HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/03/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
MARCH 16, 2016
1. Call to order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of February 17, 2016 and March 2, 2016
3. Hearings
A. Excelsior & Monterey (Bridgewater Dominium Addition)
Preliminary Plat with Variances and Preliminary Planned Unit Development
Location: 4400, 4424 Excelsior Boulevard; 3743 Monterey Drive
Applicant: St. Louis Park Leased Housing Associates I, LLC
Case Nos.: 15-32-S, 15-33-PUD, 15-46-VAR
4. Other Business
A. Consideration of Resolution – Wayzata Boulevard TIF District Conformance
with Comprehensive Plan
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
MARCH 2, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Torrey Kanne, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Ethan Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Gary Morrison
OTHER: Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes: None
3. Public Hearings
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Variance for
Proposed Daycare
Location: 2460 Highway 100 South
Applicant: New Horizon Academy Daycare
Case Nos.: 16-07-CP, 16-08-Z, 16-09-VAR
Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant, presented the staff report. He stated that
the site currently contains a one-story, 10,140 square foot office building. The
applicant proposes to open and operate a daycare facility.
Mr. Miller explained how both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
rezoning from office to commercial are appropriate for the property.
Mr. Miller provided a zoning analysis of the variance request to the C-1
Neighborhood Commercial requirement that a daycare’s outdoor play area be
located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined on the comprehensive
plan as a principal arterial. He showed the site and the proposed outdoor play
area. He reviewed how criteria for granting the variance request have been met.
Commissioner Robertson asked if it was ever considered to do a text amendment
to allow daycare in the Office district. He asked the rationale for not allowing
daycare as a principal use.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, responded that staff was
primarily looking to maintain the integrity of the Office district and not wanting
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
March 2, 2016
Page 2
existing office spaces to be converted wholly over to daycare use. Office District
is seen as an employment center. He said the daycare was seen as an amenity or
resource service for employees in that area.
Peter Hilger, Rylaur LLC, architect, provided background on New Horizon’s
search for a site in St. Louis Park. He said New Horizon is very much looking
forward to being in St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Person spoke about a daycare site he was familiar with which he
felt had inadequate outdoor space. He said the site configuration of the proposed
outdoor space does not seem adequate for the number of children proposed for the
facility.
Mr. Hilger said daycare playgrounds are regulated in terms of the number of
children who can be outdoors at any given time, related to size and staffing. He
spoke about the playground surface material. He said a huge investment is made
in the playgrounds in order to satisfy parents’ expectations.
Mr. Miller noted that the proposal does exceed both city and state requirements
for open play area space.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
Kathryn McKeen, 2834 Vernon Ave. S., said she thinks the idea of the daycare
sounds pretty good but she is concerned about traffic. She spoke about existing
heavy traffic on Vernon Ave. from the apartment building, bus traffic, traffic from
the new West End, and fast moving vehicles coming off Hwy. 100 onto Vernon to
avoid Hwy. 100. Ms. McKeen said she is concerned about 100 parents driving
through her neighborhood at both rush hours.
The Chair asked about sidewalk on Vernon Ave.
Mr. Walther said sidewalk is intermittent along Utica Avenue which is planned to
have a complete trail connection to the regional trail in the future under the city’s
sidewalk and trail plan.
Sharon Lehrman, 2610 Vernon Ave. S., directly behind the former church, said
she has similar concerns related to traffic. Her family uses the frontage road quite
frequently because of their location. With all the development in the old Nestle
plant area the traffic has greatly increased along the frontage road and in that area,
including truck traffic. She said she understood previous interest in daycare at the
church site was not pursued by an applicant because of traffic issues and concerns
of parents not being able to get in and out easily to drop off and pick up their
children during rush hour.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
March 2, 2016
Page 3
Ms. Lehrman said it is not known currently what kind of traffic will be generated
from whatever use locates at the former church site. She stated she likes the idea
of having a daycare facility but she is very concerned with all the congestion in
the area. She spoke about traffic trips predicted by staff.
No one else was present wishing to speak. The Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson said a reguiding and rezoning to Neighborhood
Commercial stands on its own merit for the site. He said he doesn’t have any
issues with the variance request because of the elevation differences in the road in
question.
Chair Johnston-Madison said she understands traffic concerns. She said there
will be traffic no matter what goes in there. She asked if there is a way to
examine traffic in the area and what is coming in the future.
Mr. Walther said traffic studies are not warranted unless there is a significant
increase in traffic generated by a new use or development. Even the major
renovation of the Westside Center did not warrant a traffic study because the
former Nestle plant had been among the largest employers in the city. Changeover
for that building to the renovation and employment levels it has now is similar to
the previous use and the amount traffic generated for that operation. In addition,
specifically looking at the proposed daycare site, the office use is one of the
highest density/highest intensity uses in the city. He said in many ways this site
has already been maximized with the existing 10,000 sq. ft. building, unless
structured parking was provided. Longer term the change to Neighborhood
Commercial makes sense. He said in the next two to three years the
Comprehensive Plan will be looking at transportation and land uses citywide.
Commissioner Person said he agreed that it makes sense to rezone the property.
He added that he thinks the facility will be crowded inside and outside with 160
children, but that he supports the proposal.
Commissioner Carper said the proposal is a good use of the site.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, the rezoning, and the variance for proposed
daycare at 2460 State Highway 100. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion,
and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
March 2, 2016
Page 4
B. Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 16-05-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The
intent of the amendments are to update the design standards and make
clarifications. He discussed proposed changes. The proposed ordinance was
presented to the Planning Commission at study sessions on February 3 and
February 17, 2016. He discussed one new clarification which doesn’t appear in
the staff report regarding publicly owned property exemption. The new language
narrows the process to right-of-way land only.
Commissioner Robertson asked about the rules for easements in the subdivision
process.
Mr. Morrison said it is stated that easements are required but may be modified by
the Engineering Department.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No one was present wishing to speak. The
Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper made a motion recommending approval of the amendments
to the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and
the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
4. Other Business
Mr. Walther introduced the new commissioner Torrey Kanne. Ms. Kanne said
she is a resident in the Elmwood neighborhood and she is glad to be part of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Walther discussed changes to the rules and procedures of boards and
commissions made by the City Council.
Commissioners Person and Johnston-Madison spoke about the recent Boards and
Commissions Annual Meeting with the City Council.
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells, Office Assistant
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 17, 2016 – 6:08 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Ethan Rickert (youth member)
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Julie Grove, Gary Morrison
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of February 3, 2016
Commissioner Tatalovich made a motion recommending approval of the minutes
of February 3, 2016. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 4-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. Preliminary and Final Plat; Preliminary and Final PUD
Arlington Row Apartments East
Location: 7700 block, south side Wayzata Blvd. between Rhode
Island and Pennsylvania Ave.
Applicant: Melrose Company, LLC
Case No.: 16-02-S and 16-03-PUD
Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist, presented the staff report. The
requests are made to allow construction of a three-story multi-family residential
building that includes a total of 27 units. Ms. Grove provided background on the
site, noting that a “sister” development Arlington Row Apartments West was
approved by the City Council in November, 2015. She stated that the
Metropolitan Council awarded the Arlington Row West & East developments a
$581,000 Livable Communities demonstration grant for stormwater, geothermal
and solar/energy efficiency.
Ms. Grove discussed utility easements and subdivision variance being requested
as part of the plat request. She provided building and site analysis, zoning
analysis, traffic study summary, landscaping, and designed outdoor recreation
area analysis for the Planned Unit Development.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
February 17, 2016
Page 2
Ms. Grove spoke about the neighborhood meeting which was held on February 9,
2016 on the proposed development. She said the primary concerns regard
increased traffic and parking along 13th Lane. Other concerns included height and
scale of the building and negative impact on property values. Ms. Grove said
since the meeting, planning and engineering staff have been working with the
developer to explore potential ways to alleviate parking concerns on 13th Lane.
Commissioner Peilen asked if construction had begun on Arlington Row Apts.
West.
Ms. Grove responded that phased construction is anticipated to commence on
Arlington Row West in the spring.
Commissioner Peilen asked what kind of progress is being made on parking
concerns on 13th Lane.
Ms. Grove responded staff is looking at several options. She said there will be a
process but perhaps parking could be limited on only one side of the street. The
potential for installing a parking bay on the north side had been ruled out.
Commissioner Carper asked the maximum capacity on 13 Lane from corner to
corner.
Bob Cunningham, principal Melrose Company, applicant, responded that the
capacity adjacent to the development is approximately 10 stalls.
Commissioner Carper asked about guest parking.
Ms. Grove responded that guest parking is incorporated into the required parking.
Commissioner Carper asked about affordable housing.
Ms. Grove said with the grant received from Met Council, the developer had
indicated they would incorporate 6 affordable units total at the complete
development (West and East) at 80% of area median income.
Commissioner Carper asked about the sidewalk.
Ms. Grove responded the sidewalk will just be along the property line. She said
the hope is that eventually it will connect to Pennsylvania Ave. which does have a
sidewalk.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
February 17, 2016
Page 3
Commissioner Carper asked if the Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
would be fenced off. He asked about south facing building materials.
Ms. Grove responded the DORA will be an open design. She said there is less
area of class I materials on the south primarily resulting from the building design
and natural breaks in the façade.
Mr. Cunningham, said apartment residents will be issued a parking sticker. Non-
assigned resident parking and non-assigned guest parking will be inside the
project. Two electric car plug-ins will be added. He said the development is
100% market rate apartments. In conjunction with the Met Council grant,
Melrose agreed to 10% threshold over Arlington Row East and West together.
That would be 6 units. He added that seventeen of the market rate units are
affordable at 80% of the area median income without subsidy, rather on a market
rate basis in the developers own pro forma.
Mr. Cunningham said even though the sidewalk is just along the property line, a
connection has been created from 13th Lane to Wayzata Blvd. on the west side of
the property. He said the DORA will not be fenced. It will be a landscaped
lawn. Raised garden beds will be included. The DORA is not a neighborhood
type park, it is provided for residents of Arlington Row East.
He said the development is being proposed at this location as it is one of the very
few infill lots left in St. Louis Park and it is very well located less than 1,000 ft.
away from a high volume transit facility. He spoke about indoor bike parking
which will be available.
Mike Engel, ESG Architects, further discussed the exterior materials and reasons
for the selections.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
Jana Agrey, 7611 13th Lane, has lived there over 25 years. She said she is
disappointed. She didn’t expect the property would remain vacant but she didn’t
expect to have a 3-story apartment building with tons of traffic on the street. She
said there is already parking overflow from the building at Pennsylvania and
Wayzata Blvd. She said getting onto the frontage road is already difficult. She
spoke about a letter she received from a mortgage company recently soliciting to
sell her property. She said neighbors are also getting similar letters and phone
calls. She wonders if they are going to be pushed out or forced out.
Joy Preston, 7621 13th Lane, said she shares the same concerns. Neighbors did
not expect a 3-story building on the lot two stories higher than the one-story
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
February 17, 2016
Page 4
single family homes. It is kind of shocking. She said her household has three
cars and a shared driveway. During snow emergencies cars have to be juggled
around. If there is parking on 13th Lane, one-side of the street, she will lose
parking for her household. Curb to curb plowing does not occur. Space is lost
on a narrow road and tight corner. There are concerns about school bus coming
down there with parking on both sides of the street.
Yvette Peters-Hutchins, 7721 13th Lane, discussed the plat drawing. She said 13th
between Texas and Rhode Island goes straight into her driveway. She said she
measured the street distance curb to curb which is about 26 ft. wide. With snow
it is about 25 feet. Her truck is 8 feet wide, a standard Nissan Maxima is about 6
- 7ft. wide, a fire engine truck is about 8 feet wide not including mirrors and 24 ft.
long, a garage truck is 8 ½ feet not including mirrors, and an ambulance is 8 feet
wide not including mirrors. She said if cars are parked on both sides of the street
on Rhode Island and in front of her property, emergency vehicles will not be able
to get through. School buses often get stuck. She said it is alarming. Parking is a
problem. In her front yard she will be looking at a building that will be 36 ½ ft.
high. She said she has already contacted a realtor because she can’t look at that.
She said it is a very quiet, great neighborhood with no crime and no issues. She
spoke about an apartment complex on Pennsylvania which has weekly police
calls. She said she’s concerned with Arlington’s lack of parking, high prices, no
underground parking in the winter, that it won’t be desirable. What about fifteen
years down the road when people don’t want to pay those prices without
underground parking. She said residents will be encouraged to park on the street
as it will be more convenient. She said she is alarmed about this area of St. Louis
Park. She said it is a make it or break it project.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked if the neighbors had any suggestions about
parking.
Ms. Peters-Hutchins responded yes, saying permit parking for residents on the
street would be great. She said the residents of the apartment complex could park
in their parking lot or not park at all.
John Johnson, 7701 13th Lane, stated he agrees with his neighbors. He doesn’t
want to look at the building. There are parking and emergency vehicle issues. He
said the Texas/Wayzata intersection is already dangerous. It doesn’t need to
become more dangerous. He wonders what the big picture is. Do they want to
put in more apartments? Do they want to force the neighborhood out? He said he
has a retirement plan and this does not work for his plan. He said he is very
disappointed. He does not want the project to go forward. The neighborhood is a
great place to live. They don’t need more traffic. They don’t need any more
crime.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
February 17, 2016
Page 5
Anthony Hutchins, 7721 13th Lane, said he was concerned about taxes going up
because the waste water system can’t support the additional load of the
development. He said the schools are already over capacity. He said the schools
will not acknowledge that there are drugs in the schools. He said if the new
development brings in kids there will be problems. He said a lot of the kids in the
Pennsylvania Ave. apartments are on drugs and sell drugs in the parks. He said
there are drugs in that Section 8 apartment building all of the time. He said if the
new development brings in Section 8, the same thing will happen. There goes
the neighborhood. He asked if additional policing will be provided.
Chair Johnston-Madison stated that the new development is not Section 8
housing. It is market rate affordable housing.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, explained the Section 8, or
housing choice voucher program, and explained that affordable housing does not
equate to low income housing. Arlington Row Apartments is not subsidized or
low income housing. The one bedroom unit rents at approx. $1,100 are market
rate and affordable at 80% of the area median income. The median income means
that half the households in the metro area make more than that and half the people
in the metro area make less than that. He said in St. Louis Park and the metro
area, 80% of the area median income is not low income. It is simply affordable.
Sharon Desaimeaux, 7720 W. 13 ½ St., stated that last summer there was a drug
bust in the apartment buildings on Pennsylvania. She said she doesn’t want to
see that happen on 13th. She said she sees who lives in those buildings. They
walk down her street. She said she is starting to feel uncomfortable. If you put
housing like this in the next block she doesn’t want to live in fear.
Mr. Cunningham said a lot of thought was given regarding parking for the project.
He said the only point of ingress and egress for the parking lot is going to be off
of Wayzata. Access is not on 13th Lane. Parking, ingress and egress, will be
away from the neighbors. He said that isn’t to say that residents or guests will not
be parking on 13th Lane, but it will be more convenient for residents to park in the
parking lot.
Mr. Cunningham commented on letters and calls residents received from
mortgage companies. He stated that Melrose Company is not involved in that in
any way. Regarding waste water and stormwater, he said the Engineering Dept.
has determined there are adequate utilities to service the project. Stormwater
cannot leave a site at any faster rate than it does now. No additional burden will
be placed on the stormwater system.
The Chair closed the public hearing as there was no one else present wishing to
speak.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
February 17, 2016
Page 6
Commissioner Peilen and Mr. Cunningham discussed background checks that are
conducted on rental applications. Commissioner Peilen discussed in detail
background checks that are important to any responsible property manager.
Chair Johnston-Madison discussed changes to neighborhoods. She spoke about
the city task force that was created to review vacant lots, and she had participated.
She said Arlington Row is a good project and she is very familiar with Mr.
Cunningham and Excelsior & Grand. She said she knows the thought and care
that has gone into his previous projects. She said Mr. Cunningham is one of the
best developers.
Commissioner Carper spoke about a property owner’s right to develop when city
requirements are met. He said he routinely receives inquiries from realtors about
his home. He said he had a tear down and rebuild on his street and is familiar
with change. He said Arlington Row is a quality development and there isn’t any
reason to deny the request.
Commissioner Peilen said she liked the possibility of having permit parking for
residents on 13th Street. She spoke about her own street where that occurred with
a restaurant development.
Commissioner Tatalovich said he agreed with Commissioner Peilen about permit
parking. He made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary and Final
Plat with subdivision variance; and the Arlington Row East Preliminary and Final
Planned Unit Development. He asked that staff and developer continue to work
on the parking and traffic situation on 13th Lane.
Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-
0.
B. Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash
Location: 8700 Highway 7
Applicant: Mister Car Wash (Sheldon Berg, DJR Architecture)
Case No.: 15-51-CUP
Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant, presented the staff report. The request is
in connection with a proposed expansion of an existing carwash building. The
applicant wishes to rescind the existing special permit to allow a carwash in the
FEMA floodplain, and replace it with a conditional use permit to allow a carwash
located in the FEMA floodplain. Mr. Miller reviewed conditions of approval.
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
February 17, 2016
Page 7
Chair Johnston-Madison spoke about the new entrance at 37th. She remarked that
she understands the elevation of the road will be changed at some point.
Mr. Miller said the applicants are aware that the elevation will change in
conjunction with the bridge replacement project.
Commissioner Carper asked about flooding and the design of the building.
Mr. Miller said the western portion of the site that is in the flood fringe overlay
district needs to be able to flood internally. He said that is the case here. It would
flood internally on the site, not the building, and not into the creek.
Tim Vaughan, owner and applicant, explained that the proposal is a way to
improve the efficiency and internal circulation of the car wash and the site.
The Chair 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 rescinding the
existing special permit and approving a conditional use permit to allow a carwash
located in the FEMA floodplain with conditions as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 4-0.
C. Microdistillery & Microdistillery Cocktail Rooms – Zoning Ordinance
Amendment
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 16-04-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The
amendment is being proposed in connection with the recently amended City
liquor license ordinance creating a license for microdistillery cocktail rooms and
an off-sale license for microdistilleries.
Commissioner Carper asked about the definition of co-location.
Mr. Morrison responded that co-location is addressed in a couple of ways in the
liquor license amendment. No single ownership can have both a taproom and a
cocktail room. A taproom can be operated by a brewery within the premises or an
adjacent property and the same holds true in a microdistillery in that building or
adjacent property. He looks at it as a multi-tenant industrial facility (two
businesses next to each other). In co-location a taproom would not be able to sell
cocktails in the same facility. Mr. Morrison spoke about ownership groups and
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
February 17, 2016
Page 8
the liquor ordinance as far as who is getting a license. He said he would look at
the ordinance to confirm this.
The Chair opened the public hearing. As no one else was present wishing to
speak, she closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Peilen made a motion recommending approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment pertaining to microdistilleries and microdistillery cocktail
rooms. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on
a vote of 4-0.
4. Other Business: None
5. Communications
Mr. Walther reminded Commissioners about the February 22, 2016 boards and
commissions’ annual meeting with City Council.
Mr. Walther noted that the City Council appointed Torrey Kanne to the Planning
Commission.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
A study session regarding proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance began at
7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Sr. Office Assistant
Planning Commission
Meeting Date: March 16, 2016
Agenda Item #3A
3A. Excelsior & Monterey (Bridgewater Dominium Addition)
Preliminary Plat with Variances and Preliminary Planned Unit Development
Address: 4400, 4424 Excelsior Blvd; 3743 Monterey Drive
Applicant: St. Louis Park Leased Housing Associates I, LLC
Case No.: 15-32-S, 15-33-PUD, 15-46-VAR
120-day deadline: May 31, 2016
Recommended Action: Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat with
Subdivision Variances and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD), subject to
conditions recommended by Staff.
REQUEST:
St. Louis Park Leased Housing Associates I, LLC requests approvals of a Preliminary Plat with
variances and Preliminary PUD. The PUD is a rezoning and zoning text amendment of the
property under the City’s PUD ordinance. The preliminary plat would combine the three parcels
at 4400 and 4424 Excelsior Boulevard and 3743 Monterey Drive and create two parcels.
The proposed development is a six story, mixed used building. The first floor of the development
will be commercial, with the upper five floors being comprised of multifamily residential rental
housing. The residential portion of the project will provide at least 20% of the units to tenants at
or below 50% of the county area median income (AMI). Structured parking will be provided
within and below the building.
BACKGROUND:
Bridgewater Bank purchased 4424 Excelsior Boulevard and 4400 Excelsior Boulevard. The
Economic Development Authority (EDA) owns 3743 Monterey Drive 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.
Existing Site Conditions:
The site is on the northeast corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive, across Monterey
Drive from Trader Joe’s. The proposed development is in the Wolfe Park Neighborhood. Nearby
parks and open space amenities include Wolfe Park and Bass Lake Preserve. The site is served
by Metro Transit Bus Route 12 along Excelsior Boulevard. The site is just over one-half mile
from the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail and the future Beltline Southwest Light Rail Transit
Station.
The three combined parcels are 2.39 acres in size and include a single-story commercial building
that houses several retail businesses and a two-story building that has recently been renovated
where Bridgewater Bank has opened a local branch. The St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority owns the vacant wooded lot to the north.
There is a large grade change on the site, with the northern portion of the site lying
approximately 20 feet below the grade of Excelsior Boulevard. The site is generally flat along
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 2
Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. The northern portions of the site are also generally flat
and used for a surface parking lot. There is an existing 20 foot tall retaining wall on the property.
Site Location Map.
Site Area: 2.89 acres; excluding proposed road right-of-way the combined site will be 2.39 acres
Current Zoning Districts: C2 – General Commercial, R4 – Multiple Family Residence
Proposed Zoning District: PUD – Planned Unit Development
Comprehensive Plan Designation: MX – Mixed-Use
Current Use: Multi-tenant retail, Bridgewater Bank, and a wooded vacant lot
Adjacent Uses:
North: 3-story tall multi-family residential, nursing home, single family dwellings, 36½ St W
East: car wash, single family residential, Kipling Ave S
South: Excelsior Blvd, 1- and 2-story tall commercial buildings
West: Monterey Dr, 5-story tall mixed-use building, 3-story tall multiple family residential
PUD ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: In 2015, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan future land
use map amendment to guide this land for Mixed Use. The current zoning map contemplates
commercial and multiple family uses. 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
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 3
floors. Mixed-use is intended to accommodate mixed-income housing, a mix of housing types on
the same block, and higher density development.
Zoning Table. The following table provides the zoning metrics for the development.
Factor Required Proposed
Use Mixed-use Mixed-use
Lot Area 2.0 acres minimum 2.89 acres (2.39 after the plat)
Residential Density Up to 50 units per acre; higher
densities are allowed with a PUD
Lot 1: 80.8 units per acre
Lot 2: no residential proposed
Height No specific limits apply to this
property, it is not adjacent to R1
or R2 districts
71.5 ft. tall; a rooftop metal
trellis extends to 76.5 ft. tall
Off-Street Parking 264 spaces (1/bedroom)
79 spaces (1/250 sq. ft., -10%)
343 spaces total
298 spaces on level P1 and P2
82 spaces on Level 1
380 spaces total
Setbacks N/A for PUD Lot 1: (new building)
Front (south) – 7 ft. or more
Side (west) – 9’10” or more
Side (east) – 8’9” or more
Rear (north) – 33 ft. or more
Lot 2: (existing building)
Front (south) – 20 ft. or more
Side (west) – 0 ft.
Side (east) – 15 ft. or more
Rear (north) – 0 ft.
Commercial Use of
Ground Floor Area
N/A for PUD 17,500 sq. ft. new building
4,400 sq. ft. existing remaining
Ground Floor Area
Ratio
N/A for PUD 0.62
D.O.R.A. 11,414 sq. ft. (12% of lot area) 13,579 sq. ft. (14.3%)
Tree Replacement 222.1 caliper inches
($130 per caliper inch not planted)
Approx. 67 caliper inches +
Cash-in-lieu ($20,098)
Landscaping 185 trees 56 trees per zoning definition
(82 trees actual with 31 over-
story and 51 ornamental trees)
1,307 shrubs 423 shrubs
1,243 perennials
Alternative landscaping A rooftop amenity courtyard
on the 2nd level.
Transit service None required Routes 12, 615, 604
Stormwater Required city and watershed
standards
Stormwater management is
provided underground
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 4
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.
The proposed building is six stories tall with ground floor commercial storefronts and the
residential lobby. Residential units occupy the 2nd through sixth floors. The upper stories of the
building are in a U-shape that open up to the north side of the site and surrounds a rooftop
amenity space on the second level.
The building height steps down to three stories on the northwest corner of the building, in order
to reduce shadowing impacts. This results in generous balcony spaces for units in this terraced
area. On the south façade, the first and sixth levels are recessed at least six feet. On the ground
floor, this provides a covered walkway along the storefronts. Having the sixth floor stepped back
helps make the building appear to be only five-stories tall from the sidewalk and improves the
“human-scale” of the building. Similarly, the sixth level of the building is stepped back at least
six feet from the rest of the façade along Monterey Drive. The proposed building uses attractive
and quality exterior materials such as brick, glass, stucco and cement board siding.
The plan provides an efficient commercial parking level with accesses from Excelsior Boulevard
and Monterey Drive. Separate access is provided from Monterey Drive to the lower parking
levels that will be used by residents. Limited on-street parking also available on Excelsior
Boulevard.
The development provides a quality rooftop amenity space for residents on the second level of
the building, which also breaks up the massing of the building on the north side. A six-foot wide
landscaped boulevard, sidewalk, and foundation plantings are provided along Monterey Drive.
On Excelsior Boulevard, similar to today, there is a sidewalk adjacent to the curb and on-street
parking, and landscaped planters are provided between the sidewalk and the covered walkway
along the storefronts.
(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.
The design extends the urban-like, mixed-use environment established by Excelsior & Grand
and other developments surrounding Wolfe Park to this prominent intersection. It continues the
commercial use of the ground floor along Excelsior Boulevard and adds residential above. The
impacts to neighboring properties of the taller building, such as shadowing, are limited by
stepping down the height in some areas. Most of the traffic is directed to Excelsior Boulevard or
Monterey Drive, except service vehicles and move-ins which may occur on the north side of the
property accessed via 36½ Street and an existing driveway easement.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 5
(3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy.
The applicant proposes to meet the city’s green building policy and this will be required as a
condition of approval.
(4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged.
Landscaping will be included on the second floor amenity terrace. On-site renewable energy and
white roofs are not proposed.
Architectural Design:
A general description of the building was provided above.
Height: As noted previously, the building is six stories and 71.5 feet tall, with a metal terrace
accenting the southwest corner of the building rises to 76.5 feet tall. On the north side of the
site, the building will be closer to eight stories tall on the north side of the site (at the current
parking lot level) due to the drop in elevation where the lower parking levels are exposed and/or
retaining walls are installed.
The PUD district has the flexibility to allow taller buildings and smaller setbacks, as the City
Council deems appropriate.
Pedestrian-level design elements: The ground floor commercial would have storefront windows
all along Excelsior Blvd and approximately four direct entrances to the public sidewalk,
including a corner entrance into Bridgewater Bank’s proposed space. Storefront windows are
also provided along Monterey Drive with an additional entrance on the north end of the
Bridgewater bank tenant space and the residential lobby entrance.
The PUD ordinance will include transparency requirements for the storefront windows on the
ground floor and requirements for the entrances to these spaces be open during normal business
hours.
Exterior Materials: The exterior materials include at least 60% class one materials on each of the
four elevations including, brick, glass, stucco, and fiber cement board lap siding. Other
materials include metal panel and rock face block concrete masonry.
Shadowing: The shadow study provided by the architect certifies and confirms that the building
meets the shadowing requirements. It can shadow another building wall more 50% for no more
than two hours between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. for no more than 60 days per year.
Density
The Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan land use designation allows residential densities up to 50
units per acre, and higher densities may be allowed with a PUD. The density on Lot 1 would be
80.8 units per acre. No residential units are proposed on Lot 2. The overall residential density of
both lot combined would be 69.9 units per acre.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 6
The appropriateness of the density can be further evaluated based upon projected parking
demand/provision and traffic impacts/mitigation. Both are discussed further later the report.
Parking
The plan provides 380 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum requirements of the zoning
code. On Level 1 there are 82 parking spaces that serve new commercial development and the
existing bank building that will remain. The zoning code requires 79 spaces for the commercial
uses. On Levels P1 and P2, the plan provides 298 parking spaces. The zoning code requires 64
spaces. The plan meets the parking requirements. There is also on-street parking available on
Excelsior Boulevard.
Access
Vehicles may access the site from three surrounding streets. The ground floor commercial
parking has a right-in/right-out access driveway on Excelsior Boulevard. The commercial
parking also has a full access driveway on Monterey Drive that is aligned with Park Commons
Drive. Another full access driveway on Monterey Drive is provided 140 feet north of Park
Commons Drive that serves the two levels of underground parking that building residents would
use. Finally, there is a driveway easement that connects to 36th Street West that can be used for
service vehicles (waste/recycling collection) or apartment move-ins.
The building also has pedestrian access from the adjacent sidewalks and there is a nearby bus
stop on Excelsior Boulevard.
Traffic
Trip Generation: The development is expected to generate approximately 178 trips (99 in/79 out)
during the p.m. peak hour and 1,670 daily trips. Considering the trip generation for existing land
uses on site and anticipated pass-by trips, approximately 113 net new p.m. peak hour trips (67
in/46 out) and 1,036 net new daily trips are expected.
Traffic studies were conducted as part of the Comprehensive Plan change to mixed use on this
site in 2015. The studies concluded that the impact of the proposed development traffic
generation will not significantly impact the overall operations for intersections in the area or
Excelsior Boulevard. However, at the intersection of Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive,
there would be increased delays for the Park Commons Drive leg of the intersection.
Park Commons Drive and Monterey Drive Improvements: This intersection experiences delays,
mainly due to left turns heading northbound on Monterey Drive, and results in queues that back
up and block the Trader Joe’s parking lot driveway during peak times. During the peak times, the
intersection experiences congestion. With the proposed development, the operations of this leg
of the intersection will get worse during the peak traffic times.
Based on the traffic studies, the City Council has directed staff to include in the capital
improvements plan the installation of a dedicated right turn lane on Park Commons Drive.
Sixty-percent of the eastbound vehicles turn right at Monterey Drive toward Excelsior
Boulevard, so a turn lane would reduce the delay for most vehicles and reduce the queues that
block the Trader Joe’s driveway. This improvement, even with added development traffic, is
expected to improve the operations for this leg of the intersection that are experienced today. The
timing of this improvement has not yet been determined.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 7
The developer may be required to contribute to the costs of this improvement because of its
impact to the level of service.
The traffic study, without the appendices, is attached for your information. The full study and
other traffic reviews that occurred in 2015 are available for review on the city website at
http://www.stlouispark.org/proposed-development/bridgewater.html.
The Director of Engineering will be available at the meeting to respond to questions.
Other minor changes: Staff is recommending that the first on-street parking stall on Excelsior
Boulevard located east of Monterey Drive be posted “No Parking” and that the second on-street
parking stall be posted “No Parking Loading Zone Only”. Also, staff recommends posting “No
Parking Fire Lane” between the two new private driveways on the east side of Monterey Drive.
Setbacks
The plan provides building setbacks seven feet or more on the south side, nine feet-ten inches or
more on the west side, and eight feet-nine inches or more on the east side, and 33 feet or more on
the feet on the north side. In a PUD, buildings may be set up to the property line.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The plan provides 14.3% of the lot area for DORA. It meets the minimum 12% requirement on
the private rooftop amenity space. In addition, a dog run is also provide on the north side of the
site. Additional information about the amenities are provided in the alternative landscaping
discussion.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan provides 51 of the 185 over-story trees required on the site. There will be
31 over-story trees and 51 ornamental trees planted. (Ornamental trees count as ½ of an over-
story tree in the zoning code.) The plan provides 423 1,307 shrubs required. The landscape plan
also provides 1,243 perennial grass plantings. These plantings occur in the boulevards, in raised
planter beds along the building foundations, along property lines, and in raised planters on the
rooftop amenity space.
Please note: The L001 Landscape Title Sheet incorrectly calculates the required tree and shrub
plantings and tree replacement. This can be reconciled before the City Council meeting.
Tree Replacement: A number of trees will be removed to accommodate the planned
development. Twenty-five of the trees are considered significant trees under the zoning code and
require replacement. The other trees are either undesirable species or too small to be considered
significant. The tree replacement requirement is 230 caliper inches. The proposed planting plan
provides 135 caliper inches. Therefore, as currently designed, the landscaping plan is 95 caliper
inches short of the required tree replacement. The developer may pay a fee in lieu of plantings
of $130 per caliper inch ($12,350) to the city’s tree fund for the shortfall. These funds are used to
plant trees on public property throughout the city.
Waste Storage
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 8
The trash is proposed to be managed inside the building. The trash and recycling room locations
for the residential will be the lowest parking level (P2), and there are trash and recycling chutes
provided to all floors. The commercial trash and recycling will be in an enclosed room on Level
1. The spaces provided would be large enough to accommodate organics recycling if that is
pursued by the property owners and managers, which the city encourages.
Utilities
The utility plans meet the storm water management and utility requirements. The infrastructure
in the area has capacity to serve the proposed use. However, the nearest stormwater main is
located in Monterey drive 218 feet north of the site. The plan proposes to extend the main south
under Monterey Drive. Staff estimates this work would require a road closure for 2-4 weeks.
Other proposed utility connections would cause limited disruptions during construction.
The plan will also require Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) review and permits.
Lighting
The plans provide exterior lighting for the surface parking lot. The plan appears to meet the
requirements at the property lines. However, the average lighting levels on the surface parking
lot appear to be slightly higher than code requires. Code requires a the average to be between 0.5
to 1.0 foot candles, and it appears the lighting plan would have an average light level of 1.44
foot candles. This will need to be corrected prior to City Council review.
PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES ANALYSIS:
The preliminary plat combines three existing parcels, creates into two new parcels and dedicates
right-of-way to surrounding streets where road easements currently exist, and it provides
drainage and utility easements surrounding the parcel adjacent to the proposed right-of-way. The
plat is named “Bridgewater Dominium Addition”.
Lots:
Lot 1, Block 1, Bridgewater Dominium Addition will have a lot area of 2.18 acres. This lot is
proposed to be developed with a mixed-use building with 17,500 square feet of ground floor
commercial and 167 multiple-family residential units with structured parking under the building.
This will be a corner lot with frontage on Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive.
Lot 2, Block 1, Bridgewater Dominium Addition will have a lot area of 0.21 acres. This lot will
contain an existing two-story 4,400 square foot commercial building. The parking for this
property will be provided off-site on the first level of the mixed-use building on Lot 1, Block 1
of the same PUD.
Right-of-Way Dedication: The preliminary plat will dedicate 0.50 acres of land for road right-
of-way to surrounding streets and generally follows the boundaries of existing road easements.
Hennepin County reviewed the proposal and did not provide any formal comments.
Utility Easements: The plan provides a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along
Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. It also
provides 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along most interior lot lines. The only
exception is along the common lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the proposed plat, where no
easement is provided.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 9
However, the development plans have encroachments into the drainage and utility easements
that are provided on the plat. On the northwest side of the lot, there are retaining walls that are
range from three to eight feet in height and approximately 155 feet long that are within the
easement. On the northeast side of the lot, there is also a retaining wall that ranges from one to
ten feet tall and approximately 75 feet long. These may be allowed with encroachment
agreement. While the retaining walls will hinder the use to some degree, there would still be
value to dedicating the easements on the plat for future use.
There are also two areas where there are slight encroachments of the building into the 10-foot
drainage and utility easements. These are relatively small encroachments, but it is staff’s
recommendation that the easements simply be reduced with the variance application in these
areas to eliminate the encroachments. On the northwest corner of the lobby entrance, the
building encroaches 2 inches. On the southeast corner of the building, about 35 feet of the
building strays zero to 3 feet into the easement. Again, a change to the plat is recommended by
staff with a subdivision variance.
There are existing easements along internal lot lines that will need to be vacated to accommodate
the development. There are also existing electric utilities that will need to be relocated by the
developer. It is staff’s understanding that the relocated facilities can be accommodated within the
easements provided. This will be confirmed prior to any city council hearings relating to the
vacation of existing drainage and utility easements.
Subdivision Variance Application: The variances are regarding drainage and utility easements on
the plat. The plat proposes variances from five feet to zero feet along either side of the shared
property line between Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed plat. In addition, variances are needed on
Lot 1 from the 10-foot easement requirement down to approximately 9.5 feet along Monterey
drive in one isolated location near the proposed lobby, and down to 7 to 9.5 feet for an
approximately 35 feet length at the southeast corner of the proposed building along Excelsior
Boulevard.
Staff offers the following findings:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant/owner of the
reasonable use of the land.
Lots 1 and 2 are part of the same planned unit development proposal. The sites are intended
to operate dependently with shared parking. Both the existing building, and appurtenances to
the new building (area well) will have zero setbacks from the common property line.
The minor reductions in the easement widths along Monterey and Excelsior Boulevard are
still larger than those provided at similar mixed use developments east of the site, where
easements of zero to five feet have been allowed along public streets.
2. 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 property is situated.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 10
3. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship. The
topography of the site includes a grade change of up to 20 feet and the development includes
an existing building that will be retained and existing retaining walls that will be relocated
and replaced as part of the development.
4. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance
accommodates a mixed-use building consistent with the land use guidance. The proposed
easements along Monterey Drive and Excelsior Boulevard expand the area available for
public utilities compared to what is available today.
Based on the above findings, staff recommends approval of the subdivision variances to reduce
the width of the drainage and utilities easements in the locations described above.
Park and Trail Dedication:
The proposed development will increase the intensity of the development on the property. The
City will require park and trail dedication fees to be collected for the residential units that are
being added to the site. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission met on February 17,
2016 and recommended collecting cash-in-lieu of land for the park dedication. The current park
dedication fee is $1,500 per dwelling unit and the trail dedication fee is $225 per dwelling unit.
The fees would total $250,500 and $37,575 for the park and trail dedication respectively.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Most recently, for the current applications, the developer held a neighborhood information open
house on March 3, 2016. Approximately 40 neighbors attended. In general, most of the concerns
and questions related to traffic generated from the development, the congestion and delays at the
Park Commons Drive intersection with Monterey Drive, and the overall height and scale of the
building. A couple of people expressed concerns about the loss of the existing trees. A few
people mentioned safety of pedestrian crossings at Park Commons Drive and Monterey.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances, based on
the findings in the report, with the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the City Council
resolution, Official Exhibits, Development Agreement and City Code.
2. 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.
3. Tree replacement and park and trail dedication fees shall be paid to the City of St. Louis
Park.
4. Approval of the preliminary plat is subject to successful vacation of the existing easements
and appropriate accommodation of private utilities that need to be relocated.
5. 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.
6. A permanent shared parking agreement across Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2 shall be
recorded upon filing of the final plat and prior to issuance of building permits for the
development. Said agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 11
7. A development agreement upon approval of a final plat shall be executed between the
City and Developer that addresses, at a minimum:
a. A performance guarantee for 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation
of all public improvements, placement of iron monuments at property corners,
landscaping and irrigation.
b. The applicant shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting and reviewing such
documents as required in the final plat approval.
c. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities (excluding building demolition or
environmental investigation), the following conditions shall be met:
1) City approval of the final plat.
2) Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City.
3) Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property
owner(s).
4) Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered
engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
5) A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction, private utilities, and City representatives.
6) All necessary permits must be obtained.
7) 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
(sidewalks, utilities, street lights, street repair, landscaping, irrigation, etc.) and
the private site landscaping.
8. Prior to issuance of any building permits (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(s).
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 (sidewalks, utilities,
street lights, road repair, landscaping, irrigation, etc.) and private site landscaping.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD with the following conditions:
1. Approval of vacation of the existing easements and appropriate accommodation of private
utilities that need to be relocated.
2. Approval of the final PUD ordinance is required.
3. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the PUD ordinance,
Official Exhibits, Development Agreement and City Code.
4. A permanent agreement for shared parking and a parking management plan shall be
submitted for city review prior to City Council review of the final PUD, and shall be
recorded upon recording of the final plat.
5. The required landscaping and tree replacement calculations shall be corrected on the
Landscaping Plans prior to City Council review.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 12
6. The lighting plan shall be corrected to fall within the city’s exterior surface parking lot
lighting level requirements prior to City Council review.
7. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities (excluding demolition and environmental
investigation), the following conditions shall be met:
a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City.
b. City approval of the final PUD ordinance is required.
c. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner.
d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction,
private utility, and City representatives.
e. All necessary permits must be obtained.
8. Prior to issuance of any building permits (excluding demolition), the following conditions
shall be met:
a. The developer shall sign the City's Assent Form and the Official Exhibits.
b. A development agreement shall be executed between the Developer and City that
addresses, at a minimum:
1. The conditions of the final PUD approval as applicable or appropriate.
2. Participation by the property owner in the special service district relating to
maintenance of streetscape improvements within the public right-of-way along
Excelsior Boulevard.
3. Installation and on-going maintenance at Developer’s expense of on-street parking
areas and streetscape improvements along all public streets adjacent to the site. Final
plans for said improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval prior to construction.
4. 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 125% of the costs of
all public improvements (street, sidewalks, utility, street lights, landscaping, etc.),
placement of iron monuments at the property corners, and the private site stormwater
management system and landscaping.
5. The developer shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents as required in the final PUD approval.
6. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered
engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
7. Building material samples and colors must be submitted to the City for review.
9. 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. No construction activity shall occur on Sundays and
holidays. Limited exceptions to these construction hours may be permitted if the City
issues a noise permit.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighborhood
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.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 13
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.
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 Excelsior Boulevard 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.
10. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit public improvements
and private site landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the Official
Exhibits.
11. All utilities shall be buried underground.
12. All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened.
13. The materials used in and placement of all signs shall be integrated with the building design
and architecture.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
Draft PUD Ordinance
Traffic Study (less appendices)
Civil Engineering Plans
o Cover Sheet (site location, rendering, metrics)
o Renderings
o Shadow Study
o Existing Conditions
o Demolition Plan
o Site Plan (civil engineering)
o Grading Plan (includes retaining wall elevations)
o Utility Plan
Landscaping Plans
o Title Sheet (landscaping metrics)
o Site Plan (landscaping)
o Landscape Plan
o Level2 Amenity Roof Deck Plan
Architectural Plans
o Site Plan (architectural)
o Level P2 Floor Plan
o Level Pl Floor Plan
o Level 1 Floor Plan
o Level 2 Floor Plan
o Level 3 Floor Plan
o Level 4 Floor plan
o Level 5 Floor Plan
o Level 6 Floor Plan
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 14
o Exterior Elevations (south & west)
o Exterior Elevations (east and north)
o Exterior Elevations (courtyard )
o Lighting Plan
Plat Drawings
o Preliminary Plat
o Final Plat 1 of 2 (draft)
o Final Plat 2 of 2 (draft)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 15
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 16
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.____ -16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING CHANGING ZONING DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES AND CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD 6 AS A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
4400 AND 4424 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD AND 3743 MONTEREY DRIVE
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. 15-32-S, 15-33-PUD, 15-46-VAR) for amending the Zoning Ordinance
and Zoning Map 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 provided on “Exhibit
A” attached hereto.
Sec. 4. The Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the zoning of the above described
property from General Commercial (C2) and Multiple Family Residential (R4) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD 6).
Sec. 5. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is also hereby amended to
add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District:
Section 36-268-PUD 6.
(a). Development Plan
The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following
Final PUD signed Official Exhibits:
Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit
Civil Engineering Plans
o Cover Sheet
o Renderings
o Shadow Study
o Existing Conditions
o Demolition Plan
o Site Plan
o Grading Plan
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 17
o Utility Plan
Landscaping Plans
o Title Sheet
o Site Plan
o Landscape Plan
o Level2 Amenity Roof Deck Plan
Architectural Plans
o Site Plan (architectural)
o Level P2 Floor Plan
o Level Pl Floor Plan
o Level 1 Floor Plan
o Level 2 Floor Plan
o Level 3 Floor Plan
o Level 4 Floor plan
o Level 5 Floor Plan
o Level 6 Floor Plan
o Exterior Elevations
o Exterior Elevations
o Exterior Elevations
o Lighting Plan
Plat Drawings
o Preliminary Plat
o Final Plat 1 of 2
o Final Plat 2 of 2
The site shall also conform to the following requirements:
(1) The property shall be developed with up to 167 multiple family dwelling units
totaling not more than 264 bedrooms, and not more than 17,500 square feet of
commercial space on Lot 1, Block 1, Bridgewater Dominium Addition; and no
more than 4,400 square feet of commercial on Lot 2, Block 1, Bridgewater
Dominium Addition.
(2) Parking will be provided in the parking structure. Three-hundred eighty (380) off-
street parking spaces shall be provided, including at least 264 spaces for the
residential units and at least 79 spaces for commercial uses.
(3) The maximum building height will be 72 feet and six stories tall, plus up to an
additional five feet for a rooftop metal trellis architectural element on the
southwest corner of the building.
(4) The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor
recreation area based on private developable land area.
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the PUD 6 district.
(1) Multiple family uses.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 18
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in the PUD 6 district may be
used for one or more of the following uses if it complies with the conditions specified for
the use in this subsection:
(1) Commercial uses. Commercial uses limited to the following: bank, food service,
grocery store, large item retail, liquor store, medical or dental offices less than
2,500 square feet, office, private entertainment (indoor), retail, service, showroom
and studio. These commercial uses shall meet the following conditions:
a. Commercial uses are limited to the first floor.
b. Hours of operation, including loading/unloading of deliveries, for commercial
uses shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m.
c. In-vehicle sales or service is prohibited.
d. Restaurants are prohibited.
e. Outdoor storage is prohibited.
(2) Civic and institutional uses. Civic and institutional uses are limited to the
following: education/academic, indoor public parks/open space, libraries,
museums/art galleries, police service substations, post office customer service
facilities, public studios and performance theaters.
(d) Accessory uses
Accessory uses are as follows:
(1) Parking ramps.
(2) 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.
(3) Home occupations complying with all of the conditions in the R-C district.
(4) Catering, if accessory to a food service, grocery store or retail bakery.
(5) No outdoor uses or storage allowed.
(e) Special Performance Standards
(1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance must
be met, including but not limited to outdoor lighting, architectural design,
parking, landscaping, and all screening requirements.
(2) Each commercial tenant space on the first floor shall have a direct and primary
access to the outside of the building that is open during business hours.
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 19
(3) All trash handling and loading areas must be inside of the building and screened
from view.
(4) Signs shall be allowed in conformance with the following conditions:
a. The maximum allowable number, size and height of signs shall be regulated
by section 36-362 per the MX district regulations.
b. Pylon signs are prohibited.
(5) Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground
floor non-residential facades located in the mixed-use building facing Excelsior
Boulevard:
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.
(6) 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.
(7) Use of Sidewalk. A business may use that portion of a sidewalk extending a
maximum of five feet from the building wall for the following purposes, provided
a six-foot minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard is maintained
between obstructions on public sidewalks and provided that all activity is
occurring on private property:
a. Display of merchandise.
b. Benches, planters, ornaments and art.
c. Signage, as permitted in the zoning ordinance.
d. Outdoor seating areas may extend beyond five feet of the building,
provided six feet minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior
Boulevard is maintained between the obstructions on the sidewalk. An
agreement shall be obtained for any temporary private use of public land
for seating upon any public right-of-way or public easements.
Sec. 6. The contents of Planning Case File 15-32-S, 15-33-PUD and 15-36-VAR are
hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this
case.
Sec. 7. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing March 16, 2016
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 20
First Reading
Second Reading
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council __________, 2016
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of March 16, 2016
Excelsior & Monterey – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD
Page 21
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
Memorandum
SRF No. 0158921
To: Debra Heiser, P.E., Engineering Director
City of St. Louis Park
From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate
Jordan Schwarze, PE, Senior Engineer
Date: September 28, 2015
Subject: Excelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation
Introduction
SRF has completed a subarea evaluation in the vicinity of the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive
intersection located in the City of St. Louis Park (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives
of this study are to evaluate various forms of traffic control and access at the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection as well as evaluate traffic volumes on 36th-1/2 Street with regard
to roadway capacity. The following sections provide the assumptions, analysis, and study conclusions
offered for consideration.
Data Collection
Various data collection efforts have been conducted within the study area since October 2014. Peak
period turning movement and pedestrian counts were collected by Spack Consulting during the week
of October 13, 2014 at the following study intersections:
• Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue
• Excelsior Boulevard and Princeton Avenue
• Park Commons Drive and Quentin Avenue
• Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue
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
ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM
0158921
September 2015
Project Location Figure 1H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig01_Project Location.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation
Saint Louis Park, MN NORTHNorthExcelsi
o
r
Bl
v
d Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Park C
o
m
m
o
n
s
D
r
Pr
ince
ton
Ave
36th-1/2 St
Quent
in
AveGrand
WayNatchez
Ave
38th StMerid
ian
LnKipling Ave- Study Intersection
- All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection
- Side-Street Stop Controlled Intersection
- Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection
LEGEND
See Inset
INSET
2
0
5
’
120’
90 ’
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Peak period turning movement and pedestrian counts were collected by SRF during the week of
June 15, 2015 at the following study intersections:
• Excelsior Boulevard and Grand Way/Natchez Avenue
• Excelsior Boulevard and Meridian Lane (15-minute pulse count)
• Park Commons Drive and Grand Way (15-minute pulse count)
• Park Commons Drive and Meridian Lane (15-minute pulse count)
• Kipling Avenue and 36th-1/2 Street (15-minute pulse count)
Historical average daily traffic (ADT) volumes within the study area were provided by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive Intersection Evaluation
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify the impacts of
potential traffic control and access alternatives at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive
intersection.
Crash Analysis
A review of crash records available from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety via the MnDOT
Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool was completed over a 5-year period from 2010 to 2014. One
non-injury, nighttime right-angle crash involving a southbound through vehicle and an eastbound
left-turning vehicle was identified in the study period at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive
intersection. The resulting intersection crash rate of 0.05 crashes per million entering vehicles is well
below the statewide average of 0.18 for urban through/stop intersections. Therefore, the
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection does not have a statistically significant number of
crashes. It should be noted that the crash analysis was completed only for the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection.
Sight Distance
Despite a low intersection crash rate, a sight distance issue was identified in the northwest quadrant
of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. Two trees were observed to partially
obstruct the view of the southbound Monterey Drive approach for motorists waiting on the
Park Commons Drive approach. The AASHTO recommended minimum sight distance for a left-turn
maneuver from a stop condition across two lanes of a 30 mph roadway is 355 feet. As illustrated in
Figure 2, the identified trees prevent a clear view out to 355 feet on the Park Commons Drive
approach, and can limit visibility of an oncoming southbound vehicle. No other sight distance issues
were identified at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection.
Page 3
0158921
September 2015
Sight Distance IssuesH:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig02_Sight Distance Issues.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation
Saint Louis Park, MN
Figure 2NORTHNorthExisting Sight Distance is estimated
to be approximately 150’
355’ = AASHTO recommended minimum sight
distance for a left-turn maneuver from a stop
condition across two lanes of a 30 mph roadway
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Traffic Volumes
Based on data collected in March 2015, a 13-hour Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection
traffic volume profile was created. The plotted traffic volume profile, shown in Chart 1, illustrates
slight a.m. and midday peaks, but fairly consistent traffic volumes from morning to the mid-afternoon.
However, a significant traffic volume increase is shown beginning in the mid-afternoon and
continuing into the early evening. The traffic volume profile indicates that a capacity analysis of the
p.m. peak hour (i.e. 4:45 to 5:45 p.m.) will illustrate a worst-case operations scenario for the
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour will serve as the
design hour and be modeled under a number of traffic control and access alternatives.
Chart 1. Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive Intersection Volume Profile
Alternatives Evaluation
As part of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection evaluation, various traffic control
and access alternatives were assessed under existing conditions to optimize intersection operations
and safety. The areas of focus were eastbound Park Commons Drive delays and queues.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PMHourly Traffic VolumeMonterey Drive/Park Commons Drive Intersection
Weekday Traffic Volume Profile -March 2015
All Intersection Approaches
Monterey Drive SB Approach
Monterey Drive NB Approach
Park Commons Drive EB Approach
Page 5
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Intersection Capacity Analysis
The following traffic control and access alternatives were evaluated at the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection under existing conditions:
• Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access)
• Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane
• Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access
• Alternative 4 – All-Way Stop with Full Access
• Alternative 5 – Roundabout with Full Access
• Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access
• Alternative 7 – Side-Street Stop with Right-In/Right-Out Access
• Alternative 8 – Closed Side-Street Access
Results of the intersection capacity analysis for the various Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive
intersection alternatives under existing traffic volumes are summarized in Table 1. The primary goal
of the table is to illustrate the effect of the alternatives on Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive
intersection delays and queues, particularly the eastbound Park Commons Drive approach. A
secondary goal of the table is to illustrate the effect of the alternatives on nearby intersections. All
intersection alternatives resulted in acceptable overall intersection operations and negligible impacts
on adjacent intersections. However, some alternatives produced more favorable side-street delay and
queuing results than others. It should be noted that various alternatives may require additional analysis
or considerations. Detailed alternatives evaluation results showing average delay/queue lengths for
the study intersections under existing traffic volumes are provided in Appendix A.
Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access)
As documented in the 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (dated May 1, 2015), the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection currently operates at an overall Level of Service A (LOS A) during
the p.m. peak hour. The Park Commons Drive side-street approach operates at LOS D. Queuing
issues were also documented along Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive. Southbound queues
along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard were observed to extend through Park Commons Drive
approximately 10 to 15 percent of the p.m. peak hour. However, access to the dedicated southbound
right-turn lane on the Monterey Drive approach to Excelsior Boulevard was blocked only
approximately five (5) to 10 percent of the p.m. peak hour, as motorists tended to queue in the inside
southbound through lane to prepare for a left-turn maneuver at Excelsior Boulevard.
The documented southbound queues also impact motorists along Park Commons Drive as they
attempt to access Monterey Drive, resulting in increased delay and queues. As observed during the
week of June 15, 2015, eastbound queues extended beyond the Trader Joe’s access (i.e. approximately
120 feet or more) along Park Commons Drive approximately 20 to 25 percent of the p.m. peak hour.
Page 6
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Table 1. Intersection Capacity Summary with Alternatives – Existing Traffic Volumes – P.M. Peak Hour
Intersection
Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive Intersection Alternatives
Alternative 1
No Build (Existing
Side-Street Stop
Full Access)
Alternative 2
Side-Street Stop
Full Access with
EB Right-Turn Lane
Alternative 3
Side-Street Stop
Three-Quarter Access
Alternative 4
All-Way Stop
Full Access
Alternative 5
Roundabout
Full Access
Alternative 6
Traffic Signal
Full Access
Alternative 7
Side-Street Stop
Right-In/Right-Out
Access
Alternative 8
Closed
Side-Street Access
Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive
(95th Percentile Queues) (1) (2)
[Park Commons Drive ADT Volume]
(EB = 155 Feet)
(SB = 55 Feet)
(NB = 45 Feet)
[4,400 veh/day]
(EB = 90 Feet)
(SB = 55 Feet)
(NB = 45 Feet)
[4,400 veh/day]
(EB = 75 Feet)
(SB = 55 Feet)
(NB = 45 Feet)
[3,400 veh/day]
(EB = 85 Feet)
(SB = 180 Feet)
(NB = 125 Feet)
[4,400 veh/day]
(EB = 75 Feet)
(SB = 130 Feet)
(NB = 5 Feet)
[4,400 veh/day]
(EB = 125 Feet)
(SB = 185 Feet)
(NB = 140 Feet)
[4,400 veh/day]
(EB = 75 Feet)
(SB = 50 Feet)
(NB = Not Applicable)
[2,400 veh/day]
Not Applicable
Park Commons Drive and Meridian Lane
Park Commons Drive and Grand Way
Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue
Park Commons Drive and Quentin Avenue
Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue
Excelsior Boulevard and Princeton Avenue
Excelsior Boulevard and Grand Way
Excelsior Boulevard and Meridian Lane
Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive
Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue
Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street
36th-1/2 Street and Kipling Avenue
Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street
Legend Level of Service A – B
Overall Intersection Delay Worst Side-Street Delay
Level of Service C
Level of Service D
Level of Service E
Level of Service F
(1) The 95th percentile queue is defined as the queue length that has only a five percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period.
(2) Queue distance limitations along Park Commons Drive and Monterey Drive are illustrated in Figure 1.
Page 7
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane
The addition of an eastbound right-turn lane to the existing Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive
intersection would distribute approach volumes over two lanes and be expected to produce a moderate
operational improvement. It should be noted that during the p.m. peak hour approximately 60 percent
of vehicles on the eastbound intersection approach complete a right-turn maneuver, while the
remaining 40 percent complete a left-turn maneuver. The Park Commons Drive side-street approach
would be expected to operate at LOS C with the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane under
existing traffic volumes. A significant improvement in eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would
be anticipated, as queues would be expected to extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access no more than
five (5) percent of the p.m. peak hour.
Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access
A three-quarter access would prohibit left-turn maneuvers from Park Commons Drive to
Monterey Drive. Approximately 70 p.m. peak hour and 1,000 daily vehicles would be impacted by this
access modification. The impacted motorists would be expected to utilize other routes such as
Meridian Lane and Grand Way. A three-quarter access modification also has the potential to introduce
U-turn maneuvers along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard, although these maneuvers may not
be physically possible for many vehicles. A three-quarter access would be expected to operate at an
acceptable overall LOS A under the existing traffic volumes. Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues
would not be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access, and minimal change in queuing from existing
conditions would be expected along Monterey Drive.
Alternative 4 – All-Way Stop with Full Access
An all-way stop controlled intersection would be expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A
under the existing geometry and traffic volumes. A significant improvement in eastbound
Park Commons Drive queues would be expected, as no blockage of the Trader Joe’s access would be
anticipated. However, a significant increase in southbound Monterey Drive queuing is anticipated. An
additional concern is potential driver confusion at multi-lane all-way stop control intersections, where
determining who has the right-of-way is challenging. Furthermore, existing traffic volumes at the
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection do not meet an all-way stop warrant
(see Appendix B).
Alternative 5 – Roundabout with Full Access
A roundabout would be expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A under the existing traffic
volumes. Although eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the
Trader Joe’s access, a significant increase in southbound Monterey Drive queuing is anticipated.
Additionally, southbound Monterey Drive queues extending from the Excelsior Boulevard traffic
signal through Park Commons Drive could cause roundabout gridlock and lead to driver confusion.
Furthermore, the footprint of a roundabout would be expected to have a significant impact to area
right-of-way and adjacent properties.
Page 8
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access
A traffic signal warrant analysis was completed to determine if existing traffic volumes at the
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection meet a signal warrant. Results of the traffic signal
warrant analysis (provided in Appendix B) indicate that traffic volumes at the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection do not meet a traffic signal warrant under existing conditions.
However, an evaluation of the traffic signal alternative was completed to determine the effect on
intersection delays and queues.
Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would be expected to continue to extend beyond the
Trader Joe’s access under the traffic signal alternative. However, the anticipated blockage is expected
to be improved (i.e. 5 to 10 percent of the p.m. peak hour) as compared to the existing condition.
Although a traffic signal in this location would be expected to operate adequately (i.e. LOS A), the
signal spacing between Excelsior Boulevard and Park Commons Drive would be challenging and is
not considered ideal.
The closely spaced traffic signals along Park Center Boulevard at 36th Street and the eastern Target site
access may serve as an example of minimally acceptable traffic signal spacing. Between these traffic
signals is approximately 290 feet of vehicle storage, as compared to only approximately 205 feet of
vehicle storage between traffic signals along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard and
Park Commons Drive. Furthermore, both northbound/southbound directions of travel along
Park Center Boulevard between noted signals consist of two through lanes, whereas the northbound
direction of travel along Monterey Drive between Excelsior Boulevard and Park Center Drive has
only one through lane. The combination of shorter storage distance and one less through lane results
in approximately 65% less vehicle storage on the northbound approach to the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection as compared to the northbound/southbound approaches between
noted traffic signals along Park Center Boulevard.
Additionally, significant Monterey Drive queues are anticipated under traffic signal control at the
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. The northbound 95th percentile queues would
be expected to fall approximately 65 feet short of extending into the adjacent Excelsior Boulevard
intersection. Given limited storage capacity between Excelsior Boulevard and Park Commons Drive,
a Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive traffic signal could potentially cause northbound
Monterey Drive traffic to queue back onto Excelsior Boulevard.
Page 9
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Alternative 7 – Side-Street Stop with Right-In/Right-Out Access
A right-in/right-out access would prohibit left-turn maneuvers from Park Commons Drive to
Monterey Drive as well as from northbound Monterey Drive to Park Commons Drive. Approximately
165 p.m. peak hour and 2,000 daily vehicles would be impacted by this access modification. The
impacted motorists would again be expected to utilize other routes such as Meridian Lane and
Grand Way. Like the three-quarter access alternative, the right-in/right-out alternative has the
potential to introduce U-turn maneuvers along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard, although these
maneuvers may not be physically possible for many vehicles. A right-in/right-out access would be
expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A under the existing traffic volumes. Eastbound
Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access, and improved
queuing would be expected along Monterey Drive.
Alternative 8 – Closed Side-Street Access
Closing the Park Commons Drive access would prohibit all maneuvers to/from Park Commons Drive
at Monterey Drive. Approximately 435 p.m. peak hour and 4,400 daily vehicles would be impacted by
this access modification. The impacted motorists would again be expected to utilize other routes such
as Meridian Lane and Grand Way. Closing access to/from Park Commons Drive at Monterey Drive
would not be expected to significantly impact nearby roadway segments or intersections.
Other Alternative Considerations
Wolfe Parkway Extension
The potential exists to utilize City owned right-of-way to complete a new connection between
Park Commons Drive and Monterey Drive. This potential connection would likely accompany an
access restriction at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection and could minimize the
impacts of the modification. The connection, as illustrated in Figure 3, is a northern extension of
Wolfe Parkway that would terminate at Monterey Drive near 36th-1/2 Street. A combination of
eastbound left-turning and southbound right-turning vehicles at the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection would be expected to divert to this new roadway connection,
resulting in daily traffic volume of 1,500 to 2,500 vehicles. Due to uncertainty regarding the potential
Wolfe Parkway extension, additional analysis would be required.
Page 10
0158921
September 2015
Potential Wolf Parkway Extension Figure 3H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig03_Potential Wolfe Parkway Extension.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation
Saint Louis Park, MNNORTHNorth Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Park C
o
m
m
o
n
s
D
r Wolfe PkwyPotential alternative
Wolfe Parkway
connections between
Park Commons Drive
and Monterey Drive
36th-1/2 St
Excelsior Blvd
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Alternatives Selected for Additional Analysis
An initial vetting process was conducted in regard to overall intersection delays and queues to select
viable Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives for additional analysis.
Alternative 4 (All-Way Stop with Full Access), Alternative 5 (Roundabout with Full Access), and
Alternative 6 (Traffic Signal with Full Access) were eliminated from consideration due to concerns
about significant anticipated increases in mainline Monterey Drive queueing. Furthermore,
Alternative 7 (Side-Street Stop with Right-In/Right-Out Access) and Alternative 8 (Closed Side-Street
Access) were eliminated due to concerns about restricting inbound access to Park Commons Drive
from Monterey Drive. Thus, the following alternatives were selected for additional analysis:
• Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access)
• Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane
• Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access
Year 2017 Conditions
To determine how the potential Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives will
accommodate future traffic volumes, a year 2017 intersection capacity analysis was completed. 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 offers a conservative estimate compared to recent historical trends. As documented
in the 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (dated May 1, 2015), two developments are expected to
impact roadway network operations in the study area by the year 2017 and are included in this study.
Bridgewater Development
The proposed apartment/retail/bank development at 4400 Excelsior Boulevard is expected to
generate approximately 178 trips (99 in/79 out) during the p.m. peak hour and 1,670 daily trips.
Considering the trip generation for existing land uses on site and anticipated pass-by trips,
approximately 113 net new p.m. peak hour trips (67 in/46 out) and 1,036 net new daily trips are
expected. The generated trips were added to the year 2017 roadway network per the
Alternate Access Scenario presented in the 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (dated May 1, 2015).
The Alternative Access Scenario, shown is Figure 4, is proposed as follows:
• Excelsior Boulevard:
o Access A – A right-in/right-out access serving surface-level retail parking (Level 1), located
approximately 300 feet east of Monterey Drive
• Monterey Drive:
o Access B – A full-access serving surface-level retail parking (Level 1), located
approximately 270 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard, opposite Park Commons Drive
o Access C – A full-access serving mid- and lower-level residential parking (Levels P1/P2),
located approximately 410 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard
Page 12
0158921
September 2015
Bridgewater Development Alternative Access Scenario Figure 4H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig04_Bridgewater Development Alternative Access Scenario.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation
Saint Louis Park, MNNORTHNorth Excelsior
BlvdMo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Access A
Access B
Access C
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Former Bally’s Site Development
The proposed apartment/grocery store development at 4900 Excelsior Boulevard is expected to
generate approximately 307 trips (170 in/137 out) during the p.m. peak hour and 3,296 daily trips.
These trips were conservatively assumed to be net new system trips, as the building on site is currently
vacant. The generated trips were added to the year 2017 roadway network. However, the development
is expected to have a negligible impact on the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis summarized in Table 2 indicate that all selected
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives are expected to operate at an
acceptable overall LOS B or better during the p.m. peak hour. In addition, minimal impacts on
adjacent intersections are expected. As with the initially considered intersection alternatives, the
potential future alternatives produced varying side-street delay and queuing results. An illustration of
anticipated year 2017 queueing for selected intersection alternatives is presented in Figure 5.
Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access)
With added traffic volumes at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection caused by
general background growth and area development, the Park Commons Drive side-street approach
would be expected to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions. It
should be noted that these type of side-street delays are common during peak periods within the
Twin Cities and are generally considered acceptable. Eastbound queues would be expected to increase
and extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access along Park Commons Drive approximately 25 to 35 percent
of the p.m. peak hour.
Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane
The eastbound approach of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection would be
expected to operate at LOS C during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions with the addition
of an eastbound right-turn lane. A slight increase in eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would
be expected, but these queues are likely to extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access less than five (5)
percent of the p.m. peak hour.
Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access
Minimal delay (i.e. LOS B) and queuing would be expected on the eastbound approach of the
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017
conditions with a modified three-quarter access. Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would not
be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access. An increase in overall intersection delay would be
anticipated at the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection under the three-quarter access
alternative, as additional eastbound left-turn maneuvers would be expected due to travel pattern
changes. However, the increase in overall intersection delay is expected to be only a few seconds.
Page 14
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Table 2. Intersection Capacity Summary with Alternatives – Year 2017 Traffic Volumes – P.M. Peak Hour
Intersection
Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive
Intersection Alternatives
Alternative 1
No Build (Existing
Side-Street Stop
Full Access)
Alternative 2
Side-Street Stop
Full Access with
EB Right-Turn Lane
Alternative 3
Side-Street Stop
Three-Quarter
Access
Monterey Drive and
Park Commons Drive/Access B
(95th Percentile Queues) (1) (2)
[Park Commons Drive ADT Volume]
(EB = 180 Feet)
(WB = 45 Feet)
(SB = 115 Feet)
(NB = 45 Feet)
[4,450 veh/day]
(EB = 105 Feet)
(WB = 45 Feet)
(SB = 115 Feet)
(NB = 45 Feet)
[4,450 veh/day]
(EB = 85 Feet)
(WB = 25 Feet)
(SB = 115 Feet)
(NB = 45 Feet)
[3,450 veh/day]
Excelsior Boulevard and Access A
Monterey Drive and Access C
Park Commons Drive and Meridian Lane
Park Commons Drive and Grand Way
Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue
Park Commons Drive and Quentin Avenue
Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue
Excelsior Boulevard and Princeton Avenue
Excelsior Boulevard and Grand Way
Excelsior Boulevard and Meridian Lane
Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive
Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue
Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street
36th-1/2 Street and Kipling Avenue
Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street
Legend Level of Service A – B
Overall Intersection Delay Worst Side-Street Delay
Level of Service C
Level of Service D
Level of Service E
Level of Service F
(1) The 95th percentile queue is defined as the queue length that has only a five percent probability of being exceeded during the
analysis time period.
(2) Queue distance limitations along Park Commons Drive and Monterey Drive are illustrated in Figure 1.
Page 15
NORTHNorthNORTHNorthNORTHNorth0158921
September 2015
Alternatives Queuing - Year 2017 Conditions
Excelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation
Saint Louis Park, MN
Figure 5H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig05_Alternatives Queuing.cdr- Average Queue
- 95th Percentile Queue
Existing Traffic Control
and Geometry
LOS
B/F
- Average Queue
- 95th Percentile Queue
Added Eastbound
Right-Turn Lane
- Average Queue
- 95th Percentile Queue
Three-Quarter
Access
Access B
Excel
si
or
Bl
v
dMo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Excel
si
or
Bl
v
d
Excel
si
or
Bl
v
d
Access B Access B
H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig05_Alternatives Queuing.cdrLOS
A/CMo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
LOS
A/BMo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Ave. A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
D
el
a
y
>
5
0
s
e
c.
Ave. A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
D
el
a
y
2
5
s
e
c.
<
Ave. A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
D
el
a
y
<
1
5
s
e
c.
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
Access Spacing
Proposed Bridgewater development 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.
Some concerns were expressed with internal site operations when combining residential and retail
access. Therefore, if a consolidated access is preferred, it should be designed to minimize internal
conflict areas between residents and retail patrons. It should be noted that the proposed right-in/right-
out Access A along Excelsior Boulevard would continue to serve as an alternate access to a
consolidated Monterey Drive access.
Bridgewater Development Access Modifications
Due to elevation differences between the proposed access locations, the only viable location for a
consolidated Monterey Drive access is opposite Park Commons Drive (i.e. at Access B). An evaluation
of anticipated year 2017 conditions with the consolidation of Access B and Access C opposite
Park Commons Drive was performed to determine its feasibility. A side-street LOS F would be
anticipated under both side-street stop full-access intersection alternatives. However, a side-street
LOS B would be anticipated under the three-quarter access alternative.
Pedestrian Considerations
The proposed Bridgewater development is expected to generate pedestrian traffic in addition to
vehicular traffic. It is recommended that pedestrians to/from the Bridgewater development utilize
existing pedestrian accommodations (crosswalks and pedestrian phasing) at the Excelsior Boulevard/
Monterey Drive signalized intersection. Locations which are not clearly signed/striped specifically for
pedestrian crossings, such as midblock along Monterey Drive or at the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection, may be more hazardous due to motorists not anticipating
pedestrian crossings in those places. Depending on the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive
intersection alternative selected, additional accommodations may be necessary to physically direct
pedestrians to the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection.
36th-1/2 Street Evaluation
Traffic Volumes
Concerns regarding potential cut-through traffic along 36th-1/2 Street between Excelsior Boulevard
and Monterey Drive have been expressed by local residents and City leaders. The existing ADT
volume along 36th-1/2 Street was estimated at 2,500 vehicles based on a.m. and p.m. peak hour
turning movement counts in the 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (dated May 1, 2015).
Page 17
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
The traffic volume along 36th-1/2 Street has shown little change over the last 15 years, as SRF
estimates a year 2000 ADT volume of approximately 2,800 vehicles. This estimate was completed
using a similar methodology to the year 2015 estimate, but based on year 2000 a.m. and p.m. peak
hour turning movement counts at the Monterey Drive/36th-1/2 Street intersection presented in the
Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (dated July 2001) completed by URS.
An urban two-lane undivided roadway such as 36th-1/2 Street has a theoretically daily capacity of
8,000 to 10,000 vehicles. The current ADT volume along 36th-1/2 Street is well below this capacity
threshold. The traffic volumes along 36th-1/2 Street are a mixture of commercial and residential
generated trips as well as potential cut-through traffic between Excelsior Boulevard and
Monterey Drive.
Summary and Conclusions
The following study summary and conclusions are offered for your consideration:
• The results of a crash analysis indicate the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection
did not have a statistically significant number of crashes over a 5-year period.
o However, two trees in the northwest quadrant of the intersection were observed to
partially obstruct the view of southbound Monterey Drive for motorists waiting on the
Park Commons Drive approach.
• Several traffic control and access alternatives were evaluated at the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection.
o An initial vetting process in regard to overall intersection delays and queues selected three
viable alternatives for additional analysis:
Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access)
Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane
Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access
• Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis indicate that the three selected
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives are expected to operate at an
acceptable overall LOS B or better during the p.m. peak hour. In addition, minimal impacts
on adjacent intersections are expected. However, the potential future intersection alternatives
produced varying side-street delay and queuing results:
o Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access):
The Park Commons Drive side-street approach would be expected to operate at
LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions. It should be noted that
these type of side-street delays are common during peak periods within the Twin Cities
and are generally considered acceptable. Eastbound queues would be expected to
increase and extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access along Park Commons Drive
approximately 25 to 35 percent of the p.m. peak hour.
Page 18
Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015
City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation
o Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane
The Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection eastbound approach would
be expected to operate at LOS C during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions
with the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane. A slight increase in eastbound
Park Commons Drive queues would be expected, but these queues are likely to extend
beyond the Trader Joe’s access less than five (5) percent of the p.m. peak hour.
o Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access
Minimal delay (i.e. LOS B) and queuing would be expected on the eastbound approach
of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hour
under year 2017 conditions with a modified three-quarter access. Eastbound
Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access.
An overall intersection delay increase would be anticipated at the Excelsior Boulevard/
Monterey Drive intersection under the three-quarter access alternative, as additional
eastbound left-turn maneuvers would be expected due to travel pattern changes.
However, the increase in overall intersection delay is expected to be minimal.
• Bridgewater development Access B and Access C are proposed approximately 140 feet apart
along Monterey Drive. The MnDOT recommended minimum spacing along an urban
collector roadway (330 feet) is not met. However, similar access spacing exists on other
collector roadways in St. Louis Park and the access can function adequately as currently shown.
o If a consolidated access is preferred, it should be designed to minimize internal conflict
areas between residents and retail patrons. It should be noted that the proposed
right-in/right-out along Excelsior Boulevard would continue to serve as an alternate access
to a consolidated Monterey Drive access.
o An evaluation of anticipated year 2017 conditions with the consolidation of access
locations along Monterey Drive opposite Park Commons Drive was performed to
determine its feasibility. A side-street LOS F would be anticipated under both side-street
stop full-access intersection alternatives. However, a side-street LOS B would be
anticipated under the three-quarter access alternative.
• It is recommended that pedestrians to/from the Bridgewater development utilize existing
pedestrian accommodations (crosswalks and pedestrian phasing) at the Excelsior Boulevard/
Monterey Drive signalized intersection. Locations which are not clearly signed/striped
specifically for pedestrian crossings, such as midblock along Monterey Drive or at the
Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection, may be more hazardous due to motorists
not anticipating pedestrian crossings in those places. Depending on the Monterey Drive/
Park Commons Drive intersection alternative selected, additional accommodations may be
needed to direct pedestrians to the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection.
• An urban two-lane undivided roadway such as 36th-1/2 Street has a theoretically daily capacity
of 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles. The currently estimated ADT volume of 2,500 vehicles along
36th-1/2 Street is well below this capacity threshold.
H:\Projects\8921\TS\Report\8921_Excelsior Blvd & Monterey Dr SAE_150928.docx
Page 19
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
*
&29(56+((7
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
(;&(/6,25 0217(5(<
([FHOVLRU%OYG
6W/RXLV3DUN0LQQHVRWD
38'5(68%0,77$/
352-(&7/2&$7,21
352-(&77($0
352-(&7
/2&$7,21
2:1(5
'RPLQLXP'HYHORSPHQW
1RUWKZHVW%OYG6XLWH
3O\PRXWK01
3KRQH
)D[
&RQWDFW 5RQ0HKO
$5&+,7(&785$/(1*,1((5,1*/$1'6&$3(
$1',17(5,256
%.9*URXS,QF
1RUWK6HFRQG6WUHHW
0LQQHDSROLV01
3KRQH
)D[
&RQWDFW $UFK-HII+HPHU
6WUXFW&KDUOLH5RELQVRQ
0HFK.XUW:LQWKHLVHU
(OHF&KDG.XUGL
/DQG-XVWLQ%DJJHQVWRVV
,QWHULRUV/L]D.DSLVDN
*(1(5$/&2175$&725
:(,6%8,/'(56
/\QGDOH$YHQXH6RXWK
0LQQHDSROLV01
3KRQH
)D[
&RQWDFW
&,9,/(1*,1((5,1*
/RXFNV$VVRFLDWHV
+HPORFN/DQH6XLWH
0DSOH*URYH01
3KRQH
)D[
&RQWDFW 0LNH6W0DUWLQ
6859(<25
6XQGH/DQG6XUYH\LQJ
(DVW%ORRPLQJWRQ)UHHZD\6XLWH
%ORRPLQJWRQ01
3KRQH
)D[
&RQWDFW 0DUN+DQVRQ
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
1
6KHHW/LVW
6+((7
180%(5 6+((71$0(
/ /$1'6&$3(7,7/(6+((7
/ 6,7(3/$1
/ /$1'6&$3(3/$1
/ /(9(/$0(1,7<522)'(&.3/$1
*(1(5$/
* &29(56+((7
6859(< 6859(<
&,9,/
& (;,67,1*&21',7,21
& '(02/,7,213/$1
& 6,7(3/$1
& *5$',1*3/$1
& 67250:$7(532//87,2135(9(17,213/$1
& 87,/,7<3/$1
& '(7$,/6+((7
& &,7<'(7$,/6+((7
$5&+,7(&785(
$ $5&+6,7(3/$1
$ /(9(/35()(5(1&(3/$1
$ /(9(/35()(5(1&(3/$1
$ /(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
$ /(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
$ /(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
$ /(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
$ /(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
$ /(9(/5()(51(&(3/$1
$ 522)5()(5(1&(3/$1
$ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
$ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
$ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
( (/(&75,&$/3+2720(75,&6,7(3/$1
352-(&7,1)250$7,21
G201 RENDERINGS
G202 SHADOW STUDIES
EXHIBIT VEHICLE TURNING
2016-03-08
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216 758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
*
8QQDPHG
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
02-19
EXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY VIEW SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
RENDERINGS
2016/01/22 PUD RESUBMITTAL
2016/02/25 PUD RESUBMITTAL
2016/01/22 PUD RESUBMITTAL
2016/02/25 PUD RESUBMITTAL2016/03/08
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216 758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
*
8QQDPHG
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
02-19
9 AM 11 AM 1 PM 3 PM
May/ August 21stSeptember/ March 21stNovember /January 21November /January 21
9 AM
11 AM
1 PM
3 PM
Note: All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the
structure does not cast a shadow that covers more than 50 percent of another building wall for a period greater
than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year.
SHADOW STUDY
2
50%
TOTAL 3700 SF
IN SHADOW 1850 SF
T
r
a
c
t
D
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
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
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
SHEET NUMBER
CONSULTANTS
KEY PLAN
PROJECT TITLE
NORTH ARROW
SHEET TITLE
BKVTB-30x42EXCELSIOR &
MONTEREY
Engineer
REVISION DATE
PUD
RESUBMITTAL
02/26/16
ISSUANCE
Date
XX/XX/1649933
PJ Disch, PE
LOUCKS
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUD RESUBMITTAL 01/22/16
LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 14634
PUD RESUBMITTAL 02/26/16
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
C1-1
MJS/PJD
PJD
06/04/15
N
EXISTING CONDITIONS GENERAL NOTES
1. THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN WAS PREPARED
FROM A BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY SUNDE LAND
SURVEYING AND DATED JANUARY 2, 2015. UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
PLAN, SUCH AS SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER, FORCEMAIN, ETC.
WAS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK RECORD PLANS.
2. THE GEOTECHNICAL AND SOILS INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN WAS
PROVIDED BY NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., REPORT DATED APRIL 24, 2015.
3. WE HAVE SHOWN BURIED STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES ON AND/OR SERVING THE
SITE TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS:
A. UTILITY OPERATORS DO NOT CONSISTENTLY RESPOND TO LACATE REQUESTS
THROUGH THE GOPHER STATE ONE CALL SERVICE FOR BOUNDARY AND
LOCATION PURPOSES SUCH AS THIS.
B. THOSE UTILITY OPERATORS THAT DO RESPOND, OFTEN WILL NOT LOCATE
SERVICES FROM THE MAIN LINE TO THE CUSTOMER'S STRUCTURE OR FACILITY -
THEY CONSIDER THOSE SEGMENTS PRIVATE INSTALLATIONS THAT ARE OUTSIDE
OF THEIR JURISDICTION. IF A PRIVATE SERVICE TO AN ADJOINER'S SITE CROSSES
THIS SITE OR A SERVICE TO THIS SITE CROSSES AN ADJOINER, IT MAY NOT BE
LOCATED SINCE MOST OPERATORS WILL NOT MARK SUCH "PRIVATE" SERVICES.
C. SNOW AND ICE CONDITIONS DURING WINTER MONTHS MAY OBSCURE
OTHERWISE VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF A BURIED STRUCTURE OR UTILITY.
D. MAPS PROVIDED BY UTILITY OPERATORS, EITHER ALONG WITH A FIELD
LOCATION OR IN LIEU OF SUCH A LOCATION, ARE VERY OFTEN INACCURATE OR
INCONCLUSIVE. MAPS PROVIDED BY UTILITY OPERATORS ARE VERY OFTEN AT A
VERY SMALL SCALE, OR NO SCALE.
E. EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED BEFORE AN EXCAVATION TAKES PLACE
ON OR NEAR THE SITE. BEFORE DIGGING, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO
NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AT
651-454-0002.
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
03/08/2016
T
r
a
c
t
D
REMOVE
BITUMINOUS
REMOVE
BITUMINOUS
REMOVE
BITUMINOUS
DEMOLISH & REMOVE
EXISTING BUILDING IN IT'S
ENTIRETY. INCLUDING
FOOTINGS, FOUNDATIONS,
OVERHANGS, STAIRS,
STOOPS, & UTILITY METERS
REMOVE POWER POLE AND
OVERHEAD POWER LINES.
COORDINATE WITH UTILITY
OWNER FOR RELOCATION
OF POWER LINES TO
ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
TREE REMOVAL TYP
PROTECT EXISTING
BUILDING FROM
DAMAGE
PROTECT EXISTING
BUILDING FROM
DAMAGE
COORDINATE WITH
STRUCTURAL AND
ARCHITECTURAL FOR
LOCATION OF
PROPOSED WALL
BELOW EXISTING BANK
SAWCUT AND REMOVE PAVEMENT
& CURB AND GUTTER AS
NECESSARY FOR PROPOSED
STORM SEWER. REPLACE IN KIND
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS AT
PROPERTY LINE
SAWCUT AND REMOVE PAVEMENT
& CURB AND GUTTER AS
NECESSARY FOR PROPOSED WATER
SERVICES. REPLACE IN KIND
REMOVE EXISTING
42" STORM SEWER
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
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
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
SHEET NUMBER
CONSULTANTS
KEY PLAN
PROJECT TITLE
NORTH ARROW
SHEET TITLE
BKVTB-30x42EXCELSIOR &
MONTEREY
Engineer
REVISION DATE
PUD
RESUBMITTAL
02/26/16
ISSUANCE
Date
XX/XX/1649933
PJ Disch, PE
LOUCKS
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUD RESUBMITTAL 01/22/16
LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 14634
PUD RESUBMITTAL 02/26/16
MJS/PJD
PJD
06/04/15
N
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
SITE
DEMOLITION
PLAN
C1-2
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND/OR RELOCATE EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITIES AS NECESSARY.
CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ACTIVITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR
REMOVAL.
3. CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS,
STRIP TOP SOIL, AND STOCKPILE ON-SITE. REFER TO GRADING PLAN AND SWPPP FOR SEDIMENT AND
EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
4. CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING.
ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND
REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. SEE THE STORMWATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP).
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SITE SURFACE FEATURES WITHIN REMOVAL LIMITS UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
SITE DEMOLITION NOTES
DEMOLITION LEGEND:
REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVING
REMOVE EXISTING BUILDINGS
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE, CURB & GUTTER & RETAINING WALL
REMOVE EXISTING UTILITIES
REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLES, LIGHT POLES, PEDESTALS, ETC.
REMOVE EXISTING TREES
REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING/WALKS
KEY NOTE LEGEND
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
NOTE
ALL EXISTING SEWER AND WATER SERVICES
WILL NEED TO BE DISCONNECTED
AT CITY MAIN PER CITY STANDARDS.
COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACT LOCATIONS.
03/08/2016
3 STAIRS
3 STAIRS
4 STAIRS
B 612
CURB & GUTTER
B 612
CURB & GUTTER
B 612
CURB & GUTTER
4 STAIRS
SEE ARCHITECTURAL
FOR SIDEWALK HATCHING
SEE ARCHITECTURAL
FOR PARKING RAMP
DETAIL
24.0'
25.0'BITUMINOUS
PED
RAMP
CONCRETE WALK
(TYP)
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
PAVEMENT (TYP)
6
.
0
'
SEE LANDSCAPE
PLANS FOR
PLANTINGS
BITUMINOUS
RETAINING WALL (TYP)
SEE GRADING PLAN
FOR ELEVATIONS. SEE LANDSCAPE
PLANS AND ARCHITECTURAL FOR
BLOCK TYPE AND COLOR.
TRANSFORMER
PAD
22.0'
RETAINING WALL (TYP)
SEE GRADING PLAN
FOR ELEVATIONS. SEE LANDSCAPE
PLANS AND ARCHITECTURAL FOR
BLOCK TYPE AND COLOR.
STRUCTURAL
RETAINING WALL. SEE
STRUCTURAL FOR
DETAILS.
LOADING ZONE
6
.
0
REPLACE PAVEMENT
SECTION TO MATCH
EXISTING FOR PROPOSED
STORM SEWER
6.
0
'
6.
0
NO PARKING
EMERGENCY VEHICLE
PARKING ONLY
BETWEEN SIGNS (50')
REPLACE PAVEMENT SECTION &
CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH
EXISTING FOR PROPOSED
WATER SERVICES
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
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
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
SHEET NUMBER
CONSULTANTS
KEY PLAN
PROJECT TITLE
NORTH ARROW
SHEET TITLE
BKVTB-30x42EXCELSIOR &
MONTEREY
Engineer
REVISION DATE
PUD
RESUBMITTAL
02/26/16
ISSUANCE
Date
XX/XX/1649933
PJ Disch, PE
LOUCKS
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUD RESUBMITTAL 01/22/16
LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 14634
PUD RESUBMITTAL 02/26/16
MJS/PJD
PJD
06/04/15
N
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
SITE PLAN
C2-1
SITE PLAN LEGEND
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES
1. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND
INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER SHEET C8-1 AND THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. SEE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ANY
ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE APPLICATIONS.
2. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT. AND
THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
ANY WORK WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY (SIDEWALK, STREET OR DRIVEWAYS)
3. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER "GOPHER STATE ONE
CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING, EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND
WORK.
4. SEE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ANY REMOVAL DETAILS.
5. ANY SIGN OR FIXTURES REMOVED WITH IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR AS PART OF THE
SITE WORK SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CITY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN ANY
EXISTING STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.
6. LEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO
GRADING. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL
CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE
CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY
ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. (SEE SHEET C3-1)
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS FROM THE CITY AS
REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITH THE STREET AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
8. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE
DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED IN FURTHER DETAIL ON THE ARCHITECTURAL AND
LANDSCAPE PLANS. THIS INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND OTHER FIXTURES.
9. B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE EDGE OF ALL
COMMON DRIVES AND PARKING LOTS. THE CURB SHALL BE TAPERED AND DROPPED
TO VALLEY GUTTER ACROSS INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES.
10. CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
A. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND AS
SHOWN PER THE LANDSCAPE SITE PLANS.
B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAW-CUT BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
AS REQUIRED PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. REMOVE EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
AND INSTALL B618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER.
11. SEE SHEETS C3-1 AND C4-1 FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES.
12. ALL CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER B612, CITY'S STANDARD PLATES. (SEE DETAIL
SHEET).
13. THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THE
EXISTING STREET PAVEMENT AS POSSIBLE, AND TO MILL AND OVERLAY. REMOVED
PAVEMENT AREAS AND PATCHING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER PAVEMENT SECTION
PROVIDED PER DETAIL SHEET.
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
03/08/2016
TW=890.00
GW=879.00 TW=887.00
GW=879.00
TW=887.00
GW=878.00
TW=882.00
GW=878.00
TW=881.00
GW=878.00
TW=882.00
GW=878.00
TW=887.50
GW=878.00
TW=887.50
GW=880.00
TW=887.50
GW=880.00
TW=888.00
GW=877.50
TW=894.50
GW=894.50
TW=888.00
GW=877.50
TW=899.00
GW=878.90
TW=887.20
GW=879.50
TW=887.00
GW=877.70 TW=883.00
GW=879.80
TW=881.00
GW=879.80
TW=883.00
GW=878.50
TW=881.00
GW=878.50
5%5%TW=890.00
GW=879.00 TW=887.00
GW=879.00
TW=887.00
GW=878.00
TW=882.00
GW=878.00
TW=881.00
GW=878.00
TW=882.00
GW=878.00
TW=887.50
GW=878.00
TW=887.50
GW=880.00
TW=887.50
GW=880.00
TW=888.00
GW=877.50
TW=894.50
GW=894.50
TW=888.00
GW=877.50
TW=899.00
GW=878.90
TW=887.20
GW=879.50
TW=887.00
GW=877.70 TW=883.00
GW=879.80
TW=881.00
GW=879.80
TW=883.00
GW=878.50
TW=881.00
GW=878.50
5%5%
CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE
THAT DRAINAGE FROM
ADJACENT BUILDINGS AND
LANDSCAPED AREA
CONTINUES TO DRAIN TO THE
NORTH. KEEP DRAINAGE
FROM GOING TO PROPOSED
TRENCH DRAIN
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
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
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
SHEET NUMBER
CONSULTANTS
KEY PLAN
PROJECT TITLE
NORTH ARROW
SHEET TITLE
BKVTB-30x42EXCELSIOR &
MONTEREY
Engineer
REVISION DATE
PUD
RESUBMITTAL
02/26/16
ISSUANCE
Date
XX/XX/1649933
PJ Disch, PE
LOUCKS
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUD RESUBMITTAL 01/22/16
LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 14634
PUD RESUBMITTAL 02/26/16
MJS/PJD
PJD
04/08/15
N
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
GRADING PLAN
C3-1
GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT
LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS, VESTIBULES, SLOPED PAVING, EXIT
PORCHES, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, ENTRY LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF
DOWNSPOUTS.
2. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOP
SOIL AND SOD OR SEED. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED BY THE CONTRACTOR
UNTIL THE SOD OR SEED IS GROWING IN A HEALTHY MANNER.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY
DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS
PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO
ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS
PROJECT.
4. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL
SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE
NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE
APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.
5. 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 THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY
AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS.
6. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE
REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETY MEASURES IN, OR NEAR
THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
7. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A
TEMPORARY ROCK ENTRANCE PAD AT ALL POINTS OF VEHICLE EXIT FROM THE
PROJECT SITE. SAID ROCK ENTRANCE PAD SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE
CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. SEE DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET
C8-1 & c8-2 OF THE PROJECT PLANS.
8. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED
AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE PERIMETER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, CITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE
DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET C3-2 OF THE PROJECT PLANS.
9. ALL ENTRANCES AND CONNECTIONS TO CITY STREETS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL PERMITS AND NOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
10. SEE UTILITY PLAN AND STORM SEWER PROFILES FOR FURTHER DETAIL REGARDING
THE STORM SEWER.
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
03/08/2016
218' - 48" STORM
@ 2.12 %
65' - 15" STORM
@ 0.59 %
6' - 10" STORM
@ 0.40 %
10" PVC
INV=883.00
CONNECT PROPOSED
48" RCP TO EX. 48" STORM INV.
AT EXISTING INV. 873.13
(INVERT TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR)
STMH 7
RIM=893.00
INV=877.75 E (15")
INV=880.32 SE (42")
INV=877.75 NW (48")
STMH 6
RIM=892.60
INV=878.13 E
INV=878.13 W
INV=882.98 S 10"
INV=879.00 S 4"
68' - 15" STORM
@ 0.40 %
STMH 5
RIM=888.85
INV=878.40
48" STORM VAULT
(3) 80' - 48"
PERFORATED CMP
@ 0.00% WITH HEADERS
INV=880.50
ROCK INV=880.00
SAND INV=879.00
4" DRAINTILE INV=879.00
12
INV=883.50
12"
INV=883.00
76' - 15" STORM
@ 0.40 %
23' - 12" STORM
@ 9.13 %
21' - 12" STORM
@ 1.50%
15' - 15" STORM
@ 0.40 %
STMH 4
RIM=887.3
INV=878.70
STMH 3
RIM=887.30
INV=878.76
STMH 2
RIM=887.30
INV=878.89
33' - 15" STORM
@ 0.40 %
28' - 15" STORM
@ 0.40 %
STMH 1
RIM=887.20
INV=879.00 SW
INV=882.73 NE 10"
INV=879.00 NE 4"
48" STORM VAULT
(4) 60' - 48"
PERFORATED CMP
@ 0.00% WITH HEADERS
INV=880.50
ROCK INV=880.00
SAND INV=879.00
4" DRAINTILE INV=879.00
10"PVC
INV=882.75
5' - 10" STORM
@ 0.40 %
12" STORM STUB
INV=883.35
12"
INV=883.25
4" STORM STUB
INV=883.35
TRENCH DRAIN
TO BE PUMPED
OUT
5' - 12" STORM
@ 2.00 %
12" STORM STUB
INV=883.32
TRENCH DRAIN 11
RIM=887.30
INV=886.30 SW
INV=885.60 NE
TRENCH DRAIN 12
RIM=876.80
INV=875.80 SE
INV=875.00 NW
TO BE PUMPED OUT
SEE MECHANICAL
SANITARY SERVICE
PARKING LEVELS
TO BE PUMPED
OUT
COORDINATE
WITH
MECHANICAL FOR
PIPE SIZE
SANITARY MANHOLE
BUILD OVER EXCISTING SANITARY
MAIN
RIM=897.30
INV=887.01 SW
INV=887.20 NE
INV=887.01NW
6" DOMESTIC
SERVICE 8" FIRE
SERVICE
CONNECT INTO
EXISTING
WATERMAIN PER
CITY STANDARDS
WITH GATE VALVES
5' - 4" PVC
@ 2.00 %
4"
INV=883.25
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
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
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
SHEET NUMBER
CONSULTANTS
KEY PLAN
PROJECT TITLE
NORTH ARROW
SHEET TITLE
BKVTB-30x42EXCELSIOR &
MONTEREY
Engineer
REVISION DATE
PUD
RESUBMITTAL
02/26/16
ISSUANCE
Date
XX/XX/1649933
PJ Disch, PE
LOUCKS
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUD RESUBMITTAL 01/22/16
LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 14634
PUD RESUBMITTAL 02/26/16
MJS/PJD
PJD
04/08/15
N
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
UTILITY PLAN
C4-1
UTILITY PLAN GENERAL NOTES
1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE
FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE
CITY AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS
ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 1999 EDITION. ALL HDPE CONNECTIONS TO
CONCRETE MANHOLES SHALL BE CONNECTED WITH AN INTERNAL RUBBER GASKET
OR BY USING ADS WATERSTOP GASKET. ALL SANITARY SEWER MAIN LINE SHALL BE
SDR 35. ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE SDR 26.
2. SEE SHEET C8-1 AND THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC UTILITY DETAILS
AND UTILITY SERVICE DETAILS.
3. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR
MATERIAL PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE
PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION.
4. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND
BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE
NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF
WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES.
5. ALL SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE AT THE PROPERTY
LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND
WORK.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH
SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF
WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 7.5 FEET MINIMUM
DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED.
8. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CITY. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND
SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL OF
UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE
ALL SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC
STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE
PERMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED AUTHORITY OF OF THE CITY.
9. ALL NEW WATERMAIN MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7.5 FEET OF COVER.
10. ADJUST ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO THE PROPOSED
GRADES WHERE DISTURBED AND COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UTILITY
OWNERS. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS
REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING.
11. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS:
WATERMAIN DIP CLASS 52 NO LESS THAN 7.5' DEEP.
WATER SERVICE COPPER TYPE K, 1" SERVICE TO PROPERTY LINE.
SANITARY SEWER PVC SDR 35 NO MORE THAN 20' DEEP.
SANITARY SEWER PVC SDR26 20' - 25' DEEP.
SANITARY SEWER PVC 4" SERVICE TO PROPERTY LINE.
STORM SEWER RCP CLASS 5 12" TO 18" DIAMETER.
DRAINTILE POLYETHYLENE BACK OF CURB.
STORM SEWER SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE NO.CASTING MANHOLE SIZE
STMH 1 48" PRECAST
STMH 2 48" PRECAST
STMH 3 48" PRECAST
STMH 4 48" PRECAST
STMH 5 48/" PRECAST
STMH 6 48" PRECAST
STMH 7 72" PRECAST
TRENCH DRAIN 12
TRENCH DRAIN 11
R-1733
CITY PLATE NO.
SS-1& SS-3
R-1733
R-1733
R-1733
R-1733
R-1733
R-1733
SS-1& SS-3
SS-1& SS-3
SS-1& SS-3
SS-1& SS-3
SS-1& SS-3
SS-1& SS-3
R-4990-HX TYPE C
R-4990-HX TYPE C
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
NOTE
ALL EXISTING SEWER AND WATER SERVICES
WILL NEED TO BE DISCONNECTED
AT CITY MAIN PER CITY STANDARDS.
COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACT LOCATIONS.
03/08/2016
.,3/,1* &25'12 $9(60217(5(<'5(;&(/6,25%/9'
00216'5,9(
BSRO
BSRO
75((6)
2
8
1
'
0
$
*1
$,/
$
%
'
'
'
(
(
'
)
1
(
&
*(1(5$/127(6
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//,163(&77+(6,7($1'%(&20()$0,/,$5:,7+(;,67,1*
&21',7,2165(/$7,1*727+(1$785($1'6&23(2):25.
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//9(5,)<3/$1/$<287$1'',0(16,2166+2:1$1'%5,1*72
7+($77(17,212)7+(/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7',6&5(3$1&,(6:+,&+0$<&203520,6(7+(
'(6,*1$1'25,17(172)7+(352-(&7
6/$<287
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//$6685(&203/,$1&(:,7+$33/,&$%/(&2'(6$1'
5(*8/$7,216*29(51,1*7+(:25.$1'250$7(5,$/66833/,('
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//3527(&7(;,67,1*52$'6&85%6*877(5675$,/675((6
/$:16$1'6,7((/(0(176'85,1*&216758&7,2123(5$7,216'$0$*(726$0(6+$//%(
5(3$,5('$712$'',7,21$/&267727+(2:1(5
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//9(5,)<$/,*10(17$1'/2&$7,212)81'(5*5281'$1'
$%29(*5$'(87,/,7,(6$1'3529,'(7+(1(&(66$5<3527(&7,21)256$0(%()25(
&216758&7,210$7(5,$/,167$//$7,21%(*,16 0,1,080
&/($5$1&(
81'(5*5281'87,/,7,(66+$//%(,167$//('627+$775(1&+(6'2127&877+528*+
52276<67(062)$1<(;,67,1*75((6725(0$,1
(;,67,1*&217285675$,/69(*(7$7,21&85%*877(5$1'27+(5(/(0(176$5(%$6('
8321,1)250$7,216833/,('727+(/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7%<27+(56/$1'6&$3(
&2175$&7256+$//9(5,)<',6&5(3$1&,(635,2572&216758&7,21$1'127,)</$1'6&$3(
$5&+,7(&72)6$0(
$/,*10(17$1'*5$'(62)7+(352326(':$/.675$,/6$1'2552$':$<6$5(68%-(&7
72),(/'$'-8670(175(48,5('72&21)25072/2&$/,=('7232*5$3+,&&21',7,216$1'
720,1,0,=(75((5(029$/$1'*5$',1*&+$1*(6,17+($/,*10(17$1'*5$'(60867%(
$33529('%<7+(/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//5(9,(:7+(6,7()25'(),&,(1&,(6,17+(3/$170$7(5,$/
6(/(&7,216$1'27+(56,7(&21',7,216:+,&+0,*+71(*$7,9(/<$))(&73/$17
(67$%/,6+0(176859,9$/25:$55$17<81'(6,5$%/(3/$170$7(5,$/6(/(&7,21625
6,7(&21',7,2166+$//%(%528*+7727+($77(17,212)7+(/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
35,2572%(*,11,1*2):25.
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//35(3$5($1'68%0,75(352'8&,%/($6%8,/7'5$:,1* 6
2)/$1'6&$3(,167$//$7,21,55,*$7,21$1'6,7(,03529(0(1768321&203/(7,212)
&216758&7,21,167$//$7,21$1'35,2572352-(&7$&&(37$1&(
123/$176:,//%(,167$//('817,/),1$/*5$',1*$1'&216758&7,21+$6%((1
&203/(7(',17+(,00(',$7($5($
62'$5($6',6785%(''8(72*5$',1*6+$//%(5(3/$&('81/(66127('27+(5:,6(
:+(5(62'$%8763$9('685)$&(6),1,6+('*5$'(2)62'6(('6+$//%(+(/'%(/2:
685)$&((/(9$7,212)75$,/6/$%&85%(7&
62'6+$//%(/$,'3$5$//(/727+(&2172856$1'6+$//+$9(67$**(5('-2,17621
6/23(667((3(57+$1 25,1'5$,1$*(6:$/(662'6+$//%(67$.('6(&85(/<
352326('3/$170$7(5,$/6+$//&203/<:,7+7+(/$7(67(',7,212)7+($0(5,&$1
67$1'$5')251856(5<672&.$16,=81/(66127('27+(5:,6('(&,'82866+58%6
6+$//+$9($7/($67&$1(6$77+(63(&,),('+(,*+7251$0(17$/75((66+$//+$9(12
9
&527&+(6$1'6+$//%(*,1%5$1&+,1*12/2:(57+$1
)((7$%29(7+(5227%$//
675((7$1'%28/(9$5'75((66+$//%(*,1%5$1&+,1*12/2:(57+$1
$%29(),1,6+('
*5$'(
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//$6685(&203/,$1&(:,7+$33/,&$%/(&2'(6$1'
5(*8/$7,216*29(51,1*7+(:25.$1'250$7(5,$/66833/,('
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()2521*2,1*0$,17(1$1&(2)1(:/<,167$//('
0$7(5,$/6817,/7,0(2)2:1(5$&&(37$1&($&762)9$1'$/,6025'$0$*(:+,&+0$<
2&&8535,25722:1(5$&&(37$1&(6+$//%(7+(5(63216,%,/,7<2)7+(/$1'6&$3(
&2175$&725
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//:$55$17<1(:3/$170$7(5,$/7+528*+21(&$/(1'$5
<($56)5207+('$7(2)7+(2:1(5$&&(37$1&(123$57,$/$&&(37$1&(:,//%(
&216,'(5('
3/$17,1*$5($6 12729(56758&785( 5(&(,9,1**5281'&29(53(5(11,$/6$118$/6
$1'259,1(66+$//5(&(,9($0,1,0802)'(37+2)3/$17,1*62,/&216,67,1*2)$7
/($673$57672362,/3$5766&5((1('&203267250$185($1'3$5766$1'
$118$/$1'3(5(11,$/3/$17,1*%('6725(&(,9('((36+5(''('+$5':22'08/&+
:,7+12:(('%$55,(5
6+58%%('0$66,1*6725(&(,9('((36+5(''('+$5':22'08/&+:,7+),%(50$7
:(('%$55,(5
67((/('*(572%(86('72&217$,16+58%63(5(11,$/6$1'$118$/6:+(5(3/$17,1*
%('0((7662'81/(6627+(5:,6(127('
5()(572&,9,/)256,7('(02/,7,21,1)250$7,21
5()(572&,9,/)25$'',7,21$/6,7(*5$',1*$1'87,/,7<,1)250$7,21
,)$',6&5(3$1&<(;,676%(7:((17+(180%(52)3/$1766+2:1,17+(3/$170$7(5,$/6
6&+('8/($1'7+(3/$167+(3/$166+$//*29(51
&2175$&7256+$//67$.(287/2&$7,212)$//352326('75((6)25$33529$/%<
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&735,2572,167$//$7,21
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//%(5(63216,%/()253529,',1*$3(5)250$1&(,55,*$7,21
3/$1$1'63(&,),&$7,216$63$572)7+(6&23(2):25.:+(1%,'',1*7+(6(6+$//%(
$33529('%<7+(/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&735,257225'(5$1'25,167$//$7,21,76+$//%(
7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&725
65(63216,%,/,7<72,1685(7+$762''('6(('('$1'
3/$17('$5($6$5(,55,*$7('3523(5/<,1&/8',1*7+26($5($6',5(&7/<$5281'$1'
$%877,1*%8,/',1*)281'$7,21
6+58% 3(5(11,$/%('672%(,55,*$7(':,7+'5,3,55,*$7,2162'72%(,55,*$7(':,7+
635$<
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//3529,'(7+(2:1(5:,7+$:$7(5,1*/$:1,55,*$7,21
6&+('8/($335235,$7(727+(352-(&76,7(&21',7,216$1'723/$170$7(5,$/6*52:7+
5(48,5(0(176
/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//,1685(7+$762,/&21',7,216$1'&203$&7,21$5(
$'(48$7(72$//2:)253523(5'5$,1$*($5281'7+(&216758&7,216,7(81'(6,5$%/(
&21',7,2166+$//%(%528*+7727+($77(17,212)7+(/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&735,2572
%(*,11,1*2):25.,76+$//%(7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&725
65(63216,%,/,7<72,1685(
3523(5685)$&($1'68%685)$&('5$,1$*(,1$//3/$17,1*$5($6
&225',1$7(,55,*$7,216/((9,1*/2&$7,216:,7+*(1(5$/&2175$&725
5$,16(1625672%(,1&/8'(':,7+,17+(,55,*$7,21'(6,*1
,55,*$7,21/,0,7672(;7(1'72675((7%$&.2)&85%
,55,*$7,21127(6
$//(;,67,1*&21',7,2166+2:1217+,6'5$:,1*$5(%$6('21$12:1(5
)851,6+('6859(<%.9*52832))(5612*8$5$17(((,7+(5(;35(66('25
,03/,(')257+($&&85$&<255(/,$%,/,7<2)7+(,1',&$7('(;,67,1*&21',7,216
7+(&2175$&7256+$//),(/'9(5,)<$//&5,7,&$/(;,67,1*&21',7,216,1&/8',1*
%87127/,0,7('72(;,67,1*%8,/',1*/2&$7,21687,/,7</2&$7,216$1',19(57
(/(9$7,216$1'(;,67,1*6,7(*5$'(635,25727+(67$572):25.
$1<2%6(59(''(9,$7,216)520&21',7,216,1',&$7('217+('5$:,1*66+$//%(
%528*+7727+($5&+,7(&725/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
6$77(17,21,00(',$7(/<8321
',6&29(5<12:25.6+$//352&((',17+($5($62)$1<',6&29(5(''(9,$7,216
817,/7+(',))(5(1&(6$5(5(62/9('
6859(<127(6
6+((7,1'(;
12%8,/',1*6,*1$*(352326('$77+,67,0(
75$6+5(&<&/,1*:,//%(&2//(&7(':,7+,17+(%8,/',1*$7
*5281'/(9(/&2//(&7,21:,//2&&85216,7(:,7+,1 (1&/26('
/2$',1*$5($6%<35,9$7(9(1'256
612::,//%(5(029(')5206,'(:$/.6$/,0,7('$028172)612:
6725$*(,6$9$,/$%/($/21*7+(675((7%28/(9$5'6
6,7(3/$1127(6
$0,1,0802)2)7+(6,7($5($,6'(6,*1('287'225
5(&5($7,21$5($
727$/6,7($5($ 6)
'25$$5($5(48,5(' 6)
'25$$5($3529,'('
$ '2*581 6)
% 1')/225$0(1,7<&2857<$5' 6)
727$/3529,'(' 6) 2)6,7(
'25$6800$5< '(6,*1('287'2255(&5($7,21$5($
7+($028172)75((672%(3529,'(',15(3/$&(0(176+$//%(
'(7(50,1('%<7+()2//2:,1*)2508/$
75((5(029$/ 35(6(59$7,216800$5<
6,*1,),&$1775((65(029('21(;&(/6,25%/9' 727$/
727$/&$/,3(5,1&+(6
6,*1,),&$1775((65(029('210217(5(< 6,7( 727$/
727$/&$/,3(5,1&+(6
$ 727$/',$0(7(5,1&+(62)6,*1,),&$1775((6/267$6$
5(68/72)/$1'$/7(5$7,21255(029$/
% 727$/',$0(7(5,1&+(62)6,*1,),&$1775((66,78$7('21
7+(/$1'
& 75((5(3/$&(0(17&2167$17
' 5(3/$&(0(1775((6 180%(52)&$/,3(5,1&+(6
$% ;&;$ '
5(3/$&(0(1775((65(48,5('
;; 5(3/$&(0(1775((6 &$/,3(5,1&+(6
5(3/$&(0(1775((63529,'('
$ 35(6(59('75((621(;&(/6,25%/9' 727$/
727$/&$/,3(5,1&+(6
& 75((6352326(' 727$/&$/,3(5,1&+(6
727$/5(3/$&(0(1775((63529,'(' &$/,3(5,1&+(6
$/7(51$7,9(/$1'6&$3(237,216
$ /$1'6&$3,1*5(48,5(0(1760$<%(02',),(',)7+(352326$/
0((7621(25025(2)7+()2//2:,1*
,7,1&/8'(6287'2253/$=$$1'*5((1522)723$5($6
$ 522)7233/$16,1&/8'(%27+$1287'2253/$=$$1'*5((1522)723
$5($6 $6:(//$6$6:,00,1*322/ '2*3$5.7+(6($&7,9(86($5($6
$5(5(3/$&,1*(;,67,1*/$1'86(:+,&+&855(17/<$5(8186($%/()25
68&+86(6'8(72(;&(66,9(6/23(6
,7:,//$//2:$6,7(3/$17+$7,6025(&216,67(17:,7+7+(
&+$5$&7(52)7+($5($
$ 7+(6,7('(6,*1,1&/8'(65$,6('&21&5(7(3/$17(566,0,/$5727+26(
)281'$/21*(;&(/6,25%/9'
,7%(77(5$&&2002'$7(625,03529(67+((;,67,1*3+<6,&$/ &21',7,2162)7+(
68%-(&73523(57<
$ 7+(352326('%8,/',1*,66,78$7('723529,'($675((76&$3(7+$7,6
6,0,/$5727+(63$&,$/)((/ &+$5$&7(5 &20021/<)281'21
(;&(/6,25(;,67,1*675((76&$3($/21*(;&(/6,25:,//%(5(&5($7('
$63$572)1(:&216758&7,215(3/$&,1*$*,1*,1)5$6758&785($1'
3/$17,1*6:,7+1(:0$7(5,$/67+$7:,//+$9($/21*(5/,)(63$1
% 1(:675((76&$3(,6%(,1*$''('$/21*0217(5(<:+(5(
121( 35(9,286/<(;,67('
& 7+(35(9,286&21',7,21217+(5(0$,1'(52)7+(6,7(,1&/8'('%$&.6
2)6(9(5$/%8,/',1*6(;326,1*87,/,7,(6$1'6(59,&(6$1'$:22'('
6/23(7+$7:$61270$,17$,1('$1':$67+(5()25(29(5*52:1:,7+
,19$6,9(63(&,(668&+$6%2;(/'(5$1'%8&.7+2517+(1(:&21',7,21
2)7+(6,7(/$1'6&$3(:,//&5($7($6,7(7+$7,60$,17$,1(':,7+
3/$17,1*67+$73529,'('(6,5$%/(9,(:62)7+(3523(57<)520
$'-$&(173523(57,(6:+,/((/,0,1$7,1*7+(352/,)(5$7,212),19$6,9(
63(&,(6
())2576$5(0$'(72&5($7(,17(5(67%<3529,',1*$
9$5,(7<2)&2/256$1'7(;785(6
$ $0,;785(2)6+58%6*5$66(6$1'1$7,9(3(5(11,$/6$5(352326('
$/21*(;&(/6,25%/9' 0217(5(< $6:(//$67+($0(1,7<*5((1522)
'(&.7+$7:,//3529,'($9$5,(7<2)&2/25$1'7(;785(7+528*+287
7+(6($6216
/$1'6&$3(6800$5<
3/$170$7(5,$/5(48,5(0(176
$ 1215(6,'(17,$/86(
75((6
5(48,5(' &$123<25(9(5*5((175((3(56)2)*5266
%8,/',1*)/225$5($
75((65(48,5('
727$/&$123<75((6352326('
8372 2)7+(5(48,5('180%(52)&$123<25(9(5*5((175((60$<
%(68%67,787(':,7+251$0(17$/75((6$7$5$7,22) 251$0(17$/
75((672 &$123<25(9(5*5((175((
727$/251$0(17$/75((6352326('
68%67,787,2148$17,7<72:$5'65(48,5(0(17
727$/&$123<75((65(48,5('
727$/&$123<75((6352326('
727$/75((6352326('
6+58%6
5(48,5(' 6+58%63(56)2)*5266%8,/',1*)/225$5($
6+58%65(48,5('
727$/6+58%6352326('
727$/6+58% 3(5(11,$/3/$17,1*6352326('
/$1'6&$3(5(48,5(0(176
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
$
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2725(0$,1
/2725(0$,1
/2725(0$,1
/2725(0$,1
2
$
+
+
%2
%2
%,
%2
0
$
%2
%2
%2
+
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%,
%2
(
%2
%2
(
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
(
%2
(
%,
%2
%2
%2
$
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
(;,67,1*75((,19(1725<
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU
UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW
VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\/LFHQVHG
3URIHVVLRQDO/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXQGHUWKHODZV
RIWKH6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWD
/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B/$1'BBMEDJJHQVWRVVUYW $0-&%
-&%
/
/$1'6&$3(
7,7/(6+((7
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
/$1'6&$3(7,7/(6+((7 /
6,7(3/$1 /
/$1'6&$3(3/$1 /
/(9(/$0(1,7<522)'(&.3/$1 /
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQWV
%
$
/
75((5(029$/ 35(6(59$7,215()(5(1&(
3/$1
47< 6<0 &200211$0( 6,*1,),&$17 &$/,3(5 5(0$,15(029(
(;,67,1*75((6
$ $6+ <(6 5(029(
$ $6+ <(6 5(029(
$ $6+ <(6 5(029(
%, %,5&+ <(6 5(029(
%, %,5&+ <(6 5(029(
%, %,5&+ <(6 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
%2 %2;(/'(5 12 5(029(
( (/0 <(6 5(029(
( (/0 <(6 5(029(
( (/0 <(6 5(029(
+ +$&.%(55< <(6 5(029(
+ +$&.%(55< <(6 5(029(
/2725(0$,1 +21(</2&867 <(6 5(0$,1
/2725(0$,1 +21(</2&867 <(6 5(0$,1
/2 +21(</2&867 725(029( <(6 5(029(
/2725(0$,1 +21(</2&867 <(6 5(0$,1
/2 +21(</2&867 725(029( <(6 5(029(
/2725(0$,1 +21(</2&867 <(6 5(0$,1
/2 +21(</2&867 725(029( <(6 5(029(
/2 +21(</2&867 725(029( <(6 5(029(
0 0$3/( <(6 5(029(
2 2$. <(6 5(029(
02.25.2016 PUD Resubmittal03.08.2016
.(<127(6
*5$3+,&/(*(1'
&21&5(7(7<3
),1,6+ -2,17,1*
3$77(517%'
785)*5$66 62'
,55,*$7('
3$9(53('(67$/6 &2/25
6,=(7%'
+$5':22'08/&+
6+5(''('
6<17+(7,&785)251$7,9(
35$,5,(0,;
'(&25$7,9(&21&5(7(
&2/25),1,6+ -2,17,1*
3$77(517%'
52&.08/&+ 3($
*5$9(/
52&.08/&+ 7%'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
///
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
/
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
/
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
(;&(/6 ,2 5 %/9 '0217(5(<'53$5.&200216'5
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
//
//
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU
UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW
VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\/LFHQVHG
3URIHVVLRQDO/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXQGHUWKHODZV
RIWKH6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWD
/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B/$1'BBMEDJJHQVWRVVUYW $0-&%
-&%
/
6,7(3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
/
6,7(3/$1
/ 251$0(17$/75((6 6((6+((7/
/ (;,67,1*75((6 725(0$,13527(&7$65(48,5(' 6((&,9,/
/ 1$7,9(3(5(11,$/$1''(&,'82863/$17,1*6 6((6+((7/
/ &85%&876
/ '(&25$7,9(&21&5(7(3$9(0(17 &2/257%'
/ 35,0$5<(175$1&(
/ 785)*5$66 ,55,*$7('7<3
/ 81'(5*5281'3$5.,1*$&&(66
/ &21&5(7(:$/.:$<67<3-2,17,1*9$5,(63(53/$1
/ 3$5.,1**$5$*($&&(66
/ (;,67,1*&21&5(7(:$/.6 725(0$,1
/ 67((/('*,1*7<3
/ 5(7$,1,1*:$//6 6((&,9,/
/ 75((*5$7(6
/ %,.(5$&.6
/ &21&5(7(67$,56:0(7$/5$,/,1*7<3
/ 5$,6('&21&5(7(3/$17(5:$//6 720$7&+&,7<67$1'$5'67<3
/ (;,67,1*&85% *877(5 725(0$,16((&,9,/
/ 52&.08/&+ 7%'
/ $'$&85%5$036 6((&,9,/
/ 3$5.,1**$5$*($&&(66'5,9(
/ 352326('&85% *877(5 6((&,9,/
/ '2*581
/ 0(7$/)(1&,1* 7%'
/ (;,67,1*%/'*6
/ (;,67,1*75((*5$7(6 725(0$,16((&,9,/
/ (/(&75,&$/(48,3 6(((/(&
/ 6,7(/,*+7,1* 6(((/(&
/ 6(59,&((175< 6(($5&+
/ /2%%<(175$1&( 6(($5&+
/ 0(7$/&$%/(*8$5'5$,/6 +%/$&.
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO01.25.2016
01.25.2016
03.08.2016
7\SH&DWDORJ
352326('3/$176&+('8/(
*5$3+,&/(*(1'
&21&5(7(7<3
),1,6+ -2,17,1*
3$77(517%'
785)*5$66 62'
,55,*$7('
3$9(53('(67$/6 &2/25
6,=(7%'
+$5':22'08/&+
6+5(''('
6<17+(7,&785)251$7,9(
35$,5,(0,;
'(&25$7,9(&21&5(7(
&2/25),1,6+ -2,17,1*
3$77(517%'
52&.08/&+ 3($
*5$9(/
52&.08/&+ 7%'
(;&(/6 ,2 5 %/9 '0217(5(<'53$5.&200216'5
3523(57</,1(
*7
*7
(D
37
7$
9E
(D
37
(D
37
(D
9E
7$
(D
37
9E
7$
9E
8&
*'
6S
7$
7$
7$
7$
$*
03
%V
&D
03
%V
$U
03
&D
%V
$U
&D
03
%V
$U
&D
03
%V
37
37
37
37
*D
(D
5J
37
*7
5J
$U
/V
$U
*D
*D
6V
$U
$U
*D
*D
6V
$U
/V
/V
$U
*D
*D
6G
0V
%V
0V
1I
/N
'V
+K
'V
9W
'V
9W
$R
9W
$R
+K
9W
+K
+K
+K
0V
%V
+K
0V
%V
5J
5J
6K
0V
+K
5J
9W
0V
%V
+K
5J
+E
0V
'V
37
7$
37
+E
9E
9E
6V
$*
+E
0V
+E
9E
0V
0V
6V
+K
6V
+K
6V
+K
3U
3523(57</,1(
*7
/V
/V
/V
/V
$U
5J
5J
5J
&D
5J
1I
$U
%V
1I
/N
/N
1I
5J
1I
(;,67,1*+21(</2&86775((6725(0$,1
6((3/$1'(7$,//
*7
6V
5J
37
6V
7$
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU
UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW
VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\/LFHQVHG
3URIHVVLRQDO/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXQGHUWKHODZV
RIWKH6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWD
/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B/$1'BBMEDJJHQVWRVVUYW $0-&%
-&%
/
/$1'6&$3(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
47< 6<0 &200211$0( 6&,(17,),&1$0(
3/$17,1*
6,=(&200(176
75((6
$) $5067521*0$3/( $FHU[IUHHPDQLL
$UPVWURQJ
&217
$* $87801%5,//,$1&(
6(59,&(%(55<
$PHODQFKLHU[JUDQGLIORUD
$XWXPQ%ULOOLDQFH
&$/% %
%1 )2;9$//(<&/803
%,5&+
%HWXODQLJUD
/LWWOH.LQJ
&217
*' .(178&.<(635(662
&2))((75((
*\PQRFODGXVGLRLFXV
(VSUHVVR
&$/% %
*7 1257+(51$&&/$,0
+21(</2&867
*OHGLWVLDWULDFDQWKRVYDU
LQHUPLV
+DUYH
&$/% %
03 3,1.63,5(6&5$% 0DOXV
3LQN6SLUHV
&$/% %
3$0%(5-8%,/((
1,1(%$5.75((
3K\VRFDUSXVRSXOLIROLXV
-HIUDP
33
&217
37 6:(',6+&2/801$5
$63(1
3RSXOXVWUHPXOD
(UHFWD
&$/% %
65 ,925<6,/./,/$& 6\ULQJDUHWLFXODWD
,YRU\
6LON
&$/% %
7$ %28/(9$5'/,1'(1 7LOLDDPHULFDQD
%RXOHYDUG
&$/% %
8& 1(:+25,=21(/0 8OPXVFDUSLQLIROLD
1HZ
+RUL]RQ
&$/% %
6+58%6
$R 67$1',1*29$7,21
6(59,&(%(55<
$PHODQFKLHUDOQLIROLD
2EHOLVN
&217
&D 7207+80%
&2721($67(5
&RWRQHDVWHUDSLFXODWXV
7RP7KXPE
&217
'V %877(5)/<%86+
+21(<68&./(
'LHUYLOODVHVVLOLIROLD
%XWWHUIO\
&217
(D ':$5):,1*('
(821<086
(XRQ\PXVDODWXV
&RPSDFWXV
&217
-F *2/'&21(-81,3(5 -XQLSHUXVFRPPXQLV
*ROG&RQH
&217
6G '21$/':<0$1/,/$& 6\ULQJD[SUHVWRQLDH
'RQDOG:\PDQ
&217
6S 0,66.,0/,/$& 6\ULQJDSDWXOD
0LVV.LP
&217
6V 6(0$6+63,5($ 6RUEDULDVRUELIROLD
6HP
33
&217
9E &203$&7$0(5,&$1
9,%85180
9LEXUQXPWULOREXP
%DLOH\
&RPSDFW
&217
9W :(17:257+
9,%85180
9LEXUQXPWULOREXP
:HQWZRUWK
&217
3(5(11,$/6*5$66(69,1(6
$U 5('2&72%(5%,*
%/8(67(0
$QGURSRJRQ
5HG
2FWREHU
33$)
&217
%V 62/$5)/$5(
35$,5,(%/8(6%$37,6,$
%DSWLVLD
6RODU)ODUH
3UDLULHEOXHV 33$)
&217
*D $5,=21$5('6+$'(6
%/$1.(7)/2:(5
*DLOODUGLDDULVWDWD
$UL]RQD
5HG6KDGHV
&217
+E %/8($1*(/+267$ +RVWD
%OXH$QJHO
&217
+K +$'63(1%/8(+267$ +RVWD
+DGVSHQ%OXH
&217
+S 3$5'210('$</,/< +HPHURFDOLV
3DUGRQ0H
&217
/N .2%2/'/,$75,6 /LDWULVVSLFDWD
.REROG
&217
/V )/25,67$1:+,7(
/,$75,6
/LDWULVVSLFDWD
)ORULVWDQ
:KLWH
&217
0V 0,6&$17+86)/$0(
*5$66
0LVFDQWKXVVLQHQVLV
3XUSXUDVFHQV
&217
1I .,7.$7&$70,17 1HSHWDIDDVVHQLL
.LW.DW
&217
3U -$&2%
6/$''(5 3ROHPRQLXPUHSWDQV 327
5J *2/'67580
58'%(&.,$
5XGEHFNLD
*ROGVWXUP
&217
6K 35$,5,('5236((' 6SRUREROXVKHWHUROHSLV &217
/
/$1'6&$3(3/$1
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQWV02.25.2016 PUD Resubmittal03.08.2016
.(<127(6
352326('3/$176&+('8/(
*5$3+,&/(*(1'
&21&5(7(7<3
),1,6+ -2,17,1*
3$77(517%'
785)*5$66 62'
,55,*$7('
3$9(53('(67$/6 &2/25
6,=(7%'
+$5':22'08/&+
6+5(''('
6<17+(7,&785)251$7,9(
35$,5,(0,;
'(&25$7,9(&21&5(7(
&2/25),1,6+ -2,17,1*
3$77(517%'
52&.08/&+ 3($
*5$9(/
52&.08/&+ 7%'
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5
/5/5
/5
/5
/5
3
%1
$U
%1
$U
65
65
-F
-F
-F
6K
0V
6K
+E
$)
0V
+S
$)
$)
/5/5
0V
+E
+E
-F
-F
-F
+E
-F
-F
0V
-F
-F
-F
-F
37
6K
+S
37
6K
+S
37
6K
37
6K
-F
$U
+E
-F
6K
37
65
+S
6K
-F
+S
+E
+S
6K
-F
/5
-F
-F
-F
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU
UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW
VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\/LFHQVHG
3URIHVVLRQDO/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXQGHUWKHODZV
RIWKH6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWD
/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B/$1'BBMEDJJHQVWRVVUYW $0-&%
-&%
/
/(9(/$0(1,7<
522)'(&.3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<47< 6<0 &200211$0( 6&,(17,),&1$0(
3/$17,1*
6,=(&200(176
75((6
$) $5067521*0$3/( $FHU[IUHHPDQLL
$UPVWURQJ
&217
$* $87801%5,//,$1&(
6(59,&(%(55<
$PHODQFKLHU[JUDQGLIORUD
$XWXPQ%ULOOLDQFH
&$/% %
%1 )2;9$//(<&/803
%,5&+
%HWXODQLJUD
/LWWOH.LQJ
&217
*' .(178&.<(635(662
&2))((75((
*\PQRFODGXVGLRLFXV
(VSUHVVR
&$/% %
*7 1257+(51$&&/$,0
+21(</2&867
*OHGLWVLDWULDFDQWKRVYDU
LQHUPLV
+DUYH
&$/% %
03 3,1.63,5(6&5$% 0DOXV
3LQN6SLUHV
&$/% %
3$0%(5-8%,/((
1,1(%$5.75((
3K\VRFDUSXVRSXOLIROLXV
-HIUDP
33
&217
37 6:(',6+&2/801$5
$63(1
3RSXOXVWUHPXOD
(UHFWD
&$/% %
65 ,925<6,/./,/$& 6\ULQJDUHWLFXODWD
,YRU\
6LON
&$/% %
7$ %28/(9$5'/,1'(1 7LOLDDPHULFDQD
%RXOHYDUG
&$/% %
8& 1(:+25,=21(/0 8OPXVFDUSLQLIROLD
1HZ
+RUL]RQ
&$/% %
6+58%6
$R 67$1',1*29$7,21
6(59,&(%(55<
$PHODQFKLHUDOQLIROLD
2EHOLVN
&217
&D 7207+80%
&2721($67(5
&RWRQHDVWHUDSLFXODWXV
7RP7KXPE
&217
'V %877(5)/<%86+
+21(<68&./(
'LHUYLOODVHVVLOLIROLD
%XWWHUIO\
&217
(D ':$5):,1*('
(821<086
(XRQ\PXVDODWXV
&RPSDFWXV
&217
-F *2/'&21(-81,3(5 -XQLSHUXVFRPPXQLV
*ROG&RQH
&217
6G '21$/':<0$1/,/$& 6\ULQJD[SUHVWRQLDH
'RQDOG:\PDQ
&217
6S 0,66.,0/,/$& 6\ULQJDSDWXOD
0LVV.LP
&217
6V 6(0$6+63,5($ 6RUEDULDVRUELIROLD
6HP
33
&217
9E &203$&7$0(5,&$1
9,%85180
9LEXUQXPWULOREXP
%DLOH\
&RPSDFW
&217
9W :(17:257+
9,%85180
9LEXUQXPWULOREXP
:HQWZRUWK
&217
3(5(11,$/6*5$66(69,1(6
$U 5('2&72%(5%,*
%/8(67(0
$QGURSRJRQ
5HG
2FWREHU
33$)
&217
%V 62/$5)/$5(
35$,5,(%/8(6%$37,6,$
%DSWLVLD
6RODU)ODUH
3UDLULHEOXHV 33$)
&217
*D $5,=21$5('6+$'(6
%/$1.(7)/2:(5
*DLOODUGLDDULVWDWD
$UL]RQD
5HG6KDGHV
&217
+E %/8($1*(/+267$ +RVWD
%OXH$QJHO
&217
+K +$'63(1%/8(+267$ +RVWD
+DGVSHQ%OXH
&217
+S 3$5'210('$</,/< +HPHURFDOLV
3DUGRQ0H
&217
/N .2%2/'/,$75,6 /LDWULVVSLFDWD
.REROG
&217
/S 3236,&/(%/8(/83,1( /XSLQXV
3RSVLFOH%OXH
&217
/V )/25,67$1:+,7(
/,$75,6
/LDWULVVSLFDWD
)ORULVWDQ
:KLWH
&217
0V 0,6&$17+86)/$0(
*5$66
0LVFDQWKXVVLQHQVLV
3XUSXUDVFHQV
&217
1I .,7.$7&$70,17 1HSHWDIDDVVHQLL
.LW.DW
&217
3U -$&2%
6/$''(5 3ROHPRQLXPUHSWDQV 327
5J *2/'67580
58'%(&.,$
5XGEHFNLD
*ROGVWXUP
&217
6K 35$,5,('5236((' 6SRUREROXVKHWHUROHSLV &217
/
/(9(/$0(1,7<522)'(&.3/$1
/5 6:,00,1*322/
/5 7$%/(6 &+$,56 7%'
/5 &+$,6(/281*(6 7%'
/5 287'225,1'225),5()($785( 6((,17(5,256
/5 6<17+(7,&785)
/5 6+$'(6758&785( 0(7$/)5$0,1*:'(&25$7,9(:22'6+$'(
,16(576
/5 /,1($53/$17(56:,17(*5$7(',55,*$7,21$1'/,*+7,1*
/5 75((3/$17(56
/5 /281*()851,785( 7%'
/5 81,73$7,26
/5 %$55$,/:,7+6($7,1*
/5 *5,//67$7,21:,7+ 1$785$/*$6*5,//6 6,1. %8,/7,1)5,'*($1'
&22/(56<67(0:+,*+$1'/2:6($7,1*
/5 &$%$1$6:/281*(6($7,1*$1'',1,1*7$%/(6
/5 5(&<&/( /,77(55(&(37$&/(6
/5
+*$7($&&(66
/5 3('(67$/3$9(56 %,621,3(
9(56$'-867
:,7+,3(7,/(6$1'
:$86$8
;
(;35(66,216
&21&5(7(3$9(56 3$77(516 /$<287
7%'
/5 287'22579
/5 3$5$3(7:$//:0(7$/5$,/,1* 6(($5&+
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
01.25.2016
01.25.2016
03.08.2016
6725<
6725<
6725<
322/'(&.
6725<6725<(;&(/6,25%/9'0217(5(<'5,9(3$5.&20'5
(;,67,1*
$3$570(17
%8,/',1*
%5,'*(:$7(5
6)
&$5:$6+
[
/2$',1*
$5($
75$16)250(56
'2*581
=(526(7%$&.
5(48,5(0(17
'2:172:1
03/6
9,(:72
'2:172:1
03/6
:25.32,17
(;,67,1*
%8,/',1*
(;,67,1*
%8,/',1*
&',675,&7
5',675,&7
5',675,&7
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
%$/&21<$7/(9(/
72/(9(/7<3
&$123<$%29(
(175$1&(72
5(6,'(17,$/3$5.,1*
/(9(/3$1'/(9(/3
(175$1&(725(7$,/
3$5.,1*$1'
5(6,'(17,$/*8(67
(175$1&(725(7$,/
3$5.,1*$1'
5(6,'(17,$/*8(67
%$/&21<$7/(9(/
72/(9(/7<30$,17$,1%/$&.723
75$6+'80367(5 3$5.,1*63$&(6380(5758&.6,1*/(81,7
758&.
5$',86
:%
*$5%$*(758&.
3$5$0(',&81,7
5$',86
:%
5
'5$,1$*(
$1'87,/,7<
($6(0(17
'5$,1$*($1'
87,/,7<($6(0(17
3523(57</,1(2)
$'-$&(173523(57<
'5$,1$*($1'
87,/,7<($6(0(17
'5$,1$*($1'
87,/,7<($6(0(17
$5($:(//
672509$8/7
%(/2:*5$'(
672509$8/7
%(/2:*5$'(
5(6,'(17,$/
5(6,'(17,$/
5(6,'(17,$/5(6,'(17,$/
5(6,'(17,$/
5(7$,1,1*:$//%$6(
2):$//6(721
3523(57</,1(
5(7$,1,1*
:$//6((&,9,/
'5$,1$*($1'
87,/,7<($6(0(17
6725<726725<
3523(57</,1(
726725<
'5$,1$*(
$1'87,/,7<
($6(0(17
6725<
'(&.
(/(9$725
29(5581
(/(9$725
29(5581
$7&251(5
726725<
726725<
6(7%$&.726725<
726725<
72/(9(/5(7$,/
72%$/&21<
726725<
726725<
76725<
726725<
726725<
726725<
726725<
726725<
726725<
&$123<&251(5
72&$123<&251(5
72
'5$,1$*($1'
87,/,7<($6(0(17
21675((73$5.,1*67$//6
21675((73$5.,1*67$//6 %$/&21<&251(5
72726725<
76725<
$&&(66($6(0(17
726725<
5(7$,1,1*
:$//6((&,9,/
726725<
725 (7$,1 ,1 *:$//
5(7$,1,1*:$//
7
5(7$,1,1*:$//
726,*1$*( 123$5.,1*
),5(/$1(
=21,1*'$7$
/276,=( 6)
=21,1*',675,&7 0;
6(7%$&. 9$5,(66((3/$1
2))675((73$5.,1*5(48,5(0(176
5(6,'(17,$/63$&(6 ,1&/8'(6*8(6763$&(6
%('678',2;%(';%(';
&200(5&,$/63$&(6$7%$1. 6)6)63$&(
63$&(6$727+(55(7$,/ 6)6)63$&(
63$&(6$7(;,67,1*5(7$,/ 6)6)63$&(
727$/&200(5&,$/ 63$&(6; 63$&(6
727$/5(48,5(' 63$&(65(48,5('
727$/3529,'(' 63$&(6 /(9(/33
21675((73$5.,1*
(;,67,1*3$5$//(/67$//621(;&(/6,25%/9'725(0$,1
%,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5(0(176
08/7,)$0,/<5(48,5(' 63$&(6 81,76$87263$&(6
08/7,)$0,/<3529,'(' 63$&(6 /(9(/33
&200(5&,$/5(48,5(' 63$&(6
&200(5&,$/3529,&(' 63$&(6
3$5.,1*0$<%(5('8&('%<3(5&(17)25$1<3$5&(//2&$7(':,7+,121(
48$57(52)$0,/()520$75$16,76723
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBMKHPHUUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
$5&+6,7(3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
$
6,7(3/$1
3DUNLQJ6FKHGXOH
/HYHO 7\SH &RXQW
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO3
[
$'$
/HYHO3
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO3
[
6WDQGDUG
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO3
[
$'$
/HYHO3
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO3
[
6WDQGDUG
/HYHO
/HYHO
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO
[
$'$
/HYHO
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO
[
6WDQGDUG
*UDQGWRWDO
3DUNLQJ&RXQW3HU/HYHO
/HYHO &RXQW
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
/HYHO
*UDQGWRWDO
6,7(0$3
352-(&76,7(03/6,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'68%0,77$/
38'5(68%0,77$/
38'5(68%0,77$/2016/03/08
83
83
$
-
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
-
)
=
.
;
<
5$0383
:$7(5
+($7(5
),5(3803
5220
6(59,&(
(/(9(48,3
(/(9/2%%<
(/(9/2%%<
(/(9(48,3
6)
75$6+
5(&<&/,1*
5(6
6725$*(
33$5.,1*
0(&+
(;+$867
[
29(5+($'
'225
67$,5$(/(9
67$,5%
0(&+$+8
$%29(
(/(9
6725$*(
.
)
)/22502817('%,.(
5$&.6)25%,.(6
)/22502817('
%,.(5$&.6)25
%,.(6
)/22502817('%,.(
5$&.6)25%,.(6
)/22502817('
%,.(5$&.6)25
%,.(6
)/22502817('
%,.(5$&.6)25
%,.(6
)/22502817('%,.(
5$&.6)25%,.(6
)/22502817('
%,.(5$&.6)25
%,.(6
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
/(9(/3
5()(5(1&(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
$
/(9(/35()(5(1&(3/$1
3DUNLQJ6FKHGXOH
/HYHO 7\SH &RXQW
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO3
[
$'$
/HYHO3
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO3
[
6WDQGDUG
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO3
[
$'$
/HYHO3
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO3
[
6WDQGDUG
/HYHO
/HYHO
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO
[
$'$
/HYHO
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO
[
6WDQGDUG
*UDQGWRWDO
3DUNLQJ&RXQW3HU/HYHO
/HYHO &RXQW
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
/HYHO
*UDQGWRWDO
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO
%,.(63$&(6
3%,.(6725$*(
3 )/225028175$.&6
3 )/225028175$.&6
727$/
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
'1
'1
83
$
-
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
-
)
=
.
;
<
5$03'1
0(&+
$+8
%,.(
6725$*(
&
(/(9/2%%<
&
6(59,&(
&
6725$*(
&
(/(9/2%%<
&
75$6+&+87(
6+$)772%(/2:
67$,5$(/(9
(/(9
67$,5%
'2*581
$&&(66
33$5.,1*
&
6)
33$5.,1*
&
'2*:$6+
&
.
)
*(1(5$725
50
&
(/(&5220
&
0')
%
0(&+
(;+$867
0(&+(;+$867
%,.(5$&.6
)/22502817('%,.(
5$&.6)25%,.(6
)/22502817('%,.(
5$&.6)25%,.(6
)/22502817('%,.(
5$&.6)25%,.(6
)/22502817('
%,.(5$&.6)25
%,.(6
)/22502817('
%,.(5$&.6)25
%,.(6
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
/(9(/3
5()(5(1&(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
$
/(9(/35()(5(1&(3/$1
3DUNLQJ6FKHGXOH
/HYHO 7\SH &RXQW
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO3
[
$'$
/HYHO3
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO3
[
6WDQGDUG
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO3
[
$'$
/HYHO3
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO3
[
6WDQGDUG
/HYHO
/HYHO
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO
[
$'$
/HYHO
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO
[
6WDQGDUG
*UDQGWRWDO
3DUNLQJ&RXQW3HU/HYHO
/HYHO &RXQW
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
/HYHO
*UDQGWRWDO
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO
%,.(63$&(6
3%,.(6725$*(
3 )/225028175$.&6
3 )/225028175$.&6
727$/
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
83
'1
83
$
-
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
-
)
=
.
;
<
3$&.$*(
&
0$,/5220
&
/2%%<
&
/2%%<
&
%5,'*(:$7(5
%$1.
5(7$,/
9(67,%8/(
&
67$,5&
67$,5$(/(9
67$,5%
(/(9
6)
&200(5&,$/
75$6+
&
287/,1(2)
322/$%29(
&200(5&,$/
'(/,9(5<
$5($:$<:
0(7$/*5$7(
/,1(2)
%8,/',1*
$%29(
/,1(2)
%8,/',1*
$%29(
/,1(2)
%8,/',1*
$%29(
/,1(2)
%8,/',1*
$%29(
/,1(2)
6725<
%8,/',1*
$%29(
/,1(2)
%8,/',1*
$%29(
%5,'*(:$7(5
&$5:$6+
)8785(5(6,'(173$5.,1*
)8785(5(6,'(173$5.,1*
75$6+&+87(
6+$)772%(/2:
&200(5&,$/
3$5.,1*
5(7$,/
5(7$,/
322/(48,3
&
.
)
67$//6)25%5,'*(:$7(567$//6)25%5,'*(:$7(572&2/801
72&2/801
%,.(5$&.6)255(7$,/6
%,.(6
%,.(5$&.6)25
5(7$,/ %,.(6
%,.(5$&.6)25
5(6,'(17,$/ %,.(6
9(57,&$/&/($5$1&(0,1
&/($5$1&(0,1
'5,9(/$1(
9(57,&$/&/($5$1&(0,1
9(57,&$/&/($5$1&(
%8,/',1*6800$5<
)ORRU %OGJ*URVV 5RRI'HFN 5HQWDEOH6)%DQN 5HWDLO 1RQ5HQW8VDEOH *URVV3DUNLQJ
7+/(9(/
7+/(9(/
7+/(9(/
5'/(9(/
1'/(9(/
67/(9(/
3$5.,1*3
3$5.,1*3
7RWDO
&/($5+(,*+7
&/($5+(,*+7
127( ,1&200(5&,$/3$5.,1*$5($621/(9(/
9(57,&$/&/($5$1&(,6
3529,'('3(501$&&(66,%,/,7<&2'(81/(66127('27+(5:,6(
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBMKHPHUUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
/(9(/
5()(5(1&(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
$
/(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
3DUNLQJ6FKHGXOH
/HYHO 7\SH &RXQW
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO3
[
$'$
/HYHO3
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO3
[
6WDQGDUG
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO3
[
$'$
/HYHO3
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO3
[
6WDQGDUG
/HYHO
/HYHO
[
&RPSDFW
/HYHO
[
$'$
/HYHO
[
$'$Z6WULSHV
/HYHO
[
6WDQGDUG
*UDQGWRWDO
3DUNLQJ&RXQW3HU/HYHO
/HYHO &RXQW
/HYHO3
/HYHO3
/HYHO
*UDQGWRWDO
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'68%0,77$/
38'5(68%0,77$/
38'5(68%0,77$/
38'5(68%0,77$/2016/03/08
'1
83
'1
83
7
'1
'1
-
*
)
)
$
)
&
&
$
%
%
+
(
+
(
'
(
&
+
)
(
'
&
*
&
0(16
&
<2*$
&
%
%
$
%
$
$
%7<3($
%
$
%
$
$
%
%
%
$
$
$
%
$
6
$
$
%
$
%
$
6
%
&
%
%
:20(16
&
2)),&(
&
&/8%5220
&
),71(66
&
$
)
&
'
)
*
*
75$6+
5(&<&/,1*
5(6
&
6725$*(
&
-$1,72550
&
(/(9/2%%<
&
(/(&&/2
&
-$1,725&/2
&
(/(&&/2
&
23(172%(/2:
%
&255,'25
&
&20021
&
&255,'25
&
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216 758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
/(9(/
5()(5(1&(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
8QLW&RXQW7RWDO3HU
/HYHO
/HYHO &RXQW
1RW3ODFHG
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO
$
/(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
2016/03/08
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
'1
83
'1
-
*
)
)
$
)
&
&
$
%
%
+
(
+
(
'
(
&
+
)
(
'
&
*
&
&7\SH$
6
%
%
%
%
$
$
6
$
$
$
$
$
%
%
%
$
$
%
%
$
$
%
&
$
$
$
%
%
%7<3($
$
$ 7<3($
$
%
%
)
&
'
)
*
*
75$6+
5(&<&/,1*
5(6
&
%
(/(&&/2
&
6725$*(
&
-$1,72550
&
(/(&&/2
&
%
(/(9/2%%<
&
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216 758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
/(9(/
5()(5(1&(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
8QLW&RXQW7RWDO3HU
/HYHO
/HYHO &RXQW
1RW3ODFHG
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
$
/(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO2016/03/08
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
'1
-
*
)
)
$
)
&
&
$
%
%
+
(
+
(
'
(
&
+
)
(
'
&
*
&
%
$ 7<3($
$
$
$
%7<3($
%
%
$
$
%
$
%
%
$
$
$
%
$
6
$
$
%
$
%
%
%
%
6
%
&
$
%
)
&
'
)
*
*
&
75$6+
5(&<&/,1*
5(6
&
(/(&&/2
&6725$*(
&
-$1,72550
&
(/(&&/2
&
%
(/(9/2%%<
&
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216 758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
/(9(/
5()(5(1&(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
$
/(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
$UHD6FKHGXOH *URVV%XLOGLQJ 7RWDO3HU/HYHO
/HYHO $UHD $UHD7\SH
1RW3ODFHG 6) *URVV%XLOGLQJ
$UHD
/HYHO3 6) *URVV%XLOGLQJ
$UHD
/HYHO3 6) *URVV%XLOGLQJ
$UHD
/HYHO 6) *URVV%XLOGLQJ
$UHD
/HYHO 6) *URVV%XLOGLQJ
$UHD
/HYHO 6) *URVV%XLOGLQJ
$UHD
/HYHO 6) )ORRU$UHD
/HYHO 6) *URVV%XLOGLQJ
$UHD
/HYHO 6) *URVV%XLOGLQJ
$UHD
6)
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
-
*
)
)
$
)
&
&
$
%
%
+
(
+
(
'
(
&
+
)
(
'
&
*
&
&
%
$ 7<3($
%
$
$
$
%7<3($
%
$
%7<3($
$
%
$
%
%
$
$
$
%
$
$
6
$
%
%
$
%
%
%
&
%
6
)
&
'
)
*
*
75$6+
5(&<&/,1*
5(6
&
(/(&&/2
&6725$*(
&
-$1,72550
&
(/(&&/2
&
%
(/(9/2%%<
&
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216 758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
/(9(/
5()(5(1&(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
8QLW&RXQW7RWDO3HU
/HYHO
/HYHO &RXQW
1RW3ODFHG
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO
$
/(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
-
*
)
)
$
)
&
&
$
%
%
+
(
+
(
'
(
&
+
)
(
'
&
*
&
$ 7<3($
3
$
%
$
3
%
%
3
$
3
%
%
6
&
%
%
$7<3($
$
6
)
&
'
)
*
*
75$6+
5(&<&/,1*
5(6
&
3
3
3
(/(&&/2
&6725$*(
&
-$1,72550
&
(/(&&/2
&
3
&255,'25
&
3
3
(/(9/2%%<
&
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216 758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
3/$1758(1257+
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
/(9(/
5()(51(&(
3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
8QLW&RXQW7RWDO3HU
/HYHO
/HYHO &RXQW
1RW3ODFHG
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO
$
/(9(/5()(5(1&(3/$1
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO5RRI
030(7$/3$1(/&)%&(0(17),%(5%2$5'
/$3),(/'3$,17
&(0(17678&&2
$/80%$/&21,(67<3&)%&(0(17),%(5%2$5'
/$3),(/'3$,17
(;7(5,25),1,6+0$7(5,$/6
727$/($67&2857<$5')$&$'(6)
&/$660$7(5,$/6
*/$66
678&&2
727$/&/$66
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO
/HYHO5RRI
03&20326,7(0(7$/
3$1(/9(57,&$/6
030(7$/3$1(/&)%&(0(17),%(5%2$5'
/$3),(/'3$,17
&(0(17678&&2
$/80%$/&21,(67<3
&)%35(),1,6+('3$1(/&/,3
6<67(01,&+,+$
&)%&(0(17),%(5%2$5'
/$3),(/'3$,17
(;7(5,25),1,6+0$7(5,$/6
727$/:(67&2857<$5')$&$'(6)
&/$660$7(5,$/6
*/$66
678&&2
727$/&/$66
030(7$/3$1(/
030(7$/3$1(/&)%&(0(17),%(5%2$5'
/$3),(/'3$,17
$/80%$/&21,(67<3
(;7(5,25),1,6+0$7(5,$/6
727$/1257+&2857<$5')$&$'(6)
&/$660$7(5,$/6
*/$66
727$/&/$66
&)%&(0(17),%(5%2$5'
/$3),(/'3$,17
/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU/LFHQVH1XPEHU
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.(<3/$1
352-(&77,7/(
&2168/7$176
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
127)2 5&216758&7,2 1&(57,),&$7,21
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B$,6BBH]LDLHUYW 30$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
$
(;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
$
($67&2857<$5'(/(9
$
:(67&2857<$5'(/(9
$
1257+&2857<$5'(/(9
([FHOVLRU 0RQWHUH\±([WHULRU0DWHULDOV
03)OXVK0HWDO3DQHO´+RUL]RQWDO
&RORU 6LOYHU0HWDOOLF
03)OXVK0HWDO3DQHO$VQHFHVVDU\IRUWULP´%DVH
&RORU 6LOYHU0HWDOOLF
03&RPSRVLWH0HWDO3DQHO
&RORU 6LOYHU0HWDOOLF
03)OXVK0HWDO3DQHO
)LUHVWRQH8&)OXVK3DQHO6\VWHP´9HUWLFDO
&RORU 6LOYHU0HWDOOLF
&)%&HPHQW%RDUG´+RUL]RQWDO6KLS/DS
&RORU )LHOG3DLQW:KLWH
&)%&HPHQW%RDUG´+RUL]RQWDO6KLS/DS
&RORU )LHOG3DLQW2UDQJH
&)%&HPHQW%RDUG´+RUL]RQWDO6KLS/DS
&RORU )LHOG3DLQW2UDQJH
&)%&HPHQW%RDUG3UHILQLVKHG3DQHO6\VWHPZ&OLSV
&RORU :RRG)LQLVK
&HPHQW6WXFFR&RDW6\VWHP
&RORU :KLWH)LQLVK
%ULFN2UDQJH1RUPDQ6L]H
5HG0DWW6DQGHG6HULHV([WRQ
%ULFN:KLWH±8WLOLW\6L]H
*OHQ*HU\-HIIHUVRQ:KLWH *
5RFNIDFH&08´[´
&RORU $QWLTXH:KLWH
:LQGRZV)LEHUJODVV
&RORU %ODFN)LQLVK
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO
2016/03/08 PUD SUBMITTAL
Calculation Summary
Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
EXTERIOR PARKING AREA Illuminance Fc 1.44 2.5 0.1 14.40 25.00
LEVEL 1 PARKING_Floor Illuminance Fc 5.60 17.6 0.4 14.00 44.00
SITE Illuminance Fc 4.66 40.9 0.0
N.A. N.A.
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0
1.1 1.1 0.8 0.4
1.8 1.8 1.4 0.9
2.4 1.9 1.3
2.3 2.5 2.2 1.5
2.12.12.01.6
1.92.01.81.2
2.1 2.0 1.6 1.1
2.4 2.1 1.6 1.0
2.3 2.3 1.8
2.0 2.1 1.8
1.1 1.6 1.5
0.5 0.9 1.1
0.5
7.8 2.7 2.0
1.2 1.3 2.1
0.7 1.0 3.3
0.7 0.9 2.3
1.1 1.3 1.6
3.8 4.6 2.4
8.2 10.6 3.2
0.7 1.5 3.8 4.7 2.7 3.6 5.2 2.7 2.5 4.7 4.5 3.6 3.5 2.2
1.3 2.5 8.2 11.4 4.0 6.3 12.4 4.1 3.7 11.6 8.2 3.9 3.4 2.2
2.9 6.0 6.0 6.8 7.1 6.2 6.7 6.3 5.9 6.9 6.1 8.9 10.7 3.4
0.9 1.7 5.1 13.8 5.1 4.9 13.5 6.4 4.0 10.6 9.3 3.6 3.4 4.9 5.4 2.9
2.0 5.1 6.7 6.8 3.8 3.5 5.8 4.1 3.1 5.3 5.0 2.8 2.9 4.2 4.7 2.8
2.8 10.2 9.9 4.0 2.6 2.6 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.9 3.1 2.7 3.3 8.8 11.2 3.7
2.0 3.6 3.8 2.8 2.4 3.3 5.5 3.8 2.6 3.5 5.5 3.8 3.3 4.6 5.0 3.4
2.2 4.9 5.0 3.3 3.3 4.8 13.3 6.0 3.6 5.5 13.9 5.8 4.5 6.3 7.2 6.0
2.9 10.0 9.6 5.1 8.4 5.8 6.8 5.8 8.9 6.4 7.4 6.3 9.9 11.0 10.7 4.5 4.1 5.4
2.4 4.3 4.6 5.1 12.2 5.5 3.1 4.4 11.7 5.3 3.4 5.5 13.1 7.2 5.2 3.4 2.6 3.8
2.9 8.1 8.3 4.6 4.8 3.4 2.4 3.0 4.5 3.5 2.7 3.7 5.7 7.9 12.0 4.9 2.5 3.4
4.2 8.6 8.5 4.1 3.6 3.1 2.3 2.4 3.3 3.3 2.8 3.5 4.5 5.9 7.5 3.9 2.4 2.8
16.7 7.6 7.2 3.8 6.6 7.0 2.7 2.7 6.8 6.8 3.8 5.8 9.1 4.7 3.3 2.8 3.1 4.5
2.6 9.2 8.4 3.5 8.7 9.7 3.0 3.1 9.8 9.8 6.3 8.7 13.4 6.4 4.8 3.7 7.3 10.0
1.7 3.3 3.5 2.5 3.7 4.5 3.5 3.9 5.7 7.1 14.1 11.2 7.5 11.0 10.9 4.2 7.4 9.4
0.9 1.0 8.2 8.1 10.1 10.2 15.0 12.5 11.1 10.6 7.9 3.5 2.9 3.0
0.4 13.6 11.9 17.0 14.2 17.6 15.1 16.3 11.2 6.1 3.1 2.0 1.7
1.4 2.3 3.1 3.8 4.1 4.2 3.8 2.8 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.8 3.7 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.4 2.6 2.5 1.9
1.7 3.2 5.1 7.1 7.3 8.3 7.2 4.5 2.9 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.9 3.7 2.9 3.3 5.0 7.7 7.3 4.5 2.9 2.5 2.8 3.2 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.5 2.6 4.5 5.6 5.1 3.0
2.3 4.3 8.3 13.0 11.9 13.3 11.5 6.0 3.5 3.1 5.7 8.4 6.6 4.9 10.1 9.9 4.2 3.7 6.3 10.8 10.6 5.4 3.3 3.4 6.8 9.9 3.9 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.7 3.2 7.5 9.8 8.8 4.1
2.5 5.1 10.1 13.9 5.1 10.1 8.2 4.6 3.1 2.8 5.1 8.6 5.8 5.4 9.89.24.33.85.36.96.74.5 3.3 3.9 8.2 11.3 4.1 2.7 2.0 1.4 1.62.85.80.06.8
2.2 4.2 7.7 9.4 7.8 5.8 4.3 2.3 2.2 2.7 20.1 3.7 20.0 21.2 15.9 13.1 18.7 19.9 20.4 20.4 16.3 12.0 19.6 20.4 18.6 7.4 18.7 15.1 6.5 1.4 2.5 4.1 3.5 3.3
3.2 5.4 8.8 6.9 4.0 3.2 2.7 1.5 1.4
2.1 4.7 9.9 6.8 3.7 6.5 2.7 0.7 0.7
1.83.87.25.63.00.9 7.4 2.5 0.3 0.3
1.5 3.1 4.9 4.8 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.5 0.2 0.2
1.23.28.710.83.918.5 1.2 1.2 0.1 0.1
0.93.18.011.23.618.7 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1
0.82.24.04.63.016.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0
0.7 2.0 4.1 5.8 3.2 12.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0
2.2 6.7 16.3 4.2 11.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0
1.8 4.8 9.5 4.0 15.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0
1.6 3.6 5.1 3.8 19.8 0.4 0.2 0.1
1.4 4.1 11.8 5.7 19.7 0.5 0.2 0.1
1.1 4.7 14.7 6.4 19.0 0.6 0.3 0.2
0.8 2.2 4.0 4.4 7.0 3.5 4.0 2.8 2.8
0.5 1.2 2.2 3.7 15.5 4.37.33.22.10.6
0.40.72.05.27.7 3.9 2.3 0.8 0.2
0.4 1.5 4.6 7.4 6.4 3.7 1.0 0.2
0.2 1.2 4.5 7.3 3.3 3.0 0.9 0.2
0.1 0.8 2.6 3.1 10.5 14.2 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.4 4.3 3.3 1.0 0.3
0.1 0.5 1.7 4.4 6.2 9.7 0.3 7.0 3.6 1.2 0.4
0.0 0.3 0.9 5.1 7.8 10.3 11.3 11.6 12.1 12.0 9.3 0.2 3.3 1.8 1.0 0.5
0.0 0.1 0.6 2.7 7.1 6.1 6.9 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.0 0.2 1.7 1.8 1.0
0.0 0.1 0.5 2.8 7.5 11.3 19.4 17.4 17.4 17.9 13.0 0.1 0.9 1.3
0.0 0.1 0.4 2.1 4.1 3.16.83.91.30.90.60.1 1.0
0.0 0.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 5.2 2.7 4.5 6.1 5.5 7.6 6.0 6.3 5.3 3.0 2.2 1.2
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.2
0.10.10.20.20.40.10.51.2
-
--------;6/;6/
;6/;6/
;6/
;6/
;6/
;6/
;6/;6/
;6/
;% ;% ;%
;%
;%;% ;%
;:
;:
;:
;:
;:;:;:
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;';'
;'
;';';'
;';';';';';';';';';';'
;:
;'
;'
;)0535,0$5<)(('(5
50&
;)056(&21'$5<)(('(5
39&/987,/,7<6(59,&(
-
--------;6/
;6/;6/
;6/
;6/;6/;6/
;6/
;6/
;6/
;6/
;% ;% ;%
;%
;%;% ;%
;'
;'
;'
;'
;' ;' ;' ;' ;' ;' ;' ;' ;' ;' ;' ;';' ;' ;'
;:
;:
;:;:;:
;:
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;'
;:
;:
;:
;:
;:
;:
** *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
****
;' ;' ;' ;'
;' ;' ;' ;'
;' ;' ;'
;'
;'
;' ;'
;6/
;6/
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 'DWH
%.9*URXS,QF(2(
'$7(
'5$:1%<
&+(&.('%<
&200,66,21180%(5
.9*5283
$UFKLWHFWXUH
,QWHULRU'HVLJQ
/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWXUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
%RDUPDQ.URRV9RJHO*URXS
,QF
1RUWK
0LQQHDSROLV
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOLH
ZZZENYJURXSFRP
(2(
%
6HFRQG6WUHHW
01
6+((7180%(5
6+((77,7/(
.(<3/$1
&2168/7$176
&(57,),&$7,21
352-(&77,7/(
$5($$
$5($%& ?5HYLW/RFDO? B([FHOVLRU0RQWHUH\B0(BBMRUWPDQQUYW $0-72
&6.
(
(/(&75,&$/
3+2720(75,&
6,7(3/$1
(;&(/6,25
0217(5(<
(
(/(&75,&$/6,7(3/$1
(/(&75,&$//80,1$,5(),;785(6&+('8/( (;7(5,25
,' ),;785(7<3( 02817,1* 92/76
),;785(/$03
48$17,7<),;785(:$77$*(
),;785(/$03
7<3(
&21752/0(',$
/(16/289(56(7&
),;785('(6&5,37,21
7<3(0$18)$&785(56(5,$/180%(5 127(6
;$ 3/$17(56327/,*+7 685)$&(:$// 9 : /('. )/22'5()/(&725 ',(&$67$/80,180),1,6+
7%'
5$%+%/('$6(5,(6
;% %2//$5'$5($/,*+7 *5$'(07' 9 : /(' ',))86('$&5</,7(/(16 %2//$5'$5($/,*+7 /$1'6&$3()2506*8,'(%2//$5'
;' (;7(5,255(&(66('
'2:1/,*+7
5(&(66(' 9 : /('. 23(1$3(5785( *27+$0(926(5,(6
;' 3(5*2/$02817(''2:1
/,*+7
685)$&( 9 : /('. ),1,6+7%' %./,*+7,1*'(1$/,6(5,(6
;3 (;7(5,253(1'$17 9 :
;6 67(3/,*+7 685)$&(:$// 9 : /('. 1$ (;7(5,2567(3/,*+7$1'
'2:1
%(*$ /('6(5,(6
;6/ &,7<2)67/28,63$5.32/(
/,*+7
32/( 9 : +36 6,1*/(+($'32/(02817('
/,*+7
6+(5,'$16+6(5,(6
;6/ &,7<2)67/28,63$5.3('
6&$/(/,*+7
32/( 9 : +36 '8$/+($'3('(675,$1
6&$/(/,*+7
6+(5,'$16+6(5,(6
;6/ 6,1*/(+($'32/(/,*+7 32/( 9 : +36 6,1*/(+($'32/(02817('
/,*+7
/,7+21,$'6;/('&
;: 83'2:1/,*+7 :$// 9 : /('. (;7(5,25'2:1/,*+7),1,6+
7%'
/80,1,66<5,266<6(5,(6
;: :$//07'$5($/,*+7 :$// 9 : /(' 7<3(,,',675,%87,21 (;7(5,25/(':$//07'
$5($/,*+7
/,7+21,$:65/('
;: :$//07'$5($/,*+7 :$// 9 : /(' 7<3(,,,',675,%8,7,21 (;7(5,25/(':$//07'
$5($/,*+7
/,7+21,$:65/('
,668( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
38'6XEPLWWDO
38'5HVXEPLWWDO
03/08/2016
LOUCKS
W:\2014\14634\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S14634-MasterPlotted: 02 /09 / 2016 11:9 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
Excelsior &
Monterey
St. Louis Park, MN
Dominium
Development and
Acquisitions, LLC
2905 Northwest Boulevard
Suite 150, Plymouth, MN 55441
License No.
Date
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.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.14-634
RLL/HDN
TMB
BS
02-09-16
10-20-15 DRAWING ISSUED
10-21-15 ADD PROPOSED ZONING
02-09-16 REVISE R/W & LOT LINES
Preliminary Plat
of Bridgewater
Addition
1 of 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 16, Block 2, Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition.
(Abstract Property)
Lots 15 and 17, Block 2, Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition.
(Torrens Property)
Together with:
Lot 18, Block 2, Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, except that part thereof lying
Southwesterly of a line 35 feet Northeasterly of and parallel with a line described as beginning at a point
30 feet Southwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 17, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition,
Hennepin County", as measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 17; thence
Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line 142.63 feet and there terminating.
Together with:
Lots 19 and 20, Block 2, Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, except that part of said lots
lying Southwesterly of a line 35 feet Northeasterly of and parallel with a line described as beginning at a
point 30 feet Southwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 17, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd
Addition, Hennepin County", as measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 17;
thence Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line 142.63 feet; thence along a tangential curve to
the left having a tangent length of 120 feet, delta angle of 3 degrees 18 minutes and 55 seconds for a
distance of 239.95 feet and there terminating.
(Torrens Property)
Together with:
All that part Lots 19 and 20, Block 2, lying within a distance of 35 feet on both sides of a line described as
beginning at a point 30 feet Southwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 17, Block 2, "Minikahda
Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County", as measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said
Lot 17; thence Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line 142.63 feet; thence along a tangential
curve to the left having a tangent length of 120 feet, delta angle of 3 degrees 18 minutes and 55 seconds
for a distance of 239.95 feet and there terminating, in Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County.
Together with:
All that part of Lot 18, lying Southwesterly of a line 35 feet Northeasterly of and parallel with a line
described as beginning at a point 30 feet Southwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 17, Block
2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County", as measured at right angles from the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 17; thence Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line, 142.63 feet
and there terminating, in Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County".
(Torrens Property)
Together with:
Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County".
Together with:
That part of Lot 34 lying South of a line drawn Westerly at right angles to the East line of Lot 35 at a
point 350 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 35, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition,
Hennepin County".
Together with:
Lot 35, except that part of the Easterly 15 feet of said Lot embraced between the extension West of the
Northerly boundary line of Lot 8, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County" and the
extension West of the Southerly boundary line of Lot 9, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition,
Hennepin County", and except that part of said Lot 35 lying North of a line drawn Westerly at right
angles to the East line of said Lot 35 at a point 350 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 35 and
except that part of Lot 35 described as beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 10; thence
Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 10 to the most Northerly corner of Lot 11; thence
Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of Lots 11 and 12, 52.5 feet; thence Northwesterly at right
angles 16.5 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles to the point of intersection with the Westerly
extension of the North line of said Lot 10; thence East along said extension to the point of beginning,
Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County".
Together with:
That part of Lot 35 described as follows, to-wit: beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 10, thence
Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 10 to the most Northerly corner of Lot 11; thence
Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of Lots 11 and 12, 52.5 feet; thence Northwesterly at right
angles 16.5 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles to the point of intersection with the Westerly
extension of the North line of said Lot 10, thence East along said extension to the point of beginning,
Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County".
(Torrens Property)
Lot 10, Block 2, Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition
(Abstract Property)
BENCHMARK:
Top nut of hydrant located at the southwest quadrant of Excelsior &
Monterey as shown.
Elev. = 900.03 feet (City of St Louis Park Datum - NGVD 1929, per survey
prepared by Sunde Land Surveying, dated January 21, 2015)
EXISTING ZONING:
Zone (R-4) Multiple-Family Residence
Zone (C-2) General Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING:
Zone (MX) Mixed Use
AREAS:
Lot 1 95,128 Sq.Ft. or 2.18 Acres
Lot 2 9,092 Sq.Ft. or 0.21 Acres
Net Property Area = 104,220 Sq.Ft. or 2.39 Acres
Right of way Dedication Area = 21,877 Sq.Ft. or 0.50 Acres
Total Property Area = 126,097 Sq.Ft. or 2.89 Acres
SCALE IN FEET
0 30
NOTE:
The underlying topographic information was obtained from a survey
prepared by Sunde Land Surveying, dated January, 21, 2015, by
permission of the client. The boundary information was prepared by
Loucks. Also, the approximate locations of the buildings, shown in the
northeast corner of the site, was added by Loucks.
Preliminary Plat of: BRIDGEWATER ADDITION
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
LOUCKS
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Bridgewater Bank, a Minnesota banking corporation, fee
owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:
Lot 16, Block 2, “Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County”.
(Abstract Property)
Lots 15 and 17, Block 2, “Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County”.
(Torrens Property)
AND that St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic, fee
owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:
Lot 18, Block 2, “Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County”, except that part thereof lying
Southwesterly of a line 35 feet Northeasterly of and parallel with a line described as beginning at a point
30 feet Southwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 17, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition,
Hennepin County", as measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 17; thence
Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line 142.63 feet and there terminating.
Together with:
Lots 19 and 20, Block 2, “Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County”, except that part of said lots
lying Southwesterly of a line 35 feet Northeasterly of and parallel with a line described as beginning at a
point 30 feet Southwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 17, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd
Addition, Hennepin County", as measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 17;
thence Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line 142.63 feet; thence along a tangential curve to
the left having a tangent length of 120 feet, delta angle of 3 degrees 18 minutes and 55 seconds for a
distance of 239.95 feet and there terminating.
(Torrens Property)
AND that City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, fee owner of the following described
property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:
All that part Lots 19 and 20, Block 2, lying within a distance of 35 feet on both sides of a line described as
beginning at a point 30 feet Southwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 17, Block 2, "Minikahda
Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County", as measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said
Lot 17; thence Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line 142.63 feet; thence along a tangential
curve to the left having a tangent length of 120 feet, delta angle of 3 degrees 18 minutes and 55 seconds
for a distance of 239.95 feet and there terminating, in “Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County”.
Together with:
All that part of Lot 18, lying Southwesterly of a line 35 feet Northeasterly of and parallel with a line
described as beginning at a point 30 feet Southwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 17, Block
2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County", as measured at right angles from the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 17; thence Northwesterly parallel with said Southwesterly line, 142.63 feet
and there terminating, in Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County".
(Torrens Property)
AND that Bridgewater Bancshares, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, fee owner of the following described property
situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:
Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County".
Together with:
That part of Lot 34 lying South of a line drawn Westerly at right angles to the East line of Lot 35 at a
point 350 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 35, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition,
Hennepin County".
Together with:
Lot 35, except that part of the Easterly 15 feet of said Lot embraced between the extension West of the
Northerly boundary line of Lot 8, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County" and the
extension West of the Southerly boundary line of Lot 9, Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition,
Hennepin County", and except that part of said Lot 35 lying North of a line drawn Westerly at right
angles to the East line of said Lot 35 at a point 350 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 35 and
except that part of Lot 35 described as beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 10; thence
Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 10 to the most Northerly corner of Lot 11; thence
Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of Lots 11 and 12, 52.5 feet; thence Northwesterly at right
angles 16.5 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles to the point of intersection with the Westerly
extension of the North line of said Lot 10; thence East along said extension to the point of beginning,
Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County".
Together with:
That part of Lot 35 described as follows, to-wit: beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 10, thence
Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 10 to the most Northerly corner of Lot 11; thence
Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of Lots 11 and 12, 52.5 feet; thence Northwesterly at right
angles 16.5 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles to the point of intersection with the Westerly
extension of the North line of said Lot 10, thence East along said extension to the point of beginning,
Block 2, "Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County".
(Torrens Property)
Lot 10, Block 2, “Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County”
(Abstract Property)
Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as BRIDGEWATER DOMINIUM ADDITION and do hereby
dedicate to the public for public use forever the public ways and the easements for drainage and utility purposes
as shown on this plat.
In witness whereof said Bridgewater Bank, a Minnesota banking corporation, has caused these
presents to be signed by its proper officer this ______ day of ____________________,
201_____.
BRIDGEWATER BANK
_________________________________________
(Name)
_________________________________________
(Title)
State of _______________
County of ______________
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ____________________,
201_____ by ____________________________, _________________________ of
Bridgewater Bank, a Minnesota banking corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
_________________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________________
(Printed Name)
Notary Public ____________________ County, ______________
My Commission Expires January 31, 20_____
In witness whereof said St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a Minnesota public
body corporate and politic, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this
______ day of ____________________, 201_____.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
_________________________________________
(Name)
_________________________________________
(Title)
State of ______________
County of ______________
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ____________________,
201_____ by ____________________________, _________________________ of St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic, on behalf
of the corporation.
_________________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________________
(Printed Name)
Notary Public ____________________ County, _______________
My Commission Expires January 31, 20_____
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION
I, Henry D. Nelson, 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 __________________, 201____
__________________________________
Henry D. Nelson, Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 17255
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of __________________, 201_____ by Henry D.
Nelson, a Licensed Land Surveyor.
_________________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________________
(Printed Name)
Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires January 31, 2020
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
This plat of BRIDGEWATER DOMINIUM ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of _________________, 201_____. 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 Minn. Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
By __________________________________, Mayor By ______________________________, Clerk
RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that taxes payable in 201_____ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat,
dated this ________ day of ____________________, 201_____.
Mark V. Chapin, Hennepin County Auditor
By ________________________________, Deputy
SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this ________ day of
______________________, 201_____.
Chris F. Mavis, Hennepin County Surveyor
By _________________________________
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the within plat of BRIDGEWATER DOMINIUM ADDITION was filed in this office this
________ day of _____________________, 201_____, at ________o'clock __M.
Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles
By ________________________________ Deputy
COUNTY RECORDER , Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the within plat of BRIDGEWATER DOMINIUM ADDITION was recorded in this office this
________ day of _____________________, 201_____, at ________o'clock __M.
Martin McCormick, County Recorder
By ________________________________ Deputy
In witness whereof said City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, has caused
these presents to be signed by its proper officer this ______ day of ____________________,
201_____.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
_________________________________________
(Name)
_________________________________________
(Title)
State of ______________
County of ______________
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ____________________,
201_____ by ____________________________, _________________________ of City of St.
Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
_________________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________________
(Printed Name)
Notary Public ____________________ County, _______________
My Commission Expires January 31, 20_____
In witness whereof said Bridgewater Bancshares, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, has caused
these presents to be signed by its proper officer this ______ day of ____________________,
201_____.
BRIDGEWATER BANCSHARES, INC.
_________________________________________
(Name)
_________________________________________
(Title)
State of ______________
County of ______________
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ____________________,
201_____ by _______________________, _________________ of Bridgewater Bancshares,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
_________________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________________
(Printed Name)
Notary Public ____________________ County, _______________
My Commission Expires January 31, 20_____
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
LOUCKS
SCALE IN FEET
0 30
Planning Commission
Meeting Date: March 16, 2016
Agenda Item #4A
4A. Consideration of a resolution stating that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District is in
conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Recommended
Motion:
Motion to adopt the resolution finding the Tax Increment
Financing Plans for the proposed Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment
Financing District to be in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of St. Louis Park.
REQUEST: Requested is a recommendation of approval of the resolution finding that the
proposed Tax Increment Financing Plans for the proposed Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment
Financing District conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the
city.
The prospective plans to construct a multi-story office building, hotel or multiple-family
residential development or some combination thereof at 9920 & 9808 Wayzata Blvd are in
conformance with the land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject
site which is Office.
BACKGROUND: On November 10, 2011, the City’s Inspection Department inspected the
former Santorini restaurant building located at 9920 Wayzata Blvd following reports to the
Police Department that the building had been broken into and vandalized. On January 23, 2012,
the City's Inspection Dept. sent a letter to the property owner declaring both the building and
former garage building located next door at 9808 Wayzata Blvd (“subject site”) had fallen into
such disrepair that they were unsafe and a public nuisance as specified in Minnesota State
Building Code Section 1300.0180 and therefore ordered their repair or removal. On June 18,
2012, prior to the restaurant building’s demolition, the EDA adopted a resolution citing both
properties as structurally substandard and pre-qualified them for a potential Redevelopment TIF
District should a project that met the City's vision for the site emerge. The restaurant building
was then demolished in February 2013 and the garage was removed in July 2014.
Statutorily, the City has three years after the completion of demolition to create a TIF district on
a property. At the January 11th Study Session, it was the consensus of the EDA that it wished to
preserve its ability to utilize tax increment to facilitate a future redevelopment that met with its
vision for the subject site and directed staff to pursue the formal establishment of a TIF district
on the site. Authorizing the establishment of the TIF District would not, in itself, commit the
EDA to providing any financial assistance for a proposed project on the subject site.
Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse a future developer for a portion
of its qualified project costs. Once established, the EDA will have approximately 4 years to
commit tax increment to a project before the district must be decertified.
Agenda Item No 4A – Wayzata Blvd TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 2
Meeting Date: March 16, 2016
Subject redevelopment site: 9920 & 9808 Wayzata Blvd
Current Conditions
The subject property is located in the upper northwest quadrant of the city within the Shelard
Park Neighborhood. It is bound by the Westmarke Condominiums to the west, the MetroPoint
Office Park to the north, US Highway 169 to the east and I-394 to the south. The subject site is
currently vacant, and given its proximity to the highway interchange, is highly visible. The site
has been subject to occasional dumping which has created a public nuisance. According to the St.
Louis Park Plan by Neighborhood Input Report dated July 2009, “the most critical neighborhood
improvement identified [within the Northwest Neighborhood Planning Area] was decreasing
public nuisances, which was primarily related to concerns about [property] maintenance...”
Encouraging redevelopment of the subject site is consistent with this objective.
Potential Uses
Given its location, it is envisioned that the subject site would be conducive to a multi-story office
building, hotel, or apartment building or some combination thereof with associated structured
parking. Such buildings would be complementary to, and create synergies with, the surrounding
land uses. Additionally, these potential uses are viable under current market conditions and
consistent with the City’s Council’s vision to see the property redeveloped with some intensity
and density.
Need for Tax Increment
The subject site is former lakebed and as a result has unstable structural soils. Any building
beyond a single story will likely require extensive foundation work. A developer looking to
construct multi-story buildings on the site will likely incur the following extraordinary costs: soil
excavation, export and import; structural piling, underground storm water management; and
structured underground parking. Depending on the project’s density, these costs will likely
prevent such a project from achieving financial feasibility. In order to offset a portion of these
Agenda Item No 4A – Wayzata Blvd TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 3
Meeting Date: March 16, 2016
anticipated extraordinary costs a TIF District is pro-actively being established to provide
financial assistance so as to enable a prospective project similar to ones described above to
proceed. Tax increment financing uses the increased future property taxes generated by a new
development to finance certain qualified development costs incurred by that project for a limited
period of time.
Providing tax increment financing assistance to facilitate redevelopment on the subject site will
make it possible to construct a high quality project consistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, Livable Communities design principles and the community’s vision. Such assistance will
likely be necessary to bring the subject site to optimal market value resulting in increased
assessed value, new employment opportunities as well as provide the community with expanded
hotel and housing choices.
Proposed TIF District
The proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District is being created to facilitate the future construction of
either a multi-story office building, hotel, or apartment building or some combination thereof
with associated structured parking.
Statutorily TIF districts must be located within a Project Area or Redevelopment Area. The
proposed Wayzata TIF District lies outside the current boundaries of the city’s Redevelopment
Project Area No. 1. Therefore, within the Wayzata TIF District Plan the boundaries of
Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the City’s
corporate boundaries (see attached Redevelopment Project Area Maps). With the modification,
the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District will lie within the required Redevelopment Project Area
and eliminates the need for any further modifications in the future.
As shown in the attached TIF District map, the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District consists of
two parcels: 9920 and 9808 Wayzata Blvd and adjoining rights-of-way. The proposed TIF
District will be designated as a redevelopment district with a maximum term of 26 years. The
proposed TIF District meets the necessary statutory requirements of a Redevelopment TIF
District as determined by the City’s Inspection Department in its Inspection Notice dated 1/23/12
and subsequent Substandard Building Analysis Memo to the Community Development Dept
dated 10/8/13. A Resolution Designating a Building as Structurally Substandard relative to the
subject site was adopted by the EDA on 6/18/12. A Resolution Ordering the Abatement of
Hazardous Building was likewise adopted by the City Council on 6/18/12.
Previous and Pending TIF District Approvals
At its February 1, 2016 meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of March 21, 2016 for
consideration of the establishment of the proposed Wayzata Blvd Redevelopment TIF District.
The EDA will consider the approval of the District that same evening.
Is the proposed TIF District in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
According to the Plan by Neighborhood section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, one of the
Shelard Park Neighborhood Improvement Opportunities (identified through a neighborhood
input process) is:
Agenda Item No 4A – Wayzata Blvd TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 4
Meeting Date: March 16, 2016
Redevelop vacant and underutilized properties/buildings along Wayzata Boulevard
(frontage road north side of I-394)
The subject site is both vacant and underutilized.
The land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site and proposed TIF
District is Office. The subject property likewise lies within an Office Zoning District. Prospective
projects envisioned in the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF Plan for the subject site include a multi-
story office building, hotel or multi-family apartment building or some combination thereof. All
such uses are consistent with site’s land use designation and are permitted uses (with conditions
or by CUP) under the City’s Zoning Code. Thus, the prospective projects described in the
proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF Plan conform to the Office land use designation within the City’s
2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site.
The Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act requires planning commissions to determine if a
proposed TIF district is in conformance with its city’s Comprehensive Plan. Based on the
information presented above, the Planning Commission is asked to find that the proposed
Wayzata Blvd TIF District Plan conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution finding that the proposed Tax Increment
Financing Plans for the establishment of Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District
conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City.
Attachments:
Resolution of Approval
Wayzata Blvd TIF District Map
Redevelopment Project Area Maps
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Wayzata Blvd TIF District
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Agenda Item No 4A – Wayzata Blvd TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 5
Meeting Date: March 16, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1,
THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLANS FOR THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS
THEREIN, AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
WAYZATA BOULEVARD TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City
of St. Louis Park (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification"), a Modification to
the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts therein (the “TIF
Plan Modifications”), and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Boulevard Tax
Increment Financing District (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification,
TIF Plan Modifications, and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and
have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the
comprehensive plan for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conforms to the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: March 16, 2016
ATTEST: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Chair
Sean Walther
Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Agenda Item No 4A – Wayzata Blvd TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 6
Meeting Date: March 16, 2016
EXHIBIT A
The Tax Increment Financing Plans for the following Tax Increment Financing Districts are being
modified to reflect the expansion of the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1:
4900 Excelsior (County Number 1321)
Aquila Commons (County Number 1311)
Edgewood (County Number 1309)
Eliot Park (County Number 1318/1319)
Ellipse on Excelsior (County Number 1315)
Elmwood Village/Hoigaard Village (County Number 1312)
Hardcoat (County Number 1316)
Highway 7 Corporate Center 7 & HSTI (County Number 1313)
Mill City (County Number 1307)
Park Center (County Number 1304)
Park Commons (County Number 1308)
Shoreham (County Number 1320)
The West End (County Number 1314)
Wolfe Lake Commercial (County Number 1310)
Zarthan & 16th Street (County Number 1305 and 1306)
´
Wayzata Blvd TIF District
Legend
Redevelopment Project No. 1
Wayzata Blvd TIF District
Parcels
February 1, 2016
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
3,600 0 3,6001,800 Feet
Proposed TIF District
As of March 9, 2016
Draft for Planning Commission
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans
for the Tax Increment Financing Districts
within Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of
the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District
(a redevelopment district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: March 21, 2016
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1 ........................................... 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 ........................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Background ............................................. 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Modification............................................. 2-1
Section 3 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District ............................. 3-1
Subsection 3-1. Foreword............................................... 3-1
Subsection 3-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 3-1
Subsection 3-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 3-1
Subsection 3-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 3-1
Subsection 3-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 3-2
Subsection 3-6. Classification of the District................................. 3-2
Subsection 3-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 3-4
Subsection 3-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 3-4
Subsection 3-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 3-5
Subsection 3-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 3-6
Subsection 3-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 3-6
Subsection 3-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 3-7
Subsection 3-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 3-8
Subsection 3-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 3-8
Subsection 3-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 3-10
Subsection 3-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 3-10
Subsection 3-17. Modifications to the District................................ 3-10
Subsection 3-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 3-11
Subsection 3-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 3-12
Subsection 3-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 3-13
Subsection 3-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 3-13
Subsection 3-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 3-13
Subsection 3-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 3-14
Subsection 3-24. Administration of the District ............................... 3-14
Subsection 3-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 3-14
Subsection 3-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 3-14
Subsection 3-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 3-15
Subsection 3-28. Summary.............................................. 3-15
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District .......................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Wayzata
Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the Economic Development Coordinator at the City of St. Louis Park.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1
The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the corporate
limits of the City of St. Louis Park.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 2-1
Section 2 - Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the
Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1
Subsection 2-1 Background
The purpose of the modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing
Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 is to provide for the enlargement of Redevelopment Project No.
1.
Subsection 2-2 Modification
The EDA and City are hereby modifying the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the following Tax Increment
Financing Districts to reflect the expansion of the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1:
• 4900 Excelsior (County Number 1321)
• Aquila Commons (County Number 1311)
• Edgewood (County Number 1309)
• Eliot Park (County Number 1318/1319)
• Ellipse on Excelsior (County Number 1315)
• Elmwood Village/Hoigaard Village (County Number 1312)
• Hardcoat (County Number 1316)
• Highway 7 Corporate Center 7 & HSTI (County Number 1313)
• Mill City (County Number 1307)
• Park Center (County Number 1304)
• Park Commons (County Number 1308)
• Shoreham (County Number 1320)
• The West End (County Number 1314)
• Wolfe Lake Commercial (County Number 1310)
• Zarthan & 16th Street (County Number 1305 and 1306)
(Collectively, the "TIF Districts").
The following sentence is to be inserted into the Tax Increment Financing Plan for each of the TIF Districts:
The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the corporate
limits of the City of St. Louis Park, as shown on Appendix A hereto.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-1
Section 3 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 3-1. Foreword
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Wayzata
Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district,
located in Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 3-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 3-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of two parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate the construction of a multi-story hotel with approximately 120 rooms, a multi-
story apartment building with approximately 150 units and structured parking associated with each. Please
see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA has not entered into an agreement or designated
a developer at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but development is likely to occur in 2017 or early
2018. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 3-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-2
Subsection 3-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 3-6. Classification of the District
The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(xvi) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(xvii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(xviii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
(c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-3
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph
(e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the
parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished
or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or
was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and
that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a
district; and
(4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
• The District is a redevelopment district consisting of two parcels.
• An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
• An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
• The City has passed a demolition resolution in conjunction with the District.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-4
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes
payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 3-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax
increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of
26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2020, which is no
later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District,
including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after
2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to
the legally required date.
Subsection 3-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2015 for taxes payable 2016.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2018) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2016, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of
the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2020. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC)
listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-5
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $1,104,112
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $37,538
Fiscal Disparities Contribution $117,434
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $949,140
Original Local Tax Rate 1.32757
Estimated
Pay 2016
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,260,050
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $271,575.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building
permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the
City.
Subsection 3-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and
interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan
Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue
bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $22,511,746
Interest $2,251,175
TOTAL $24,762,921
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $15,423,389. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-6
you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total
bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Subsection 3-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of a multi-story hotel
with approximately 120 rooms, a multi-story apartment building with approximately 150 units and structured
parking associated with each. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide
assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the
development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and
development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to
pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with
the District is outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $1,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $3,500,000
Utilities $1,000,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $7,672,214
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$2,251,175
PROJECT COST TOTAL $15,423,389
Interest $9,339,532
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $24,762,921
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be
spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan.
Subsection 3-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal
disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-7
current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section
276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity
and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax
capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity
is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has
designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 3-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-8
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 3-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 3-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows on the next page if the "but for" test was not met:
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-9
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Estimated
2015/Pay 2016
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,467,566,893 949,140 0.0647%
City of St. Louis Park 57,090,028 949,140 1.6625%
Hopkins ISD No. 270 103,765,150 949,140 0.9147%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Estimated
Pay 2016
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.453140 34.13% 949,140 430,093
City of St. Louis Park 0.481170 36.24% 949,140 456,698
Hopkins ISD No. 270 0.288880 21.76% 949,140 274,188
Other 0.104380 7.86%949,140 99,071
Total 1.327570 100.00%1,260,050
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2016 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on estimated Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates and
figures, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $22,511,746;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police
calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional
overall demands to the call load. The City tracks all calls for service by neighborhood and property
type. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new
capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its staff.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. Sidewalk and lighting
costs will be approximately $50,000. The current sanitary sewer (SAC) connection fee is $2,485 and
the water (WAC) connection fee is $750. However, the total amount of units to be charged will be
determined by the Metropolitan Council.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-10
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any
general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the
City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $4,898,556;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $7,683,259;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 3-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
• A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 3-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
Subsection 3-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-11
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that
the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in
writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated
from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax
capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the
District.
The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the
District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF
Plan.
Subsection 3-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District;
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-12
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be
appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information
and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be
adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 3-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-13
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately March 2020
and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 3-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant
to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement
activities outside the District.
Subsection 3-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the
District.
Subsection 3-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-14
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which
provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 3-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 3-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator.
Subsection 3-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax increment from the District.
Subsection 3-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination,
reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-15
and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments.
Subsection 3-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not
be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action
response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 3-28. Summary
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for
the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
Appendix A-1
Appendix A
Project Description
The District is being created to facilitate the construction of either a multi-story office building with
approximately 40,000 square feet, a hotel with approximately 120 rooms, an apartment building with
approximately 150 units, or some combination thereof along with underground or structured parking
associated with each development.
Appendix B-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District
TIF Districts
Legend
Redevelopment Project Area
TIF Districts
4900 Excelsior (2041)
Aquila Commons (2032)
Edgewood (2025)
Eliot Park (2040)
Ellipse on Excelsior (2036)
Elmwood Village/Hoigaard Village (2029)
Hardcoat (2022)
Highway 7 CC & HSTI (2032)
Mill City (2026)
Park Center (2023)
Park Commons (2027)
Shoreham (2041)
The West End (2036)
Wayzata Blvd (Proposed)
Wolfe Lake Commercial (2031)
Zarthan & 16th Street (2026)
Updated January 2016
Prepared by the St. Louis Park
Community Development Department ±
(Legal Maximum Term Limit)
010.5
Miles
The boundaries of Redevelopment
Project No. 1 are being expanded to be
coterminous with the corporate
boundaries of the City of St. Louis
Park.
Redevelopment Project No. 1
Tax Increment Financing Districts
´
Wayzata Blvd TIF District
Legend
Redevelopment Project No. 1
Wayzata Blvd TIF District
Parcels
February 1, 2016
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
3,600 0 3,6001,800 Feet
Proposed TIF District
Appendix C-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
01-117-22-14-0018 9920 Wayzata Blvd 9920 Hotels LLC
01-117-22-14-0002 9808 Wayzata Blvd 9920 Hotels LLC
Appendix D-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
2/17/2016Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value2018Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,0001.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,0002.00%Interest Rate:4.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-18Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%First Period Ending1-Feb-19Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2016First $100,000 0.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2020 Over $100,000 0.25%Years of Tax Increment 26 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2045First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio29.7759% Pay 2016 PrelimFirst $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate150.2620% Pay 2016 PrelimOver $500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 132.757% Pay 2016 PrelimAgricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 132.757% Pay 2016 PrelimState-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 49.0000% Pay 2016 PrelimMarket Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.18722% Pay 2016 PrelimBuilding Total PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandMarket Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value ValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.101-117-22-14-00189920 Wayzata Blvd1,011,0000 1,011,000100% 1,011,000 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.19,470 Rental12,638 01-117-22-14-00189920 Wayzata Blvd100,0000 100,000100% 100,000 Pay 2016 C/I2,000 Rental1,250 201-117-22-14-00029808 Wayzata Blvd1,020,0000 1,020,000100% 1,020,000 Pay 2016 C/I20,400 C/I Pref.19,650 01-117-22-14-00029808 Wayzata Blvd200,0000 200,000100% 200,000 Pay 2016 C/I4,000 C/I4,000 2,331,0000 2,331,0002,331,000 45,87037,538Note:1. Base values are for pay 2016 based upon review of County website on 2-16-16.Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xls
2/17/2016Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelEstimated TaxableTotal Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2018201920202021 PayableApt180,000180,000 150 27,000,000 Rental337,5002,250 50%100%100%100%2021Hotel 86,00086,000 120 10,320,000 C/I Pref. 205,6501,714 50%100%100%100%2021TOTAL37,320,000543,150 Subtotal Residential150 27,000,000337,500 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.120 10,320,000205,650 Note:1. Market values are based upon email from City Assessor on 8-4-15.Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitApt337,5000337,500 448,0550050,549 498,604 3,324.03Hotel 205,650 61,234 144,416 191,722 92,012 100,76919,321 403,823 3,365.20TOTAL 543,150 61,234 481,916 639,777 92,012 100,76969,871 902,428Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes902,428Current Market Value - Est.2,331,000less State-wide Taxes(100,769)New Market Value - Est.37,320,000less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(92,012) Difference34,989,000less Market Value Taxes(69,871)Present Value of Tax Increment12,178,330less Base Value Taxes(40,485) Difference22,810,670Annual Gross TIF 599,292Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:22,810,670 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xls
2/17/2016Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of TaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/19- - - - 08/01/19- - - - 02/01/20100% 271,575 (37,538) (23,575) 210,462 132.757% 279,404 139,702 (503) (13,920) 125,279 115,738 0.5 2020 08/01/20100% 271,575 (37,538) (23,575) 210,462 132.757% 279,404 139,702 (503) (13,920) 125,279 229,207 1 2020 02/01/21100% 543,150 (37,538) (54,192) 451,420 132.757% 599,292 299,646 (1,079) (29,857) 268,711 467,815 1.5 2021 08/01/21100% 543,150 (37,538) (54,192) 451,420 132.757% 599,292 299,646 (1,079) (29,857) 268,711 701,744 2 2021 02/01/22100% 559,445 (37,538) (56,029) 465,878 132.757% 618,485 309,243 (1,113) (30,813) 277,317 938,431 2.5 2022 08/01/22100% 559,445 (37,538) (56,029) 465,878 132.757% 618,485 309,243 (1,113) (30,813) 277,317 1,170,477 3 2022 02/01/23100% 576,228 (37,538) (57,921) 480,769 132.757% 638,255 319,127 (1,149) (31,798) 286,181 1,405,244 3.5 2023 08/01/23100% 576,228 (37,538) (57,921) 480,769 132.757% 638,255 319,127 (1,149) (31,798) 286,181 1,635,409 4 2023 02/01/24100% 593,515 (37,538) (59,870) 496,107 132.757% 658,617 329,308 (1,186) (32,812) 295,311 1,868,259 4.5 2024 08/01/24100% 593,515 (37,538) (59,870) 496,107 132.757% 658,617 329,308 (1,186) (32,812) 295,311 2,096,544 5 2024 02/01/25100% 611,320 (37,538) (61,878) 511,905 132.757% 679,590 339,795 (1,223) (33,857) 304,714 2,327,479 5.5 2025 08/01/25100% 611,320 (37,538) (61,878) 511,905 132.757% 679,590 339,795 (1,223) (33,857) 304,714 2,553,887 6 2025 02/01/26100% 629,660 (37,538) (63,945) 528,177 132.757% 701,192 350,596 (1,262) (34,933) 314,400 2,782,910 6.5 2026 08/01/26100% 629,660 (37,538) (63,945) 528,177 132.757% 701,192 350,596 (1,262) (34,933) 314,400 3,007,443 7 2026 02/01/27100% 648,550 (37,538) (66,075) 544,937 132.757% 723,442 361,721 (1,302) (36,042) 324,377 3,234,559 7.5 2027 08/01/27100% 648,550 (37,538) (66,075) 544,937 132.757% 723,442 361,721 (1,302) (36,042) 324,377 3,457,221 8 2027 02/01/28100% 668,006 (37,538) (68,268) 562,200 132.757% 746,360 373,180 (1,343) (37,184) 334,653 3,682,433 8.5 2028 08/01/28100% 668,006 (37,538) (68,268) 562,200 132.757% 746,360 373,180 (1,343) (37,184) 334,653 3,903,229 9 2028 02/01/29100% 688,046 (37,538) (70,528) 579,981 132.757% 769,966 384,983 (1,386) (38,360) 345,237 4,126,542 9.5 2029 08/01/29100% 688,046 (37,538) (70,528) 579,981 132.757% 769,966 384,983 (1,386) (38,360) 345,237 4,345,476 10 2029 02/01/30100% 708,688 (37,538) (72,855) 598,295 132.757% 794,279 397,140 (1,430) (39,571) 356,139 4,566,895 10.5 2030 08/01/30100% 708,688 (37,538) (72,855) 598,295 132.757% 794,279 397,140 (1,430) (39,571) 356,139 4,783,973 11 2030 02/01/31100% 729,948 (37,538) (75,252) 617,159 132.757% 819,322 409,661 (1,475) (40,819) 367,368 5,003,504 11.5 2031 08/01/31100% 729,948 (37,538) (75,252) 617,159 132.757% 819,322 409,661 (1,475) (40,819) 367,368 5,218,731 12 2031 02/01/32100% 751,847 (37,538) (77,720) 636,589 132.757% 845,116 422,558 (1,521) (42,104) 378,933 5,436,381 12.5 2032 08/01/32100% 751,847 (37,538) (77,720) 636,589 132.757% 845,116 422,558 (1,521) (42,104) 378,933 5,649,762 13 2032 02/01/33100% 774,402 (37,538) (80,263) 656,601 132.757% 871,684 435,842 (1,569) (43,427) 390,846 5,865,537 13.5 2033 08/01/33100% 774,402 (37,538) (80,263) 656,601 132.757% 871,684 435,842 (1,569) (43,427) 390,846 6,077,081 14 2033 02/01/34100% 797,634 (37,538) (82,882) 677,214 132.757% 899,049 449,525 (1,618) (44,791) 403,116 6,290,987 14.5 2034 08/01/34100% 797,634 (37,538) (82,882) 677,214 132.757% 899,049 449,525 (1,618) (44,791) 403,116 6,500,700 15 2034 02/01/35100% 821,563 (37,538) (85,580) 698,445 132.757% 927,235 463,618 (1,669) (46,195) 415,754 6,712,746 15.5 2035 08/01/35100% 821,563 (37,538) (85,580) 698,445 132.757% 927,235 463,618 (1,669) (46,195) 415,754 6,920,634 16 2035 02/01/36100% 846,210 (37,538) (88,359) 720,314 132.757% 956,267 478,133 (1,721) (47,641) 428,771 7,130,828 16.5 2036 08/01/36100% 846,210 (37,538) (88,359) 720,314 132.757% 956,267 478,133 (1,721) (47,641) 428,771 7,336,900 17 2036 02/01/37100% 871,596 (37,538) (91,221) 742,838 132.757% 986,169 493,085 (1,775) (49,131) 442,179 7,545,249 17.5 2037 08/01/37100% 871,596 (37,538) (91,221) 742,838 132.757% 986,169 493,085 (1,775) (49,131) 442,179 7,749,512 18 2037 02/01/38100% 897,744 (37,538) (94,169) 766,038 132.757% 1,016,969 508,485 (1,831) (50,665) 455,989 7,956,025 18.5 2038 08/01/38100% 897,744 (37,538) (94,169) 766,038 132.757% 1,016,969 508,485 (1,831) (50,665) 455,989 8,158,489 19 2038 02/01/39100% 924,677 (37,538) (97,205) 789,934 132.757% 1,048,693 524,346 (1,888) (52,246) 470,213 8,363,174 19.5 2039 08/01/39100% 924,677 (37,538) (97,205) 789,934 132.757% 1,048,693 524,346 (1,888) (52,246) 470,213 8,563,846 20 2039 02/01/40100% 952,417 (37,538) (100,332) 814,547 132.757% 1,081,368 540,684 (1,946) (53,874) 484,864 8,766,714 20.5 2040 08/01/40100% 952,417 (37,538) (100,332) 814,547 132.757% 1,081,368 540,684 (1,946) (53,874) 484,864 8,965,603 21 2040 02/01/41100% 980,989 (37,538) (103,554) 839,898 132.757% 1,115,024 557,512 (2,007) (55,550) 499,954 9,166,662 21.5 2041 08/01/41100% 980,989 (37,538) (103,554) 839,898 132.757% 1,115,024 557,512 (2,007) (55,550) 499,954 9,363,778 22 2041 02/01/42100% 1,010,419 (37,538) (106,872) 866,010 132.757% 1,149,689 574,844 (2,069) (57,277) 515,497 9,563,037 22.5 2042 08/01/42100% 1,010,419 (37,538) (106,872) 866,010 132.757% 1,149,689 574,844 (2,069) (57,277) 515,497 9,758,389 23 2042 02/01/43100% 1,040,732 (37,538) (110,289) 892,905 132.757% 1,185,394 592,697 (2,134) (59,056) 531,507 9,955,859 23.5 2043 08/01/43100% 1,040,732 (37,538) (110,289) 892,905 132.757% 1,185,394 592,697 (2,134) (59,056) 531,507 10,149,457 24 2043 02/01/44100% 1,071,954 (37,538) (113,809) 920,607 132.757% 1,222,170 611,085 (2,200) (60,889) 547,997 10,345,147 24.5 2044 08/01/44100% 1,071,954 (37,538) (113,809) 920,607 132.757% 1,222,170 611,085 (2,200) (60,889) 547,997 10,537,000 25 2044 02/01/45100% 1,104,112 (37,538) (117,434) 949,140 132.757% 1,260,050 630,025 (2,268) (62,776) 564,981 10,730,921 25.5 2045 08/01/45100% 1,104,112 (37,538) (117,434) 949,140 132.757% 1,260,050 630,025 (2,268) (62,776) 564,981 10,921,039 26 2045 02/01/46 Total22,593,081 (81,335) (2,251,175) 20,260,571 Present Value From 08/01/2016 Present Value Rate 4.00%12,178,330 (43,842) (1,213,449) 10,921,039 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xls
Appendix E-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
Appendix F-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District
Appendix G-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
To be added to prior to the public hearing
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 2,331,000
New Market Value - Estimate 37,320,000
Difference 34,989,000
Present Value of Tax Increment 12,178,330
Difference 22,810,670
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 22,810,670