Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/02/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular Planning commission meeting February 7, 2023 6:00 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther at 952.924.2574 or the administration department at 952.924.2505. Planning commission meeting The St. Louis Park planning commission is meeting in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can attend the meeting in person or watch the meeting by webstream at bit.ly/watchslppc and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14 and HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on the city’s YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the end of the council meeting or study session. Visit bit.ly/slppcagendas to view the agenda and reports. You can provide comment on agenda items in person at the meeting or by emailing your comments to info@stlouispark.org by noon the day of the meeting. Comments must be related to an item on the meeting agenda. Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION 1.Call to order – roll call 2.Approval of minutes – December 6, 2023 and December 20, 2023 3.Hearing 3.a. Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, and conditional use permit - 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Rd. Applicant: Joshua Aaron Case No: 24-01-Z; 24-02-S; 24-03-CUP 4.Other Business 5.Communications 6.Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 1.Zoning code update – expanding neighborhood housing options Future scheduled meeting/event dates: February 21, 2024 - planning commission regular meeting March 6, 2024 - planning commission regular meeting March 20, 2024 - planning commission regular meeting April 3, 2024 – planning commission regular meeting 1 2 Planning commission December 6, 2023 6:00 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther or the administration department at 952.924.2525. Planning commission Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Katie Merten, Jan Youngquist Members absent: Tom Weber Staff present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther Guests: Ben Krsnak, Executive Vice President of Hempel Real Estate (speaker for the applicant) 1.Call to order – roll call 2.Approval of minutes – August 16, 2023 It was moved by Commissioner Beneke, seconded by Commissioner Eckholm, to approve the August 16, 2023 minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 3.Hearings 3a. Shops at West End PUD major amendment Applicant: David Lima Case No: 23-20-PUD Ms. Kramer presented the staff report. Commissioner Merten asked if there would be grass around the area for pets to relieve themselves. Ms. Kramer stated that while an outdoor off-leash area would not be allowed with this amendment, normal landscaping rules mandating green space would apply. Vice Chair Divecha opened the public hearing. Mr. Krsnak noted they are very proud of the West End area and stated restaurants work really well here, as well as service businesses. This veterinary service is wanted and needed in this area and is a good fit. Commissioner Beneke asked if there are any new tenants at West End. Mr. Krsnak stated they just signed a lease agreement today with a steak house that will take over the Lucky Cricket space. He noted there is a vet clinic ready to also lease space depending on the outcome of this application. Vice Chair Divecha closed the public hearing. 3 Planning commission Dec. 6, 2023 Commissioner Youngquist stated it is important to support our brick-and-mortar businesses in the post-covid world, and brick-and-mortar businesses need to pivot. Allowing this use will help support the shops at West End as well as provide new services for citizens of St. Louis Park. Commissioner Merten agreed and noted people will most likely combine at trip to the vet with other errands while at West End. Commissioner Eckholm added people who live in West End would utilize these businesses and allowing these additional uses supports the goal of having an area to live, work, and play in, and he supports this application. It was moved by Commissioner Merten, seconded by Commissioner Eckholm, to approve the PUD major amendment as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 4.Other Business - none 5.Communications – The Dec. 20th meeting is a study session only. Mr. Walther noted that Ms. Kramer is resigning her position with the city Dec. 21st and this is her last meeting. 6.Adjournment – 6:10 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, vice chair member 4 Planning commission December 20, 2023 6:00 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther or the administration department at 952.924.2525. Planning commission Study Session Members present: Matt Eckholm, Katie Merten, Tom Weber, Jan Youngquist Members absent: Mia Divecha, Jim Beneke Staff present: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther Consulting planners present: Rita Trapp, Jeff Miller 1. Zoning code update – expanding housing options Mr. Miller and Ms. Trapp presented the report. They noted the survey that was completed with residents related to housing options in the city and presented details. Chair Weber noted the graph and added the direction the city is heading is a great result. Commissioner Eckholm asked if a description box was utilized in the survey. He asked what else people said and those that selected “other.” Ms. Trapp stated they can go back and check. Commissioner Youngquist noted she focused on people’s comments and stated she found it interesting that some think that apartments or density does not build community, and some feel it does, so the different perspectives were interesting. Commissioner Eckholm added he is interested in the 77 people that disliked the privacy of a single-family home. He commented he would like to know if they read the question correctly. Ms. Trapp noted this is about scale and their responses could be related to that. Mr. Walther noted that 80% said do not build high rises in the city. Chair Weber stated that 300 people responded out of 50,000 residents – so he does not take the survey too seriously with those numbers. Mr. Miller stated recommendations for changes will come after the next planning commission meeting and added that 4 districts are being proposed. Mr. Walther noted higher density may have to be adjusted within the comp plan, and these conversations will be forthcoming. Ms. Tripp noted the site and building standards adding that site and building standards may vary with each district depending on the housing type they are applied to. 5 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Dec. 20, 2023 Commissioner Eckholm stated he is more concerned about standards that may restrict the ability for someone to engage with 2–3-unit options, as opposed to those uses being spaced. He added he does not see any reason to put a 2 unit further away from a 1 unit at least in this section. Commissioner Merten noted lots with alleys, and that some of these standards should be parsed out again as related to setbacks. Commissioner Youngquist noted the impervious surface issue and added homeowners should not need to get surveys conducted, which seems like an unnecessary expense. She stated it is important when getting into the higher density housing done by developers. She stated the other factors will assist on impervious surface vs. getting surveys done. Commissioner Merten asked about putting concrete all over a backyard and if a site plan is required by the city. Mr. Walther stated a survey is only needed when getting close to a required setback or other standard and a survey is required to verify compliance. A survey is also used for other issues that come up, like grading. Commissioner Eckholm also noted concerns about a courtyard cottage vs. a town house neighborhood but added this may be a fringe case. Ms. Trapp added this refers to the orientation of a courtyard vs. a neighborhood, and added the city has standards on this as well. Mr. Walther added there have been comments from council about protecting solar access and especially with commercial properties. Ms. Trapp asked the commissioners about N3 zoning and the mid-rise scale. Commissioner Eckholm stated if N3 butts up against N1 there should be additional setbacks. He stated he would want them to be building specific. Ms. Trapp asked commissioners if there are concerns with N4 and how it relates to other districts. Commissioner Eckholm stated N4 is not in many areas, so there are not as many concerns here. Chair Eckholm noted the messaging on this will be important. Ms. Trapp stated the next step is to draft the district standards bring them to the planning commission for discussion. 2. Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2023 annual report Mr. Walther noted the draft annual report for 2023 and presented it to the planning commission. 6 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Dec. 20, 2023 He asked the commissioners to think about 2024 and what items can be added. He noted tree preservation as a strategy that council is setting as a priority and applying this to single family residential. 3. Adjournment – 7:45 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Tom Weber, chair member 7 8 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: February 7, 2024 Agenda item: 3a 3a Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit Location: 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Road Case Number: 24-01-Z, 24-02-S, 24-03-CUP Applicant: Joshua Aaron Owner: Cedar Heights Estates LLC Subject Property: 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Road Review Deadline: 60 days: March 8, 2024 120 days: May 7, 2024 Recommended Motion: Chair to open the public hearing, take testimony, and close the public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from R-3 two-family residence to R-4 multiple-family residence, a preliminary and final plat of Cedar Heights Estates, and a conditional use permit to allow a 36 unit apartment building at the property located at 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Road, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Summary of request: The applicant applied for the following: 1. A preliminary and final plat of the subject properties to combine the two properties into one property. Both properties are currently unplatted. 2. A rezoning of the subject property from R-3 two-family residence to R-4 multiple-family residence to accommodate the proposed apartment building. The R-4 multiple-family residence zoning district allows apartment buildings by conditional use permit (CUP). 3. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of the proposed three-story, 36- unit apartment building. Site information: 9 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit Site area (acres): 1.69 acres total, 1.27 acres useable. Current use: Surrounding land uses: Two single-family homes North: single family residential East: city utility South: wetland West: single-family residential Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning RM - medium density residential R-3 two-family residence Proposed zoning R-4 multiple-family residence Background: The subject property consists of two properties, each improved with a single- family home built in the late 1950s. The properties have direct access to Cedar Lake Road and back up to the large wetland located south of Cedar Lake Road. There are four single-family lots in a row along the south side of Cedar Lake Road. The subject property is the easterly two properties. The applicant was unable to purchase the adjacent single-family property to the west. Therefore, the subject property is limited to the easterly two properties. The city owns the property to the east of the subject property and is operating a water treatment facility. The subject property is approximately 430 feet deep. The southerly 120 feet is wetland and floodplain leaving approximately 310 feet of land. The land is relatively flat, except for the southerly 100 feet which has approximately 20 feet of elevation change down to the wetland. Present considerations: The proposal is to construct a three-story, 36-unit apartment building with one level of below grade parking. The apartments are proposed to be market rate, and will consist of: Unit Type Count 1 bedroom 17 1 bedroom + den 7 2 bedroom 7 2 bedroom + den 2 Studio 3 Total count 36 Zoning analysis: Below is a table summarizing the zoning requirements for this project. Further details on some of the requirements are provided after the table. 10 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit Factor Required Proposed Met? Height 3 stories/40 feet 3 stories/36 feet (39 feet to top of parapet wall) yes Building Materials Minimum 60% class 1; Maximum 10% class 3 Majority of new elevations are stucco and glass which are class 1 materials yes Parking 43 spaces 51 spaces yes Bicycle Parking 41 spaces 43 spaces yes Yards – Front / Rear 37 feet 25 feet 63 feet 180 feet yes Yards – West side / East side West: 38.8 feet East: various minimum required yards. West: 46 feet East: various* *See yards below Floor Area Ratio 0.7 0.7 yes Landscaping 36 trees 244 shrubs 37 trees, 264 shrubs yes Tree Replacement 24 trees 24 trees yes Height. The maximum height allowed is 3 stories, or 40 feet, whichever is less. The proposed building is three stories, and 36 feet, 10 inches to the roof deck. There is a three-foot parapet wall proposed that brings the overall height to 39 feet, 10 inches. Parapet walls, however, are allowed to extend up to three feet above the maximum height allowed, so the proposed three- foot parapet wall is not included when measuring the building height. Building materials. The building is required to be constructed with a minimum of 60% Class 1 materials. Class 2 materials are allowed to occupy up to 40% of each façade. The plans submitted show that over 60% of the façade on all sides will be made up of stucco and glass which are Class 1 materials. The remaining material is fiber cement panel which is class 2 and will occupy less than 40% of each elevation. The proposed building meets the building materials requirements. Parking. The zoning ordinance requires: • 1 parking space for each studio and one-bedroom unit. • 1.5 parking space for each two-bedroom unit. • An additional 5% of required parking added for guest parking. There are 43 spaces required for the project. The project proposes 51 parking spaces consisting of 44 underground parking spaces and seven on-site parking spaces. All 51 parking spaces are located on the site. There are three on-street parking spaces located in front of the property that were constructed with the recent Cedar Lake Road reconstruction. These three spaces were not included in the parking calculation and remain for public use. Bike parking. The project is providing 48 spaces consisting of 45 within the garage and three outside the building. This is enough for one bike parking space per dwelling unit, plus 10% parking spaces. This meets code requirements. 11 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit Electric vehicle charging stations. The project is providing 5 level 2 stations and capacity for 20 future level 2 charging stations. This meets code requirements. Setbacks. Below is a brief description of how the required setbacks are determined. Front. The minimum required front yard is determined by calculating the average front yard of the existing neighboring buildings within 150 of the subject property. The average is then compared to the height of the building with the greater measurement being the required minimum setback. The average setback of the three neighboring properties is 34.9. The building height is 36.9 feet. Therefore, the minimum required front yard is 36.9. The proposed front yard is 63.5 feet. The front yard exceeds the minimum required, and therefore, meets code. Rear. The minimum required rear yard is 25 feet. The building is proposed to be located 180 feet from the rear lot line, and approximately 65 feet from the wetland edge. The rear yard exceeds the minimum required, and therefore meets code requirements. Side. The side yard calculations are complicated because they factor in the height of the building and the length of the building wall. An exhibit is pictured on the next page showing the various side yards. The required side yards are 15 feet on one side and half the building height on the other (18.5 foot side yard). The greater yard is required on the side adjacent to a property zoned R-3. In this case, the greater yard was applied to the west side as that is adjacent to a single-family home which is zoned R-3. The property adjacent to the east side is also zoned R-3, however, it is improved with a city water treatment facility, not a single-family home. The size of the minimum required side yard is increased for building walls that exceed 50 feet in length. An additional two inches is added to the minimum side yard requirement for each one foot the building wall exceeds 50 feet. This additional side yard requirement is calculated for all walls within 10 degrees of being parallel to the side lot line. Also, the additional yard requirement is applied only to portions of the building that exceed 50 feet in length. In other words, the building is allowed 50 feet of wall length at the minimum side required yard. The rest of the building wall has to meet the additional side yard requirement. Side. (west). This is the side that is adjacent to the single-family home. Therefore, the greater minimum yard requirement is applied to this side. The greater minimum yard requirement is 18.5 feet (half the building height), plus additional side yard for the portion of the building beyond 50 feet in length. The building is 170 feet long, which requires an additional 20 feet added to the side yard for a total of 38.8 foot minimum required side yard. The building is proposing a 46 foot side yard. The side yard is applied to the underground parking, which is a straight wall with no deviations. The building wall, which is the visible portion above grade varies from 46 feet to 77 feet from the west side lot line. Side (east). This is the side that is adjacent to the city water treatment facility, and therefore has the smaller side yard of 15 feet plus the additional required due to the length of the building. The additional setback required is less than was required for the west side because a portion of the building is adjacent to a property line that is not parallel to the building. Therefore, this portion of the sidewall is not included in the calculation. Additionally, 50 feet of 12 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit the building wall can be as close as 15 feet to the side lot line. However, the closest wall is 28 feet, and the majority of the wall is between 34 and 36 feet from the side lot line. Landscaping. The city code requires one tree per dwelling unit. There are 36 dwelling units proposed, which requires 36 trees. 37 trees are proposed, nine of which are existing trees, 28 new trees are proposed. Approximately 162 caliper inches of trees are being removed from the site. As a result of the trees being removed, the city code requires 89 caliper inches to be planted. As noted above, 28 trees are being planted which translates to 79 caliper inches. The remaining ten caliper inches will be paid, cash in lieu at the rate of $225 per caliper inch for a total of $2,250. Therefore, the tree replacement requirement is met. Screening. A six foot privacy fence will be constructed along both side property lines. The privacy fence along the west property line will be constructed on top of a retaining wall that will add an additional two to eight feet to the height as viewed from the neighboring property. This fence will effectively screen the view of the driveway and portions of the building. DORA. The property requires at least 6,644 square feet of designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). The project will provide 7,463 square feet. The DORA is divided into three distinct areas, each with a unique recreation opportunity. A 567 square foot amenity area is provided in the front. This area will be provided with benches and is enhanced with landscaping. A 2,224 square foot area is provided on the west side, adjacent to the building. This area will be 13 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit improved with a lap pool and patio seating. The south side will be improved with a 4,672 square foot terrace that will overlook the wetland. This area will be improved with a dog run, fire pit, patio, and gaming lawn. Stormwater. The stormwater plan was reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). It was also reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for impacts to the wetland and floodplain. The plan does not impact or alter the wetland or floodplain. As noted above, the building will be approximately 65 feet from the wetland edge. The MCWD is requiring a 20 foot wetland buffer along the edge of the wetland, so the grade will not be altered within the buffer area. Stormwater will be treated in an underground infiltration system located below the DORA area on the south side of the building. Inclusionary housing policy. This project does not have to comply with the inclusionary housing policy because the city is not participating financially in the project, and it does not involve a planned unit development or comprehensive plan amendment application. Preliminary/final plat. The subject properties are currently unplatted, meaning, they have never been platted. The plat, to be known as Cedar Heights Estates, proposes to combine the two existing parcels into one lot. The property has never been platted, therefore, park and trail dedication will be collected. The dedication is $1,500 per unit for parks and $225 per unit for trails. This comes to $54,000 for parks and $8,100 for trails. Rezoning. The subject properties are currently zoned R-3 two-family residence. This zoning district allows residential uses such as single-family and two-family dwelling units. While both existing properties are improved with single-family homes, they could, at a minimum, be converted or re-built with a two-family dwelling on each home. The request is to rezone the subject properties to R-4 multiple-family residence to accommodate the proposed apartment building. The R-4 district allows multiple-family by conditional use permit. The density allowed is 30 units per acre. The maximum density allowed for this property is 38 units. The proposal is for 36 units. The density calculation uses the useable area of the property, meaning, it does not include the wetland/floodplain portion of the property. The subject properties are guided in the comprehensive plan as RM, Medium Density Residential. The density range of this category accommodates both the existing R-3 zoning and the proposed R-4 zoning. Therefore, an amendment to the comprehensive plan is not required. Conditional use permit: Staff finds the application meets the following general requirements for conditional use permits listed in city code section 36-33(b): 1. Consistency with plans. The use of this property as a 36-unit apartment building is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the requirements of the R-4 multiple- family residence zoning district. 14 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit 2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. The proposed apartment building exceeds the minimum yard requirements to the adjacent residential properties. The minimum yard required is 38.8 feet. The above grade portion of the building ranges from 46 to 77 feet from the side property line. Additionally, the driveway will be screened from the neighboring property as described above. 3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of city code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. The proposed plan meets the conditions required for an apartment building. 4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. Cedar Lake Road was reconstructed five years ago, and has sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated by a 36-unit apartment building. Traffic will not be negatively impacted by the proposed apartment building. 5. Site design. It is consistent with code requirements for parking, circulation, landscaping, and stormwater treatment and retention. The site design meets the requirements above stated requirements as noted above. 6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the city’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. On-site stormwater management improvements will be made as part of the site improvements. The utilities have capacity for the proposed use. The proposed design is consistent with all city plans. Staff find the application meets the following requirements for conditional use permits listed in city code section 36-166(d)(1). These conditions are specific to multiple-family dwellings in the R-4 district: 1. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. The site has access onto Cedar Lake Road which is designated as an arterial road in the comprehensive plan. 2. A minimum of 12% of the building lot shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area. As noted above, the DORA has been met with three areas scattered throughout the site. 3. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average height of the buildings. The project consists of one building, so this conditions does not apply. 4. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curbline of internal private roadways or parking lots. jThis condition is met. 5. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must meet minimum public street width requirements of this chapter to allow on-street parking. All required parking is met on-site. The adjacent on-street parking was constructed by the city and will be reconstructed as a result of this project. All on-street parking meet city requirements. 6. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. Sidewalks shall also be provided between the public street and parking areas to all building entrances. A public sidewalk already exists along Cedar Lake 15 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit Road. This sidewalk will be reconstructed as a result of this project and will meet all city requirements. A sidewalk connection to the front of the building will be constructed. Next steps: After receiving the planning commission’s recommendation, the city council will consider the CUP request on February 20, 2024. If the city council approves the applications, staff and the applicant will prepare and execute any required agreements and the applicant will apply for building permits with the intention of starting construction in summer of 2024. Public outreach: A neighborhood meeting was conducted on January 30, 2024. Eighteen people attended the meeting. Comments were discussed and are summarized in the attached letters from the residents of the neighborhood. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the site and a sign announcing the public hearing was posted on the property. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the following: Motion to recommend approval of the application to rezone 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Rd from R-3 two-family residence to R-4 multiple-family residence. Motion to recommend approval of the application for preliminary and final plat of Cedar Heights Estates with conditions recommended by staff. 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the approved official exhibits and city code. 2. All utility services shall be buried. 3. The final plat shall be recorded within two years after approval of the final plat. If the final plat is not recorded within the two year period, then the preliminary and final plat shall be considered void, unless a request for time extension is submitted in writing and approved by the city council. 4. Prior to the city signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: a. 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 ensure that a signed mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the city. b. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the city and developer that addresses, at a minimum: i. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to: sidewalks, modifications to the street, boulevards, and the execution of necessary easements related to such improvements. ii. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements, placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. 16 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit iii. The applicant shall reimburse City Attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. iv. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Planning Development Contract. 5. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the city. b. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. c. All necessary permits shall be obtained. d. 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 cost for all public improvements (street, sidewalks, boulevards, utility, etc.) and landscaping. Motion to recommend approval of the application for a conditional use permit to allow a three- story, 36-unit apartment building with conditions as recommended by staff. 1. Subject to city council approval of the rezoning to R-4 multiple-family residence and the final plat of Cedar Heights Estates, and the recording of the approved final plat at Hennepin County. 2. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in accordance with the approved official exhibits and city code. 3. Construction and staging information will be provided to staff for review and approval before building permits are issued. 4. All new utility service structures shall be buried. 5. Prior to installation of any new signage, the applicant shall submit the necessary sign permits. 6. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the city. b. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. c. All necessary permits shall be obtained. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. Final construction plans for all public improvements and private stormwater system shall be signed by a registered engineer and approved by the city engineer. b. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements (sidewalks and 17 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit boulevards), placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. 8. 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 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring 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 city engineer (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. 9. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the public improvements, private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the official exhibits. 10. Upon city approval of and acceptance of the public and private site improvements, the developer shall provide a one-year warranty and cash escrow or letter of credit for 25% of the final construction costs of the improvements. 11. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Supporting documents: aerial photo; resident comments; developer narratives; project plans Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator Reviewed by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor 18 Regular meeting of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Title: Achromatic 6013 – rezoning, preliminary/final plat, conditional use permit Aerial photo 19 From:Dan Erickson To:Gary Morrison Cc:Tim Brausen Subject:Concerns with new apartment build on Cedar Lake Rd. Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2024 6:22:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, My name is Dan Erickson. I have been a resident on Alabama Ave. S. for 34 years. Our neighborhood has changed quite a bit over that time. We now have 10 rental homes on our street. When we moved in there were 2 rental homes on our block. Being rentals means more traffic. There is no longer just two adults in each home with typically 2 cars per home. Our block has 12-15 cars parked on the street every single night. Even during the day the street is rarely clear of parked cars. If the zoning is changed, and this 36 unit apartment building is built, I feel that parking on Alabama will become even more crowded if not impossible. Having only 7 spaces for visitors and one of them is handicapped is not enough for the amount of residents.There is no parking on Cedar Lake Rd., so if all the visitor spots are full, they will be forced to park in our neighborhood. I feel that the design focused on dwelling units only and little consideration was given for where people would park when visiting family and friends who reside there. This won’t just be a holiday issue. Even I have a bible study at my house once every two months and have five additional cars parked on the street for the 2 hours we meet. This could also affect the snow plowing. Several times during the winter months our street cannot even be cleared. Too many parked cars on the street prohibit the plow from getting through. If they want to add higher density, they need to design buildings with more parking. Thank you, Dan Erickson 20 SLP New Apartment Building Questions &Concerns: 1)Environmental concerns with the wetlands directly behind this project.What are the results of the Environmental Impact Study?Protect the green space in the city,how many trees will be lost?Impact on the animals and wildlife? 2)Traffic concerns directly in front of my house.The entrance/exit to this apartment building looks too close to Blackstone Avenue and will cause problems with people trying to take a left turn onto Cedar Lake Road from either Blackstone Avenue or the new Apartment Building.The Roundabout was put into place to help with the flow oftraffic and this could create back ups during the busy times of the day.I back into my driveway because it is easier to pull out onto Cedar Lake Road moving forward since it is a busy road.This will cause even more safety issues as I try to back into my driveway. 3)The headlights from the cars leaving the new Apartment Building look like they will be going directly into mine and Julia's homes/living rooms across the street.This will be very annoying and disruptive to our livability. 4)land Julia will be losing our privacy with the 2"and 3"stories apartments looking down into our residences. 5)This neighborhood is quiet and peaceful during the non-peak traffic times on Cedar Lake Road and I feel like we will be losing this aspect with 100+people moving in across the street.This is a big reason why I like living where I am and this will be taken away from us if this project gets pushed through. 6)The height of this 3-story building could block the sun from the south on my house.What if I want to put in Solar in the future?Will this impact the sun that I receive on my house?I don't get ice dam issues with my house since it faces south and gets sun throughout the winter.Will this cause me issues in the future? 7)Are we losing the 3 parking spaces that are on Cedar Lake Road?If so,it looks like there is only 3 above ground parking spots on this new property.This means that any family/friends visiting people in the apartment complex will be parking up and down Blackstone Avenue.This will be very disruptive and cause congestion for the people in the neighborhood. Tait Tellefsen 6020 Cedar Lake Road S Saint Louis Park,MN 55416 C:612-978-1796 21 To whom this may concern:  As a favor to Thomas Peterson, I am typing this letter  up and using my email account to send it to Gary Morrison to be included into the  Planning Commission report.  Signed Gary Berscheid 2/1/2024 January 31, 2024 To the Planning Commission Regarding the proposed apartment building at 6013/6019 Cedar Lake Road. Whereas: St Louis Park Does not need any more vacant apartment buildings.  The West End is  full of them.  Eliot  school apartments aren't even close to being full. Whereas: Traffic on Cedar Lake Road goes 40 mph still.  There's nothing to slow them down,  pull in/out with the hill, or the rise on Cedar Lake Road.  On the curve in Cedar  Lake Road the traffic pulling out out of this building will be dangerous, then put  in the snow drifts and icy conditions it will be hazards. Whereas: The left turn going west bound will slow down traffic and back up into the round  about. Whereas: With all the bikes and pedestrians using the south side of Cedar Lake Road will  only cause more safety hazards.  With the three car parking pod, it will only break the visual aspect  of the vehicles turning/out of the building. Whereas: There is parking for the 36 unit (1 ½ car per unit), thats 54 spaces for the  tenants.  What about the quests such as the football parties, families birthday  parties, and Thanksgiving/Holidays?  They have to park across Cedar Lake Road into  the neighborhood and walk across Cedar Lake Road with no cross walks with cars  zipping by at 40 mph.  Unsafe! Whereas; Vehicle trips per day can easily be 300 trips for the 50 cars.  My neighbor  averages 10 trips a day with two people.  Considering that young professionals go  in/out a lot, then add food deliveries, UPS packages, mail, friends/families, and  maintenance peoples adds up. Whereas: Green buildings requirements; Green roofs, not asphalt.  Move the evergreens trees. Solar requirements. Recycle the unused building materials. Porous driveways that recycles rain water. I could go a lot further to save out planet, instead of damaging it. Whereas: 22 There appears to be no transparently.  There appears to be a lot of effort used to  hide the money behind the money behind this project.  The gentlemen/owner owns the  two houses to be removed.  He is not borrowing the 12 million dollars to build it. Who is the person(s) behind this project?  Whats the corporation names? Or the  individuals what will benefit from this project? Where is the profits going? Whereas: For 45 years, I am total in favor of neighborhoods that make this town great, but  not rentals or apartments.  There is a lack of community in talking to neighbors by talking and being friendly.  I have rental housing on both sides of me.  They come  and go.  Since they are renting, there is no commitment to the neighbors, the  neighborhood/community or society. Whereas: This is the zoning issues that I seen over the past four decades.  The heavy  industries in the nearby in the Industrial Park (Edgewood Ave south of Cedar Lake  Road) hours was tweeked from hours of limitations from normal business hours to a  24 hours a day/7 days a week operation. Whereas: My house meets the density of four people on a 60 foot lot.  Your new zoning plan  isn't the way forward by making the streets more narrow and by increasing the  population density with no parking options.  With more renters and transitional  people there are less neighborhood values. Whereas: The safety with the construction vehicles parking on Cedar Lake Road.  Like the  West End projects, there were trucks blocking the road with  not traffic management plan.  If on Cedar Lake Road closing one lane with the construction  trucks/equipment will be a nightmare. Whereas: There was a very short notice to the neighborhood.  This process has been going on  for months yet we have an informal meeting on Tuesday night and a deadline for  letters and comments by the following Friday to prepare them for the Planning  Committee on the following Wednesday.  We were told there would be no comments at  the Council Meeting when they are going to vote on this issue. You don't want the neighborhood to get involved for the process of your (City Hall) way to intensify the neighborhoods.  The City drags its feet, then hurry up and  vote. Whereas: We need affordable housing, not high end market rate apartments. Whereas: No apartments buildings are needed. No rezoning is needed. No intensification of St Louis Park is needed. 23 Thank you, Thomas Peterson 6625 Elliot View Road Email;  ThomasbPeterson@gmail.com     24 January 8, 2024 Achromatic 6013 - 6013 & 6019 Cedar Lake Road Re: Project Narrative The project is the redevelopment of the two single family parcels at 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Road. The project is proposing to develop a new 36-unit apartment development. The project will be three stories in height over a below grade parking garage. As a part of the redevelopment, the project will be requesting a rezoning from R3 to R4 with a conditional use permit for multifamily housing. The project will also combine both parcels into a single lot via a preliminary and final plat. The development is a boutique-sized, upscale project with a crafted landscape design and refined finishes. Residential units and amenity spaces will capture scenic views to the south of the wetlands and nature from spacious patios and balconies. The project incorporates a number of sustainable features including: native plantings, water efficient irrigation and plumbing fixtures, a solar ready roof, energy efficient appliances and mechanical systems. 25 January 8, 2024 Achromatic 6013 - 6013 & 6019 Cedar Lake Road Re: Zoning Map District Boundary Change The development is requesting a zoning map district boundary change. The two properties are currently zoned R3 Two-Family Residence. Both Parcels are designated with the Medium Density Residential criteria in the Comprehensive Plan for 2040 which allows densities up to 30 units per acre. The project is proposing to rezone the properties to R4 Multiple Family Residence. This zoning change will allow the creation of a greater density quality housing, supporting the city’s Comprehensive Plan objectives to: “…promoting quality multi-family developments, both rental and owner occupied, in appropriate locations, including near transit centers, retail and employment centers and in commercial mixed-use districts.” (St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Housing Goals and Strategies - #3.) In addition, the project has a greater number of 2+ bedroom units of many contemporary rental projects allowing for more family housing options (Comprehensive Plan - Housing Goals and Strategies 4B). This project is located close to both employment centers and retail centers making walking, biking, and alternative means of transportation a viable option. It is also located next to the Cedar Lake Road bikeway and near the North Cedar Lake regional trail making it well suited for bike commuting as well. 26 January 8, 2024 Achromatic 6013 - 6013 & 6019 Cedar Lake Road Re: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Narrative The development is requesting a conditional use permit to allow Multifamily Housing in the development. Multifamily housing is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the properties as land use code RM - Medium Density Residential. The site is on Cedar Lake Road, a significant collector street and adjacent to areas of employment, retail and recreation with a Walk Score of 68. The site is adjacent to a city public works building and office development to the east and (two) single family homes to the west, where a majority of their property is a part of the wetland area. The southern portion of the property borders a wetland area. Required responses: The effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of occupants of surrounding lands: The proposed use is allowed and envisioned as medium density residential in the comprehensive plan. The property is surrounded mostly by city uses, a wetland and a major city street. The adjacency to the single-family homes to the west has the additional added buffer of nearly 50 feet, almost 4x the existing separation between buildings. The front setback is over 63 feet and also providing a buffer to the street. The effect on existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities on adjacent streets: The proposed project is modest in scale and includes parking spaces for both residents and visitors in excess of the city requirements. Cedar Lake Road offers not only good vehicular access, but also transit bike and pedestrian opportunities. The proximity of goods and services close by will allow many options for residents other than vehicular use for work or shopping. The effect on property values in the surrounding area: The project is a high-quality apartment development with elaborate landscaping that will enhance the neighborhood and Cedar Lake Road and its bikeway and pedestrian realm. In addition, the building setbacks from the adjacent residential properties gives them the appropriate separation and privacy. The consistency of the proposed use with the principals, goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan: The project meets many of the comprehensive plan goals as stated above and is consistent with its intent. In addition to adding more quality housing to the city and meeting the objectives of the Housing Goals and Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan Items 3 & 4 – Multifamily and Residential Rental Housing topics, the development will also provide a housing choice that is between a single-family home and larger scale rental housing. It allows residents to have a modestly scaled and quality rental housing choice uncommon in recent years. 27 6013 & 6019 CEDAR LAKE RD6013 AND 6019 CEDAR LAKE ROADZONINGCURRENT PRIMARY ZONINGR3COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCERM -MEDIUM DENSITY RES. (30U/ac) PROPOSED REZONINGR4CONDITIONAL USEMULTIPLE FAMILY (CUP)SITETOTAL AREA73,866 SF, 1.696 AC USEABLE SITE AREA55,365 SF, 1.27 ACSITE AREA -BUILDING FOOTPRINT13,480 SF PARKING:VEHICULAR PARKING -PARKING REQUIRED43 SPACES1BR & STUDIO -1/UNIT= 27 X 1 = 272BR -1.5/UNIT = 9 X 1.5 = 13.55% GUEST PARKING = (27+13.5)X.05 = 42.525 (43)PARKING PROVIDED51 SPACES44 SPACES -BELOW GRADE GARAGE (INCL 2 ACCESSIBLE)7 SPACES -ON GRADE OFF STREET INCLUDING (1) ACCESSIBLE(3 SPACES -ON STREET)ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS (EVCS) -REQUIRED -10% LEVEL 2 CHARGERS & 40% LEVEL 2 FUTURE CAPACITYPROVIDED -LEVEL 2 -.1 X 51 = 5.1 (6), (20) AT LEVEL 2 FUTURE CAPACITYBIKE PARKING -BIKE PARKING REQUIRED1/Unit + 10% OF PARKING SPACES = 36+(.1X50) = 41 SPACESBIKE PROVIDED48 SPACES (45 IN GARAGE, 3 ON GRADE)REQUIRED APPLICATIONS-REZONING TO R4 (FROM R3)-CUP FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING-PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATBUILDING HEIGHT(R4 ZONING)ALLOWED 40'-0" / 3 STORIESPROPOSED40' -0" / 3 STORIESFAR(R4) ALLOWED = 0.7 (55,365 X .7) = 38,756 SF ALLOWEDPROPOSED FAR = (.7) 38,735 SFSITE IMPERVIOUS AREATOTAL AREASee CivilSITE AREA -PERVIOUSSee CivilSITE AREA -IMPERVIOUSSee CivilCopyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc.CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATESA0.0 COVER SHEET ST. LOUIS PARK, MN Achromatic 601323-0941.08.24SITE PLAN APPLICATIONAREA SCHEDULE (GROSS)NameLevelAreaMEPLEVEL P1 685 SF PARKING LEVEL P1 15,750 SF TRASH/RCLG LEVEL P1 182 SFLEVEL P116,617 SF1BR LEVEL 1 4,453 SF 1BR+D LEVEL 1 1,800 SF 2BR LEVEL 1 2,389 SFAMENITY LEVEL 1 1,365 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 1 1,857 SFFITNESSLEVEL 1757 SFLOBBYLEVEL 1104 SFSTORAGE LEVEL 1159 SFSTUDIOLEVEL 1514 SFTRASH/RCLG LEVEL 182 SFLEVEL 113,480 SF1BR LEVEL 2 4,293 SF 1BR+D LEVEL 2 2,785 SF 2BR LEVEL 2 3,517 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 2 1,544 SFELECLEVEL 274 SFSTORAGE LEVEL 2159 SFSTUDIOLEVEL 2522 SFTRASH/RCLG LEVEL 282 SFLEVEL 212,976 SF1BR LEVEL 3 3,571 SF 1BR+D LEVEL 3 1,774 SF 2BR LEVEL 3 2,152 SF 2BR+D LEVEL 3 2,471 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 3 1,479 SFELECLEVEL 374 SFSTORAGE LEVEL 3159 SFSTUDIOLEVEL 3520 SFTRASH/RCLG LEVEL 382 SFLEVEL 312,280 SFGrand total55,352 SF UNIT COUNT BY TYPEUNIT TYPECOUNT1BR17 1BR+D7 2BR7 2BR+D2STUDIO3 Unit Count: 36SITE MAP28 29 30 31 32 33 2" 2" 8" 12"10" 12" 14" 12" 8" T T 14" 12" 48" 12" 12" 12" 22" 10" 16" 16" 14" 12" 22" 10"30" 10" 36" 28"SBLPARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 880 885 890 895 900 905 881 882 883 884 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 894 896 897 898 899 901 902 90 3904 8 8 0 8 8 5 890 895 900 9 0 5 879 88 1 88 2 88 3 8 8 4 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 89 4 896 897 898 899 901 902 9039049 0 6 10" APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 NORTH LEGEND BUILDING LINE FOUND MONUMENT SET MONUMENT MARKED ELECTRIC METER LIGHT AIR CONDITIONER GUY ANCHOR HANDICAP STALL UTILITY POLE POST FLARED END SECTION TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER GAS METER OVERHEAD WIRE CHAIN LINK FENCE IRON FENCE WIRE FENCE WOOD FENCE SETBACK LINE RESTRICTED ACCESS BUILDING CANOPY BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE LANDSCAPE SURFACE SIGN EASEMENT LINE CONCRETE CURB WATERMAIN SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN (SAN.) STORM SEWER DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C1 #### ## NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24.1S (LMS TECH) | THOMAS KEELEY | 1/29/2024 4:57:15 PML:\PROJECTS\52710\CAD\SHEETS\52710-C1-EXCND.DWG:C1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN© 2021 Sambatek CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES, LLC. CEDAR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ST. LOUIS PARK, MN52710 TK GA MA 1.01/04/2023 TK GA MA CITY SUBMITTAL 2.01/30/2024 TK MA MA REVISIONS PER CITY COMMENTS TREE PROTECTION FENCE 34 AMENI T Y PATIO FFE = 906.50 GFE= 895.17LAP POOL NOPARKING APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP 2" 8" 12"10" 12" 14" 12" 12" 22"14" 10" 36" 28"SBL10" 22.0' 22.0'22.0 ' 22.0'8.5 ' (TYP ) 10.0'( T Y P) 23.0'( T Y P) R15.0'R15.0'R5.0 'R5.0'10.0'5.5 ' 5.0'6.8 ' 10.0'4.3 ' R5 . 0 'R3.0'5.0 ' 5.0'5.0 ' 4.8'5.0 'R15.0'R5.0 ' R20.0' 22.0' 8.5'(TYP)18.0'(TYP)15.0'15.0 ' 8.0'8.0 ' 3 4 A A A A F F F F F F 4.0 '4.0 '4.0 '4.0 ' 5.0'10.0 ' G G G B B B B K RELOCATE EXISTING STREET LIGHT L M J J N WALLS AND STAIRS BY ARCHITECT 0 FP 6.0 ' 4' PRIVACY FENCE (THIS SECTION) 6' PRIVACY FENCE (THIS SECTION) 6' PRIVACY FENCE (THIS SECTION) 42" ORNAMENTAL FENCE (THIS SECTION) 42" ORNAMENTAL FENCE (THIS SECTION) 4' PRIVACY FENCE (THIS SECTION) R20.0' END CURB AT THE R/W LINE WITH A 6 FT. BULLNOSE. END CURB AT THE R/W LINE WITH A 6 FT. BULLNOSE. 6' PRIVACY FENCE (THIS SECTION) MATCH EXISTING SURMOUNTABLE CURB IN THE STREET NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF Date License # Print Name: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24.1S (LMS TECH) | THOMAS KEELEY | 1/29/2024 4:16:50 PML:\PROJECTS\52710\CAD\SHEETS\52710-C2-SITE.DWG:C2 SITE PLAN© 2021 Sambatek CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES, LLC. CEDAR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ST. LOUIS PARK, MN52710 TK GA MA 1.01/04/2023 TK GA MA CITY SUBMITTAL 2.01/30/2024 TK MA MA REVISIONS PER CITY COMMENTS SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 NORTH THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. A.BUILDING, STOOPS, STAIRS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) B.B-612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER C.B-618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER D.CONCRETE APRON E.FLAT CURB SECTION F.CONCRETE SIDEWALK G.SEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALL H.ADA ACCESS LOCATION I.ACCESSIBLE STALL STRIPING J.ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN K.TRANSFORMER L.2' WIDE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER M.PAVERS N.GUARDRAIL 0. BIKE RACK P. CONCRETE BIKE LANE KEY NOTES DEVELOPMENT NOTES PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND RETAINING WALL WETLAND TREE LINE SAW CUT LINE BOLLARD PARKING STALL COUNT## 1 KEY NOTE HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE PAVING CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAVEMENT BY OTHERS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) BOUNDARY LINE STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVING LIGHT POLE (BY OTHERS) EASEMENT LINE CONCRETE CURB BUILDING LINE SIGN SITE PLAN C2 #### ## ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 1.ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT “GUTTER OUT” WHERE WATER DRAINS AWAY FROM CURB. ALL OTHER AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS “GUTTER IN” CURB. COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR. 3.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 4.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 8.5' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. 6.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PYLON/MONUMENT SIGN DETAILS 7.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAIL AND FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF LIGHT POLE. 8.REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, LOT NUMBERS, LOT AREAS, AND LOT DIMENSIONS. 9.ALL GRADIENT ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.00% (1:50). MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE IN 2.00% (1:50). CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUS THE DESIGN GRADIENT. COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PAVING CONTRACTOR. 10."NO PARKING" SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED ALONG ALL DRIVEWAYS AS REQUIRED BY CITY. 11.STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 12.BUILDING ADDITION HAS BEEN LOCATED BASED ON ORIGINAL GRIDLINE DESIGN AND/OR EXISTING BUILDING EXTERIOR CORNER SURVEY LOCATIONS. EXTERIOR CORNERS DO NOT REPRESENT EXISTING BUILDING GRIDLINES. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE EXISTING GRIDLINES IN THE FIELD FOLLOWING DEMOLITION AND COORDINATE REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS, IF ANY, TO EXPANSION PLACEMENT WITH CIVIL AND ARHCITECT ACCORDINGLY. 13.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE RECORD PLANS AS REQUIRED BY PERMITTING AGENCIES. CIVIL 3D MODEL LIMITATIONS SAMBATEK'S DELIVERABLE AND GOVERNING DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE A HARD COPY AND/OR PDF PLAN SHEETS. IF A CIVIL 3D MODEL IS GENERATED IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING THE PLAN SHEETS, IT IS AS A DESIGN TOOL ONLY AND NOT AS A SEPARATE DELIVERABLE. AT THE OWNER'S REQUEST, WE WILL RELEASE OUR CIVIL 3D MODEL FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S USE. HOWEVER, ITS USE IS AT THE CONTRACTOR'S RISK AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR STAKING OF CURB, SIDEWALK, OR OTHER HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS. IF A CIVIL 3D MODEL FOR STAKING HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS IS REQUIRED, WE CAN PROVIDE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR REFINEMENT AND PREPARATION OF THE CIVIL 3D MODEL. 35 AMENI T Y PATIO FFE = 906.50 GFE= 895.17LAP POOL NOPARKING APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP 2" 8" 12"10" 12" 14" 12" 12" 22"14" 10" 36" 28"SBL880 885 890 895 900 905 881 882 883 884 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 894 896 897 898 899 901 902 90 3904 8 8 0 8 8 5 890 895 900 9 0 5 879 88 1 88 2 88 3 8 8 4 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 89 4 896 897 898 899 901 902 9039049 0 6 10" 905.43 906.15 905.88 905.60 905.03905.42 905.09 906.24 905.74 905.95 906.02 905.99 905.34 906.05 906.19 905.93 905.86 904.79 904.35 906.32 906.09 905.57 906.36 906.50 906.24 905.31 895.17 895.17 894.79 894.88 895.36 895.80 897.60 -3.23%905.15 906.20 906.32 898.30 902.00 904.74 905.29 906.50 906.48 905.33 905.53 894.54 895.69 884.89 896.00 905.50 905.00 900.69 895.00 895.05 893.36 894.31 895.00 901.60 905.62 904 900 886.37 905.22 904.99 905.00 904.50 906.38 906.13 906.34 905.50 906.50 906.29 906.79 906.45 906.95 906.25 906.75 900.20 898.09 905.80 905.95 905.95 906.05 905.62 906.20 905.97 905.91 905.97 905.05 905.15 895.05 895.09 901 90 0 89 9 89 8 89 7 905 898 899 901 902 903 897 896 906 906 903.30 903.2 906.19 906.39 906.30 906.30 906.19 906.30 905.08 905.08 905.0 905.0 904.90 904.98 904.9 906.30 906.30 905.19 905.1 906.30 906.30 904.1 904.1 903.2 902.35 900.9 902.8 902.2 898.9 901.5 906.30 906.30 905.19 904.99 NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF Date License # Print Name: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24.1S (LMS TECH) | THOMAS KEELEY | 1/29/2024 4:19:12 PML:\PROJECTS\52710\CAD\SHEETS\52710-C3-GRAD.DWG:C3 GRADING PLAN© 2021 Sambatek CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES, LLC. CEDAR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ST. LOUIS PARK, MN52710 TK GA MA 1.01/04/2023 TK GA MA CITY SUBMITTAL 2.01/30/2024 TK MA MA REVISIONS PER CITY COMMENTS SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 NORTH PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SOIL BORING999.9 ST # DRAINTILE 902.50 902.50 SPOT ELEVATIONS RIPRAP EOF 902.50 OVERFLOW ELEV. CONCRETE PAVING CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAVEMENT BY OTHERS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) BOUNDARY LINE RETAINING WALL WETLAND TREE LINE 902 CONTOUR CONCRETE CURB STORM SEWER BUILDING LINE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C3 #### ## TREE PROTECTION FENCE 36 2" 8" 12"10" 12" 14" 12" 12" 22"14" 10" 36" 28"SBL880 885 890 895 900 905 881 882 883 884 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 894 896 897 898 899 901 902 90 3904 8 8 0 8 8 5 890 895 900 9 0 5 879 88 1 88 2 88 3 88 4 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 89 4 896 897 898 899 901 902 9039049 0 6 10" INSTALL BIOLOGS AS NEEDED IN WINTER MONTHS TO ALLOW SNOW REMOVAL NOTE: ANY SEDIMENTARY DISCHARGE INTO THE WETLAND WILL RESULT IN ENFORCEMENT ACTION APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF Date License # Print Name: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24.1S (LMS TECH) | THOMAS KEELEY | 1/29/2024 5:57:26 PML:\PROJECTS\52710\CAD\SHEETS\52710-C4-EROS.DWG:C4 EROSION CONTROL PLAN (PHASE ONE)© 2021 Sambatek CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES, LLC. CEDAR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ST. LOUIS PARK, MN52710 TK GA MA 1.01/04/2023 TK GA MA CITY SUBMITTAL 2.01/30/2024 TK MA MA REVISIONS PER CITY COMMENTS SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 NORTH THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE SWPPP MUST BE KEPT ONSITE UNTIL THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS FILED WITH THE MPCA, THE CONTRACTOR MUST UPDATE THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED BMPS DESIGNED TO CORRECT PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED. AFTER FILING THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS, AND ALL REVISIONS TO IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER, TO BE KEPT ON FILE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE SWPPP NARRATIVE. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY SILT FENCE LINEAR FEET 1415 SILT DIKE LINEAR FEET X BIO-ROLL LINEAR FEET X CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE UNIT 1 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-1)UNIT X INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-2)UNIT X INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-3)UNIT X THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. * REFER TO SHEET C5.03 & C5.04 FOR GENERAL NOTES, MAINTENANCE NOTES, LOCATION MAPS, AND STANDARD DETAILS PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND NOTE TO CONTRACTOR EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIES BIO-ROLL SILT FENCE SILT DIKE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW TEMPORARY DIVERSION DITCH CHECK DAM LIMITS OF DRAINAGE SUB-BASIN INLET PROTECTION DEVICEIP# TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINSB TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEASURES (SEED, MULCH, MATS OR BLANKETS AS OUTLINED IN THE SWPP) TSM TEMPORARY STORAGE AND PARKING AREATS TEMPORARY STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DRAINTILE 902 CONTOUR OVERFLOW ELEV.EOF 902.5 SOIL BORING999.9 ST # RIPRAP CONCRETE CURB STORM SEWER EROSION CONTROL (PHASE ONE)C4 #### ## 37 2" 8" 12"10" 12" 14" 12" 12" 22"14" 10" 36" 28"SBL880 885 890 895 900 905 881 882 883 884 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 894 896 897 898 899 901 902 90 3904 8 8 0 8 8 5 890 895 900 9 0 5 879 88 1 88 2 88 3 88 4 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 89 4 896 897 898 899 901 902 9039049 0 6 10" IP1 IP2 IP1 IP2 IP1 IP2 IP1 IP2 INSTALL BIOLOGS AS NEEDED IN WINTER MONTHS TO ALLOW SNOW REMOVAL NOTE: ANY SEDIMENTARY DISCHARGE INTO THE WETLAND WILL RESULT IN ENFORCEMENT ACTION AMENI T Y PATIO FFE = 906.50 GFE= 895.17LAP POOL NOPARKING APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP-3.23%904 900 901 900 89 9 89 8 89 7 905 898 899 901 902 903 897 896 906 906 MAINTAIN INLET PROTECTION AND TREATMENT DEVICE ROUTINELY TO PROTECT INFILTRATION CAPACITY NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF Date License # Print Name: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24.1S (LMS TECH) | THOMAS KEELEY | 1/29/2024 5:57:26 PML:\PROJECTS\52710\CAD\SHEETS\52710-C4-EROS.DWG:C4.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN (PHASE TWO)© 2021 Sambatek CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES, LLC. CEDAR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ST. LOUIS PARK, MN52710 TK GA MA 1.01/04/2023 TK GA MA CITY SUBMITTAL 2.01/30/2024 TK MA MA REVISIONS PER CITY COMMENTS SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 NORTH THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE SWPPP MUST BE KEPT ONSITE UNTIL THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS FILED WITH THE MPCA, THE CONTRACTOR MUST UPDATE THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED BMPS DESIGNED TO CORRECT PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED. AFTER FILING THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS, AND ALL REVISIONS TO IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER, TO BE KEPT ON FILE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE SWPPP NARRATIVE. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY SILT FENCE LINEAR FEET 1415 SILT DIKE LINEAR FEET X BIO-ROLL LINEAR FEET X CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE UNIT 1 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-1)UNIT 4 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-2)UNIT 4 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-3)UNIT X THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. * REFER TO SHEET C5.03 & C5.04 FOR GENERAL NOTES, MAINTENANCE NOTES, LOCATION MAPS, AND STANDARD DETAILS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIES EROSION CONTROL (PHASE TWO)C4.1 #### ## PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND BIO-ROLL SILT FENCE SILT DIKE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW TEMPORARY DIVERSION DITCH CHECK DAM LIMITS OF DRAINAGE SUB-BASIN INLET PROTECTION DEVICEIP# TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINSB TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEASURES (SEED, MULCH, MATS OR BLANKETS AS OUTLINED IN THE SWPP) TSM TEMPORARY STORAGE AND PARKING AREATS TEMPORARY STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DRAINTILE 902 CONTOUR OVERFLOW ELEV.EOF 902.5 SOIL BORING999.9 ST # RIPRAP CONCRETE CURB STORM SEWER TREE PROTECTION FENCE 38 AMENI T Y PATIO FFE = 906.50 GFE= 895.17LAP POOL APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP 2" 8" 12"10" 12" 14" 12" T T 12" 22"14" 10" 36" 28"SBL10" CB 104 RE=904.99 IE=900.99 SW 186 LF - 12"HDPE @ 5 .00% CBMH102 RE=894.31 IE=890.31 N IE=890.31 NE IE=890.31 SE 16 LF - 12" HDPE @ 1.00% 19 LF - 12" HDPE @ 0.52% FES101 IE=885.10 N SMH 01 (48'') RE=905.76 IE=893.78 SE IE=893.68 (NE) (EXS, FIELD VERFY) 92 LF - 6" PVC SCH 40 @ 2.00% 6" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IE=895.63 NW 41 LF - 12" PVC SCH 40 @ 2.00% ROOF DRAIN IE=891.13 SW CONNECT TO SUBSURFACE RE=894.59 IE=890.15 NW OCS101A RE=896.15 IE=885.20 S 38 LF - 12" PVC SCH 40 @ 0.50% STMH103 RE=905.29 IE=900.32 NE IE=899.63 S 42 LF - 12" PVC SCH 40 @ 0.50% 53 LF - 12" PVC SCH 40 @ 0.50% 27 LF - 6" PVC SCH 40 @ 0.50% 36 LF - 6" PVC SCH 40 @ 0.50% YD104A RE=906.86 IE=900.98 NW YD104B RE=906.63 IE=900.73 NW HYDRANT & GATE VALVE 8"X6" TEE 8" COMBINED DOMESTIC & FIRE WATER SERVICE 12"x8" WET-TAP WITH 8" GV 6" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IE=895.63 NW 6" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IE=895.63 NW CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE COMPLETE UNDERGROUND DESIGN AND SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ABANDON EXISTING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AT MAIN, PER CITY REQUIREMENTS ABANDON EXISTING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AT MAIN, PER CITY REQUIREMENTS 8" WM SERVICE NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF Date License # Print Name: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24.1S (LMS TECH) | THOMAS KEELEY | 1/29/2024 4:57:38 PML:\PROJECTS\52710\CAD\SHEETS\52710-C5-UTIL.DWG:C5 UTILITY PLAN© 2021 Sambatek CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES, LLC. CEDAR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ST. LOUIS PARK, MN52710 TK GA MA 1.01/04/2023 TK GA MA CITY SUBMITTAL 2.01/30/2024 TK MA MA REVISIONS PER CITY COMMENTS SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 NORTH NUMBER TYPE CASTING* *INDICATES NEENAH FOUNDRY CASTING NO., OR APPROVED EQUAL NOTE: CONTRACTOR AND THEIR SUPPLIER SHALL DETERMINE THE MINIMUM DIAMETER REQUIRED FOR EACH STORM SEWER STRUCTURE. THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE, INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES STORM SEWER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE UNDERGROUND GAS LINE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC DRAINTILE SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN (SAN.) STORM SEWER CONCRETE CURB WATERMAIN EASEMENT LINE 1.THE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATIONS" AS PUBLISHED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS. a.ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIRMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY AND MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REQUIREMENTS. b.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN, TURN OFF, INTERFERE WITH, OR ATTACH ANY PIPE OR HOSE TO OR TAP WATERMAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ARE THE LIABILITY OF CONTRACTOR. c.A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES, AND HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 10-FEET, BETWEEN OUTSIDE PIPE AND/OR STRUCTURE WALLS, IS REQUIRED AT ALL WATERMAIN AND SEWER MAIN (BUILDING, STORM AND SANITARY) CROSSINGS. 2.ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN. a.ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. b.ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE PVC SDR-35, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. i.ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES TO BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS APPROVED FOR USE WITHIN A BUILDING (SEE TABLE 701.2 OF 2020 MN PLUMBING CODE). ii.ALL SANITARY SEWER WITHIN 10 FEET OF, CROSSING ABOVE, OR WITHIN 12-INCHES BELOW, A POTABLE WATER LINE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS APPROVED FOR USE WITHIN A BUILDING (SEE TABLE 701.2 OF 2020 MN PLUMBING CODE). c.ALL WATERMAIN TO BE DUCTILE IRON - CLASS 52, or PVC C-900, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. i.ALL WATERMAIN TO HAVE 7.5-FEET OF COVER OVER TOP OF WATERMAIN. ii.PROVIDE THRUST BLOCKING AND MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINTS ON ALL WATERMAIN JOINTS PER CITY STANDARDS. iii.WHERE A SEWER LINE CROSSES A WATER SERVICE, THE WATER SERVICE SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY JOINTS OR CONNECTIONS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE CROSSING. d.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE SMOOTH INTERIOR DUAL WALL HDPE PIPE WITH WATERTIGHT GASKETS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. i.ALL STORM SEWER CROSSING ABOVE, OR WITHIN 12-INCHES BELOW, A POTABLE WATER LINE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS APPROVED FOR USE WITHIN A BUILDING (SEE TABLE 701.2 OF 2020 MN PLUMBING CODE). ii.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE FOR ROOF DRAIN SERVICES TO THE BUILDING, OR WITHIN 10' OF A BUILDING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS APPROVED FOR USE WITHIN A BUILDING (SEE TABLE 701.2 OF 2020 MN PLUMBING CODE). e.RIP RAP SHALL BE Mn/DOT CLASS 3. 3.COORDINATE ALL BUILDING SERVICE CONNECTION LOCATIONS AND INVERT ELEVATIONS WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4.ALL BUILDING SERVICE CONNECTIONS (STORM, SANITARY, WATER) WITH FIVE FEET OR LESS COVER ARE TO BE INSULATED FROM BUILDING TO POINT WHERE 5-FEET OF COVER IS ACHIEVED. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. 6.SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 7.ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES THAT ARE DISTURBED BY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED IN KIND. SODDED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL PLACED BENEATH THE SOD. 8.CONTRACTOR SHALL 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. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. 9.ALL SOILS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT SOILS ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE UTILITY BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND SOIL INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY: COMPANY: INDEPENDENT TESTING TECHNOLOGIES ADDRESS: 337 31ST. AVENUE SOUTH, WAITE PARK, MN 56387 PHONE: (320) 253-4338 DATED: 12/18/2023 CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THIS SOILS REPORT.. 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT 2 COPIES OF SHOP DRAWINGS FOR MANHOLE AND CATCH BASIN STRUCTURES TO ______________. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW 5 WORKING DAYS FOR SHOP DRAWING REVIEW. 11.CONTRACTOR AND MATERIAL SUPPLIER SHALL DETERMINE THE MINIMUM DIAMETER REQUIRED FOR EACH STORM SEWER STRUCTURE. 12.THE UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM SHOWN ON THE UTILITY PLAN AND THE DETAIL SHEETS IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DEPICTS THE MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS AND THE SYSTEM ELEVATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR (WITH THEIR SUPPLIER OR DESIGNER) SHALL SUBMIT DESIGN DRAWINGS TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL DEPICT THE FINAL LAYOUT AND DETAILS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED. THE SUBMITTAL SHALL INCLUDE ALL NECESSARY PRODUCT INFORMATION, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND BEDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM. FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION, THE CERTIFYING ENGINEER SHALL SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE OWNER AND ENGINEER INDICATING THEY OBSERVED THE INSTALLATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM WAS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CERTIFIED DRAWINGS. 13. THE UTILITY DESIGN DOES NOT INCLUDE WATERMAIN ELEVATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL WATERMAIN AT DEPTHS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE AGENCIES AND SHALL DETERMINE LOCATIONS OF CONFLICTS WITH OTHER UTILITIES AND INCLUDE THE REQUIRED EFFORTS TO AVOID CONFLICTS (BENDS, MATERIAL CHANGES, ETC.) IN THEIR BIDS. 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE RECORD PLANS AS REQUIRED BY PERMITTING AGENCIES. UTILITY PLAN C6 #### ## 39 AMENI T Y PATIO FFE = 906.50 GFE= 895.17LAP POOL NOPARKING APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP T T 10" 10"SBL880 885 890 895 900 905 881 882 883 884 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 894 896 897 898 899 901 902 90 3904 8 8 0 8 8 5 890 895 900 9 0 5 879 88 1 88 2 88 3 8 8 4 886 887 888 889 891 892 893 89 4 896 897 898 899 901 902 9039049 0 6 10" REMOVE AND REPLACE 2" CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF Date License # Print Name: DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY 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 Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24.1S (LMS TECH) | JOHNNIE WORKMAN, PLA (MN) | 2/1/2024 2:37:56 PML:\PROJECTS\52710\CAD\SHEETS\52710-L1-TREE.DWG:L1 TREE PRESERVATION© 2021 Sambatek CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES, LLC. CEDAR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ST. LOUIS PARK, MN52710 1.01/04/2023 TK GA MA CITY SUBMITTAL 2.01/30/2024 TK MA MA REVISIONS PER CITY COMMENTS SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 NORTH TREE PRESERVATION L1 #### # CALCULATIONS ((A/B-0.20) x C x A = D ((162/286)-0.20) x 1.5 x 162 = 89 CALIPER IN. (36 TREES) A = Total diameter inches of significant trees lost as a result of land alteration or removal. B = Total diameter inches of significant trees situated on the land. C = Tree replacement constant (1.5). D = Replacement trees (number of caliper inches) LEGEND EASEMENT CURB & GUTTER BUILDING RETAINING WALL SIGN PIPE BOLLARD STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE PAVING PROPERTY LIMIT EXISTINGPROPOSED SAINT LOUIS PARK TREE PRESERVATION CODE TREE INVENTORY WETLAND LIMITS TREELINE CONCRETE SIDEWALK S S SANITARY SEWER LANDSCAPE EDING STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FORCEMAIN (SAN.) YARDDRAIN TREE PROTECTION FENCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TREE TO BE REMOVED D S LS RIPRAP Significant tree means any tree, with the exception of Salix (Willow), Boxelder, Siberian Elm, and Black Locust, is considered to be significant under the landscaping section of the zoning ordinance if it is at least five caliper inches for deciduous trees and six caliper inches for conifers. Aspen, Cottonwood, or Silver Maple are considered significant if they are at least 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 from the ground (Ord. No. 2325-07,5-7-07; Ord. No. 2449-13, 11-15-2013) Tag DBH Species Status Condition 221 12 Blue spruce Remove Very Good 222 14 Blue spruce Remove Very Good 223 8 American elm Remove Good 224 12 Paper birch Remove Very Good 231 11 White spruce Off-Site_PRE Good 232 6 White pine Preserve Fair 234 7 Balsam Fir Preserve Good 235 7 Red pine Preserve Good 236 16 White pine Preserve Excellent 237 10 Red pine Preserve Very Good 238 6 White cedar Remove Very Good 240 6 American elm Preserve Fair 241 7 American elm Preserve Fair 242 16 American elm Off-Site-PRE Good 247 40 Cottonwood Preserve Excellent 251 25 American elm Preserve Fair 286 14 Cottonwood Off-Site-PRE Fair 288 10 American elm Off-Site-PRE Fair 290 16 American elm Remove Fair 293 9 American elm Remove Very Good 294 31 American elm Remove Dead 298 13 Paper birch Remove Good 299 14 Catalpa Remove Very Good 704 17 American elm Remove Excellent 994 10 White Pine Remove Fair 40 AMENI T Y PATIO FFE = 906.50 GFE= 895.17LAP POOL NOPARKING APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP APPROX. LOCATION OF "ZONE A" LINE PER FEMA MAP T T SBLNO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF Date License # Print Name: DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY 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 Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24.1S (LMS TECH) | JOHNNIE WORKMAN, PLA (MN) | 2/1/2024 2:51:52 PML:\PROJECTS\52710\CAD\SHEETS\52710-L2-LSCP.DWG:L2 LANDSCAPE PLAN© 2021 Sambatek CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES, LLC. CEDAR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ST. LOUIS PARK, MN52710 1.01/04/2023 TK GA MA CITY SUBMITTAL 2.01/30/2024 TK MA MA REVISIONS PER CITY COMMENTS SCALE IN FEET 0 6030 NORTH LANDSCAPE PLAN L2 #### # CALCULATIONS REQUIRED PROPOSED OVERSTORY TREES: 36 UNITS 36 TREES 22 TREES 6 TREES (12*) 9 (EXISTING) TOTAL TREE REQUIREMENTS 36 TREES 37 TREES TREE MITIGATION FROM REMOVALS (SEE L1)89 INCHES 79 INCHES *PER SUBSTITUTION NOTE (d) SHRUBS: GROSS BFA: (37,500 SF / 1000)*6 244 SHRUBS 264 SHRUBS PERIMETER: (1,196 LF / 50) *6 144 SHRUBS LEGEND EASEMENT CURB & GUTTER BUILDING RETAINING WALL SIGN PIPE BOLLARD STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE PAVING PROPERTY LIMIT EXISTINGPROPOSED SAINT LOUIS PARK LANDSCAPE CODE PLANT SCHEDULE WETLAND LIMITS TREELINE CONCRETE SIDEWALK S S SANITARY SEWER LANDSCAPE EDING STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FORCEMAIN (SAN.) YARDDRAIN TREE PROTECTION FENCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TREE TO BE REMOVED D S LS RIPRAP Sec. 36-364 (d)(3) (b)MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS SHALL REQUIRE ONE (1) CANOPY OR EVERGREEN TREE PER DEWELLING UNIT. (d)UP TO 25% OF REQUIRED CANOPY TREES MAY BE SUBSTIUTED WITH ORNAMENTAL TREES AT A RATIO OF TWO (2) ORNAMENTAL TREES TO ONE (1) CANOPY TREE. (e)SHRUB REQUIREMENT SHALL BE: SIX (6) SHRUBS PER 1,000 SF GROSS BUILDING FLOOR AREA, OR SIX (6) SHRUBS PER 50 LINEAL FEET OF SITE PERIMETER, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE QTY TREES SG Acer freemanii `Sienna Glen` / Sienna Glen Maple B & B 2.5"Cal 2 BNC Betula nigra `Cully` TM / Heritage Birch - Clump form B & B Clump 12`3 HB Celtis occidentalis / Common Hackberry B & B 2.5"Cal 2 HL Gleditsia triacanthos `Skyline` / Skyline Honey Locust B & B 2.5"Cal 4 RP Quercus robur x warei`Long` / Regal Prince Oak B & B 2.5"Cal 6 CONIFERS BF Abies balsamea / Balsam Fir B & B 6`2 NS Picea abies / Norway Spruce B & B 6`1 BS Picea glauca densata / Black Hills Spruce B & B 6`1 WP Pinus strobus / White Pine B & B 6`1 ORN. TREES SB Amelanchier canadensis `Autumn Brilliance` / Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry B & B Clump 8`3 RE Cercis canadensis / Eastern Redbud B & B 2"Cal 2 HT Crataegus crus-galli `Inermis` / Thornless Hawthorn B & B 2.5"Cal 3 SS Malus x `Spring Snow` / Spring Snow Crab Apple B & B 2"Cal 4 SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT HEIGHT/WIDTH QTY SHRUBS AMG Aronia melanocarpa 'UCONNAM012' / Ground Hug® Black Chokeberry 5 gal 39 CD Cornus sericea `Alleman`s Compact` / Dwarf Red Twig Dogwood 5 gal 4 AH Hydrangea arborescens `Annabelle` / Annabelle Smooth Hydrangea 5 gal 20 AJ Juniperus horizontalis `Compacta` / Andorra Compact Juniper 5 gal 44 JVS Juniperus virginiana 'Skyrocket' / Skyrocket Eastern Redcedar B&B-5`45 GL Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low` / Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac 5 gal 25 AC Ribes alpinum / Alpine Currant 5 gal 33 FS Sorbaria sorbifolia `Sem` / Sem Ash Leaf Spirea 5 gal 31 TS Spiraea betulifolia `Tor` / Birchleaf Spirea 5 gal 9 ST Stephanandra incisa `Crispa` / Cutleaf Stephanandra 5 gal 16 GRASSES THG Deschampsia cespitosa `Schottland` / Schottland Hair Grass 1 gal 5 SSS Schizachyrium scoparium `Standing Ovation` / Standing Ovation Little Bluestem 1 gal 1 PERENNIALS SBA Allium x `Summer Beauty` / Summer Beauty Allium 1 gal 60 DAS Astilbe japonica `Deutchland` / False Spiraea 1 gal 10 RHA Astilbe japonica `Rhineland` / Rhineland Astible 1 gal 38 FAS Astilbe x arendsii `Fanal` / Fanal Astilbe 1 gal 10 SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT GROUND COVERS 36-221 MNDOT Seed Mix 36-221 / Woodland Edge Seed TUR HIG Turf Sod Highland Sod / Sod Sod PLANT SCHEDULE LANDSCAPE SUMMARY 41 A20014AMENITY TERRACE -4,672 SFTRANSFORMER 3AMENITY PATIO -2,224 SFLAP POOL AMENITY AREA -567 SFDOG RUNFIRE PIT PATIO TREE GROVE & BENCHES PATIO SEATINGGAMING LAWNCopyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc.CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATESA3.0DORA ST. LOUIS PARK, MNAchromatic601323-0941.08.24 SITE PLAN APPLICATION1" = 20'-0"1LEVEL 1DORA CALCULATIONS: USABLE LOT SIZE: 55,365 SF REQUIRED: 6,644 SF, 12% PROVIDED: 7,463 SF, 13% 42 144 PARKING SPACES 45 BIKE SPACES65121015,750 SFPARKING182 SFTRASH/RCLG388 SFMEP297 SFMEP18'-0"23'-6"18'-0"15'-0"20'-0 3/8"RAMP23'-0"23'-0"18'-0"113A2.01A2.02A2.12A2.11VAN22'-0"EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCSWALL BIKE RACK AT EACH STALL (38)7 WALL MOUNTED BIKE PARKING SPACESFUTURE EVCSFUTURE EVCS10'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"22'-0"LIGHTING, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM & EMERGENCY CALL STATION TO BE PROVIDED PER ZONING CODE AT PARKING GARAGETRASH & RECYCLING CHUTES22'-0"8'-6"4AMENITY TERRACETRANSFORMER WITH SCREENING3AMENITY PATIOLAP POOLAMENITY AREANATURE WALKDOG RUN20 FOOT BUFFER TO DELINEATED WETLANDNET LOT AREA DETERMINED BY SETBACK LINE TO WETLAND BOUNDARY18'-4"15'-0"20'-0"19'-0"170'-10 1/2"63'-0"14'-3 1/8"156'-6"Copyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc.CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATESA1.0FLOOR PLAN -SITEPLAN & LEVEL P1ST. LOUIS PARK, MN Achromatic 601323-09401.04.24SITE PLAN APPLICATION1" = 20'-0"100 -LEVEL P13/64" = 1'-0"2SITE PLANNN43 1750 SF1BR757 SFFITNESSGARDEN TERRACESAMENITY PATIO737 SFCIRCULATION4PARKING GARAGE BELOWRAMP X%727 SF1BR104 SFLOBBY1,365 SFAMENITY82 SFTRASH/RCLG159 SFSTORAGE514 SFSTUDIO750 SF1BR750 SF1BR752 SF1BR1,192 SF2BR723 SF1BR901 SF1BR+D1,197 SF2BR899 SF1BR+DTRANSFORMER WITH SCREENING3LAP POOLAMENITY AREAA2.01A2.02A2.12A2.11NATURE WALK99'-4"78'-6"PARKING GARAGE BELOW17'-6"16'-6"36'-1 5/8"134'-6 3/8"TRASH & RECYCLING CHUTES Copyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc.CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATESA1.1FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 1ST. LOUIS PARK, MN Achromatic 601323-09401.04.24SITE PLAN APPLICATION1" = 20'-0"1LEVEL 1N44 A2001737 SF1BR1,544 SFCIRCULATION82 SFTRASH/RCLG159 SFSTORAGE74 SFELEC907 SF1BR+D522 SFSTUDIO737 SF1BR737 SF1BR754 SF1BR1,192 SF2BR723 SF1BR979 SF1BR+D1,197 SF2BR899 SF1BR+D1,128 SF2BR604 SF1BRA2.01A2.02A2.12A2.111'-5"1'-11"1'-4"1'-4"15 SF21 SF15 SF15 SF99'-4"78'-6"36'-1 5/8"134'-6 3/8"60'-11 1/2"47'-8"62'-0"TRASH & RECYCLING CHUTES Copyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc.CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATESA1.2FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 2ST. LOUIS PARK, MN Achromatic 601323-09401.04.24SITE PLAN APPLICATION1" = 20'-0"1LEVEL 2N45 A20011,479 SFCIRCULATION82 SFTRASH/RCLG159 SFSTORAGE74 SFELEC737 SF1BR907 SF1BR+D520 SFSTUDIO737 SF1BR737 SF1BR754 SF1BR1,192 SF2BR867 SF1BR+D1,344 SF2BR+D960 SF2BR1,127 SF2BR+DA2.01A2.02A2.12A2.1115 SF21 SF15 SF15 SF99'-4"77'-10 7/8"36'-1 5/8"133'-10 3/4"60'-4 3/8"48'-3 5/8"62'-0"TRASH & RECYCLING CHUTES Copyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc.CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATESA1.3FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 3ST. LOUIS PARK, MN Achromatic 601323-09401.04.24SITE PLAN APPLICATION1" = 20'-0"103 -LEVEL 3N46 LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -1 1/8" LEVEL P1 88' -8" LEVEL 3 125' -2 1/4" ROOF TRUSS BEARING 135' -3 3/8" T.O. ROOF SHEATHING 136' -10 1/8" PARAPET 139' -10 1/8"3'-0"1'-6 3/4"10'-1 1/8"12'-1 1/8"13'-1 1/8"11'-4"39'-10 1/8"1'-0"1'-0"107179136A 81 110 180 107 136B 107 181 113 LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -1 1/8" LEVEL 3 125' -2 1/4" ROOF TRUSS BEARING 135' -3 3/8" T.O. ROOF SHEATHING 136' -10 1/8" PARAPET 139' -10 1/8"13'-1 1/8"12'-1 1/8"10'-1 1/8"1'-6 3/4"3'-0"39'-10 1/8"1'-0"107 179 136A 81 110 80 180 142107136B Copyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc. CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES A2.0 BUILDING ELEVATIONS -NORTH & EAST ST. LOUIS PARK, MN Achromatic 6013 23-094 01.08.24 SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCS - EAST MATERIAL AREA % BURNISHED BLOCK 42 SF 1% FIBER CEMENT PANEL - DARK GRAY 1,122 SF 16% FIBER CEMENT PANEL - LIGHT GRAY 1,395 SF 20% GLAZING 2,225 SF 32% PREFINISHED METAL 81 SF 1% STUCCO 1,993 SF 29% Grand total: 6 6,858 SF 100% KEYNOTES - EXTERIOR NOTE #NOTE 4 BURNISHED BLOCK 80 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 81 COMPOSITE WINDOW 82 HOLLOW METAL SERVICE DOOR 83 INSULATED METAL OVERHEAD DOOR 107 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM FLASHING 110 GLASS PANEL GUARD RAIL 113 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONY 136A FIBER CEMENT PANEL- DARK GRAY 136B FIBER CEMENT PANEL- LIGHT GRAY 142 PREFINISHED METAL PANEL 179 STUCCO 180 METAL CANOPY 181 SLIDING COMPOSITE DOOR MATERIAL CALCS - NORTH MATERIAL AREA % FIBER CEMENT PANEL - DARK GRAY 470 SF 12% FIBER CEMENT PANEL - LIGHT GRAY 283 SF 7% GLAZING 1,455 SF 38% PREFINISHED METAL 126 SF 3% PREFINISHED METAL PANEL 42 SF 1% STUCCO 1,497 SF 39% 3,874 SF 100% 47 LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -1 1/8" LEVEL P1 88' -8" LEVEL 3 125' -2 1/4" ROOF TRUSS BEARING 135' -3 3/8" T.O. ROOF SHEATHING 136' -10 1/8" PARAPET 139' -10 1/8"1'-0"3'-0"1'-6 3/4"10'-1 1/8"12'-1 1/8"13'-1 1/8"11'-4"39'-10 1/8"107179 136A81110136B107113 4 181 LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -1 1/8" LEVEL P1 88' -8" LEVEL 3 125' -2 1/4" ROOF TRUSS BEARING 135' -3 3/8" T.O. ROOF SHEATHING 136' -10 1/8" PARAPET 139' -10 1/8"3'-0"1'-6 3/4"10'-1 1/8"12'-1 1/8"13'-1 1/8"11'-4"39'-10 1/8"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"107179136A 81 110107136B 107 83 113 18080 82 4 181 Copyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc. CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES A2.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS -SOUTH & WEST ST. LOUIS PARK, MN Achromatic 6013 23-094 01.08.24 SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCS - SOUTH MATERIAL AREA % BURNISHED BLOCK 605 SF 12% FIBER CEMENT PANEL - DARK GRAY 286 SF 6% FIBER CEMENT PANEL - LIGHT GRAY 507 SF 10% GLAZING 1,344 SF 27% PREFINISHED METAL 105 SF 2% STUCCO 2,110 SF 43% 4,958 SF 100% KEYNOTES - EXTERIOR NOTE #NOTE 4 BURNISHED BLOCK 80 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 81 COMPOSITE WINDOW 82 HOLLOW METAL SERVICE DOOR 83 INSULATED METAL OVERHEAD DOOR 107 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM FLASHING 110 GLASS PANEL GUARD RAIL 113 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONY 136A FIBER CEMENT PANEL- DARK GRAY 136B FIBER CEMENT PANEL- LIGHT GRAY 142 PREFINISHED METAL PANEL 179 STUCCO 180 METAL CANOPY 181 SLIDING COMPOSITE DOOR MATERIAL CALCS - WEST MATERIAL AREA % BURNISHED BLOCK 532 SF 7% FIBER CEMENT PANEL - DARK GRAY 840 SF 11% FIBER CEMENT PANEL - LIGHT GRAY 833 SF 11% GLAZING 2,460 SF 32% METAL DOORS 181 SF 2% PREFINISHED METAL 163 SF 2% STUCCO 2,794 SF 36% 7,804 SF 100% 48 Achromatic 6013 SITE PLAN APPLICATION 23-094.00 01.08.24 St. Louis Park, Minnesota ©2024 DJR CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES A4.0 Exterior Rendering 49 Achromatic 6013 SITE PLAN APPLICATION 23-094.00 01.08.24 St. Louis Park, Minnesota ©2024 DJR CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES A4.1 Exterior Rendering 50 Achromatic 6013 SITE PLAN APPLICATION 23-094.00 01.08.24 St. Louis Park, Minnesota ©2024 DJR CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES A4.2 Exterior Rendering 51 Achromatic 6013 SITE PLAN APPLICATION 23-094.00 01.08.24 St. Louis Park, Minnesota ©2024 DJR CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATES A4.2 Exterior Rendering 52 CEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCEDAR LAKE ROADCopyright 2024 DJR Architecture, Inc.CLIENT: CEDAR HEIGHTS ESTATESA5.0SOLAR STUDYST. LOUIS PARK, MNAchromatic601323-0941.08.24 SITE PLAN APPLICATION1" = 100'-0"Winter Solstice -11AM1" = 100'-0"Winter Solstice -1PMSection 36-366(b)(6) -All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings. 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 principal 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. This section will not prohibit shading of buildings in an industrial use district, mixed-use district, or as approved for buildings covered by the same PUD, CUP, or Special Permit. Shading of existing public spaces and outdoor employee break areas shall be minimized to the extent reasonable and possible.SHADING ANALYSIS: 1" = 100'-0"Equinox -1pm1" = 100'-0"Equinox -9am1" = 100'-0"Equinox -11am1" = 100'-0"Winter Solstice -9am1" = 100'-0"Winter Solstice-3pm1" = 100'-0"Equinox -3pm1" = 100'-0"Summer -3pm1" = 100'-0"Summer -9am1" = 100'-0"Summer -11am1" = 100'-0"Summer -1pmTHE MOST PROMINENT SOLAR ANGLE TIMES DO NOT CAST A SHADOW ON A NEIGHBORING BUILDING FOR MORE THAN A 2 HOUR PERIODNNNNNNNNNNNN 53 54 1 Planning commission: Study session Meeting date: February 7, 2024 Agenda item: 1 1 Discussion of zoning code update, phase 1 Recommended Action. At the February 7 meeting, the Planning Commission will continue its discussion of establishing new residential zoning districts. No action requested at this time; provide feedback to staff and consultants on the zoning code update phase 1 drafts thus far. Background. At the December 20 study session, staff and HKGi presented and facilitated discussion on the following standards for the neighborhood districts: • Lot size standards (lot width and lot area); and • Site/building dimensional standards (e.g. building heights, setbacks, lot coverage, FAR) and adding any other specific standards that support the mix of housing types proposed in each district. Lot Dimensional Standards. The attached draft lot standards table shows the minimum lot width and area standards by housing type within each district. Smaller minimum lot widths and lot areas are proposed for blocks with alleys for most housing types, recognizing that garage/driveway access from an alley enables narrower lot widths. For lots with alleys, we are proposing a minimum lot width of 40 feet and lot area of 4,800 square feet for single-unit detached houses. For blocks without alleys, the proposed minimums are lot width of 50 feet and lot area of 6,000 square feet. The proposed lot widths and areas for the added housing types are based on HKGi’s experience with other cities’ zoning codes and analysis of form- based/hybrid codes. As discussed, the proposed lot size standards will result in densities that may require amending the densities in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Site & Building Dimensional Standards. The focus of the February 7 study session will be on site & building standards. We began discussion of these standards at the December 20 study session to provide an opportunity for the planning commission to discuss any concerns with the proposed mix of housing types in each of the neighborhood districts and to identify the types of standards that may be needed to ensure compatible development between different housing types. Attached is a draft Site & Building Standards table. Neighborhood districts’ site and building standards could include: • Building height maximum • Front yard setback minimum • Side yard setback minimum • Rear yard setback minimum • Distance between buildings minimum • Perimeter setback minimum • Open lot area / DORA minimum • Ground FAR / building coverage maximum • Impervious surface coverage maximum • FAR (floor to area ratio) maximum 55 Study session of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 1) Title: Discussion of zoning code update, phase 1 2 One of the goals of the new neighborhood districts is to also simplify standards where possible. With this in mind, we have completed a first draft of standards for each district and housing type on the attached table. We are proposing to add the following three standards: • Minimum distance between buildings. This is applicable to housing types that involve multiple buildings on a property. This may apply to courtyard cottages, bungalows, and townhouses. • Minimum perimeter setback. As a result of the planning commission’s discussion, this standard is proposed to apply to the N-3 and N-4 districts when the property is adjacent to the N-1 or N-2 districts. • Maximum impervious surface coverage. This new standard is proposed for all four districts and housing types. It is proposed to be lower for the lower density housing types and higher for the higher density housing types. We are proposing to eliminate the FAR maximum standard from the neighborhood districts. While this standard may be beneficial in more intense non-residential districts, it is not needed in the neighborhood districts. The FAR standard does not measure or control density of housing units. FAR is one method for controlling scale and quantity of open space. Other standards also provide this type of control including maximum building height, maximum building coverage, maximum impervious surface coverage, and minimum DORA. Since staff is utilizing these standards, FAR becomes redundant and unnecessary. In preparation for Tuesday’s study session, please review the draft Site & Building Standards table to identify any questions or concerns. Staff will be prepared to present a summary of the table and answer questions. Site and building standards for buffering between different housing types will also be discussed at the meeting, such as: • Larger setbacks, typically side yard • Upper floor stepbacks • Screening Community engagement. Finally, we will discuss the community engagement approach for the proposed new neighborhood districts and the zoning map. Next steps: The consultants and staff will incorporate the planning commission’s recommendations into the draft standards for the new neighborhood districts. The proposed new neighborhood districts, including allowed uses, lot size dimensional standards, site and building dimensional standards, and zoning map will be made available on the city website and at the community engagement events for public feedback and comment. 56 Study session of February 7, 2024 (Item No. 1) Title: Discussion of zoning code update, phase 1 3 Attachments: • Draft lot size standards table • Draft site & building standards table • Draft zoning map Prepared by: Jeff Miller, HKGi Reviewed by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator 57 Draft Lot Size Dimensional StandardsNeighborhood DistrictsFebruary 1, 2024District Housing TypeLot width min. with alley (ft)Lot width min. w/o alley (ft)Lot area min. with alley (sq ft)Lot area min. w/o alley (sq ft)Calculated lot depth (ft.)Estimated units per acre based on lot size with alleyEstimated units per acre based on lot size without alleyDwelling, single‐unit40504,8006,000 1209.17.3Dwelling, two‐unit (duplex)40504,8006,000 12018.214.5N‐1Dwelling, attached two‐unit (twinhomes)35 [70] 45 [90] 4,400 [8,800] 5,600 [11,200] 13019.815.6Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalows10011013,00014,300 130 varies by # of units varies by # of unitsDwelling, three‐unit60707,8009,100 13016.814.4Dwelling, single‐unit40504,8006,000 1209.17.3Dwelling, two‐unit (duplex)40504,8006,000 12018.214.5Dwelling, attached two‐unit (twinhomes)35 [70] 45 [90] 4,400 [8,800] 5,600 [11,200] 13019.815.6N‐2Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalows10011013,00014,300 130 varies by # of units varies by # of unitsDwelling, three‐unit60707,8009,100 13016.814.4Dwelling, four‐unit60707,8009,100 13022.319.1Dwelling, townhouse (small)20202,6002,600 13016.816.8Dwelling, apartment (low‐rise)60707,8009,100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of unitsDwelling, four‐unit60707,8009,100 13022.319.1Dwelling, townhouse (small)20202,6002,600 13016.816.8N‐3Dwelling, apartment (low‐rise)60707,8009,100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of unitsDwelling, townhouse (large)20202,6002,600 13016.816.8Dwelling, apartment (mid‐rise)60707,8009,100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of unitsDwelling, townhouse (large)20202,6002,600 13016.816.8N‐4Dwelling, apartment (mid‐rise)60707,8009,100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of unitsDwelling, apartment (high‐rise)607078009100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of units58 Draft Site Building Dimensional StandardsNeighborhood DistrictsFebruary 1, 2024Purpose of StandardScale & CompatibilitySpacing & Scale Spacing& ScaleSpacing & Scale Spacing & Scale Spacing & ScaleCompatibilitySpacing & Scale Spacing & Scale Stormwater ScaleDistrict Housing TypeBuilding Height Maximum (feet )Front Yard Setback Minimum (feet)Side  Corner Yard Setback Minimum (feet)Side Interior Yard Setback Minimum (feet) with AlleySide Interior Yard Setback Minimum (feet) without AlleyRear Yard Setback Minimum (feet)Distance Between  Buildings Minimum (feet)Perimeter Setback Minimum (feet) DORA Minimum Ground FAR / Principal Building Coverage MaximumImpervious Surface Coverage MaximumFAR MaximumDwelling, single‐unit5/59/52535%60%Dwelling, two‐unit (duplex)5/59/52535%60%N‐1Dwelling, attached two‐unit (twinhomes)5/5 9/5 2535% 60%Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalows10/10* 10/10*10*1035%60%Dwelling, three‐unit5/59/52535%60%Dwelling, single‐unit5/59/5 2535%60%Dwelling, two‐unit (duplex)5/59/52535%60%Dwelling, attached two‐unit (twinhomes)5/59/52535%60%N‐2Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalows10/10* 10/10*10*1035%60%Dwelling, three‐unit5/59/52535%60%Dwelling, four‐unit5/59/52535%75%Dwelling, townhouse (small)10/10* 10/10*10*12*12%75%Dwelling, apartment (low‐rise)10/1010/101012%80%Dwelling, four‐unit5/59/52545%75%Dwelling, townhouse (small)12 12 12 12* 12% 75%N‐3Dwelling, apartment (low‐rise)12121212%80%Dwelling, townhouse (large)12121212*12%80%Dwelling, apartment (mid‐rise)12121212%85%Dwelling, townhouse (small)15151512*12%80%Dwelling, apartment (low‐rise)15151512%80%N‐4Dwelling, townhouse (large)15 15 15 12* 12% 80%Dwelling, apartment (mid‐rise)15151512%85%Dwelling, apartment (high‐rise)151515Half the building height if adjacent to N‐1, N‐2, or N‐3 districts 12%85%* Applies to development site not individual lots302515 (9)402515 (9)75251525 feet if adjacent to N‐1 district35 feet if adjacent to N‐1 or N‐2 districtsMore than 75251525 feet if adjacent to N‐1 district35 feet if adjacent to N‐1 or N‐2 districts59 169 169 169 7 394 394 100 100 25 5 3 100 3 7 5 5 17LOUISIANA AVE SCEDAR L A K E R D QUENTIN AVE SPARKDAL E D R C O U N T Y R O A D 2 5HIGHWAY 100 SMINNETONKA BLVD EXCELSIOR BLVDNBH W Y 1 0 0 S T O EB I394 ALABAMA AVE SWAYZATA BLVD LAKE ST WDAKOTA AVE S36TH ST W TEXAS AVE S26TH ST W 28TH ST W WA LKER ST FRANCEAVESHoly Family Academy Benilde-St. Margaret's Susan Lindgren Elementary School St. Louis Park High School Park Spanish Immersion Elementary School Aquila Elementary School Torah Academy St Louis Park Middle School New Horizon Academy Yeshiva of Minneapolis Peter Hobart Primary Center Bais Yaakov High School Schools Parks Street Type Multi-modal Street Neighborhood Street Transit-Priority Street Vehicular Street Proposed Zoning N-1 Neighborhood District N-2 Neighborhood District N-3 Neighborhood District N-4 Neighborhood District Non-Residential Zoning Districts 2017 City of St. Louis Park Community Development Legend Proposed Residential Zoning Districts Map 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 60