Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Request by Schafer Richardson for approval of a Preliminary Plat to construct two multi-family buildings EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Regular Meeting: November 15, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Request by Schafer Richardson for approval of a Preliminary Plat to construct two multi-family buildings AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 9.a ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; Excerpt from the September 27 and October 25, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes; Site Location; Land Use and Zoning Maps; Prestwick Place East (2007); Developer’s Narrative; Preliminary Plat; Site Plan; Landscaping Plan; Renderings; Elevations; Building Height Sections; Engineer’s Memo Dated September 16, 2022; Traffic analysis memo; Park and Recreation Director’s Memos dated October 19, 2022 and October 21, 2022; Letters Received APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat for the subdivision of Outlot A, Prestwick Place Townhomes, subject to conditions. SUMMARY Property Owner: Dakota County CDA Applicant: SRD2.0, LLC & SRPB Strategic Housing, LLC (Schafer Richardson) Surrounding Land Uses: North: Medium Density Residential East: Medium Density Residential South: Community Commercial West: Low and High Density Residential Existing Zoning District: R4 PUD-High Density Residential PUD Comprehensive Plan Desig. HDR-High Density Residential The City Council is being asked to consider a request for a preliminary plat that proposes a subdivision of Outlot A, Prestwick Place Townhomes into two parcels that would each contain one multi-family building. The Planning Commission reviewed this request along with a site plan for the development of the subject parcel. Initially, the applicant had requested deviations from the zoning ordinance standards to reduce the minimum number of parking stalls required and to increase the maximum building height from four stories or 48’ to five stories and 55.5 feet. Following the September 27 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant updated their plans to remove the need for the requested deviations. On October 25, the Planning Commission found the site plan to be in conformance with the R4-High Density Residential zoning district standards of the City Code and approved the Final Site and Building Plan. Because site plan reviews are acted upon by the Planning Commission, the only action required of the City Council 2 related to the proposed development at this time is the approval of the preliminary plat. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing during its meeting on September 27, 2022, to review the proposed development and receive public comment. The commission had questions about the use of a proof of parking versus installing all of the stalls at once. Typically, the actual usage of off-street parking falls below the amount of parking required by the code, therefore a proof of parking is provided to avoid an excess of paved surface that would go unused. The City Code specifies that the proof of parking shall be installed at the City’s discretion. The Commission also asked about how Adalyn Avenue was designed, and if development like that being proposed was considered. Because the site has been guided and zoned for high density residential development since 2007, the streets have been designed with the understanding that high density residential would be located on the subject parcel. At the September 27 meeting, the Planning Commission heard from numerous residents who expressed opposition to the proposed deviations that would increase the maximum building height and reduce the required parking. Additional concerns were related to traffic and the presumed inability for the streets to handle the volume of vehicles travelling to and from the site. There were also concerns raised about crime related to the type of development proposed, the lack of green spaced provided and fee-in-lieu of park land dedication. Finally, the residents expressed concern that not enough notice was provided to enough people. Staff reviewed the mailings that were sent out and found that the number of notices sent out met the requirements of the City Code. Helpful feedback was provided related to public notification in languages other than English, which was shared with the City Clerk and Communications Coordinator. Following the public hearing, the Commission had additional questions and comments in response to the public comment received. These are detailed in the attached excerpt from the September 27 meeting minutes. The Commission wanted a review by the City’s engineering staff of the traffic analysis provided by the applicant as well as a lighting study to understand the impacts on adjacent properties. The Commission provided feedback that it would prefer the site remain within the recently approved building height maximum. The Commission voted to continue the meeting to October 25 to allow the applicant and staff time to follow up on these concerns. Prior to the October 25th Planning Commission meeting, the City’s engineering consultant reviewed the traffic study and provided comments that were responded to by the applicants traffic consultant. A photometric study was provided that indicated no impact on adjacent residential properties. Also, during that time, the applicant updated their plans to reduce the height of the taller building to bring it below the maximum building height. This resulted in a reduction in the number of units that allowed the applicant to meet the parking requirements of the City Code with only a slight increase in parking stalls. With this change, the Planning Commission found that the proposed requests for site plan and preliminary plat approval meet all the requirements of the City Code, and the Commission voted to approve the site plan and recommend approval of the preliminary plat. BACKGROUND The subject property is part of a larger 290-acre mixed use development approved by the City in 2007 on the northwest and northeast quadrants of County Road 42 and Akron Avenue. At the time it was approved, the PUD Master Development and Rezoning included approximately 50 acres of commercial, 90 acres of residential, and 130 acres platted as outlots for future development. All the approved development areas west of Akron Avenue received final plan approval and have since been developed, and the City Council recently approved a request to change the designation of approximately eight acres of land from commercial to high-density residential. Other than the subject parcel, most of the land within the Prestwick Place Planned Unit Development remaining to be constructed is guided for commercial uses in the northeast and northwest of the 3 intersection of Akron Avenue and County Road 42, except for eight acres southwest of the intersection of Connemara Trail and Akron Avenue. The subject parcel is part of the Prestwick Place Planned Unit Development that was approved in 2007. With that approval, the site was rezoned to its current R4 PUD-High Density Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district. Contained within the attachments is the Prestwick Place East site plan showing the anticipated development of the subject parcel and surrounding area, which indicates 200 high- density units within the subject parcel. The 2007 PUD included many townhomes on the west side of Akron that were replaced with single-family development through PUD amendments. So, while the concept for the subject parcel anticipated fewer units to be developed on the subject parcel, the overall number of housing units in the Prestwick Place PUD remains relatively even and within the anticipated overall density for the Prestwick Place development. The Planning Commission is the acting authority for site plan reviews and Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan approvals. Therefore, the Council is only being asked to take action related to the approval of the Preliminary Plat. A review of the site plan is provided in this report to provide context on which to base the Council action related to the preliminary plat. ISSUE Legal Authority Plats requests are considered quasi-judicial actions. In such cases, the City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if the application meets these requirements it must be approved. Preliminary Plat The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat that would subdivide the existing outlot into two buildable lots, each containing one of the buildings. The existing outlot contains land that was dedicated as right-of- way for Adalyn Avenue, resulting in a net developable area of 12.44 acres. Lot 1, located adjacent to Akron Avenue, is 6.97 acres in area, and Lot 2 is 5.46 acres. Both lots far exceed the minimum lot size of 22,500 square feet (.516 acres), and any minimum dimensional standards such as lot width or lot depth. Site Layout The proposed multi-family community is comprised of two buildings located within separate parcels, but the applicant conceived of the site as a single community with shared access and open space for amenities. The site plan provides two accesses from Adalyn Avenue to the east. A common, private drive separates the surface parking on the two parcels and access to the underground parking is provided by the internal drives. The eastern building features a smaller footprint in order to fit between the two existing easements that cross the site. Access into its underground parking is located on the southern elevation. In addition to the common open space, the eastern building will offer a swimming pool as an amenity to the residents of that building. The building located on the west side of the site has a larger footprint and two accesses into its underground garage. One access will be located at the northern-most point of its eastern elevation, and the other access will be on the south face of the building. The western building will contain a playground within the courtyard facing Akron Avenue. In addition to the amenities related to each individual building, the site will also feature on the north and south ends of the shared common drive a dog park and picnic area, respectively. Surface parking is, for the most part, located internally between the two buildings to create a more pleasing view of the site from public rights of way. Park Dedication 4 The proposed development has been reviewed by the City’s parks and recreation department for conformance with the City’s adopted Master Plan. The City’s Parks Master Plan does not call for a park in this area, so staff is recommending the City collect cash in-lieu of land to meet the parks dedication requirements for the 336 units. The parks dedication requirement for 305 high density residential units is .02 acres of land per unit or $2,500 per unit. The cash dedication for 305 units would be $762,500 (305 units x $2,500 per unit). Traffic The site has been designated as High Density Residential in the last three Comprehensive Plan updates. The street system in the vicinity has been designed taking this type of project into account since at least 2008. The traffic and parking analysis provided by the applicant used the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to analyze long term impacts of the proposed development. The City’s engineer provided a review of the study that did not dispute the findings of the original analysis that the existing roadway system has sufficient reserve capacity to absorb the traffic anticipated from the proposed development. The Planning Commission also received many comments related to the ability of Adalyn Avenue to handle the volume of traffic generated by the proposed development. While Adalyn Avenue is a local street, it differs significantly from other local streets in the City in that there are no driveways directly accessing Adalyn Avenue. Other local streets would have 28 or more driveways entering the street over a similar distance. Adalyn Avenue is similar to a collector since only 5 private drives will be accessing that street, and the street system in this area was designed with the proposed development in mind. That being said, all local streets in any part of the city are designed to accommodate parking on both sides with traffic moving in both directions. Currently, parking is permitted along Adalyn Avenue. If needed, parking can be restricted to one or neither side of the street. Plans for the area include at least two connections from Connemara Trail to County Road 42 between Akron Avenue and Blaine Avenue, one of which will be a full intersection allowing traffic to move eastbound on County Road 42. Coordination with Dakota County’s transportation department is ongoing, and an areawide study to ensure needed improvements to intersections in the vicinity of Akron and 42 are made in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and approved it on October 25, 2022. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the preliminary plat based on the information provided by the applicant and reviewed in this report. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2022 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTWICK PLACE TOWNHOMES SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Preliminary Plat approval from Schafer Richardson, concerning property legally described as: Outlot A, Prestwick Place Townhomes, Dakota County, Minnesota WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Prestwick Place Townhomes Second Addition; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2022 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for Prestwick Place Townhomes Second Addition, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for Prestwick Place Townhomes Second Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all stormwater ponds, buffers and outlets. 2. Dedication of standard perimeter drainage and utility easements over the property. 3. Approval of a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan. 4. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum dated September 15, 2022. 5. Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the attached memorandum dated September 19, 2022. ADOPTED this 15th day of November, 2022, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. __________________________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Erin Fasbender, City Clerk EXCERPT FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 5.a. Request by Schafer Richardson for Approval of a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary Plat to construct two multi-family buildings containing 336 dwelling units (22-74-PUD & 22-75-PP). Senior Planner Nemcek gave a presentation and summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Reed questioned about the parking stalls and why not require the extra parking stalls right away? Nemcek stated that to not have unused asphalt sitting around, staff recommends that if more parking is needed in the future, they can add on to the parking. Reed inquired about the park commissions ‘recommended park dedication fee’ and if the City Council could change that requirement. Nemcek stated that they can. Commissioner Thiagarajan inquired where the Life Time facility is proposed. Nemcek stated that facility is proposed on the property just south of this site. Commissioner Powell questioned if the surface water that is still under review would change the site plan once it is complete. Nemcek stated that it is not very common. Chair Kenninger inquired as to how Adalyn Ave was designed to accommodate a development like the proposed. Nemcek stated that the City Engineer has a better understanding on how the streets are designed, but the surrounding development is considered during the design. The public hearing opened at 7:04 pm. Public Comments: Katie Anthony, Schafer Richardson, Applicant, 900 North 3rd Street, Minneapolis, 55401, stated that this site was chosen as it is in a great location and Rosemount has great schools. The parking studies have been completed and the studies discovered that the parking demand was lower then what has been proposed. The traffic has been a concern in this neighborhood and because of that a traffic study has been completed. The height of the buildings is proposed due to the easements that are currently on the property. The concerns about the surrounding homes property values being altered because of the development are encouraged to reach out to a local realtor. Chair Kenninger inquired about the building time line. Ms. Anthony stated that 4 years is the proposed length. Both buildings will be under construction at the same time and could be completed in 2.5 years. Commissioner Rivera inquired if the buildings are market rate housing. Ms. Anthony stated the two buildings differ in that Building A (east-side) will contain units leased at rents that are market-rate, while the units in Building B will feature rents that are affordable to residents within incomes below a certain threshold. Tom Fowler, 1259 Lower 143rd Street East, stated that there is not enough proposed parking. The street is too small to accommodate the amount of traffic. The neighbors believe that property values will decrease because of the traffic, amount of people, and the lower income apartments. Also expressed concerns regarding property values and an assessment should be done to determine whether the value will increase or decrease. Mickey Stone, 1221 142nd Street East, concerns regarding traffic hazards, property values concern, the height of the buildings and public safety concerns with additional units. Also expressed concern regarding lighting. Logan Wilkinson, 1227 Lower 143rd Street, stated that as a police officer and having worked at lower income apartments, that is where officers spend most of their time and stated crime in the area will increase. Evan Cesar, 14300 Ailesbury Ave, stated that the public hearing notices should have been mailed out further than 500 feet of the property. Also, questioned if the city be willing to conduct their own traffic study. Would like to see similar developments in other communities that the applicant referenced. Cindy Fowler, 1259 Lower 143rd Street East, stated that at the neighborhood meeting the developer stated that the project would take 4 years to be completed. Rakshit Caplash, 14109 Aberdeen Way, why applicant paying for park and dedication fees? Is there not enough green space in the area? Also questioned the parking space availability. Rebecca, 14121 Addison Ave, questioning how the case study was conducted. Expressed concerned regarding the number of affordable housing units in Rosemount and how close the areas are to one another. Consider rezoning the area and allowing more green space in the area as there currently is no park in the area. Idolly Oliva, 14277 Ailesbury Ave, inquired about the projection of the increased traffic as the current kids grow up and start driving. Would like to inquire about having information translated for Spanish speaking homes. MOTION by Kenninger to close the public hearing. Second by Reed. Ayes: 7. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. The public hearing closed at 7:39 pm. Additional Comments: Chair Kenninger summarized the questions stated and asked Senior Planner Nemcek, City Engineer Erickson and Katie Anthony of Schafer Richardson for a response Senior Planner Nemcek addressed the following questions; The lighting plan would require City Council approval, the level of lighting shall not exceed 0.5 lumens at any residential property line or 1.0 lumen at any nonresidential property line. The traffic study that was completed was done by Southern Traffic Services (STS) which considered existing and future uses. The study considered they city’s comprehensive plan. The gas line agreement is addressed through the gas line operator and the developer. For example, the City is unable to issue permits unless a written notice is given from the gas line operator if a resident wanted to build something in the area of the gas line on their property. Park Dedication is required by every development to donate a certain amount of land or fee in lieu of land for nonresidential properties. The City’s Parks Master Plan does not call for a park in this area, so staff is recommending the City collect cash in-lieu of land to meet the parks dedication requirements. The parking space calculation is for the total number of stalls required and is not indicating there would be partial parking stalls. Commissioner Reed questioned if the fee-in-lieu of a park money gets used to develop new parks and maintain current parks. Nemcek stated that is correct. Community Development Director stated that the state minimum for the mailing of public hearing notices is 500 feet from the application property per our City Code and mailed within 10 days of the public hearing. The City of Rosemount is requiring more than state statute requires. The policy would have to go to City Council for review for any changes. City Engineer Erickson addressed the following questions; Access to the site is from Adalyn Avenue at two locations. The traffic study completed took into consideration the maximum number of cars per hour. Commissioner Reed inquired if sidewalks have been considered to be added along Adalyn Ave. Erickson stated that they have not looked at including sidewalks. The stormwater management initial submittal has been reviewed and there was nothing at that time that would indicate changes need to be made. Any changes that would need to be completed would be included within the city council action item. Kathy Anthony addressed the following questions; The financing portion starts after the developer knows a project will work. Currently, there is no financing in place for Building A. For Building B, the developer will seek a different option for financing. If construction starts in 2023, if the buildings can get built concurrently, then they will be completed in approximately 2.5 years from ground break. Many Conversations have been had with the gas company. There are no buildings over the gas line, it is only impervious surfaces. For more information on examples of the developer’s development, the public can view the developer’s website. The most recent comparable development was finalized this summer in Richfield and another one in White Bear Lake in 2021. Commissioner Reed inquired about the security of the property. Ms. Anthony stated that in each building there will be onsite building managers, security features inside and outside, and both buildings will be fobbed in order to get inside. Kenninger inquired if background checks are done. Ms. Anthony stated that background and credit checks are both done no matter the type of building. Chair Kenninger inquired if there is an increase in crime around other buildings and areas in town that have high density. Nemcek stated that there have been no comments or concerns made by the Police Chief. If the request is denied for the developer to increase the one building height to 55 feet, the developer would need to go back to the drawing board to determine the next steps. Ms. Anthony noted the public notice was only provided in English language and stated translating this in the future is an important point. Planning Commissioners further discussed the item; Commissioner Powell stated that the fact that the traffic study hasn’t been reviewed creates concern. The height of the proposed building that is higher than the max that the Council just set not that long ago is also concerning. Commissioner Rivera stated that the height of the building and parking requirements are concerning and recommends the applicant stay within the guidelines that the City Council approved in January. Commissioner Reed stated that the building height is concerning. Reed has confidence in the outcome of the traffic study as they have been completed in the past. A 5-story building doesn’t fit the vision that commissioners had for the area. Commissioner Thiagarajan stated she would like more information regarding the traffic study before making a recommendation. Chair Kenninger stated that the height of buildings was just increased from 35 to 48. She would like to see the height of the building to stay within the height requirements of the City code and what other options would look like. Kenninger is ok with the parking space requirements. Commissioner Powell stated that he would prefer to make a motion to continue this item until additional information is provided regarding the lighting plan and traffic study. Motion by Powell Second by Rivera. Motion to continue this item to the October 25, 2022, Planning Commission meeting and include information about the traffic study and lighting plan Ayes: 7. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. Chair Kenninger confirmed there will not be another notice mailed out as this is a continuation and the sign will remain posted. The agenda item will be listed as an “old business” item and will not be a public hearing on October 25th. However, Kenninger will confirm with staff if public comment will be allowed at the meeting on the 25th. EXCERPT FROM THE OCTOBER 25, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 5.a. Request by Schafer Richardson for Approval of a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary Plat to construct two multi-family buildings containing 336 dwelling units. (22-74-PUD & 22-75-PP). Senior Planner Nemcek gave a presentation and summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Reed questioned the how staff determines the appropriate number of parks within an area. Parks and Recreation Director Schultz addressed the metrics for how a new park is deemed necessary. Generally, for every 2,000 residents or approximately 650 households a new park is built. Schultz presented a comparison of local parks and their square footage to show what is in different developments. In Spring 2023, the City plans to replacement the playground equipment at Claret Park, Kidder Park, and Biscayne Park. Commissioner Thiagarajan asked if there is an updated timeline for the new parks and the new school. Staff anticipates the parks to start in summer 2023. Staff had not received an update from the school district regarding the new school. Commissioner Rivera stated that the fifth story of the proposed apartment building has been adjusted and is no longer a concern. Rivera questioned if the traffic from both of the apartment buildings would enter/exit off of Adalyn Avenue. Senior Planner Nemcek confirmed. Public Works Director Egger advised that private driveway access typically does not go out onto collector roadways such as Connemara Trail. Peter Orth, with Schafer Richardson, Applicant, 900 North 3rd Street, Minneapolis, 55401, discussed the changes that were made to the height of the building. Due to the reduction in height, it reduced the number of units by 10 percent, as well as reduced the amount of traffic on the roadways. The project is currently in compliance with the current zoning of the area. Commissioner Reed requested clarification on the available parking spots for the two buildings. Mr. Orth confirmed that the amount of parking spots has increased from 1.54 spots per unit to 1.7 spots per unit. There is space on the site for 90 parking stalls as reserved parking as well. MOTION by Powell to recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the subdivision of Outlot A, Prestwick Place Townhomes, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all stormwater ponds, buffers and outlets. 2. Dedication of standard perimeter drainage and utility easements over the property. 3. Approval of a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan. 4. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the memorandum dated September 15, 2022. 5. Conformance with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director as detailed in the memorandum dated September 19, 2022. Second by Herbert. Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passed. MOTION by Reed to recommend the City Council approve a PUD Final Site and Building Plan to construct two multi-family buildings in the northeast quadrant of Connemara Trail and Akron Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a final plat subdividing Outlot A, Prestwick Place Townhomes. 2. Compliance with all conditions detailed in the Engineer’s Memorandum dated September 15, 2022. 3. Payment of cash-in-lieu of park land dedication in the amount of $762.500. 4. Entry monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight distances must be maintained. 5. The applicant shall submit updated elevations indicating the final building height of the eastern building prior to Council review. 6. Entry monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight distances must be maintained. Second by Powell. Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passed. Land Use Zoning 0 8 V O e w I o A 1 4 N897812'0' 132.183 4a 1 I 111 7 o j 09 111 I v I 1 slila11___I I,. 1 k 1 I 1 VB. I _i j OUTLOT S I MIIII I Ni 1[ —;411- 4 I I L-- I1 1 1 7 i 4 1 I t E.IC '4 ...9ire 11 I I I 93215 1 1 1 1 1 irpl I Til__ J BULDIN A 6P 4 I L,1 LJL I 1 i fi 16311 Q 3 7 z a N I I Q 1 L 29 -':'rINC S - f__,„1, il 0'4 BUiLDINC D LiBUILDINSB AAn t; i 5 .r N 1 resE12jiI.:20471 r j 1 i j rif.rJzosIz L iINJ rair bite t W 7.42 11/ 1ifiSriS Q 2 41 I A 1 BUILDING CA °l'7 AE''JAI_`7 !'J!• KS V {'4 J i' I te g r lc lc 1 ____,---- 2 1 adFFtir yE N89 30'15'W 417.42 ,I' p r ILL im± mss i't 5eiGlaf. -,1 r4 X r. CORSEMARA TRAI c'''fi I uYA 1' I.l.i.ij1111.1 7 I C4P 4 %01 irargeormi X k I cauuagur m a, 13 7 A i AE 0 z C cy. I 0rti1. 1 r, O 11,tP1• w OU2OT O 1 Li I o 1 I z II I lII IV 1 I 1 2 li, 1 el ii A 1 N89 42'19 "W 3374.40 CO. RD. 42 1 1 1 a C I X f:o g 1 g Sa g G I W D v 7 e rt M ro U8RoN, o m8 I.§ms mNCi s F0 900 North Third Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.371.3000 .3000 sr-re.com 8/30/2022 145th & Akron Redevelopment Contact for preparing and presenting the site plan information: Peter Orth, Development Manager Name(s) and address(es) of the owner/developer: SRPB Strategic Housing, LLC, SRD2.0 LLC, and affiliates. Project Statement & Narrative (PUD Final Site and Building Plan Application) General: SRPB Strategic Housing, LLC and SRD2.0, LLC (affiliates of Schafer Richardson) are pleased to provide the City of Rosemount with our proposal for a two-phase redevelopment of 13.1 acres near the intersection of 145th Street & Akron Avenue in the City of Rosemount. The site is currently vacant land, formerly used as agricultural, and is owned by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA). This project will consist of two separate multifamily structures, constructed in phases. The eastern portion of the site will be comprised of a 172-unit multifamily structure with market-rate rents (“Building A”). The second phase, on the western portion, will provide a 164-unit affordable housing community (“Building B”). The two buildings will be conceived as one living community, with shared access and circulation, as well as both shared and private open space and amenities. Legal Description: Outlot A, Prestwick Place Townhomes, Dakota County, Minnesota. Site Plan: The site plan provides the location of the project area within the context of local streets, highways, railroads, easements and/or other landmarks. The project area is located between Adalyn Avenue to the east, Akron Avenue to the west, Addison Way to the north, and Connemara Trail to the south. The site area consists of 12.44 acres of buildable land with 0.66 acres in right-of-way (street and sidewalk) along Adalyn Avenue. The site will be divided into two separate parcels to accommodate the two buildings, and there will be two shared access points from Adalyn Avenue to the east. Within the site, a common drive lane separates surface parking on both parcels and provides connection to underground parking structures for each building. Sidewalks will run on both sides of the internal drive lane and will connect surface parking, building entrances, and exterior open space and amenities on site. Each building will have one row of parallel street parking adjacent to the sidewalk. Lighting on site will consist of pedestrian-scale bollard lighting along walkways, minimal downlighting for amenity spaces and courtyards, and appropriate surface parking lighting arranged to deflect the light away from neighboring residential districts and public streets. Soil conditions are a mixture of lean clays, sandy lean clays, silty sands, sands with silt and clayey sands. The fill contains varying amount of gravel, organize fines, and trace roots. The fill ranted in depth from about ½ foot deep to as deep as 9 feet, but will likely vary in depth. Additional compaction will be required for development. 900 North Third Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.371.3000 .3000 sr-re.com The site plan includes both planned and programmed open space, as well as providing residents with open areas for flexible use. Site amenities include an-ADA accessible pet park to the north of the site and a picnic area/pocket park to the south to encourage outdoor activity and social interactions among residents. The pocket park area will provide outdoor seating, planting beds, and a featured sculpture. This area will also serve as a public rest area for pedestrian and bicycle traffic along Connemara Trail, thus serving residents and the community as a whole. A flat-graded area to the west of the pocket park will be available to residents for a wide variety of recreational or leisurely pursuits. See the Landscaping Plan for further details. Building Design: On the eastern portion of the site, Building A will consist of five stories above ground with one level of underground parking. The height, taken from the average site grade, is 55’-5 3/8”. Building B will consist of four stories above ground level with one level of underground parking. The height, taken from the average site grade, is structure 44’-10 1/2”. With a total of 336 units and 12.44 acres available for development, the total density per dwelling unit is 27 dwelling units per acre, which is in line with the R4-High Density Residential classification. This classification allows a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre. The buildings are oriented to avoid strict encroachment requirements from an existing easement, as well as on-site stormwater requirements. The result of these site constraints are uniquely shaped buildings that provide pedestrian and car circulation, as well as individual building courtyards. Each courtyard will have amenities that cater to each building’s residents and may include pergolas and grilling areas, lounge seating, pool and pool deck, and playground. Indoor amenities for each building are primarily located on the first level and will include a fitness center, club room, package notification and storage system, and an on-site management office. Building A’s design includes a sky lounge and rooftop deck overlooking the courtyard. Both buildings have a flat-roof and have been designed with materials and articulations to be compatible with the surrounding area. The elevations provided in the submittal show the appearance of the buildings, with notations for proposed materials. The building’s cladding will be a mixture of masonry (brick) veneer, cement board panels, cement board siding, storefront at public areas and aluminum cornices. 900 North Third Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.371.3000 .3000 sr-re.com Building setback requirements within the R4-High Density Residential classification are 30 feet to the front, sides, and rear. An additional ten feet is required along Akron Avenue for right of way. Both buildings meet these requirements. Parking: The entrance to underground parking for Building A is located at the south end of that building. Building B will have two entrances, one to the north and one to the south. There are a total of 518 parking stalls on site yielding a parking ratio of 1.54 stalls per bedroom. Parking composition includes 267 surface parking stalls, 105 underground parking stalls beneath Building A, and 146 underground stalls beneath Building B. There is also a proof of parking concept in the southwest corner of the site that allows for an additional 87 surface parking stalls, if needed. All surface parking (including proof of parking) meets the parking setback requirement within R4-High Density Residential Housing Units & Affordability: Building A will provide 172 market-rate apartments with a unit mix of studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3- bedroomunits ranging in size from 556 to 1,393 square feet. Building B will have 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3- bedroom units ranging in size from 669 to 1,221 square feet and will target households earning no more than 60% of the area median income (AMI). Rosemount is projected to have the highest population growth among all Dakota County communities between 2020-2030 and 2030-2040. With projected economic and population growth, it is important to provide access to high-quality affordable housing. The quantity and quality of affordability housing within this project will help Rosemount retain and attract younger residents and families, which was identified as goal within the Comprehensive Plan. Providing a mixture of both market-rate and affordable housing within the same development will create a socio-economically diverse community as a whole. 900 North Third Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.371.3000 .3000 sr-re.com Deviations to R-4 High Density Residential: 1. Building Height: The zoning for the R-4 district limits building height to four (4) stories, not to exceed forty-eight feet (48’). Building A is planned as a five (5) story structure with a height of 55’-5 3/8”. The height increase is requested in order to achieve a target unit count given the development constraints placed on the site including third-party easements and stormwater management requirements. Specifically, the size and orientation of the buildings (as well as surface parking) is constrained by a 60-foot gas pipeline easement and a sanitary sewer easement that bisect the site in different directions; neither of these easements permit structures to be built over them. These easements limit the ability to expand the footprint for Building A which results in an increase in the building height. 2. Parking Count: The current parking configuration includes 1.54 parking stalls per unit. This deviates from Rosemount’s requirement of 2 stalls per dwelling unit. Schafer Richardson has extensive experience constructing and managing multifamily projects and has found this ratio to be adequate for suburban housing communities, particularly with the unit mix planned for this site. Shared surface parking can be flexible between the two sites once both phases are complete. Underground parking has been maximized in the proposed design based on the building footprint; surface parking has been thoughtfully designed to integrate visually with the site. Providing enough parking to accommodate the proposed use without overbuilding surface parking allows the development plan to maximize the preservation of green space & open space, which enhances the experience for residents and promotes sustainability. Park Dedication: As a result of Adalyn Avenue construction, approximately half of the street improvements, as well as the existing sidewalk encroach onto the property from the east. This is roughly 30 feet wide and spans the entire length of the site. The proposed construction scope will include sidewalk improvements along Akron Avenue, Adalyn Avenue, and Connemara Trail. The scope will also provide a 3,500 square foot ADA-accessible pet park and 5,000 square foot picnic area/pocket park that will provide a public benefit. With these provisions, the applicant is requesting a credit of $200,000 to be applied towards Park Dedication fees associated with the development. Conclusion: Multifamily housing is the highest and best use of this site given the location, demand for diverse housing types, and proximity to future growth areas in eastern Rosemount. There is an opportunity with this plan to make progress on the City’s affordable housing goals and to attract and support working class individuals and families, as well as young professionals, retirees, and empty nesters, in a location that is positioned for near and long-term job growth. We are excited to work with the City of Rosemount and look forward to the opportunity to present the plans to the Planning Commission. 900 North Third Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.371.3000 .3000 sr-re.com 145th & Akron Redevelopment: Summary of Changes from Original Submittal Based on public comment received during the neighborhood meeting hosted by the applicant on September 22nd as well public comment and feedback from the Planning Commission on September 27th, the applicant decided to revise the project plans to reduce the height of Building A from five stories to four stories (from 55’-6” to 43’). This revision would reduce the visual impact along Adalyn Avenue, reduce the number of parking stalls needed, and would also reduce traffic and circulation associated with site. In reducing the height of Building A from five stories to four stories, the total unit count between both buildings was reduced from 336 residential units to 305. A revised site plan is provided, showing an additional 2 parking spaces being paved during construction and an additional 3 parking spaces provided as proof of parking. With reduction in height to four stories (and reduction of 31 units total), the project is able to meet the parking requirement of 2 stalls per unit with 520 parking stalls being constructed and 90 stalls available for proof of parking (610 total). The proposed revisions would bring the project in full compliance to zoning regulations within the site’s current zoning R4 PUD-High Density Residential PUD. In effect, the applicant is not requesting any deviations to City Code. The table on the next page provides a comparison of revisions from the original submittal on August 30th, 2022 to the current plans as amended. 900 North Third Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.371.3000 .3000 sr-re.com ORIGINAL DESIGN 8.30.2022 CURRENT DESIGN Building A: 193,872 SF Building B: 206,972 SF TOTAL: 400,844 SF Gross Area (Above Ground) *With the reduction in height, Building A’s gross area above ground was reduced. Building A: 154,950 SF Building B: 206,972 SF TOTAL: 361,922 SF Building A: Five stories (55’-6”) Building B: Four stories (44’-10.5”) Height *Reduction in height after public comment and Planning Commission feedback. Building A: Four stories (43’) Building B: Four stories (44’-10.5”) Studios: 29 1-Bedroom (+ Dens): 65 2-Bedroom: 68 3-Bedroom: 10 TOTAL: 172 Building A - Unit Count/Mix *With the reduction in height, unit mix and count was adjusted accordingly. Studios: 31 1-Bedroom: 48 2-Bedroom: 55 3-Bedroom: 7 TOTAL: 141 336 Units 27 Units per Acre TOTAL UNIT COUNT 305 Units 24.5 Units per Acre Underground: 251 Surface: 267 (87 proof of parking) TOTAL: 518 (605 proof of parking) Parking Ratio: 1.54 Stalls per unit (1.80 proof of parking) Parking Count Parking Ratio *Parking ratio adjusted to meet with unit reduction. Underground: 251 Surface: 269 (90 proof of parking) TOTAL: 520 (610 proof of parking) Parking Ratio: 1.70 Stalls per unit (2.00 proof of parking) 175 Trees Provided (176 needed) (1 tree short per code with 336 units) Landscaping *Requirement = 1 tree per 2 units. The reduction in unit count resulted in excess trees being provided on site. 175 Trees Provided (161 needed) (14 trees in excess with per code with 305 units) NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G ADALYN AVENUE LOT 2 LOT 1 L=395.05 R=900.00 Δ=25°08'59" L =2 3 1.0 4 R =5 2 9.0 0 Δ =2 5°0 1'26" S2 5 ° 3 8 ' 4 4 " W 1 1 3 . 8 2 N64°21'16"W 24.91 N9 0 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 3 7 2 . 4 5 N0°27'45"E 804.69 N8 9 ° 3 0 ' 1 5 " W 1 6 3 . 2 8 N 5 1 ° 2 8 ' 5 3 " E 2 4 9 . 3 0 S2 4 ° 5 0 ' 1 7 " W 1 5 3 . 8 1 S5°31'58"E 158.98 L=345.08 R=651.00 Δ=30°22'15" L =18 9.91 R =349.00 Δ=31°10'42" BLOCK 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL NOTES 1. Bearings shown hereon are based on the Dakota County Coordinate System relative to the NAD83(11) control adjustment. 2.Elevations and contours, if any, shown hereon were established with GPS and are relative to the NAVD88 vertical datum. MNDOT Benchmark: 1906 N 5 elevation = 933.09 3. The partial site plan overlay shown was prepared by Stantec and is for reference only. It may not depict or represent the city approved signed plan. LEGEND VICINITY MAP Outlot A, PRESTWICK PLACE TOWNHOMES CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. (ABSTRACT PROPERTY) Part of Section 27, T. 115, R. 19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE PLATTED PROPERTY OWNERS DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1228 TOWN CENTRE DR EAGAN, MN 55123 PROPERTY ADDRESS: UNASSIGNED PARCEL ID NUMBERS: 345864000010 PRESENT ADDRESSES / PARCEL ID NO. STANTEC 6920 PROFESSIONAL PARKWAY SARASOTA, FL 34240 CONTACT: GARY BJORKLUND PHONE: (763) 479-5128 EMAIL: GARY.BJORKLUND@STANTEC.COM MN LICENSE NUMBER: 46563 LAND SURVEYOR AREA SUMMARY 8/26/2022 DATE OF PRELIMINARY PLAT ZONING R4 - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PUD) *CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING MAP PLAT BOUNDARY AREA = 570,536 S.F. (13.10 acres) LOT 1 = 303,663 S.F. OR 6.97 ± ACRES LOT 2 = 238,022 S.F. OR 5.46 ± ACRES ADALYN AVENUE = 28,851 OR 0.67 ± ACRES COUNTY ROAD NO. 73 (AKRON AVENUE) ADD I S O N A V E N U E ADALYN AVENUE CO N N E M A R A T R A I L AD D I S O N W A Y R999' R1023' R1023' NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G 9 9 20 20 20 8 20 4 10 18 2 6 4 6 12 11 15 10 10 11 2 8 10 10 3 11 BUILDING B 52,445 +/- SF. BUILDING A 39,370 +/- SF. R 1 5 ' R5' R15' R 1 0 ' R3.6 7 ' R10 ' R3.6 7 ' R288' R312' R 1 0 ' R10' R2 8 4 . 5 ' R 1 0 ' R10 ' R10 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R3.67' R1 0 ' R10' R3. 6 7 ' R3.6 7 ' R 1 0 ' R3 . 6 7 ' R10 ' R3.67' R 3 . 6 7 ' R3. 6 7 ' R3.6 7 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R3.6 7 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R10' R 3 . 6 7 ' R 1 0 ' R3. 6 7 ' R10 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R 1 0 ' R3.6 7 ' R3 4 ' R 1 0 ' R 5 ' R 5 'R5' R10 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R1 0 ' R3 . 6 7 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R10 ' R3.67' R3 . 6 7 ' R10 ' R 1 0 ' R3.67' R62' R38' R38' R 1 5 ' R15' R3 . 6 7 ' R3.67 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R3.6 7 ' R 1 0 ' R10' R3.67' R3.67' R3.67' R 1 0 ' R10' R 3 . 6 7 ' R10' R 3 . 6 7 ' R3 . 6 7 ' R3.6 7 ' R 3 . 6 7 ' R3.67' R 1 0 ' R1 5 2 ' R15 ' R10' R 3 . 6 7 ' R1 1 2 ' R62' TYP TYP TYP F-F TY P TYP F- F F-F F-F T Y P DOG PARK SEE LA SHARED AMENITY AREA SEE LA SNOW STORAGE AREA B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION (TYP) 7 C-501 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN (TYP) 14 C-501 SNOW STORAGE AREA ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN (TYP) 5 C-501 ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP (TYP) PROOF OF PARKING STOP SIGN INFILTRATION BASIN EXISTING POND NURP PRE-TREATMENT IN F I L T R A T I O N B A S I N 30' PARKING SETBACK 40' BUILDING SETBACK 30 ' P A R K I N G S E T B A C K 30' BUILDING SETBAC K HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION (TYP) 8 C-501 ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP (TYP) 13 C-501 INTEGRAL CURB & WALK (TYP) INTEGRAL CURB & WALK (TYP) MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SNOW STORAGE AREAMONUMENT SIGNSTOP SIGN 11 C-501 SIDEWALK JOINT (TYP) 10 C-501 CONCRETE WALKWAY PAVEMENT SECTION (TYP) 9 C-501 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION (TYP) PATIO OR DECK (TYP) SEE ARCH B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) INTEGRAL CURB & WALK (TYP) LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP (TYP) 1 C-501 TRAFFIC SIGN (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) 2 C-501 DRIVEWAY APRON (TYP) 3 C-501 12 C-501 CONCRETE PAVEMENT JOINT (TYP) 6' CROSSWALK 2' WIDE BARS SPACE 5' ON CENTER (TYP) GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT 10' DRAINAGE & UTILI T Y E A S E M E N T UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION NURP PRE-TREATMENT REPLACE BITUMINOUS TRAIL MATCH EXISTING PLAYGROUND SEE LA POOL/SPA BO T T O M HW L MONUMENT SIGN CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL BO T T O M HW L LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION (TYP) LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION (TYP) 16 C-501 STAIRS (TYP) MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP (TYP) EMERGENCY EGRESS/ NON-ACCESSIBLE CONCRETE WALK 251.2' 24 6 . 2 ' 17 . 7 ' 6. 7 ' 8. 5 ' 13 . 5 ' 7' 12 ' 9. 4 ' 6. 6 ' 21' 21' 25'17'6'26.4'6' 4.5' 272.2' 24 5 . 1 ' 40 . 1 ' 112.1' 42 . 8 ' 25'17'6'19.1'10.9' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 24 ' 24' 17 ' 6. 6 7 ' 9. 3 ' 12 ' 7' 13 . 5 ' 8. 5 ' 6. 6 7 ' 16 . 1 ' 8' 79' 19 ' 24 ' 19 ' 19 ' 24 ' 19 ' 17 ' 24 ' 6' 11 . 8 ' 64 . 8 ' 9' 6' 24' 24' 19 ' 19 ' 24 ' 17 ' 24 ' 17 ' 24' 24 ' 6' 11'6'8.7' 3.3' 6' 6' 4. 7 3 ' 24 ' 9' 9' 8' 8' 8' 6' 24' 10 ' 9' 19' 19' 17' 24' 24' 17' 6.6 7 ' 27.9 ' 6.6 7 ' 6' 30 . 4 ' 6' 6' 6. 7 ' 3 0 ' 3 0 ' 24 ' 17 ' 20' 9. 5 ' 37.2 ' 6' 15'10 ' 18 ' 6' PATIO OR DECK (TYP) SEE ARCH PATIO OR DECK (TYP) SEE ARCH PATIO (TYP) SEE ARCH PATIO (TYP) SEE ARCH PATIO (TYP) SEE ARCH PATIO (TYP) SEE ARCH 6' 6' 40 . 7 ' 17. 7 ' 2.3' DRIVEWAY DROP (TYP) 4 C-501 CURB TRANSITION (TYP) 6 C-501 3' CURB TRANSITION FROM 6" TO 2" CURB 3' CURB TRANSITION FROM 6" TO 2" CURB ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP (TYP) DRIVEWAY DROP (TYP) ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP (TYP) CONCRETE APPROACH NOSE (TYP) 15 C-501 CONCRETE APPROACH NOSE (TYP) CONCRETE APPROACH NOSE (TYP) CONCRETE APPROACH NOSE (TYP) GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT 30 ' P A R K I N G S E T B A C K EMERGENCY EGRESS/ NON-ACCESSIBLE CONCRETE WALK PARKING BELOW DRIVEWAY DROP (TYP) EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE GRADING FOR EXISTING INFILTRATION BENCH DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT EASEMENT 30' P A R K I N G S E T B A C K 162. 1 ' 141' STAIRS (TYP) PROOF OF PARKING 9030 SCALE IN FEET Know what's below. Call before you dig. R 1 SITE PLAN 1" = 30' © U R B A N W O R K S A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C , 2 0 2 2 90 1 N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T / S U I T E 1 4 5 / M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 00.00.0000 AK R O N A V E / R O S E M O U N T , M N 14 5 T H & A K R O N B U I L D I N G S A & B Date:Date:Reg No: 18914 Stephen M. Johnston 08/30/2022 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. 08/30/2022 22-0005 PRELIMINARY Author SMJ D E S I G N CIVIL ENGINEERING | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 3 1 0 4 T H A V E S O U T H , S U I T E 1 0 0 6 M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 1 5 www.elanlab.comp 612.260.7980 f 612.260.7990 LEGEND PERVIOUS AREA HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT PROJECT SUMMARY CONCRETE PAVEMENT ZONED: R4- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA SUMMARY SITE AREA 570,537 SF. (13.10 AC.) RIGHT-OF-WAY 28,851 SF. (0.66 AC.) NET AREA 541,686 SF. (12.44 AC.) LOT 1 303,665 SF. (6.97 AC.) LOT 2 238,021 SF. (5.46 AC.) EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING 0 SF (0%)91,815 SF (17%) PAVEMENT 0 SF (0%)169,338 SF (31%) (WALK/ DRIVE/ PARKING) TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 326 SF (0%)261,153 SF (48%) PERVIOUS 541,712 SF (100%)280,533 SF (52%) PARKING SUMMARY PROVIDED 520 STALLS 610 STALLS (INCLUDING PROOF OF PARKING) OUTDOOR 6 - 8' X 17' ACCESSIBLE STALLS 122 - 9' X 17' STANDARD STALLS AT CURB 121 - 9' X 19' PARALLEL STALLS 20 - 8.5' X 21' STANDARD STALLS 90 - 8' X 18' PROOF OF PARKING (COMPACT) INDOOR BUILDING A: 105 STALLS BUILDING B: 146 STALLS 1.DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE TO FACE OF CURB AND EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2.ON-SITE CURB TO BE B612 AND D412 CURB & GUTTER AS NOTED. 3.ALL CURBS TO HAVE 3/4" EXPANSION JOINTS AT A MAXIMUM OF 100'-0" AND CONTROL JOINTS AT A MAXIMUM OF 10'-0". 4.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE PAINTED WITH A 4" WIDE WHITE STRIPING. ACCESSIBLE SYMBOLS TO BE PAINTED IN WHITE AND ACCESSIBILITY ACCESS AISLES TO BE PAINTED WITH A 4" WIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPE 18 INCHES ON CENTER AND AT 45 DEGREE ANGLE TO STALL, WITH 'NO PARKING' MARKED NEAR THE DRIVE AISLE. REFLECTORIZED PAINT SHALL COMPLY WITH MNDOT 3592. SITE PLAN NOTES SITE PLAN C-101 POROUS PAVERS (SEE LAND ARCH PLAN) NO PARKINGNO PARKING NO PARKING 1,53M60"0,92M36" 6 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 4 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 30 ' - 0 " FR O N T YA R D SE T B A C K 30'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK 4 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 6 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 6 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 40'-0" SETBACK ON A COLLECTOR STREET 40'-0" SETBACK ON A COLLECTOR STREET 30'- 0 " F R O N T YA R D S E T B A C K BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING B CONNEMARA TRAIL W AR K O N A V E AR K O N A V E CON N E M A R A T R A I L W ADD I S O N W A Y A D A L Y N A V E AD A L Y N A V E A D D I S O N A V E PROOF OF PARKING INFILTRATION BASIN NURP PRE - TREATMENT POND INFILTRATION BASIN EXISTING STORMWATER POND NURP PRE - TREATMENT POND BUILDING A COURTYARD BUILDING B COURTYARD AMENITY POOL / SPA PLAYGROUND DOG PARK PICNIC AREA DECIDUOUS TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 9 ACER RUBRUM `ARMSTRONG' ARMSTRONG MAPLE 6 BETULA NIGRA `CULLY` TM HERITAGE RIVER BIRCH 7 BETULA PAPYRIFERA `OENCI` TM RENAISSANCE OASIS PAPER BIRCH 18 BETULA PLATYPHYLLA 'FARGO' TM DAKOTA PINNACLE WHITE BIRCH 12 CORNUS ALTERNIFOLIA PAGODA DOGWOOD 26 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SKYCOLE` TM SKYLINE THORNLESS HONEY LOCUST 7 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICA `ESPRESSO` KENTUCKY COFFEETREE 10 POPULUS TREMULOIDES `NE ARB` PRAIRIE GOLD ASPEN 30 QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK 15 QUERCUS ELLIPSOIDALIS `MAJESTIC SKIES` MAJESTIC SKIES NORTHERN PIN OAK 10 TILIA AMERICANA `BOULEVARD` BOULEVARD LINDEN 3 ULMUS AMERICANA `VALLEY FORGE` VALLEY FORGE AMERICAN ELM EVERGREEN TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 6 LARIX LARICINA TAMARACK 5 PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 6 AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMN BRILLIANCE` AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 5 MALUS X `SPRING SNOW` SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE PLANT SCHEDULE SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 131 ARONIA MELANOCARPA `UCONNAM165` LOW SCAPE MOUND CHOKEBERRY 188 CORNUS RACEMOSA `MUSZAM` MUSKINGUM DOGWOOD 16 CORNUS SERICEA 'BAILADELINE' TM FIREDANCE DOGWOOD 137 DIERVILLA LONICERA DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE 173 EUONYMUS FORTUNEI WINTERCREEPER 157 HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'JANE' TM LITTLE LIME PANICLE HYDRANGEA 149 PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `DART`S GOLD` DART`S GOLD NINEBARK 379 RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW` GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC 24 SALIX PURPUREA 'CANYON BLUE' ARCTIC BLUE PURPLE OSIER WILLOW 163 SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA 'SEM' SEM ASH LEAF SPIREA 48 SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA 'TOR GOLD' TM GLOW GIRL BIRCHLEAF SPIREA EVERGREEN SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 70 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `HOLMSTRUP` HOLMSTRUP CEDAR GRASSES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 77 CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER` FEATHER REED GRASS 256 CAREX VULPINOIDEA FOX SEDGE PERENNIALS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 18 ARUNCUS AETHUSIFOLIUS DWARF GOATSBEARD 9 ASTILBE X 'ROCK AND ROLL' ROCK AND ROLL ASTILBE 13 ATHYRIUM NIPONICUM PICTUM JAPANESE PAINTED FERN 16 BAPTISIA AUSTRALIS BLUE WILD INDIGO 30 ECHINACEA PURPUREA 'RUBINSTERN' RUBY STAR CONEFLOWER 153 NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW' WALKER'S LOW CATMINT 151 PEROVSKIA ATRIPLICIFOLIA 'BLUE JEAN BABY' BLUE JEAN BABY RUSSIAN SAGE 15 TIARELLA X 'SUGAR AND SPICE' SUGAR AND SPICE FOAMFLOWER GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 190,855 SF NO-MOW SEED MIX 33,601 SF SOD SOD/SEED QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME 12,431 SF NATIVE SEED MIX TYPE 2 - DETENTION BASIN MIX © U R B A N W O R K S A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C , 2 0 2 2 90 1 N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T / S U I T E 1 4 5 / M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN APPLICATION 08.30.2022 6/ 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 1 : 1 8 : 5 6 P M C: \ ! R e v i t P r o j e c t F i l e s \ 2 2 - 0 0 0 5 A 2 2 C e n t r a l _ M S k i l l i n g @ u r b a n - w o r k s . c o m . r v t AK R O N A V E / R O S E M O U N T , M N 08/26/2022 22-0005 SITE PLAN 14 5 T H & A K R O N B U I L D I N G S A & B 310 South 4th Avenue, Suite 7050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p: 612.332.7522 CR JS NORTH 0 SCALE:1"=40' 40'80'120' LANDSCAPE PLAN L110 SEE SHEET L113 SEE SHEET L112 SEE SHEET L111 BUILDING A VIEW FROM NORTH EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 1 BUILDING A VIEW FROM WEST EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 2 BUILDING A VIEW FROM NORTHWEST EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 3 BUILDING A VIEW FROM WEST EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 4 BUILDING A VIEW FROM PARKING EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 5 BUILDING A VIEW FROM COURTYARD EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 6 BUILDING B VIEW FROM EAST EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 7 BUILDING B VIEW FROM SOUTH EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 8 BUILDING B VIEW FROM SOUTH EXTERIORROSEMOUNT, MN / 11.09.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 9 GENERAL EXTERIOR NOTES: KEYNOTES: A -LEVEL 1 950'-0" A -LEVEL 2 961'-5 7/8" A -ROOF 992'-11 1/2" A -LEVEL 3 971'-11 3/4" A.A A.B A.C A.D A.E A.F A.G A.H A.I A.J A.K A.L A.M A.N A.P A.Q A.R A.S A.T A.U A.V A -LEVEL 1.1 951'-0" A -AVERAGE GRADE 948'-0" 44 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " [B R I C K -1] [F C P -1] [F C S -2] [W D W -FG ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [F C S -2] [B R I C K -1] [B R I C K -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [L O U V E R -MP ] [A F S -SF -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [F C S -2] [B R I C K -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [F C P -1] [F C P -2] [M A S O N R Y -1] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [W D W -FG ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [F C P -1] [B R I C K -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] A -LEVEL 4 982'-5 5/8" [F C P -2] [M E T -SM C -1] [F C S -5] [F C S -5] [M E T -FA B -CO R N I C E ] [F C P -2] [F C S -5] [F C P -1] [M E T -SM C -1] [F C P -1] [F C P -2] [M E T -FA B -CO R N I C E ] [F C S -5] A -LEVEL 1 950'-0" A -LEVEL 2 961'-5 7/8" A -ROOF 992'-11 1/2" A -SUBLEVEL 939'-0" A -LEVEL 3 971'-11 3/4" A.AA.BA.CA.DA.EA.FA.GA.HA.IA.JA.KA.LA.MA.NA.PA.QA.RA.SA.TA.UA.V A -LEVEL 1.1 951'-0" A -AVERAGE GRADE 948'-0" 44 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [W D W -FG ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [W D W -FG ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [F C P -2] [M A S O N R Y -1] [F C P -1] [F C P -2] [M A S O N R Y -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [B R I C K -1] [F C S -1] [F C P -1] [F C S -2] [F C P -1] [B R I C K -1] [F C P -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] A -LEVEL 4 982'-5 5/8" [M E T -FA B -CO R N I C E ] [F C P -2] [F C P -2] [F C P -2] [F C P -1] [M E T -SM C -1] [F C P -2] [F C P -2] [F C P -2] [F C P -1] [W D W -FG ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] A -LEVEL 1 950'-0" A -LEVEL 2 961'-5 7/8" A -ROOF 992'-11 1/2" A -SUBLEVEL 939'-0" A -LEVEL 3 971'-11 3/4" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A -LEVEL 1.1 951'-0" A -AVERAGE GRADE 948'-0" 44 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [B R I C K -1] [B R I C K -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [F C S -1] [B R I C K -1] [F C P -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [F C P -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [B R I C K -1] [W D W -FG ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [W D W -FG ] [A F S -SF -1] [M E T -FA B -TR I M -1] A -LEVEL 4 982'-5 5/8" [F C S -5] [F C P -1] [F C P -2] [F C P -2] [R A I L -GL A S S ] [F C P -2] [M E T -FA B -CO R N I C E ] [DR-OVHD-SEC] A -LEVEL 1 950'-0" A -LEVEL 2 961'-5 7/8" A -ROOF 992'-11 1/2" A -LEVEL 3 971'-11 3/4" 123456789 A -LEVEL 1.1 951'-0" 44 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " A -AVERAGE GRADE 948'-0" [B R I C K -1] [F C P -1] [B R I C K -1] [M A S O N R Y -1] [F C P -1] [L O U V E R -MP ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [F C S -2] [M A S O N R Y -1] [A F S -SF -1] [A F S -SF -1] [W D W -FG ] [B R I C K -1] [B R I C K -1] [S I G N -EX T -1] [M E T -FA B -CA N O P Y ] [M A S O N R Y -1] [M E T -FA B -TR I M -1] [M E T -FA B -TR I M -1] A -LEVEL 4 982'-5 5/8" [F C P -2] [F C P -1] [F C P -2] [F C P -2] [F C P -2] [F C P -1] © U R B A N W O R K S A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C , 2 0 2 2 90 1 N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T / S U I T E 1 4 5 / M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN APPLICATION 08.30.2022 11 / 9 / 2 0 2 2 7 : 0 4 : 1 5 A M C: \ U s e r s \ d a v i d . m i l l e r \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 - 0 0 0 5 A 2 2 C e n t r a l _ d a v i d . m i l l e r ( R e c o v e r y ) . r v t AK R O N A V E / R O S E M O U N T , M N 11.09.2022 22-0005 SITE PLAN DWM BUILDING A - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.A301 14 5 T H & A K R O N B U I L D I N G S A & B [AFS-SF-1] (08 41 13) ALUMINUM-FRAMED STOREFRONT, EXTERIOR APPLICATION, THERMALLY-BROKEN; CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS: 2" X 4.5"; FINISH: ANODIZED; COLOR: BLACK; GLAZING METHOD: CAPTURED PERIMETER, CAPTURED INTERIOR [BRICK-1] (04 20 01) BRICK MASONRY VENEER, NORMAN HALF BOND, COLOR 1 [DR-OVHD-SEC] (08 36 13) OVERHEAD SECTIONAL DOOR [DR-SLIDING-FG] (08 16 73) FIBERGLASS SLIDING DOORS [FCP-1] (07 46 46) FIBER CEMENT PANELS, COLOR 1, BLACK [FCP-2] (07 46 46) FIBER CEMENT PANELS, COLOR 2 [FCS-1] (07 46 46) FIBER CEMENT SIDING, 10.75 INCH EXPOSURE, COLOR 1 [FCS-2] (07 46 46) FIBER CEMENT SIDING, 8 INCH AND 4 INCH EXPOSURE, COLOR 2 [FCS-5] (07 46 46) FIBER CEMENT SIDING, 4 INCH EXPOSURE, COLOR 5 [LOUVER-MP] (23 80 00) LOUVER FOR PACKAGED THROUGH-THE-WALL HVAC UNIT, EXTRUDED ALUMINUM, CUSTOM COLOR SELECTED BY ARCHITECT [MASONRY-1] (04 20 01) MASONRY VENEER, ALTERNATING 4" AND 8" HEIGHT, HALF BOND, COLOR 1 [MET-FAB-CANOPY] ALUMINUM CANOPY STRUCTURE [MET-FAB-CORNICE] ALUMINUM PROFILE CORNICE [MET-FAB-TRIM-1] (05 50 00) METAL TRIM, COLOR VARIES [MET-SMC-1] (07 62 00) SHEET METAL COPING, PREFINISHED ALUMINUM, COLOR 1 [RAIL-BALC-MESH] (05 73 00) ALUMINUM BALCONY, DECK, AND MESH RAILING [RAIL-GLASS] (05 73 13) GLAZED RAILING SYSTEM [SIGN-EXT-1] (10 14 00) EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNGAGE, ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS ON STANDOFF, WHITE ACRYLIC FACE, INTERNAL ILLUMINATION [WDW-FG] (08 54 13) FIBERGLASS WINDOW, COLOR: BLACK 1/16" = 1'-0"A.A301 A - EXTERIOR ELEVATION WEST2 1/16" = 1'-0"A.A301 A - EXTERIOR ELEVATION EAST4 1/16" = 1'-0"A.A301 A - EXTERIOR ELEVATION SOUTH3 1/16" = 1'-0"A.A301 A - EXTERIOR ELEVATION NORTH1 B -LEVEL 1 950'-0" B -LEVEL 2 961'-2 7/8" B -ROOF 992'-8 1/2" B -LEVEL 3 971'-8 3/4" B -LEVEL 4 982'-2 5/8" B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 B.8 B.9 B.10B.11 B.12 B.13 B.14 B.15 B.16 B.17 B.18 B.19 B.20 B.21 B.22 B -LEVEL 1.1 950'-9" 44'-10 1/2" B -AVERAGE GRADE 947'-10" [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [W D W -FG ] [M E T -SM C -1] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -3] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -4] [F C P -1] [F C S -4] [F C P -1] [F C P -1] [F C S -3] [F C S -3] [B R I C K -3] [B R I C K -3] [A F S -SF -1] [B R I C K -3] [B R I C K -3] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -3] [F C S -4] [F C P -1] [F C S -4] [B R I C K -3] [F C P -1] [F C S -3] [C M U -1] B -LEVEL 1 950'-0" B -LEVEL 2 961'-2 7/8" B -ROOF 992'-8 1/2" B -SUBLEVEL 939'-0" B -LEVEL 3 971'-8 3/4" B -LEVEL 4 982'-2 5/8" 2021222324252627282930 B -LEVEL 1.1 950'-9" B -AVERAGE GRADE 947'-10" 44'-10 1/2" [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [M E T -SM C -1] [W D W -FG ] [M E T -SM F ] [M E T -SM C -1] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -3] [F C P -1] [F C S -3] [F C P -1] [F C P -1] [F C S -3] [B R I C K -3] [B R I C K -3] [F C P -1] [M E T -FA B -TR I M -1] [C M U -1] B -LEVEL 1 950'-0" B -LEVEL 2 961'-2 7/8" B -ROOF 992'-8 1/2" B -LEVEL 3 971'-8 3/4" B -LEVEL 4 982'-2 5/8" 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B -LEVEL 1.1 950'-9" B -AVERAGE GRADE 947'-10" 44'-10 1/2" [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [W D W -FG ] [M E T -SM C -1] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -3] [F C P -1] [F C P -1] [F C P -1] [F C S -3] [F C S -3] [B R I C K -3] B -LEVEL 1 950'-0" B -LEVEL 2 961'-2 7/8" B -ROOF 992'-8 1/2" B -LEVEL 3 971'-8 3/4" B -LEVEL 4 982'-2 5/8" 313233343536373839 B -LEVEL 1.1 950'-9" B -AVERAGE GRADE 947'-10" 44'-10 1/2" [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [M E T -SM C -1] [L O U V E R -MP ] [M E T -SM F ] [M E T -FA B -TR I M -1] [M E T -SM C -1] [A F S -SF -1] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -3] [F C P -1] [F C P -1] [F C S -4] [B R I C K -3] [B R I C K -3] [A F S -SF -1] B -LEVEL 1 950'-0" B -LEVEL 2 961'-2 7/8" B -ROOF 992'-8 1/2" B -SUBLEVEL 939'-0" B -LEVEL 3 971'-8 3/4" B -LEVEL 4 982'-2 5/8" B.1B.2B.3B.4B.5B.6B.7B.8B.9B.10B.11B.12B.13B.14B.15B.16B.17B.18B.19B.20B.21B.22 B -LEVEL 1.1 950'-9" B -AVERAGE GRADE 947'-10" 44'-10 1/2" [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [W D W -FG ] [M E T -SM C -1] [F C S -3] [F C S -4] [B R I C K -3] [M E T -FA B -TR I M -1] [F C P -1] [F C P -1] [F C S -4] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -4] [F C P -1] [F C P -1] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -4] [F C P -1] [B R I C K -3] [F C P -1] [F C P -1] [F C S -4] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -3] [F C P -1] [B R I C K -3] [W D W -FG ] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [W D W -FG ] [M E T -SM C -1] [M E T -SM C -1] [A F S -SF -1] [D R -OV H D -SE C ] [C M U -1] B -LEVEL 1 950'-0" B -LEVEL 2 961'-2 7/8" B -ROOF 992'-8 1/2" B -SUBLEVEL 939'-0" B -LEVEL 3 971'-8 3/4" B -LEVEL 4 982'-2 5/8" 27 28 29 30313233343536373839 B -LEVEL 1.1 950'-9" 44'-10 1/2" B -AVERAGE GRADE 947'-10" [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [W D W -FG ] [L O U V E R -MP ] [M E T -SM C -1] [A F S -SF -1] [S I G N -EX T -1] [A F S -SF -1] [R A I L -BA L C -ME S H ] [D R -SL I D I N G -FG ] [W D W -FG ] [M E T -SM C -1] [M E T -SM F ] [F C S -3] [B R I C K -3] [C M U -1] [D R -OV H D -SE C ] [F C S -3] [F C P -1] [B R I C K -3] [B R I C K -3] [F C S -4] [F C P -1] [F C S -4] [F C P -1] [F C S -4] [B R I C K -3] [M E T -FA B -CA N O P Y ] GENERAL EXTERIOR NOTES: KEYNOTES: © U R B A N W O R K S A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C , 2 0 2 2 90 1 N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T / S U I T E 1 4 5 / M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN APPLICATION 08.30.2022 8/ 2 9 / 2 0 2 2 3 : 5 1 : 1 5 P M C: \ U s e r s \ d a v i d . m i l l e r \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 - 0 0 0 5 A 2 2 C e n t r a l _d a v i d . m i l l e r . r v t AK R O N A V E / R O S E M O U N T , M N 08.30.2022 22-0005 SITE PLAN DWM BUILDING B - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS B.A301 14 5 T H & A K R O N B U I L D I N G S A & B 1/16" = 1'-0"B.A301 B -EXTERIOR ELEVATION WEST6 1/16" = 1'-0"B.A301 B -EXTERIOR ELEVATION NORTH5 1/16" = 1'-0"B.A301 B -EXTERIOR ELEVATION COURTYARD NORTH1 1/16" = 1'-0"B.A301 B -EXTERIOR ELEVATION COURTYARD SOUTH4 1/16" = 1'-0"B.A301 B -EXTERIOR ELEVATION EAST3 1/16" = 1'-0"B.A301 B -EXTERIOR ELEVATION SOUTH2 [AFS-SF-1] (08 41 13) ALUMINUM-FRAMED STOREFRONT, EXTERIOR APPLICATION, THERMALLY-BROKEN; CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS: 2" X 4.5"; FINISH: ANODIZED; COLOR: BLACK; GLAZING METHOD: CAPTURED PERIMETER, CAPTURED INTERIOR [BRICK-3] (04 20 01) BRICK MASONRY VENEER, NORMAN HALF BOND, COLOR 3 [CMU-1] (04 27 31) REINFORCED CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY, BURNISHED ARCHITECTURAL FINISH, COLOR 1 [DR-OVHD-SEC] (08 36 13) OVERHEAD SECTIONAL DOOR [DR-SLIDING-FG] (08 16 73) FIBERGLASS SLIDING DOORS [FCP-1] (07 46 46) FIBER CEMENT PANELS, COLOR 1, BLACK [FCS-3] (07 46 46) FIBER CEMENT SIDING, 10.75 INCH EXPOSURE, COLOR 3 [FCS-4] (07 46 46) FIBER CEMENT SIDING, 8 INCH AND 4 INCH EXPOSURE, COLOR 4 [LOUVER-MP] (23 80 00) LOUVER FOR PACKAGED THROUGH-THE-WALL HVAC UNIT, EXTRUDED ALUMINUM, CUSTOM COLOR SELECTED BY ARCHITECT [MET-FAB-CANOPY] ALUMINUM CANOPY STRUCTURE [MET-FAB-TRIM-1] (05 50 00) METAL TRIM, COLOR VARIES [MET-SMC-1] (07 62 00) SHEET METAL COPING, PREFINISHED ALUMINUM, COLOR 1 [MET-SMF] (07 62 00) SHEET METAL FLASHING, PREFINISHED ALUMINUM [RAIL-BALC-MESH] (05 73 00) ALUMINUM BALCONY, DECK, AND MESH RAILING [SIGN-EXT-1] (10 14 00) EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNGAGE, ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS ON STANDOFF, WHITE ACRYLIC FACE, INTERNAL ILLUMINATION [WDW-FG] (08 54 13) FIBERGLASS WINDOW, COLOR: BLACK © U R B A N W O R K S A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C , 2 0 2 2 90 1 N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T / S U I T E 1 4 5 / M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN APPLICATION 08.30.2022 11 / 9 / 2 0 2 2 7 : 0 4 : 5 0 A M C: \ U s e r s \ d a v i d . m i l l e r \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 - 0 0 0 5 A 2 2 C e n t r a l _ d a v i d . m i l l e r ( R e c o v e r y ) . r v t AK R O N A V E / R O S E M O U N T , M N 11.09.2022 22-0005 SITE PLAN DWM EXTERIOR AXONOMETRIC AL351 14 5 T H & A K R O N B U I L D I N G S A & B AL351 AXONOMETRIC VIEW FROM NORTHWEST1 © U R B A N W O R K S A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C , 2 0 2 2 90 1 N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T / S U I T E 1 4 5 / M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN APPLICATION 08.30.2022 11 / 9 / 2 0 2 2 7 : 0 5 : 1 5 A M C: \ U s e r s \ d a v i d . m i l l e r \ D o c u m e n t s \ 2 2 - 0 0 0 5 A 2 2 C e n t r a l _ d a v i d . m i l l e r ( R e c o v e r y ) . r v t AK R O N A V E / R O S E M O U N T , M N 11.09.2022 22-0005 SITE PLAN DWM EXTERIOR AXONOMETRIC AL352 14 5 T H & A K R O N B U I L D I N G S A & B AL352 AXONOMETRIC VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST1 B -LEVEL 1 950'-0" B -LEVEL 2 961'-2 7/8" B -ROOF 992'-8 1/2" B -SUBLEVEL939'-0" B -LEVEL 3 971'-8 3/4" B -LEVEL 4982'-2 5/8" 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 B -LEVEL 1.1950'-9" B -AVERAGE GRADE 947'-10" TR A I L RO A D RO A D TR A I L PR O P E R T Y LI N E 94 3 943942 941 9 4 0 939 93 8 939 93993893793 6 935 93 4 933 932 931 930 929 928 927 926 940941 94 0 94 1 94 2 94 3 94 4 94 5 94 6 94 7 94 8 943943 942 941 940 939 938 937 936 935 934 933 932 931 930 939940941942 943 940941 942 943 94 8 94 9 949 948 947 946 945 944 945 94 4 94 3 94 2 94 1 940 946 947 948 94894 7 94 6 94 5 94 4 939 940 941 942 943 943 944 945 946 947 94 9 94 8 94 7 94 6 94 5 944 943 942 941 948 949 949 948 94 8 94 7 94 6 945 946 947 944 945 944 943 942 941 940 94 5 94 2 94 4 94 6 94 8 9 4 5 94 6 94 7 94 8 94 9 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 941 942 94 0 9 3 9 9 3 8 93 7 9 3 6 9 3 5 934 9 3 3 943 942942942 94 6 94 4 94 3 94 2 94 1 94 0 947 946 945 944 943 943 944 943 942 944 94 3 94 2 94 1 94 0 940941942943944945946947948949950951952953954955 94 5 94 7 9 4 6 9 4 5 94 4 NO PARKINGNO PARKING NO PARKING 1,53M60"0,92M36" 60' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 4 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 30 ' - 0 " FR O N T YA R D SE T B A C K 30'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK 4 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 60' - 0 " UT I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 60' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 40'-0" SETBACK ON A COLLECTOR STREET 40'-0" SETBACK ON A COLLECTOR STREET 30'-0 " F R O N T YAR D S E T B A C K © U R B A N W O R K S A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C , 2 0 2 2 90 1 N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T / S U I T E 1 4 5 / M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/ 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 1 : 1 8 : 5 6 P M C: \ ! R e v i t P r o j e c t F i l e s \ 2 2 - 0 0 0 5 A 2 2 C e n t r a l _ M S k i l l i n g @ u r b a n - w o r k s . c o m . r v t AK R O N A V E / R O S E M O U N T , M N 08/15/2022 22-0005 SITE PLAN SR R o s e m o u n t 310 South 4th Avenue, Suite 7050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p: 612.332.7522 NORTH 0 SCALE:1"=40' 40'80'120' SITE PLAN L110 ADDIS O N A V E ADDISON WAY CONNEMARA TRAIL W LOWER 143RD S T E UPPER 142ND S T E 142ND ST E 143RD ST E AB B E Y F I E L D A V E AR K O N A V E AD A L Y N A V E BUILDING B AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILDING A MARKET RATE HOUSING SITE SECTION ACROSS AKRON AVE SITEROSEMOUNT, MN / 10.20.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 1 94 3 943942 941 9 4 0 939 93 8 939 93993893793 6 935 93 4 933 932 931 930 929 928 927 926 940941 94 0 94 1 94 2 94 3 94 4 94 5 94 6 94 7 94 8 943943 942 941 940 939 938 937 936 935 934 933 932 931 930 939940941942 943 940941 942 943 94 8 94 9 949 948 947 946 945 944 945 94 4 94 3 94 2 94 1 940 946 947 948 94894 7 94 6 94 5 94 4 939940 941 942 943 943 944 945 946 947 94 9 94 8 94 7 94 6 94 5 944 943 942 941 948 949 949 948 94 8 94 7 94 6 945 946 947 944 945 944 943 942 941 94094 5 94 2 94 4 94 6 94 8 9 4 5 94 6 94 7 94 8 94 9 931932933934935936937938939940941 941 942 9 4 0 9 3 9 93 8 9 3 7 9 3 6 9 3 5 934 9 3 3 943 942942942 94 6 9 4 4 94 3 94 2 94 1 94 0 947 946 945 944 943 943 944 943 942 944 94 3 94 2 94 1 94 0 940941942943944945946947948949950951952953954955 94 5 94 7 94 6 9 4 5 9 4 4 NO PARKINGNO PARKING NO PARKING 1,53M60"0,92M36" 60' - 0 " UT I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 4 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 30 ' - 0 " FR O N T YA R D SE T B A C K 30'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK 4 0 ' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 60' - 0 " U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 60'-0"UTILITYEASEMENT 40'-0" SETBACK ON A COLLECTOR STREET 40'-0" SETBACK ON ACOLLECTOR STREET 30'-0 " F R O N T YAR D S E T B A C K © U R B A N W O R K S A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C , 2 0 2 2 90 1 N O R T H T H I R D S T R E E T / S U I T E 1 4 5 / M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6/ 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 1 : 1 8 : 5 6 P M C: \ ! R e v i t P r o j e c t F i l e s \ 2 2 - 0 0 0 5 A 2 2 C e n t r a l _ M S k i l l i n g @ u r b a n - w o r k s . c o m . r v t AK R O N A V E / R O S E M O U N T , M N 08/15/2022 22-0005 SITE PLAN SR R o s e m o u n t 310 South 4th Avenue, Suite 7050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p: 612.332.7522 NORTH 0 SCALE:1"=40' 40'80'120' SITE PLAN L110 ADDISON AVEADDISON WAY CONNEMARA TRAIL W LOWER 143RD S T E UPPER 142ND S T E 142ND ST E 143RD ST E AB B E Y F I E L D A V E AR K O N A V E AD A L Y N A V E BUILDING B AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILDING A MARKET RATE HOUSING A -LEVEL 1950'-0" A -LEVEL 2 961'-5 7/8" A -ROOF 992'-11 1/2" A -SUBLEVEL 939'-0" A -LEVEL 4971'-11 3/4" 6 7 8 9 A -AVERAGE GRADE 948'-0" A -LEVEL 5 982'-5 5/8" TR A I L RO A D WA L K PR O P E R T Y LI N E SITE SECTION ACROSS ADALYN AVE SITEROSEMOUNT, MN / 10.20.2022 / 22-0005 / 22-0006 145th & Akron Buildings A & B 2 K:\021280-000\Admin\Docs\2022.09.01 Submittal\2022.09.15 - Site Plan Review.docx Memorandum To: Anthony Nemcek, Senior Planner CC: Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary Brian Erickson, City Engineer From: Tim Hanson PE, WSB Engineering Consultant Date: September 16, 2022 Re: Shafer Richardson Apartments Site Plan Review Grading Plan Review Utility Plan Review WSB File Number 021280-000 SUBMITTAL: Shafer Richardson has submitted a site plan for the development of Outlot A, Prestwick Place Townhomes. The proposed project develops two lots and two apartment buildings consisting of 336 units with 267 surface parking stalls. The plans submitted were prepared by Urban Works and Elan Design both of Minneapolis, MN. Review comments were generated from the Site Plan Submittal, not dated, received on 09.01.2022. The submittal included the following: ▪ Existing Conditions ▪ Site Plan ▪ Grading Plan ▪ Utility Plan ▪ Landscape Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS Shafer Richardson apartments is in the northeast quadrant of Akron Avenue, County Road 73, and Connemara Trail intersection, and west of Adalyn Avenue. The parent parcel is 12.44 acres in size and is currently grassland with no noticeable use. Shafer Richardson will create two lots with an apartment building and surface parking located on each lot. The replating of Outlot A, Prestwick Place townhomes will require the vacation of existing drainage and utility easements platted with Prestwick Place Townhomes. 1. Vacate existing drainage and utility easements within Outlot A, Prestwick Place Townhomes. SITE PLAN The proposed site plan identifies the development of two apartment buildings with 3 parking lots and site amenities. Access to the site is from Adalyn Avenue at two locations. The southerly driveway is located 150 feet north of Connemara Trail midway between Connemara Trail and Upper 143rd Court. The second driveway is located 190 feet south of Addison Avenue, across from 142nd Street. The two driveways form a loop street which extends thru the site between the two buildings. The lot line extends down the centerline of the southerly driveway and then north Anthony Nemcek September 16, 2022 Page 2 K:\021280-000\Admin\Docs\2022.09.01 Submittal\2022.09.15 - Site Plan Review.docx along the centerline of the north-south driveway alignment. The southerly driveway provides direct access to each building’s sublevel garage door and to the surface parking lot for the westerly building. The northerly entrance provides direct access to two surface parking lots for the easterly building and a second sublevel garage door of the westerly building. The driveway widths are 24 feet wide for access and circulation of the site. The proposed surface parking stalls are identified to be 9-feet-wide and 17-feet deep with bumper overhang, 19-feet-deep on head-to-head stalls with 24 feet wide drive isles. A few compact parking stalls and parallel parking stalls are also included in the site plan. Access and circulation within the parking lots appears to be adequate. Pedestrian facilities are identified within the two lots, adjacent to the parking lots and extending out to Connemara Trail, Adalyn Avenue, and Akron Avenue. These facilities connect to existing pedestrian facilities along the public streets. A pipeline and pipeline easement extends diagonally across the central portion of the site. The building footprint extends adjacent to the pipeline easement. Parking lots and portions of the proposed driveways are proposed to be constructed over the pipeline easement. The grading plan identifies significant fills over the pipeline alignment. The developer needs to verify the ability to change the grade over the pipeline. A Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sanitary sewer interceptor extends across the southern portion of the site. A proof of parking area, driveway and ponding area is proposed to be constructed over the sanitary sewer easement. A fill area and cut area are proposed over the sewer line. The developer needs to verify the ability to change the grade over the pipeline. 2. The proposed pavement section should include a 2-foot sand core. The development Fees are indicated below based on the 2022 Schedule of Rates and Fees. The lot is subject to these fees. ▪ Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge: $1,075/acre ▪ Watermain Trunk Charge: $6,500/acre ▪ Storm Sewer Trunk Charge: $6,865/acre GRADING AND DRAINAGE The proposed grading plan directs runoff away from the building within the parking lots to proposed storm sewer. Four ponding areas are shown on the plan, two NURP ponds and two infiltration basins. The infiltration basins are shown on one lot and the NURP ponds are shown on the other lot. Drainage from the westerly lot is treated in NURP basins located in the easterly lot. These basins discharge to infiltration basins located on the westerly lot. A maintenance agreement between the two lot owners is required for perpetual maintenance of the ponding areas. 3. The maximum slope is 4:1. 4. A maintenance agreement is required between the two lots for perpetual maintenance of the ponding and infiltration areas. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN – UTILITY PLAN Sanitary sewer service is proposed to extend from an existing stub located on the west side of Adalyn Avenue. The utility plan identifies the sanitary sewer extending across the north side of the easterly building to the westerly building. The service location for the easterly building is not shown on the plan. An existing eight-inch watermain stub located on the west side of Adalyn Anthony Nemcek September 16, 2022 Page 3 K:\021280-000\Admin\Docs\2022.09.01 Submittal\2022.09.15 - Site Plan Review.docx Avenue will be connected to and extended through the site to the southwest corner of the site where the watermain connects at a hydrant location. A third watermain connection is also proposed from a watermain stub located along the north plat line extending from the Prestwick Place Townhouse plat. The proposed watermain extensions are identified as 8-inch. The developer must show that there is sufficient capacity in the watermain for fire protection needs. Domestic and fire flows will be obtained from the watermain extension. 5. Location of hydrants and valves will be detail reviewed with the construction plans. 6. The sanitary sewer connection manhole (San MH 1) cannot be located in the bituminous trail. 7. The sanitary sewer and watermain must be placed within drainage and utility easements. STORM SEWER Several storm sewer runs are proposed for the site. The proposed storm sewers collect runoff from the parking lots and driveway and convey the runoff to the NURP basins. The plan also identifies storm sewer connections from the buildings to the NURP basin and to the proposed infiltration basin. An underground infiltration basin is identified at the east end of the northerly driveway. The storm sewer, ponds, and underground infiltration system will be privately maintained. 8. Detail review of the storm sewer system and design will be completed with the construction plans for the site. 9. An existing interceptor storm sewer extending from Connemara Trail will need to be extended to the proposed ponding area. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT The proposed Surface Water Management plan for the preliminary plat is under reviewed. Comments included in the Surface Water Management plan review shall be incorporated in the project design. LANDSCAPE PLAN The Landscape plan was reviewed for plant location conflicts with proposed infrastructure. Several proposed tree locations conflict with underground infrastructure. Tree plantings should allow space for access of maintenance equipment. GENERAL Infrastructure design shall be completed in accordance with the City of Rosemount’s Engineering Guidelines and Standards. Infrastructure construction shall be completed in accordance with the latest edition of the City’s General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction. October 24, 2022 To: Peter Orth, Schafer Richardson From: Vernon Swing, PE Re: Traffic Analysis – 145th & Akron Buildings A & B, Rosemount, MN Per your request, SSTS LLC has conducted a traffic analysis for the proposed 145 th & Akron Buildings A & B residential development (referred to as the Proposed Project) in Rosemount, MN. The Proposed Project will develop two mid-rise multi-family buildings with 305 units and 518 parking spaces on the vacant parcel located to the east of Akron Ave, to the north of Connemara Tr, to the west of Adalyn Ave, and to the south of Addison Ave/Addison Way. The project site will be accessed via two driveways from Adalyn Ave, one located approximately opposite 142nd St E, and the other approximately 200 feet north of Connemara Tr. Figure 1, Vicinity Map, depicts the location and Figure 2, Site Plan, illustrates the site layout and access locations. This memorandum documents the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions, forecasts the 2025 traffic conditions without the development, forecasts the trip generation potential for the proposed residential land use and distributes those trips based on travel time forecasts to the local roadway network and regional destinations. Further, results from the traffic operational analysis with and without the Proposed Project are summarized. Also, a review of Parking Demand based on ITE methodology is included. It is noted the City Comprehensive Plan anticipates the area surrounding the development site and the area to the east to continue developing, but at this time those areas have limited development, thus the focus of the traffic study is the connections to the regional roads at the following intersections:  141st St E & Akron Ave  Connemara Tr & Akron Ave  145th St E & Akron Ave Existing Conditions As mentioned, the study area focuses on the intersections listed above. The existing conditions of the roadways and intersection providing direct and indirect access to the Proposed Project were documented and are noted in Table 1. Additionally, Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry and traffic control at the study intersections. Table 1. Study Roadway Characteristics Roadway Functional Class Typical Section Posted Speed AADT (Year) 145th St W (CSAH 42) Principal Arterial 4-Lane Divided Urban 55 mph 18,317 (2021) (MnDOT) Akron Ave (CR 73) Major Collector 2-Lane Divided Urban 55 mph 2,750 (2019) (MnDOT) Connemara Trl W Major Collector 2-Lane Undivided Urban 40 mph 1,400 (2018) (MnDOT) 141st St W Local Roadway 2-Lane Undivided Urban 30 mph 870 (2022) (Counts) 2 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N Existing Traffic Volumes AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the study area intersections. The following notes the peak hour timeframes:  AM: 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM  PM: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Figure 4 illustrates the existing peak hour traffic volumes. Future Conditions To quantify the impacts of a development on the surrounding roadway system, it is necessary to first forecast and analyze traffic conditions that would be present on the roadway system without the inclusion of the proposed project. For the purposes of this analysis an anticipated construction completion date for the entire Proposed Project is 2024, thus year 2025 was selected for analysis to compare traffic conditions after initial traffic patterns to and from the Proposed Project have become established. To determine the future traffic conditions a review of historical traffic counts based on MnDOT data and a review of the City of Rosemount 2040 Comprehensive Plan indicates that traffic will grow by approximately 2.0 percent per year on 145th St W, and by 7.8 percent per year on Akron Ave and on Connemara Tr in the vicinity of the site. The existing traffic volumes have been grown by these rates to represent the 2025 No-Build peak hour traffic conditions. Figure 5 illustrates the No-Build traffic volumes with the growth applied to existing traffic volumes for year 2025. Trip Generation and Distribution As mentioned earlier, the Proposed Project will include two mid-rise multi-family residential buildings, one with 141 units the other with 164 units for a total of 305 units. The volume of vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Project has been estimated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours and on a daily basis using the data methodology described in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual 1, 11th Edition. ITE’s Land Use Code corresponding to mid-rise multi-family residential is 221. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation estimate for the Proposed Project. Table 2 - Trip Generation Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit Mid-rise multi-family (305 Units) 1,385 Trips 26 Trips 87 Trips 73 Trips 46 Trips TOTAL 1,385 Trips 113 Trips 119 Trips As shown in Table 2, the Proposed Project will generate 113 trips (26 entering and 87 exiting) during the morning traffic peak hour, 119 trips (73 entering and 46 exiting) during the evening traffic peak hour and 1,385 daily trips. The new trips have been assigned to the surrounding roadways according to the existing traffic patterns and according to travel time forecasts from Google Maps and Apple Maps for residents of the Proposed Project. In general, 80 percent of the site traffic will travel to the north and to the northwest, and 20 percent will travel to the south; however, the route they will take is dependent on their proximity to the site driveway, and on their northern destination. Traffic destined to St. Paul will favor TH 52, but traffic destined to Minneapolis will travel through the local streets to TH 77. The southbound traffic will generally favor TH 52. 1 Trip Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 11th Edition 3 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N Figure 6 illustrates the trip assignment. Figure 7 illustrates the 2025 Build conditions by combining No-Build traffic with the trip assignment volumes. Traffic Operations The operating conditions of transportation facilities, such as roadways, traffic signals, roundabouts and stop- controlled intersections, are evaluated based on the relationship of the theoretical capacity of a facility to the actual traffic volume on that facility. Various factors affect capacity including travel speed, roadway geometry, grade, number of travel lanes, and intersection control. The current standards for evaluating capacity and operating conditions are contained in Highway Capacity Manual2. The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of driver delay represented as a Level of Service (LOS). Operations are given letter designations with "A" representing the best operating conditions and "F" representing the worst. Generally, level of service “D” represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating conditions during a peak hour. The Chart on the below summarizes the level of service and delay criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections. For side street stop-controlled intersections special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the minor approaches. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side street stop- control can be described two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approaches, since the mainline does not have to stop. It is common for intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience increased levels of delay and poor level of service on the side streets. A final fundamental component of operational analyses is a study of vehicular queuing, or the line of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An intersection can operate with an acceptable Level of 2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition 4 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N Service, but if queues from the intersection extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or accesses to adjacent land uses, unsafe operating conditions could result. In this report, the Industry Design Standard 95th percentile queue length is used. The 95th Percentile Queue Length refers to that length of vehicle queue that has only a five-percent probability of occurring during an analysis hour. This study has utilized the industry current Synchro/SimTraffic software package (11 th Edition) to analyze the 2025 No-Build and Build conditions for the AM and PM peak hours. It is noted, the reported results are from the aggregate of 10 SimTraffic simulations which use a random number generator to seed the network with vehicles. These results reflect dynamic conditions and are more accurate than the results of the static analysis reported by Synchro. Due to the random number generator results can sometimes show slightly better operations on minor movements under higher traffic conditions when the intersections are operating well. This can be seen when delays and queues noted in the Build Scenario are slightly less than the No-Build or Existing Scenarios. Analysis Results Tables 3 summarizes the results of the operational analysis. Note the 2025 No-Build and Build operations reflect the additional traffic associated with the annual growth rate applied to existing traffic volumes. Additionally, the Build operations include the net new traffic forecast for the Proposed Project. Table 3. Operational Analysis The results shown in Table 3 indicate the 2025 No-Build operations of the study area intersections are acceptable with LOS C or better for overall operations and LOS D or better for individual travel lane operations, with manageable vehicle queuing. Further, the results in Table 3 indicate the 2025 Build overall operations and travel lane operations of the study area intersections and site access are the same with acceptable LOS C or better for overall operations and LOS D or better for travel lane operations, with manageable vehicle queuing. The addition of site-generated traffic slightly increases delay and queuing but not above unacceptable levels as the existing roadway network has available capacity. It is noted, the City of Rosemount 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies long range improvements in the area. Specifically, 145 th St E may need to be expanded to 6-lanes, and Akron Ave may need to be expanded to 4-lanes. Parking Demand The parking demand for the Proposed Project has been calculated utilized Parking Generation, 5th Edition, published by ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The ITE information for Land Use Code 221 associated with Mid-rise multi-family residential buildings indicates the number of parking spaces needed to 2025 No-Build and Build Overall LOS & Delay A 2.2 A 2.6 A 2.5 A 2.7 Worst Mvmt. LOS & Delay A 6.5 (WBT) A 8.1 (WBL) A 6.6 (WBT) A 8.7 (EBL) 95th Percentile Queue Overall LOS & Delay A 1.9 A 3.2 A 2.2 A 3.7 Worst Mvmt. LOS & Delay B 10.4 (EBT) B 12.9 (WBL) A 9.1 (WBT) B 13.0 (EBT) 95th Percentile Queue Overall LOS & Delay C 22.9 C 26.7 C 22.3 C 28.7 Worst Mvmt. LOS & Delay C 31.2 (WBT) D 47.2 (EBL) C 31.7 (WBT) D 52.9 (WBL) 95th Percentile Queue WBL - 64' WBL - 43' WBL - 54' Akron Ave & Connemara Trl W (Side-Street Stop-Control)WBL - 48' EBL - 48' Akron Ave & 141st St W (Side-Street Stop-Control)WBL - 38' WBL - 60' Intersection WBT - 40' AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr 2025 No-Build 2025 Build AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Measure of Effectiveness (Delay in Sec and Queue in Ft) Criteria WBT - 276' 145th St W (CSAH 42) & Akron Ave (Signal)EBT - 198'EBT - 196' WBT - 262' 5 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N address the demand associated with this land use can be estimated based on the number of dwelling units included with the project. Also, parking demand statistics are available for different area types, whether suburban, dense urban or City Center. In this case suburban was chosen because the statistics are more conservative suggesting more residents will drive, and because the characteristics for the other two categories include robust transit options which reduce parking demand, which is not present in this case. The parking demand calculation includes are two methods. The first method is based on a rate of parking demand per “unit” determined from a weighted average of collected data. The second method is based on a fitted curve equation generated to fit the collected data. ITE recommendations as to the appropriate method are as follows: From ITE: “When the data plot includes at least 20 points and when a fitted curve is provided the fitted curve equation should be used if the R square value is 0.75 or greater. Coefficient of Determination (R squared)— the percent of the variance in the number of parked vehicles associated with the variance in the independent variable value. This value is presented for every fitted curve equation. If the R squared value is 0.75, then 75 percent of the variance in the number of parked vehicles is accounted for by the variance in the size of the independent variable. As the R squared value approaches 1.0 the better the fit; as the R squared value approaches zero, the worse the fit.” In this case the fitted curve equation was chosen as the regression analysis indicates the R squared is 0.97 indicating this is the most accurate method for estimating demand. The Parking Demand is calculated as follows, with P representing Parking Demand, and X representing the number of units: P = 1.34 (X) – 8.73 P = 1.34 (305) – 8.73 P = 409 Spaces As mentioned earlier the proposed development is planning to provide 518 spaces exceeding the anticipated demand calculated at 409 spaces. Further, if necessary, proof of parking calculations conducted by the project team indicate there is space for an additional 92 spaces resulting in potentially 610 total spaces on site, exceeding the 409 space demand. Summary and Conclusions The following provides a summary of the study, traffic operations and recommendations:  AM and PM peak hour traffic operations were analyzed for year 2025 conditions without and with the Proposed Project.  The Proposed Project will generate 113 trips (26 entering and 87 exiting) during the morning traffic peak hour, 119 trips (73 entering and 46 exiting) during the evening traffic peak hour and 1,385 daily trips.  Results of the traffic analysis for year 2025 without the Proposed Project indicate acceptable operations with minimal vehicle delay and back-ups at adjacent intersections.  Results of the traffic analysis for year 2025 with the Proposed Project indicate acceptable operations with minimal vehicle delay and back-ups. No mitigation measures at adjacent intersections and access intersection are recommended. 6 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N  The Proposed Project has a calculated demand for 409 parking spaces and is providing 518 spaces exceeding the anticipated demand. There is sufficient parking on-site. Attachments: Figures 1-7 (Appendices with Traffic Counts and Synchro/Simtraffic Worksheets are available upon request.) 7 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N 8 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N 9 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N 10 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N 11 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N 12 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N 13 | P a g e 1 4 5 t h & A k r o n B u i l d i n g s A & B , R o s e m o u n t , M N M E M O R A N D U M To: Adam Kienberger Community Development Director Anthony Nemcek, Senior Planner Julia Hogan, Planner From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: September 19, 2022 Subject: Schaefer Richardson Development The Parks and Recreation Department recently reviewed the development plans for the Schaefer Richardson apartment complex project. After reviewing the plans, the Parks and Recreation Department staff has the following comments: PARKS DEDICATION The parks dedication requirement for 336 high density residential units is .02 acres of land per unit or $2,500 per unit. The City’s Parks Master Plan does not call for a park in this area, so staff is recommending the City collect cash in-lieu of land to meet the parks dedication requirements for the 336 units. The cash dedication for 336 units would be $840,000 (336 units x $2,500 per unit). Staff is recommending that City not provide any parks dedication credit for any amenities being proposed on their site. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this item at the regular meeting on Monday, September 26. Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo. M E M O R A N D U M To: Adam Kienberger Community Development Director Anthony Nemcek, Senior Planner Julia Hogan, Planner From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: October 21, 2022 Subject: Schaefer Richardson Development The Parks and Recreation Department recently reviewed the development plans for the Schaefer Richardson apartment complex project. After reviewing the plans, the Parks and Recreation Department staff has the following comments: PARKS DEDICATION The parks dedication requirement for 305 high density residential units is .02 acres of land per unit or $2,500 per unit. The City’s Parks Master Plan does not call for a park in this area, so staff is recommending the City collect cash in-lieu of land to meet the parks dedication requirements for the 336 units. The cash dedication for 305 units would be $762,500 (305 units x $2,500 per unit). Staff is recommending that City not provide any parks dedication credit for any amenities being proposed on their site. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this item at the regular meeting on Monday, October 24. Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo. M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission Adam Kienberger, Community Development Director Anthony Nemcek, Senior Planner Julia Hogan, Planner From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: October 19, 2022 Subject: Park Development in the area of Akron Avenue and Connemara Trail The Parks and Recreation Department was recently asked to provide input on the parks and recreation opportunities in the area of Akron Avenue and Connemara Trail where new apartment complex projects are being discussed. The City’s Parks, Trail and Open Space Plan includes a framework that are based on national standards and with a strong influence of local needs and conditions. As such, this framework should be used as a guide and should be adjusted based on community needs, trends, etc. It is assumed that residents, land developers, city staff, commissions and officials will use the masterplan and knowledge of local conditions as they face decisions about parks, trails or open space. The City’s framework calls for typical neighborhood park to have a service area radius of an average of a ½ mile. The Shafer Richardson project is in close proximity to two existing City parks, a future City park and a future school site. The listings below show how close the proposed Shafer Richardson project site is to these areas. Please also see the attached map. Ailesbury Park .32 miles Greystone Park .54 miles Future School .63 miles Future Talamore Park .72 miles The Roers project is also in close proximity to two existing City parks, a future City park and a future school site. The listings below show how close the proposed Roers project site is located to these areas. Please also see the attached map. Ailesbury Park .14 miles Greystone Park .74 miles Future School .68 miles Future Talamore Park .73 miles Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo. Area Map THE HIGHLANDS OF FALMOOR GLEN CONCERNS REGARDING THE SCHAFER RICHARDSON PROPOSAL WITH THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Things that we are worried about as our community sees rapid high-density growth:  Crime  Safety  Schools  Traffic  Police  Fire  Paramedics  Hospitals  Property values  Availability of parks and recreational facilities  Other city services Things that we are concerned about regarding the 12 + acre parcel of land slated for development by Schafer Richardson to the west of The Highlands of Falmoor Glen: 1. We are extremely concerned about the two Schafer Richardson apartment buildings that are proposed to be built in a community of owned family townhomes and single-family homes all around us. The residents of our community did not expect this property to remain undeveloped, but we certainly did not expect apartments to be placed there. Whether true or not, there is a stigma associated with apartments and thus we believe our property values would lessen dramatically. Also, apartments in general are constructed in a way that makes them negatively stand out in an area like ours i.e., height of buildings, size of buildings, materials used, design, etc. The sheer size and shape of these buildings, especially the building going along Adalyn Ave., will block out any view and privacy that the people living in our area along Adalyn would have. This is especially true in the end units abutting Adalyn. These folks paid extra for patios that they could use and enjoy but now would feel like they were part of a science experiment. 2. We do not believe the Schafer Richardson proposed parking of 1.53 vehicles per apartment unit is adequate given the fact that there is no public transportation in and out of the area. We would ask why the City of Rosemount would deviate so much from their own requirement of 2 parking spots per unit on this project given the fact that there is no public transportation available. Also, the potential developer had stated that there was space available if more parking were to be needed, however, this is not a viable option since this cannot be done overnight and there just is not anywhere for people to park if they are wrong. In visiting a couple of Schafer Richardson existing buildings, I believe they were wrong. The developer said that there would be a lot of single car units, however, their plan only calls for twenty-six studios of the 336 units and some of these studios may also contain two residents with two drivers. There are also many 2- and 3-bedroom units that can house more than two drivers. We also believe that since there is no public transportation available, and these would be working class double income households for the most part, that the city’s requirement for 2 parking spaces per unit is not out of line given there will also be visitors, service vehicles, etc. parking on the premises. We are concerned that the Committee is looking towards the developer for guidance when there does not seem to be enough parking at the developer’s Timber and Tie location in Minneapolis. The street on both sides of Timber and Tie is filled with cars. There were also parking comments from Timber and Tie residents posted on social media regarding the parking issues and the traffic. Some of the residents stated that parking was so bad they would have to move. 3. We are extremely concerned that a low-income property is being introduced into our neighborhood and we are genuinely concerned regarding potential crime and also the upkeep of the building. In driving past the newly built Timber and Tie apartments, they certainly do not look like new units anymore and the grand opening was just this past September, 2022. The builder’s plan also calls for the low-income building construction to be different from the market-rate building. The market-rate building will have decks on all units and the low- income building will have decks only on the end units. It also seems like the materials used will be different on the two buildings. 4. We do not believe that Adalyn Ave. can manage the increased volume of traffic that would come from this project. There are 97 homes in The Highlands of Falmoor Glen whose sole entrance and exit is Adalyn Ave. If you add 336 apartment units with 2 cars per household, and some will most likely have 3 vehicles, this makes 866 vehicles that must make multiple trips on Adalyn Ave. If you add in visitors, school buses, service workers, etc. this number would easily exceed 1,000 vehicles making at least two or more trips onto Adalyn Ave. daily. Adalyn is not a wide street so parking on Adalyn would have to be banned since with a parked car, two vehicles would not easily pass on this road, not to mention a fire truck. There are also numerous school buses that stop on this road to pick up and drop off children. 5. Given the number of residents and the lack of greenspace, we are concerned that the open areas that we have in our community will be used by the residents of this proposed property. Additionally, where are the parks and play areas going to come from for our general area? 6. There are a lot of children living in The Highlands of Falmoor Glen. Where will these children cross Adalyn Ave. since there is no signage, no crosswalks, no stop sign or signal. If over 2,000 trips daily are introduced to Adalyn Ave., this will cause an extremely dangerous situation for the residents and their children. 7. At the initial Schafer Richardson meeting the gentleman that was running the meeting had said that the build project was to take up to 4 years. He said that they would build the first building (the market- rate building) and then the low-income building after they completed the market- rate building and secured financing. To have a four-year project with all of the mess and disruption is unacceptable. 8. At the first meeting with Schafer Richardson we were told that the residents of the building with the pool would only be allowed use of the pool and not the playground at the other building. Additionally, the residents of the building with the playground could only use the playground and not the pool. This sounds like a recipe for disaster. How would this work? The lack of green space in this project for the residents will be an issue given the lack of walkable parks in the area and the potentially dangerous crossing of children on Akron Ave. since the closest park is Ailesbury Park and Akron has no crosswalks or signal lights. 9. God forbid what would happen if a pipeline erupted or a train less than ½ mile away with hazardous contents derailed and close to 1,000 vehicles had to evacuate immediately out of a single 1,000 foot road. 10. We are very concerned with the potential light pollution caused by the large number of exterior, interior, parking lot, traffic, and various lights associated with this project and the number of residents in such a small area. The residents of The Highlands of Falmoor Glen are asking the City of Rosemount’s Planning Commission to please listen to our current residents and reject this proposal for the reasons stated above. We certainly did not think that the property next to us would remain an open field, however, we could never have imagined that a project like this would be slated or the vast majority of the residents of The Highlands of Falmoor Glen would not have purchased a home here. We believe that you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole to our detriment. What is the rush here? Why does a decision need to happen right now? Why can’t other proposals be looked at? There must be an alternate plan that would satisfy both residents and the City of Rosemount. Our fate is in your hands, we can only pray that you do the right thing for your current residents and taxpayers. Residents of The Highlands of Falmoor Glen Contact: Tom Fowler Cell: 317-512-6102 E-mail: Tfowler291@att.net Timber and Tie Reviews MICHAEL BELLOTTI on Google Review revisited. Sorry to say this building has not been good for it's surroundings. By no means was 14th St. a clean street before this building went up. Now it literally is a trashcan. I've been walking this street several times a day for the last seven years. I have never seen it this bad. Additionally, the placement of the front door of the building has created a serious pedestrian and traffic hazard. It seems as though it is now become a roundabout for U-turns with no roundabout. Residence continually park past the opposing corners of 14th and VanBuren making it almost impossible to see up the street when turning onto 14th from VanBuren . Toss in somebody being double parked at the front door with their hazards on during high traffic times and it becomes almost impossible to navigate through there safely. Maybe the city should put up one of those pylon barriers through the center of the street preventing people from doing U-turns right there. It's only a matter of time before there's going to be an accident with a pedestrian. a Q Timber & Tie Urban Apartments, 900 14th Ave NE, Minneapolis Cleo Nicholson Local Guide • 53 reviews • 1 photo a month ago I wanted to live here to get away from 3rd Hand Smoke from my previous apartment building. I have to deal with 3rd Hand Smoking, litter, often have to deal with horrid interior hygiene problems, theft, fighting (verbal and physical), poor exterior hygiene (smell, trash and pet waste), loud music from other tenants indoors and outdoors, children running around making a mess of the building and the parking for this building is a joke. I do not recommend this place to anyone again. I did once and I regret telling them about his place. 61 < e Q Timber & Tie Urban Apartments, 900 14th Ave NE, Minneapolis: Charmaine Gordon 1 review 3 months ago The building is nice but it is very expensive and the rent is going up, it is next to a train that is so loud you cant sleep, my out of town guest was scared to death when they visited, the train also shakes my whole apartment, management is nice but I would not recommend this, you have to pay for parking on top of rent and the neighborhood is very busy my car was hit and totaled in front of the building.