France Avenue, required sidewalks and trail connections adjacent to the property. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The variance still provides a three foot drainage and utility easement. Additionally, there is sufficient room for utilities in the adjacent right-of-way under the six foot wide sidewalk and the six foot wide boulevard. The reduced drainage and utility easement in this location allows for underground parking to be built, providing for a more pedestrian oriented development. 6. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for such lands to be redeveloped and to include certain elements, such as walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, human scale development and multi-modal streets and pathways . Such redevelopment could not occur without a variance. Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of The Shoreham Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions: a. Variance is approved from the subdivision ordinance for a seven foot reduction of the drainage and utility easement, along the southeast portion of the site, from the required ten feet, required by City Code, Section 26-154. b. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk THE SHOREHAM3915 Hwy 7, Saint Louis Park, MNSITE MAPSITE LOCATIONUNIT SUMMARYTYPELEVEL 2LEVEL 3LEVEL 4LEVEL 5TOTALSTUDIO4443151 BEDROOM20212110721+ BEDROOM4443152 BEDROOM1010108382+ BEDROOM333110TOTALS41424225150PARKING AND BIKE RACK CALCULATIONSPARKING REQUIRED = 1 STALL PER BEDROOMUNITCOUNTBR / UNITBEDROOMSTOTAL PARKINGSTUDIO15115151 BEROOM72172721+ BEDROOM15115172 BEDROOM38276722+ BEDROOM1022020TOTALS150198198TOTAL RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIRED198TOTAL RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROVIDED200OFFICE AREA = 10,000 GSFPARKING REQUIRED = 1 STALL PER 250 SFTOTAL OFFICE PARKING REQUIRED = 10,000/250 = 40MEDICAL OFFICE AREA = 10,000 GSFPARKING REQUIRED = 1 STALL PER 200 SFTOTAL MEDICAL OFFICE PARKING REQUIRED = 10,000/200 = 50REDUCTION IN PARKING FOR TRANSIT (10% OF REQ'D SPACES)-9TOTAL COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIRED 81TOTAL COMMERCIAL PARKING PROVIDED (88 on grade and 5 below grade)93GRAND TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED279GRAND TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED293BIKE RACKS REQUIRED = 1/UNIT + 1/10 PARKING STALLS UNITS150PARKING SPACES293TOTAL REQUIRED (150+(279/10) = 178TOTAL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED (138 AT P1, 40 AT LEVEL 1)178COMMERCIAL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED12GRAND TOTAL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED190PROJECT TEAMDEVELOPERBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416ARCHITECTDJR Architecture, Inc.333 Washington Avenue NorthUnion Plaza, Suite 210Minneapolis, MN 55104Contact:Sheldon BergPhone: (612) 676-2700Fax: (612) 676-2796Email: sberg@djr-inc.comCONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALEricksen, Roed and Associates, Inc.2550 University Avenue West,Suite 201-SSt. Paul, MN 55114-1904Contact:Bill BullerPhone: (651) 251-7570MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Contact:Erik MillerPhone: (763) 476-6010LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTDamon Farber401 2nd Ave N Suite 410Minneapolis, MN 55401Contact:Tom Whitlock(612) 332-7522PROJECT NOTES1.All work shall comply with all applicablestate and local codes and ordinances.2.Work is to be completed in accordancewith all documents including drawings,specifications, and conditions ofcontract for work.3.Refer to complete set of issued contractdocuments including drawings andspecifications of all disciplines forapplicable notes, abbreviations, andsymbols. Contractor is responsible forcoordination of work. Notify Architect ofany discrepancies before proceedingwith work.4.Food service for coordination only. Foodservice equipment and installation not incontract.FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) CALCULATIONSNAMEAREASITE 2.23 ACRES (97,297 SF)GROSS BUILDING178,283 GSFGROSS FOOTPRINT26,575 GSFFAR1.83GFAR0.27AREA BY USEOFFICE 10,000 GSFMEDICAL OFFICE 10,000 GSFMULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL158,283 GSFPARKING 79,632 GSFTOTAL UNDER COVER258,846 GSFARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321G000COVER SHEET3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15LMSBTHE SHOREHAMDesignerSHEET INDEXSheetNumberSheet NamePUD 03/02/2015PUD UPDATE 03/18/2015PUD FINAL COMMENTS 04/29/15AS12 UnnamedG000 COVER SHEET * * *PLAT PLAT * *SURVEY SURVEY * *C1.01 TITLE SHEET * * *C2.01 PRELIMINARY PLAT * * *C3.01 SITE PLAN * * *C4.01 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL * * *C6.01 UTILITY PLAN * * *C8.01 FRANCE AVENUE PLAN AND PROFILE * * *L000 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN * *L100 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN * * *L101 PLANTING DETAILS * * *AS100 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN * * *A100 LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN *A110 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN * * *A120 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN * *A130 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN * *A140 LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN * *A150 LEVEL 5 FLOOR PLAN * *A160 ROOF PLAN * *A200 ELEVATIONS * *A201 ELEVATIONS * *A202 ELEVATIONS * *A310 BUILDING SECTIONS * *SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN * * *TRASH / RECYCLING AREA = 1,412 GSF1 PDR 03/02/152 PUD UPDATE 03/18/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 L O T 1 B L O C K 1 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Bader Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner, of the following described property: Parcel 1: Lot 1, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 2: The South 27 feet of Lot 10 and all of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, Also Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, except the Westerly 100 feet thereof, Also the South 27 feet of Lot 21, except the Westerly 100 feet thereof; All in Block 2, Calhoun Lake Side Park, Minneapolis, Minn.; And the North and South alley adjoining said Lots 16 through 20 and the South 27 feet of Lot 21, vacated by Ordinance No. 591 adopted October 14, 1957, filed November 21, 1957, as Document No. 3093976 in Book 791 of Misc., Page 313. Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 3: Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 801865 Parcel 4: The Westerly 100 feet of Lots 16 through 20 inclusive, and the Westerly 100 feet of the South 27 feet of Lot 21, all in Block 2, Calhoun Lake Side Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 5: Lot 4, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 6: Lot 5, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 7: Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 8: That part of the alley lying northerly of Block 2, as dedicated in the recorded plat of Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., lying westerly of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 2, said plat, and lying easterly of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 7, Block 2, said plat. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as THE SHOREHAM ADDITION. In witness whereof said Bader Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of ____________________, 20___. Bader Developement, LLC SIGNED: By: , as STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _________________, 20___, by , of Bader Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said company. Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires I Rick M. Blom do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this Plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Rick M. Blom, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 21729 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20___, by Rick M. Blom. Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA This plat of THE SHOREHAM ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of ____________________, 20___. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30-day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2. City Council, St. Louis Park, Minnesota By: Mayor By: Manager RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20___ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor By: , Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By: REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of THE SHOREHAM ADDITION was filed in this office this _______ day of _________________, 20___, at ______ o'clock ____ .M. Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles By: , Deputy COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of THE SHOREHAM ADDITION was filed in this office this _______ day of _________________, 20___, at ______ o'clock ____ .M. Martin McCormick, County Recorder By: , Deputy ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND LAND SURVEYING SAMBATEK, INC. THE SHOREHAM ADDITION DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 21729. DENOTES 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT FOUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DENOTES SECTION CORNER THE EAST LINE OF BLOCK 2, CALHOUN LAKE SIDE PARK IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF SOUTH 00 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 07 SECONDS WEST. 0 SCALE IN FEET 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 R.T. DOC. NO. C.R. DOC. NO. BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. 10 10 10 10 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: (NOT TO SCALE) GLENHURST AVEFRANCE AVE S31ST ST W HIGHWAY 7 ( C O R D N O 2 5 ) L O T 1 B L O C K 1 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 FOUND MONUMENT SET MONUMENT MARKED LS 47476 ELECTRIC METER LIGHT SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN BEEHIVE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER AIR CONDITIONER GUY ANCHOR HANDICAP STALL UTILITY POLE POST SIGN TELEPHONE PEDESTAL GAS METER EASEMENT LINE BUILDING LINE CONCRETE CURB BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE GRAVEL SURFACE DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE OVERHEAD WIRE CHAIN LINK FENCE BLOCK WALL STONE WALL WOOD FENCE LEGEND VICINITY MAP SITE100 MINNETONKA BLVD MN 7 SE R VI C E R D EXCELSIOR BLVDW 36TH ST BELTLINEW 31ST ST AVE SBLVD* 5 3 17 3 LAKE CALHOUNFRANCELIFT STATION TRAFFIC LIGHT HAND HOLE GAS VALVE GROUND LIGHT UTILITY MANHOLE YARD HYDRANT SET MAG NAIL Total Site Area:97,297 Square Feet or 2.234 Acres 1.The bearing system is based on the east line of Block 2, CALHOUN LAKE SIDE PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. having an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 59 minutes 07 seconds West. 2.Subject property's addresses and property identification numbers are: Parcel 1, 2 and 3:3907 Highway 7 06-028-24-11-0056 Parcel 4:3915 Highway 7 06-028-24-11-0007 Parcel 5:3914 31st St W 06-028-24-11-0014 Parcel 6:3918 31st St W 06-028-24-11-0015 Parcel 7:3031 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-11-0016 3.Parcels 2 and 4 are zoned C - 2, General Commercial, Parcels 1, 3, 5-7 are zoned R - 4, Multiple Family Residence, all per City of Saint Louis Park zoning map dated 06/14/2013. Proposed zoning for Parcels 1-7 is PUD - Planned Unit Development; setbacks are shown per architect site plan dated 02/27/2015. 4.CIC Number 1765, A Condominium Chateau, exists over Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 5.France Avenue street improvements lie within the surveyed property across Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, CALHOUN LAKE SIDE PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. SURVEY NOTES Parcel 1: Lot 1, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 2: The South 27 feet of Lot 10 and all of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, Also Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, except the Westerly 100 feet thereof, Also the South 27 feet of Lot 21, except the Westerly 100 feet thereof; All in Block 2, Calhoun Lake Side Park, Minneapolis, Minn.; And the North and South alley adjoining said Lots 16 through 20 and the South 27 feet of Lot 21, vacated by Ordinance No. 591 adopted October 14, 1957, filed November 21, 1957, as Document No. 3093976 in Book 791 of Misc., Page 313. Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 3: Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 801865 Parcel 4: The Westerly 100 feet of Lots 16 through 20 inclusive, and the Westerly 100 feet of the South 27 feet of Lot 21, all in Block 2, Calhoun Lake Side Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 5: Lot 4, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 6: Lot 5, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 7: Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel 8: That part of the alley, as dedicated in the recorded plat of "Manhattan Park, Minneapolis, Minn.", lying westerly of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 2, said plat, and lying easterly of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 7, Block 2, said plat. SUBJECT PROPERTY Developer:Bader Development 5402 Parkdale Drive Suite 200 Saint Louis Park, MN 55416 952-540-8600 Architect:DJR Architecture 333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210 Union Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-676-2700 Engineer/Surveyor:Sambatek 12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343 763-476-6010 CONTACT INFORMATION PROPERTY SUMMARY Registration No. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LAND SURVEYOR under the laws of the State of Minnesota. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this survey which is available upon request at Sambatek's, Minnetonka, MN office. Date:21729 Rick M. Blom 02/24/2015 Project Location Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issued: Client BADER DEVELOPMENT THE SHOREHAM ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MGB JTA/JMW EWM 03/02/2015 DJR20165PLAN REVIEW ONLY 03/02/2015 PRELIMINARY PUD 03/18/2015 PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 04/17/2015 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 04/29/2015 PUD APPLICATION COMMENTS Apr 29, 2015 - 3:26pm - User:549 L:\PROJECTS\DJR20165\dwg\Survey\20165-PPLAT.dwg C2.01 PRELIMINARY PLAT SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 Project Location Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issued: Client BADER DEVELOPMENT THE SHOREHAM ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MGB JTA/JMW EWM 03/02/2015 DJR20165PLAN REVIEW ONLY Registration No. I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional ENGINEER under the laws of the state of Minnesota. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this plan which is available upon request at Sambatek's, Minnetonka, MN office. Date:41326 Erik W. Miller 03/02/2015 03/02/2015 PRELIMINARY PUD 03/18/2015 PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 04/17/2015 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 04/29/2015 PUD APPLICATION COMMENTS Apr 29, 2015 - 3:26pm - User:549 L:\PROJECTS\DJR20165\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\20165-C3-SITE.dwg C3.01 SITE PLAN AREA TOTAL SITE AREA SETBACKS FRONT YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARD ZONING EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA TOTAL A.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. B.ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BACK OF CURB IS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY ONLY. C.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. D.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. E.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. F.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PYLON SIGN DETAILS G.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAIL AND FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF LIGHT POLE. H.REFER TO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, LOT NUMBERS, LOT AREAS, AND LOT DIMENSIONS. I.ALL GRADIENTS ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). THE MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS ISLE SHALL BE 2.08% (1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUS THE DESIGN GRADIENT. J."NO PARKING" SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED ALONG ALL DRIVEWAYS AS REQUIRED BY CITY. K.STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY. L.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UP TO THE HIGH WATER LEVEL OF ALL PONDS. LEGEND EASEMENT CURB & GUTTER BUILDING RETAINING WALL SAWCUT LINE NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS PER ROW SIGN PIPE BOLLARD STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVING HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE PAVING PROPERTY LIMIT EXISTINGPROPOSED KEY NOTE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT NOTES KEY NOTES WETLAND LIMITS TREELINE A.BUILDING, STOOPS, STAIRS (REF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) B.B-612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER C.B-618 6CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER D.ZERO CURB SECTION E.CONCRETE APRON F.FLAT CURB SECTION G.SEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALL H.ACCESSIBLE RAMP I.BIKE RACKS (REF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) J.PLANTER (REF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) K.PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK - ZEBRA DESIGN L."ONE-WAY DO NOT ENTER" SIGN M.LIGHT STANDARD (REF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) N.BRICK PIERS (REF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) O.FENCE (REF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) P.MONUMENT SIGN (REF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) 2.23 AC 20 FEET 30 FEET 20 FEET C-2 & R-4 PUD 63%1.59 AC 37%0.95 AC 2.23 AC 77%1.73 AC 23%0.50 AC 2.23 AC SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 Project Location Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issued: Client BADER DEVELOPMENT THE SHOREHAM ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MGB JTA/JMW EWM 03/02/2015 DJR20165PLAN REVIEW ONLY Registration No. I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional ENGINEER under the laws of the state of Minnesota. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this plan which is available upon request at Sambatek's, Minnetonka, MN office. Date:41326 Erik W. Miller 03/02/2015 03/02/2015 PRELIMINARY PUD 03/18/2015 PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 04/17/2015 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 04/29/2015 PUD APPLICATION COMMENTS Apr 29, 2015 - 3:26pm - User:549 L:\PROJECTS\DJR20165\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\20165-C4-GRADE.dwg C4.01 GRADING & EROSION CONTROL BUILDING RETAINING WALL PROPERTY LIMIT EXISTINGPROPOSED WETLAND LIMITS TREELINE STORM SEWER 902 SOIL BORINGS 1042.56 ST 5 GRADING NOTES DRAINTILE D A.PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG PROPOSED CURB DENOTE GUTTER GRADE. B.KEdZdKZ^,>>Zs/tWsDEd'Z/EdEKE^dZhd͞'hddZKhd͟t,ZtdZZ/E^tz&ZKDhZ͘>> Kd,ZZ^^,>>KE^dZhd^͞'hddZ/E͟hZ͘ C.ALL GRADIENT ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). THE MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE IN 2.08% (1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUS THE DESIGN GRADIENT. D.d,KEdZdKZ/^hd/KEd,d͞d,^h^hZ&hd/>/dz/E&KZDd/KE^,KtEKEd,^W>E^/^hd/>/dzYh>/dz>s> ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ͘d,/^Yh>/dz>s>t^dZD/EKZ/E'dKd,'h/>/E^K&/ͬ^ϯϴͲϬϮd/d>͞^dEZ 'h/>/E^&KZd,K>>d/KEEW/d/KEK&y/^d/E'^h^hZ&hd/>/dzd͘͟d,KEdZdKZEͬKZ SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA AT 1-800-252-1166). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. E.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. F.SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. G.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SOILS REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY: COMPANY: ADDRESS: PHONE: DATED: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SOILS REPORT. H.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE DEWATERING AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION. I.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. J.REPLACE ALL SUBGRADE SOIL DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION THAT HAVE BECOME UNSUITABLE AND WILL NOT PASS A TEST ROLL. REMOVE UNSUITABLE SOIL FROM THE SITE AND IMPORT SUITABLE SOIL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. K.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. L.THE TREES AND OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AND/OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT ARE OF PRIME CONCERN TO THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS AND SHALL BE A RESTRICTED AREA. HE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE TREES WHICH ARE TO BE SAVED TO BE SURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT NEEDLESSLY OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREES AND SHALL EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION IN WORKING ADJACENT TO TREES. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THE TREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT, HE SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF OPERATION. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS RESULT IN THE BREAKING OF ANY LIMBS, THE BROKEN LIMBS SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED TO MINIMIZE ANY LASTING DAMAGE TO THE TREE. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER. COSTS FOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND NO SPECIAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE. RESTRICTED AREAS SHALL INCLUDE ALL DESIGNATED TREED AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION ZONE. ALL VEGETATION WITHIN THE RESTRICTED AREAS SHALL REMAIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTRICT ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS. ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION MAY BE RESTRICTED TO A NARROWER WIDTH IN THE FIELD TO SAVE ADDITIONAL TREES AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOUNDARIES WOULD INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO: SOIL AND OTHER DdZ/>^dK<W/>/E'͕Yh/WDEdKZD,/EZz^dKZ'͕Z/s/E'K&Ezs,/>͕><'KZ^W/>>'K&Ez͞t^,Khd͟ OR OTHER TOXIC MATERIAL. THE COLLECTION OF OTHER DEBRIS AND SOIL STOCKPILING WILL BE IN AN AREA DETERMINED ON-SITE BY THE ENGINEER. ALL RESTRICTED AREAS SHALL BE FENCED OFF WITH BRIGHT ORANGE POLYETHYLENE SAFETY NETTING AND STEEL STAKES AS SHOWN ON THE TREE PROTECTION DETAIL. AT NO TIME SHALL THIS FENCING BE REMOVED OR ACTIVITY OF ANY KIND TAKE PLACE WITHIN IT. FINAL PLACEMENT OF ALL PROTECTIVE FENCING SHALL BE COMPLETE BEFORE ANY WORK COMMENCES ON-SITE. BEFORE COMMENCING WITH ANY EXCAVATION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE ALL PREPARATORY WORK REGARDING TREE REMOVAL, ROOT PRUNING, TREE PRUNING AND STUMP REMOVAL TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER. PREPARATORY WORK SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AND SHALL BE COMPLETED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: 1.TREE REMOVAL: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FELL THE TREES. AT NO TIME SHALL TREES BE BULLDOZED OUT, BUT SHALL BE CUT DOWN AND STUMPS REMOVED SEPARATELY. PRIOR TO THE FELLING OF ALL TREES, PROPER REMOVAL OF A PORTION OR ALL OF THE CANOPY SHALL BE COMPLETED SO THAT TREES IN THE RESTRICTED AREAS SHALL NOT BE INJURED IN THE PROCESS. 2.ROOT PRUNING: BEFORE ANY STUMPS ARE TO BE REMOVED, ALL ROOTS SHALL BE SEVERED FROM ROOTS IN THE RESTRICTED AREAS BY SAW CUTTING WITH A VERMEER DESIGNED FOR ROOT PRUNING, BY HAND, OR WITH A CHAINSAW. TREE ROOTS PROJECTING INTO THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE SHALL BE EXPOSED PRIOR TO ROOT PRUNING WITH SMALL MACHINERY, I.E..., BOBCAT. 3.STUMP REMOVAL: AT SUCH TIME THAT ROOTS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SEVERED, STUMPS MAY BE REMOVED. WHERE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN STUMPS COULD CAUSE DAMAGE TO EXISTING PROTECTED TREES, TREE STUMPS SHALL BE GROUND OUT. ALL STUMP REMOVAL SHALL BE UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 4.TREE PRUNING: PROPER PRUNING OF TREES IN THE RESTRICTED ZONE SHALL BE DIRECTED BY AND SUPERVISION AT ALL TIMES BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. AN OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE PREPARATORY AND CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. MULCH RATHER THAN SEED OR SOD WILL BE USED AT THE BASE OF QUALITY TREES TO A PERIMETER DETERMINED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. AREAS TO BE SEEDED FOR EROSION CONTROL PURPOSES WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. NATURAL GROUND COVER WILL BE MAINTAINED WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 5.THE USE OF RETAINING WALLS NEAR TREES, IN ADDITION TO THOSE REQUIRED ON THE PLANS SHALL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD, BASED ON TREE LOCATIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY. M.IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE, INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO ACTIVE DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER. N.RETAINING WALL(S) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF _________________ (MODULAR BLOCK, TREATED TIMBER, BOULDER, ETC.) MATERIAL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE ENGINEER AND LOCAL AUTHORITY CERTIFIED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND SOIL BORINGS. THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER FOR THE RETAINING WALL(S) SHALL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS OF THE RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT, AND A LETTER CERTIFYING THE INSTALLATION OF THE WALL(S) WAS CONSTRUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 962.5 X 962.5 X 902 SPOT ELEVATION CONTOUR RIP RAP OVERFLOW ELEV. CURB & GUTTER LEGENDEROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIES ITEM UNIT QUANTITY SILT FENCE LINEAR FEET 1400 SILT DIKE LINEAR FEET 0 BIO-ROLL LINEAR FEET 0 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE UNIT 1 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-1)UNIT 7 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-2)UNIT 0 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE 1 TEMPORARY STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SILT FENCE SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 Project Location Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issued: Client BADER DEVELOPMENT THE SHOREHAM ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MGB JTA/JMW EWM 03/02/2015 DJR20165PLAN REVIEW ONLY Registration No. I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional ENGINEER under the laws of the state of Minnesota. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this plan which is available upon request at Sambatek's, Minnetonka, MN office. Date:41326 Erik W. Miller 03/02/2015 03/02/2015 PRELIMINARY PUD 03/18/2015 PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 04/17/2015 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 04/29/2015 PUD APPLICATION COMMENTS TELEPHONE ELECTRIC GAS LINE FORCEMAIN (SAN.) EASEMENT WATERMAIN SANITARY SEWER EXISTINGPROPOSED STORM SEWER CURB & GUTTER DRAINTILE D S S SLS LEGEND Apr 29, 2015 - 3:26pm - User:549 L:\PROJECTS\DJR20165\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\20165-C6-UTIL.dwg C6.01 UTILITY PLAN UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPFRANCE AVE SGLENHURST AVE SWEST 31ST STREETWEST 30 1/2 STREETMN 7 SERVICE ROADPLANTERPLANTERT.O.W.T.O.W.MOVE INVIEW OF SECOND STORY ENTRIES ABOVE PARKING LEVELPARKING STALLLEVEL WITH SIDEWALKSTAIRSTAIRSTAIRBIKEPARKINGBIKEPARKINGBIKEPARKING40 BIKES14225RETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLAAAAACCCCCCCCBBBBBBBBBBBDDDDDDLIGHTING KEYA - 20'-0" TALL POLE WITH LED LAMPB - 12'-0" TALL PONE WITH LED LAMPC - WALL MOUNT DECORATIVE WALL PACK WITH LEDD - BOLLARD LIGHT WITH LEDFENCEBRICK PIERS2120GUARD RAIL ATTOP OF WALLD.O.R.A.(SHOWN SHADED)D.O.R.A. (SHOWN SHADED)D.O.R.APROPERTY AREA 97,297 SFD.O.R.A. 13,292 SFREQUIRED AREA = 12%PROVIDED AREA 13.7%7,142 SF5,940 SF906.00'SETBACK L315' - 6"SETBACK LEVEL 1 24' - 6"SETBACK P13' - 0"SETBACK28' - 0"SETBACK L3 18' - 6"SETBACK AT GRADE29' - 2"SETBACK L324' - 1"SETBACK L2 22' - 0" SETBACK L3 24' - 7" SETBACK AT GRADE 25' - 8"SETBACK L120' - 8"SETBACK AT GRADE10' - 0"SETBACK AT GRADE 23' - 0" SETBACK L5 32' - 0" SETBACK AT GRADE 26' - 0" SETBACK AT L2 29' - 0"SETBACK AT GRADE26' - 4"SETBACK L325' - 3"COMMERCIALTRASH /RECYCLING5%CENTER LINERIGHT OF WAYSAINT LOUIS PARK30' - 0"MINNEAPOLIS30' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"8' - 6"11' - 0"11' - 0"8' - 0"11' - 0"7 ONSTREETPARKINGSTALLSSLP11' - 0"MPLS11' - 0"14 ONSTREETPARKINGSTALLS210 SFASAP BUILDINGHISTORIC MARKER(DORA)RETAININGWALLSIDEWALKACCESSPOINTSIDEWALKACCESSPOINTSETBACK AT GRADE20' - 6"SETBACK L227' - 9"PEDISTALMOUNTEDHISTORICALMARKERD/U EASEMENT10' - 0"D/U EASEMENT 10' - 0"D/U EASEMENT 10' - 0"D/U EASEMENT10' - 0"D/U EASEMENT10' - 0"D/U VARIANCE5' - 0"D/U VARIANCE5' - 0"D/U VARIANCE5' - 0"D/U VARIANCE5' - 0"D/U VARIANCE5' - 0"D/U VARIANCE5' - 0"D/U VARIANCE5' - 0"D/U VARIANCE95' - 0"D/U VARIANCE13' - 0"D/U VARIANCE13' - 0"D/U VARIANCE4' - 0"540 SFARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321AS100ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15LMSBTHE SHOREHAMDesigner 1" = 20'-0"A1SITE1 PDR 03/02/152 PUD UPDATE 03/18/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 UPUPA201C5A200D318CAR WASH19242424212021VANC1A310C3A310TTTTTTTTT34TRASH/RECYCLINGELEVATOREQUIPMENTELEVATOREQUIPMENTSTAIRSTAIRSTAIRMECHANICALWATERSERVICEPARKINGRAMP240'303'222'26'248'GARAGE DOOR1AS11280 SFSETBACK20'SETBACK10'SETBACK28'SETBACK3' - 0"SETBACK26'2AS114AS11ARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue: Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321A100LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15AuthorCheckerTHE SHOREHAMDesigner 1/16" = 1'-0"A1LEVEL P1 OVERALL1 PDR 03/02/152 PUD UPDATE 03/18/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 UPUPUPUPUPA201C5A200D1A200D3C2C3C1C3142252120MEDICAL OFFICE10,000 SFRESIDENTIAL AMENITY5,200 SFOFFICE10,000 SFRESIDENTIALPATIOCOMMERCIAL PARKING41 STALLSCOMMERCIAL PARKING41 STALLSCOMMERCIAL PARKING6 STALLSBIKE PARKINGRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLC1A310C3A310GUARDRAIL ONTOP OF WALLRAMPSETB ACK 20'151'91'64'306'DOG EXCERCISE AREARAMP UP1AS11COMMERCIALTRASH / RECYCLING475 SF2AS114AS11ARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321A110LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15LMSBTHE SHOREHAMDesigner 1/16" = 1'-0"A1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 11 PDR 03/02/152 PUD UPDATE 03/18/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 A201C5A200D1A200D3C2C3C1C3C1A310C3A310ELEVATOR OVERRUNELEVATOR OVERRUNMECHANICAL EQUIPMENTROOF ACCESS STAIR214'140'A201A202ARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321A160ROOF PLAN3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15LMSBTHE SHOREHAMDesigner 1/16" = 1'-0"A1ROOF PLAN1 PDR 03/02/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 LEVEL 2120' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"31' - 11 5/8"STUCCOBRICKLAP SIDING - FIBER CEMENTSTUCCOBRICKBRICKSTUCCOBRICKLEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2120' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"ROOF162' - 7 1/2"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"MEZZANINE110' - 0"MEDICAL OFFICESIGNAGEBRICKSTUCCO #1BRICKBRICK889.37'B.O.W10' - 0"8' - 0"2' - 0"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"20' - 0"65' - 3 1/2"34' - 10 15/32"BRICKSTUCCOPRECAST CORNICEBRICKPREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONYPRECAST CORNICEFABRIC AWNINGSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFPREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONYPRECAST CORNICEPRECAST CORNICECOLORED ROCK FACE BLOCKMETAL GRILL AT OPEN GARAGEMETAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUNMEDICAL OFFICE SIGNAGESTUCCO #1ALUMINUM STOREFRONTT.O. PARAPET165' - 0"LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2120' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"ROOF162' - 7 1/2"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"MEZZANINE110' - 0"20' - 0"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"2' - 8"65' - 3 1/2"BRICK #1BRICK #2STUCCO #1STUCCO #1STUCCO #1STUCCO #1BRICK #1STUCCO #1FIBER CEMENT PANELBRICK #1BRICK #2MEDICAL OFFICESIGNAGEBRICK #1PREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONYMETAL CORNICEENTRY CANOPY WITHSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFBRICK PIERFIBER CEMENT PANELT.O. PARAPET165' - 0"ABCDEHGFBUILDING MATERIALS BY ELEVATIONDRAWING NO. CLASS 1CLASS 2GENERAL NOTESA - 2/A200B - 3/A200C - 1/A201D - 1/A200E - 1/A202F - 2/A202G - 2/A201H - 3/A20177%85%77%75%64%61%72%73%23%15%23%25%36%39%28%27%CLASS 1 MATERIALS:BRICK, GLASS, STUCCOCLASS 2 MATERIALS:FIBER CEMENT PANEL,TEXTURED CONCRETE BLOCKMETAL PANEL,METAL FLASHINGTOTAL 75% 25%ARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321A200ELEVATIONS3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15APSBTHE SHOREHAMDesigner 3/32" = 1'-0"D5SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION - D 3/32" = 1'-0"D3WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION - A 3/32" = 1'-0"D1NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION - B 1" = 80'-0"ELEVATION LEGEND1 PDR 03/02/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2120' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"ROOF162' - 7 1/2"LEVEL P189' - 4"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"20' - 0"10' - 8"MEZZANINE110' - 0"STUCCO #2STUCCO #1FIBER CEMENT PANELBRICK #1FIBER CEMENT PANELBRICK #1STUCCO #1FIBER CEMENTFIBER CEMENT PANELPREFINISHEDALUMINUM BALCONYPRECAST CORNICEBRICK #1PREFINISHEDALUMINUM BALCONYSPLIT FACE BLOCKMETAL GRILL AT OPEN GARAGET.O. PARAPET165' - 0"LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2120' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"ROOF162' - 7 1/2"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"MEZZANINE110' - 0"2' - 8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"18' - 0"STUCCO #2STUCCO #1STUCCO #1FIBER CEMENT PANELSTUCCO #1PREFINISHEDALUMINUM BALCONYBRICK #1PRECAST CORNICEBRICK #1FABRIC AWNINGMEDICAL OFFICE SIGNAGEMEDICAL OFFICEENTRANCE WITH STANDINGSEAM METAL ROOFFIBER CEMENT PANELPRECAST CORNICET.O. PARAPET165' - 0"LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2120' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"ROOF162' - 7 1/2"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"20' - 0"62' - 7 1/2"STUCCO #1BRICK #1BRICK #1STUCCO #1PRECAST CORNICEFIBER CEMENT PANEL ON ROOFSTAIR ACCESS AND ELEVATOROVERRUNSPLIT FACE BLOCKT.O. PARAPET165' - 0"ABCDEHGFBUILDING MATERIALS BY ELEVATIONDRAWING NO. CLASS 1CLASS 2GENERAL NOTESA - 2/A200B - 3/A200C - 1/A201D - 1/A200E - 1/A202F - 2/A202G - 2/A201H - 3/A20177%85%77%75%64%61%72%73%23%15%23%25%36%39%28%27%CLASS 1 MATERIALS:BRICK, GLASS, STUCCOCLASS 2 MATERIALS:FIBER CEMENT PANEL,TEXTURED CONCRETE BLOCKMETAL PANEL,METAL FLASHINGTOTAL 75% 25%ARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321A201ELEVATIONS3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15LMSBTHE SHOREHAMDesigner 3/32" = 1'-0"C5EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION - C 3/32" = 1'-0"C3COURTYARD SOUTH - G 3/32" = 1'-0"C1COURTYARD WEST - H 1" = 80'-0"ELEVATION LEGEND1 PDR 03/02/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 LEVEL 2120' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"FIBER CEMENT LAPSTUCCO #1STUCCO #2STUCCO #2STUCCO #2STUCCO #1BRICKPRECAST CORNICEPRECAST CORNICE18' - 0"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"2' - 8"52' - 8 15/32"ROCK FACED BLOCKMETAL BALCONYCIP CONCRETERETAINING WALLMETAL GUARD RAILMETAL BALCONYMETAL GUARD RAILCOMMERCIAL PARKING ENTRYMETAL GRILL AT OPEN GARAGET.O. PARAPET165' - 0"LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2120' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"ROOF162' - 7 1/2"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFCOMMERCIAL SIGNAGEPRECAST CORNICEBRICKBRICKMETAL BALCONYFIBER CEMENT PANEL2' - 8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"20' - 0"65' - 3 1/2"FABRIC AWNINGMETAL BALCONYT.O. PARAPET165' - 0"ABCDEHGFLEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL P189' - 4"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"MEZZANINE110' - 0"SIDEWALK BEYOND - SEE CIVIL FOR GRADECAST IN PLACE CONCRETERETAINING WALL42" HIGHGUARDRAILLEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL P189' - 4"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"MEZZANINE110' - 0"A1A202LIGHT FIXTURE42" HIGHGUARDRAILCAST IN PLACECONCRETE RETAINGINWALLGARAGE ENTRYGRADE LEVELPARKING17' - 8"3' - 6"LBUILDING MATERIALS BY ELEVATIONDRAWING NO. CLASS 1CLASS 2GENERAL NOTESA - 2/A200B - 3/A200C - 1/A201D - 1/A200E - 1/A202F - 2/A202G - 2/A201H - 3/A20177%85%77%75%64%61%72%73%23%15%23%25%36%39%28%27%CLASS 1 MATERIALS:BRICK, GLASS, STUCCOCLASS 2 MATERIALS:FIBER CEMENT PANEL,TEXTURED CONCRETE BLOCKMETAL PANEL,METAL FLASHINGTOTAL 75% 25%20' - 0"SIDEWALK6' - 0"BLVD6' - 0"PARKING8' - 6"DRIVE AISLE11' - 0"DRIVE AISLE11' - 0"PARKING8' - 0"BUILDINGEDGECLSAINT LOUIS PARKMINNEAPOLISEXISTINGBUILDINGARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321A202ELEVATIONS3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15LMSBTHE SHOREHAMDesigner 3/32" = 1'-0"C3COURTYARD NORTH - E 3/32" = 1'-0"C2COURTYARD EAST - F 1" = 80'-0"ELEVATION LEGEND 1/8" = 1'-0"A1PARKING RAMP SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0"E1PARKING RAMP CROSS SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0"D2FRANCE AVENUE STREET SECTION1 PDR 03/02/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2120' - 0"T.O. Footing86' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"ROOF162' - 7 1/2"LEVEL P189' - 4"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"MEZZANINE110' - 0"C3A3106' - 0"VIEW CORRIDORLINEROOFTOP MECHANICALUNITS6' - 0"VIEW CORRIDORLINEROOFTOP MECHANICALUNITT.O. PARAPET165' - 0"1234578910111213141516LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2120' - 0"T.O. Footing86' - 0"LEVEL 3130' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 4141' - 3 3/4"LEVEL 5151' - 11 5/8"ROOF162' - 7 1/2"LEVEL P189' - 4"LEVEL 1B102' - 0"MEZZANINE110' - 0"C1A3106' - 0"VIEW CORRIDORLINE6' - 0"VIEW CORRIDORLINEROOFTOP MECHANICALUNITST.O. PARAPET165' - 0"ABCDEFGHIJKLARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncB8333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comPRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTBader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 5541Issue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORTBDSTRUCTURALTBDCIVILSambatek12800 Whitewater Drive Suite 300Minnetonka, MN 55343Phone: (763) 476-6010I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONACDEFGH7654321A310BUILDING SECTIONS3915 HWY 7, SAINT LOUIS PARK, MNApprover04/29/1513-09804/29/15LMSBTHE SHOREHAMDesigner 1/16" = 1'-0"C1NORTH - SOUTH SITE SECTION LOOKINGEAST 1/16" = 1'-0"C3EAST - WEST SITE SECTION LOOKINGNORTH1 PDR 03/02/153 PUD FINAL COMMENT 04/17/15 SCOPE AND FEE BUDGET December 1, 2014 ASAP Building (Hoffan Callan Company) 3000 France Ave S, St Louis Park, MN Description Estimated Fee  Documentation of Building History Historical documentation will include:  An architectural description of the building  A historical narrative  Delivery of archival materials to selected repositories The architectural description and historical narrative are expected to be in the range of 7‐10 pages total. 50 hours $5,500 35mm Documentary Photography Photographic services will be provided by Daniel Pratt, as a subconsultant to PVN. Deliverables will include:  Photographic images of the Star Tribune building, sufficient to meet the photographic documentation standards of the Minnesota Historic Property Record (MHPR) ‐ Level II.  One (1) set of 35mm negatives on Ilford 125 film processed to MHPR archival quality, enclosed in a labeled, acid‐free sleeve.  One (1) set of properly labeled, enlarged 5" x 7" prints exposed on archivally‐processed, double‐weight, fiber‐based photographic paper.  One (1) sets of labeled archival mount cards (slotted for 5" x 7" prints).  One (1) Tagged Image Format (TIF) file of each 35mm image, scanned at 2400 dpi resolution from the 35mm negatives.  One (1) Index to Photographs with descriptions of documentary field images. $3,000 (Additional archival quality negatives and prints can be produced at $700 per set) Reimbursable Allowance (Copies, etc.) $250 Total $8,750 Memorandum SRF No. 0148718 To: Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A, Associate Planner City of St. Louis Park From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Jordan Schwarze, PE, Senior Engineer Date: May 1, 2015 Subject: Highway 7 & Glenhurst Mixed-Use Traffic Study Introduction SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed Highway 7 & Glenhurst Mixed-Use development located near the CSAH 25/France Avenue intersection in the City of St. Louis Park (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate the traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway network, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. This study will also provide a trip generation comparison between the existing and proposed land uses. The following sections provide the assumptions, analysis, and study conclusions/recommendations offered for consideration. Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify any future impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes peak period intersection turning movement counts, field observations, and an intersection capacity analysis. Data Collection Peak period turning movement and pedestrian counts were collected by SRF during the week of December 15, 2014 at the following study intersections: • CSAH 25 and France Avenue • France Avenue and CSAH 25 Frontage Road • Glenhurst Avenue and CSAH 25 Frontage Road Historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes within the study area were provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM 0148718 May 2015 Project Location Highway 7 & Glenhurst Mixed-Use Traffic Study St. Louis Park, MN Figure 1France AveFronta g e R d CSAH 25 NORTHNorthProject Location Glenhurst AveMinnetonka Blvd 31st St CSAH 2 5 30-1/2 St Drew AveInglewood AveH:\Projects\8718\TS\Figures\Fig01_Project Location.cdr Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 3 In addition to the intersection turning movement counts, observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls). Currently, CSAH 25 is a four-lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph) while France Avenue is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Glenhurst Avenue and the CSAH 25 Frontage Road are two-lane roadways with no posted speed limit. The CSAH 25/France Avenue intersection is signalized, the France Avenue/ CSAH 25 Frontage Road intersection is side-street stop controlled, and the Glenhurst Avenue/ CSAH 25 Frontage Road intersection is uncontrolled. It should be noted that CSAH 25 is functionally classified as a minor arterial while France Avenue is functionally classified as a collector. Other study roadways are functionally classified as local streets. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 2. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software (V8.0) to establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities area. Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 For side-street stop/yield controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop/yield control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Existing Conditions Highway 7 & Glenhurst Mixed-Use Traffic Study Figure 2NORTHNorthH:\Projects\8718\TS\Figures\Fig02_Existing Conditions.cdr0148718 May 2015 Project Location France AveFronta g e R d CSAH 25 Glenhurst AveMinnetonka Blvd 31st St 30-1/2 StNORTHNorth - A.M. Peak Hour Volumes - P.M. Peak Hour Volumes - Pedestrian/Bicycle Peak Hour Volumes - Estimated Year 2014 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes - Uncontrolled Intersection - Side-Street Stop Controlled Intersection - Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection LEGEND XX (XX) X,XXX 9,600 (36) 64(37) 38(27) 10France Ave263 (305)12 (43)53 (148) CSAH 25 (243) 156 (1,352) 825 (23) 10 128 (108) 1,481 (1,201) 11 (40) CSAH 25 34,100 37,800 1,10 0 300St. Louis Park, MN X (X) 1 (0)3 (0)0 (1)0 (1) (0) 0(12) 4(0) 0France Ave11 (27)3 (1)19 (78) Frontage Rd (57) 28 (44) 3 (0) 0 80 (31) 14 (5) 0 (1)Driveway30 1/2 St 0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) (2) 7(6) 9Glenhurst AveFrontage Rd (95) 22 (5) 6 23 (24) 2 (8)0 (2)0 (0)2 (1) Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 5 Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However several queuing issues were observed, primarily at the CSAH 25/France Avenue signalized intersection. Westbound queues along CSAH 25 were occasionally observed to extend through the adjacent signalized intersection at Drew Avenue during the a.m. peak hour. Similarly, eastbound queues along CSAH 25 were occasionally observed to extend through the adjacent signalized intersection at Minnetonka Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour. Finally, northbound France Avenue queues regularly extended to the CSAH 25 Frontage Road during both peak hours. These northbound queues are a result of limited vehicular storage due to the closely spaced CSAH 25 Frontage Road rather than an intersection capacity issue. No other significant delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulation at the study intersections. It should be noted that queuing issues identified at the CSAH 25/France Avenue intersection are existing issues and not related to the proposed development. Table 2. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay CSAH 25 and France Avenue C 22 sec. C 31 sec. France Avenue and CSAH 25 Frontage Road(1) A/A 5 sec. A/A 8 sec. Glenhurst Avenue and CSAH 25 Frontage Road(2) A/A 1 sec. A/A 1 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. (2) Uncontrolled intersection treated as a side-street yield control intersection for the purpose of the capacity analysis. Proposed Development The proposed development is located south of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road between France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue in the City of St. Louis Park. The site is currently occupied by several land uses, including two single-family residences, three residential townhomes, a digital printing business, and a bookstore. All of these land uses are planned to be replaced by the proposed development (shown in Figure 3), which consists of approximately 147 apartment units, 10,000 square feet of general office space, and 10,000 square feet of medical office space. Construction of the proposed development was assumed to be complete by the end of the year 2016. Access to the proposed development is planned in three locations. One access is located along a southern extension of France Avenue approximately 270 feet south of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road. A second access is located along Glenhurst Avenue approximately 300 feet south of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road. These two locations will serve as the primary access for the majority of the proposed development. A third access is located along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road and is designed as a one-way pick-up/drop-off zone and short-term parking area. Further discussion regarding site access is documented later in this study. Site Plan Highway 7 & Glenhurst Mixed-Use Traffic Study Figure 3France AveFront a g e R dNORTHNorth Glenhurst Ave31st St H:\Projects\8718\TS\Figures\Fig03_Site Plan.cdr0148718 May 2015NORTHNorthNORTHNorth St. Louis Park, MN Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 7 Year 2017 Conditions To help determine impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts were developed for year 2017 conditions (i.e. one year after anticipated completion). Year 2017 conditions take into account general area background growth and traffic generated by the proposed development. The evaluation of year 2017 conditions includes details on the traffic forecasts and an intersection capacity analysis. Year 2017 Traffic Forecasts To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2017 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate is consistent with historical growth in the study area (based on MnDOT AADT volumes). To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, trip generation estimates for both the existing and proposed land uses were developed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a daily basis. These estimates, shown in Table 3, were developed using a combination of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition and peak period field observations. The existing trip generation estimates were developed to provide a comparison between existing and proposed land uses and to determine the approximate number of net new roadway system trips. Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size A.M. Trips P.M. Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out Existing Land Uses Single-Family Housing (210) 2 Dwelling Units 0 1 1 1 19 Residential Townhouse (230) 3 Dwelling Units 0 1 1 1 17 Digital Printing Business(1) (N/A) N/A 3 2 2 8 75 Bookstore(1) (N/A) N/A 2 1 2 2 35 Total Existing Site Trips (5) (5) (6) (12) (146) Proposed Land Uses Apartment (220) 147 Dwelling Units 15 60 59 32 978 General Office Building (710) 10,000 Square Feet 14 2 3 12 110 Medical Office Building (720) 10,000 Square Feet 19 5 10 26 361 Subtotal 48 67 72 70 1,449 Modal Reduction (10%) (5) (7) (7) (7) (145) Total Proposed Site Trips 43 60 65 63 1,304 Net New System Trips 38 55 59 51 1,158 (1) Trip generation estimates based on a.m. and p.m. peak period field observations. Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 8 It should be noted that a 10 percent modal reduction, based on the methodology described in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, was applied to account for available transit options in the vicinity of the proposed development (i.e. Metro Transit Routes 17 and 25). Accounting for the modal reduction, the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 103 a.m. peak hour, 128 p.m. peak hour and 1,304 daily trips. No other trip reductions were included. To determine the approximate net change in overall site trip generation, trips from the existing land uses were subtracted from the proposed development trips. Taking into account the existing land uses, the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 93 a.m. peak hour, 110 p.m. peak hour and 1,158 daily net new system trips. These trips were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 4, which was developed based on existing area travel patterns and engineering judgment. The resultant year 2017 conditions, including general area background growth and traffic generated by the proposed development, are shown in Figure 5. Year 2017 Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2017 traffic forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The previously documented queuing issues at the CSAH 25/France Avenue intersection do not significantly change due to the proposed development. No other significant delay or queuing issues were observed in the traffic simulation at the study intersections. Table 4. Year 2017 Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay CSAH 25 and France Avenue C 26 sec. C 34 sec. France Avenue and CSAH 25 Frontage Road(1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 9 sec. Glenhurst Avenue and CSAH 25 Frontage Road(2) A/A 1 sec. A/A 1 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. (2) Uncontrolled intersection treated as a side-street yield control intersection for the purpose of the capacity analysis. Directional Distribution Highway 7 & Glenhurst Mixed-Use Traffic Study Figure 4NORTHNorthH:\Projects\8718\TS\Figures\Fig04_Directional Distribution.cdr0148718 May 2015 France AveFronta g e R d CSAH 25 Minnetonka Blvd 31st St 30-1/2 StNORTHNorthCSAH 25 30%25%45%Glenhurst AveSt. Louis Park, MN Year 2017 Conditions Highway 7 & Glenhurst Mixed-Use Traffic Study Figure 5NORTHNorthH:\Projects\8718\TS\Figures\Fig05_Year 2017 Conditions.cdr0148718 May 2015 France AveFronta g e R d CSAH 25 Minnetonka Blvd 31st St 30-1/2 StNORTHNorth10,000CSAH 25 35,000 38,700 1,25 0 Glenhurst Ave500St. Louis Park, MN - A.M. Peak Hour Volumes - P.M. Peak Hour Volumes - Pedestrian/Bicycle Peak Hour Volumes - Estimated Year 2017 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes - Uncontrolled Intersection - Side-Street Stop Controlled Intersection - Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection LEGEND XX (XX) X,XXX France AveCSAH 25 X (X)France AveFrontage Rd Driveway30 1/2 St Glenhurst AveFrontage Rd (53) 82(50) 52(42) 27267 (310)22 (59)54 (150) (247) 158 (1,372) 837 (34) 18 130 (110) 1,503 (1,219) 22 (59) (2) 2(53) 49(0) 013 (30)30 (43)19 (79) (61) 31 (45) 3 (5) 3 81 (31) 14 (5) 0 (1) (7) 12(9) 12(102) 25 (13) 11 25 (26) 4 (11) 1 (0)3 (0)0 (1)0 (1) 0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (2)0 (0)2 (1) Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 11 Site Plan/Access Review A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to site access, traffic control, and circulation. Based on this review, the following issues were identified that should be discussed further and/or incorporated: 1) Vehicular and truck maneuverability should be reviewed, particularly for the one-way pick-up/drop-off zone along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road. Maneuverability should also be reviewed at the driveway access to the underground parking area. 2) Internal traffic controls were not identified. However, traffic controls, signing, and striping should be incorporated based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). In particular, it is important to identify traffic controls at intersections between internal roadways/driveways to minimize vehicular conflicts and driver confusion. 3) Due to the addition of development related traffic along Glenhurst Avenue, stop control should be implemented on the northbound approach of the Glenhurst Avenue/ CSAH 25 Frontage Road intersection to reduce driver confusion. An illustration of the potential site plan improvements is presented in Figure 6. France Avenue Extension Previous planning studies and the City’s Comprehensive Plan have identified the lack of north-south connections in the City and how that impacts traffic circulation and bike/pedestrian connectivity. The extension of France Avenue from the CSAH 25 Frontage Road to 31st Street may help address this issue by providing a more direct connection for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. An extension of France Avenue to 31st Street would likely result in a slight redistribution of local traffic patterns. Residents along 31st Street would be more likely to utilize the extension of France Avenue rather than Glenhurst Avenue and Ewing Ave to the west and east respectively. While proposed development traffic would be expected to utilize France Avenue as far south as the proposed site access, an additional 200 to 400 daily local vehicles would be expected to utilize France Avenue if it were extended all the way to 31st Street. These vehicles are primarily expected to be those of existing local residents utilizing the improved France Avenue connection to CSAH 25. It should be noted that at extension of France Avenue to 31st Street would also provide improved bicyclist/pedestrian connectivity with transit stops along CSAH 25 and the adjacent Frontage Road. Recommended Improvements Highway 7 & Glenhurst Mixed-Use Traffic Study Figure 6H:\Projects\8718\TS\Figures\Fig06_Recommended Improvements.cdr0148718 May 2015 St. Louis Park, MN NORTHNorthFrance AveCSAH 25 Minnetonka Blvd 30-1/2 StNORTHNorthCSAH 25 Incorporate internal traffic controls, signing, and striping based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Fronta g e R d 31st St Glenhurst AveReview vehicle and truck turning maneuverability within the proposed development Implement stop control on the northbound approach of the Glenhurst Avenue/ CSAH 25 Frontage Road intersection. Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 13 Future Considerations Several potential future transportation related projects within the study area warrant consideration with respect to this development. These projects include the reconstruction of CSAH 25 as an urban roadway section, the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Green Line Extension, and redevelopment opportunities and their supporting roadway networks. These projects would likely have an indirect impact to the proposed development. Further discussion regarding these projects should occur to better understand potential impacts for the proposed development. Summary and Conclusions The following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: • Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However several queuing issues were observed, primarily at the CSAH 25/France Avenue signalized intersection: o Westbound queues along CSAH 25 were occasionally observed to extend through the adjacent signalized intersection at Drew Avenue during the a.m. peak hour. o Eastbound queues along CSAH 25 were occasionally observed to extend through the adjacent signalized intersection at Minnetonka Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour. o Northbound France Avenue queues regularly extended to the CSAH 25 Frontage Road during both peak hours. These northbound queues are a result of limited vehicular storage due to the closely spaced CSAH 25 Frontage Road rather than an intersection capacity issue. • The proposed development is located south of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road between France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue in the City of St. Louis Park. The site is currently occupied by several land uses, all of which are planned to be replaced by the proposed development. Construction of the proposed development, which consists of approximately 147 apartment units, 10,000 square feet of general office space, and 10,000 square feet of medical office space was assumed to be complete by the end of the year 2016. Access to the proposed development is planned in three locations: o Along a southern extension of France Avenue approximately 270 feet south of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road. o Along Glenhurst Avenue approximately 300 feet south of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road. o Along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road (one-way pick-up/drop-off zone and short-term parking area). • To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2017 (i.e. one year after construction) background traffic forecasts. Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A May 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 14 • The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 103 a.m. peak hour, 128 p.m. peak hour and 1,304 daily trips. This includes a 10 percent modal reduction to account for available transit options in the area. o Taking into account trips generated by existing land uses which are already distributed to the adjacent roadway network, the resultant net new traffic volume impact is approximately 93 a.m. peak hour, 110 p.m. peak hour and 1,158 daily trips. • Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The previously documented queuing issues at the CSAH 25/France Avenue intersection do not significantly change due to the proposed development. • A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to site access, traffic control, and circulation. Key recommendations and considerations include the following: o Vehicular and truck maneuverability should be reviewed, particularly for the one-way pick-up/drop-off zone along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road. Maneuverability should also be reviewed at the driveway access to the underground parking area. o Internal traffic controls were not identified. However, traffic controls, signing, and striping should be incorporated based on the MUTCD. In particular, it is important to identify traffic controls at intersections between internal roadways/driveways to minimize vehicular conflicts and driver confusion. o Due to the addition of development related traffic along Glenhurst Avenue, stop control should be implemented on the northbound approach of the Glenhurst Avenue/ CSAH 25 Frontage Road intersection to reduce driver confusion. • Extension of France Avenue from the CSAH 25 Frontage Road to 31st Street would provide a more direct connection for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Furthermore, the extension would likely result in a slight redistribution of local traffic patterns. While proposed development traffic would be expected to utilize France Avenue as far south as the proposed site access, an additional 200 to 400 daily local vehicles would be expected to utilize France Avenue if it were extended all the way to 31st Street. These vehicles are primarily expected to be those of existing local residents utilizing the improved France Avenue connection to CSAH 25. It should be noted that at extension of France Avenue to 31st Street would also provide improved bicyclist/pedestrian connectivity with transit stops along CSAH 25 and the adjacent Frontage Road. • Several potential future projects within the study area warrant consideration with respect to the proposed development. These projects include the reconstruction of CSAH 25 as an urban roadway section, the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Green Line Extension, and redevelopment opportunities and their supporting roadway networks. These projects would likely have an indirect impact to the proposed development. Further discussion regarding these projects should occur to better understand potential impacts for the proposed development. H:\Projects\8718\TS\Report\8718_Hwy7&GlenhurstTrafficStudy_150501.docx