Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-10 PCPPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER VIRTUAL MEETING JUNE 10, 2021 Virtual meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021. Public may access the Webex meeting: Online: logis.webex.com | Phone: (312) 535-8110 Meeting Number (Access Code): 177 448 1018 1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM 2. Roll Call 3. Oath of Office (Paris Dunn) 4. Approval of Agenda a. Motion to Approve Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for June 10, 2021 5. Approval of Minutes a. Motion to Approve the February 11, 2021 Regular and Work Session Meeting Minutes b. Motion to Approve the March 11, 2021 Work Session Meeting Minutes 6. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 7. Planning Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2021-001 (PUBLIC HEARING—REQUEST TO WITHDRAW received by Applicant June 8, 2021) Applicant: Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master Project Location: 1107 Emerson Lane, 6907 Dupont Avenue North, and 1100 69th Avenue North Summary: The Applicant is requesting review of a proposal to re-plat approximately 1.31 acres of property located at the northwest corner of 69th Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North, which would allow for the sale of an existing seven-unit apartment building on approximately 0.47 acres. The request would require amendment to an existing PUD, and a re-zoning of the aforementioned apartment building property. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be requested to reflect the updated zoning and separation of the apartment building from its association with the adjacent church and future land use designation as an institutional use. b. Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 (PUBLIC HEARING) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER VIRTUAL MEETING JUNE 10, 2021 Virtual meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021. Public may access the Webex meeting: Online: logis.webex.com | Phone: (312) 535-8110 Meeting Number (Access Code): 177 448 1018 Applicant: Aeon | The Crest Apartments LLC Project Location: 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway Summary: The Applicant is requesting review of a proposal to construct a new five-story, 48-unit apartment building. The new building would focus on providing housing for families in 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units and be physically connected to the existing 13-story, 122-unit Crest Apartment building, which would be renovated as part of the overall project. A single studio unit would be added to the existing Crest Apartment building in an existing office space for a total of 171 units between both buildings. Due to the nature of the request, approval of a site and building plan and establishment of a Planned Unit Development is required. A zoning code text amendment is also required to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District, in addition to a comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate additional density needs. 8.Discussion Items a.Availability for Joint Planning and Housing Commission Work Session (Tuesday, June 29) b.City Hall Re-opening and Discussion Regarding Future Meeting Format c.Upcoming City of Brooklyn Center Draft Zoning Code Public Town Hall Meetings (July 6, 13, and 20) 9.Adjournment PC Minutes 02-11-21 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 11, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Omari at 6:42 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Zoom. 2. ROLL CALL OF THE YEAR 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Peter Omari, Commissioners Alexander Koenig, Sizi Goyah, and Stephanie Jones. Commissioner Alfreda Daniels was absent and excused. Commissioner Kellie Hmong was absent and unexcused. Commissioner Jack MacMillan was absent (resigned). City Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, Community Development Director Meg Beekman and Associate Planner Olivia Boerschinger were also present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – FEBRUARY 11, 2021 There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Goyah, to approve the agenda for the February 11, 2021 meeting as presented. The motion passed 4-0. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 12, 2020 There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Goyah, to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2020 Regular meeting as presented. The motion passed 4-0. There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Goyah, to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2020 Work Session meeting as presented. The motion passed 4-0. 5. OFFICIAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn the 2020 Planning Commission. The motion passed 4-0. 6. ROLL CALL OF THE 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioners Peter Omari, Alexander Koenig, Sizi Goyah, and Stephanie Jones were present. 7. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON FOR YEAR 2021 PC Minutes 02-11-21 -2- DRAFT There were self-nominations for Commissioners Omari, Koenig, and Jones. Commissioner Goyah noted an inability to second a motion and in order to proceed in the election of the 2021 Chairperson, Omari rescinded his self-nomination and seconded Koenig. There was a motion by Commissioner Omari, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to rescind his self-nomination and elect Commissioner Koenig as 2021 Planning Commissioner Chairperson. The motion passed 3-1 (Commissioner Goyah abstained). 8. APPOINTMENT OF 2021 VICE-CHAIR BY CHAIRPERSON Chair Koenig inquired as to whether there was any interest in a Commissioner serving as the 2021 Vice-Chair. Commissioner Jones indicated an interest. Following a call for any other interest, Commissioner Jones was appointed as 2021 Vice-Chair by Chair Koenig. 9. CHAIRPERSON’S EXPLANATION Chair Koenig explained the Planning Commission’s role as an advisory body. One of the Commission’s functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 10. PLANNING ITEMS -None. 11. DISCUSSION ITEMS -None. 12. OTHER BUSINESS 12a) RESIGNATION OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER JOHN (JACK) MACMILLAN City Planner and Zoning Administrator McIntosh informed the Commission that Commissioner Jack MacMillan tendered his resignation from the Planning Commission in an email on January 31, 2021 after serving for five years. City Planner McIntosh thanked Commissioner MacMillan for his volunteered time with the City and for working with her since her own onboarding back in 2017. Chair Koenig followed in noting their time served together and Commissioner MacMillan’s affinity for the environment when reviewing cases over the years. 12b) INTRODUCTION OF OLIVIA BOERSCHINGER (CITY OF BROOKLYN CENER ASSOCIATE PLANNER) AND HARRY DAVIS (BOLTON & MENK PLANNING CONSULTANT) City Planner McIntosh noted that she would be going maternity leave in the near immediate future and due to this, wanted to introduce the Commission to the City’s new Associate PC Minutes 02-11-21 -3- DRAFT Planner, Olivia Boerschinger, who previously worked for the City of North St. Paul, and Harry Davis, who is a Planning Consultant with Bolton & Menk. Bolton & Menk is the primary consultant on the Becoming Brooklyn Center project, which includes a major update to the City’s Zoning Code. City Planner McIntosh also introduced the group to the City’s new Economic Development Coordinator, Vong Thao, who previously worked for the City of St. Paul. 13. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Goyah, seconded by Commissioner Omari, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. _______________________________ _______________________________ Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Alexander Koenig, Chair PC Minutes 02-11-21 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT WORK SESSION WITH HOUSING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2021 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Zoom. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Chair Alexander Koenig, Commissioners Peter Omari, Sizi Goyah, and Stephanie Jones. Commissioners Alfreda Daniels and Kellie Hmong were absent. Housing Commission: Chair Mark Goodell, Commissioners Kathie Amdahl, Paul Oman and Lindsay Cremona. City Staff: City Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Deputy City Manager Dr. Reggie Edwards, Deputy Community Development Director Jesse Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator Vong Thao, and Associate Planner Olivia Boerschinger. City Council Liaison Kris Lawrence-Anderson was also present. BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated Covid-19 has had a significant impact on jobs and housing. The moratorium on evictions will end, and there is grave concern about what will happen to residents who have been negatively financially impacted. Other communities are responding with policies and practices related to housing, including new legally binding units; preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH); and tenant protections. A multi- faceted approach addresses all of these categories at the same time. Ms. Beekman stated some cities are reducing parking requirements and standards, as parking is a high-cost element of construction. Some actions that address parking requirements are permit costs and impact fees to lower construction costs; subsidies and financing for multi-family housing; tenant protections including rent stabilization, legal services, and just cause evictions; and tax increment financing. Ms. Beekman stated the City of Brooklyn Center has adopted a Fair Housing Policy with two categories: housing choice, including current housing stock, current demand and market; and affordable housing policies to prevent displacement. The City Council adopted a tenant PC Minutes 02-11-21 -2- DRAFT protections Ordinance a year ago, which requires revision and expansion. An engagement process on that effort will begin after City Staff have completed their review. Jeff Matson, representing the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), provided a review of the Brooklyn Center Housing Study. Mr. Matson stated CURA is a research center that works across the University system statewide, with a mission of facilitating and supporting community engagement. He added he supports data-based projects and community organizer training. He noted CURA employs non-traditional, shared expertise research models that are community- centered, using a racial equity framework to create equitable outcomes. Mr. Matson stated CURA is dedicated to increasing awareness in Brooklyn Center of how future development can proceed, in terms of affordability, the home ownership gap, and mitigation of neighborhood gentrification. This is an opportunity to help local stakeholders weigh factors including housing stability, land development and economic growth. Mr. Matson stated the partnership between CURA and Brooklyn Center has two phases – a qualitative analysis phase, including stakeholder interviews and a written report and recommendations; and a quantitative analysis phase, which will produce a Housing Report. Part 1 of the housing study was completed in fall of 2020 with an analysis of rental housing stock; age of housing stock; and rental affordability, among other issues. Part 2 of the housing study will include an analysis in spring 2021 to determine affordability of existing housing stock over the next decade. The focus will be how to balance the creation of new market-rate rentals with preserving naturally occurring affordable housing. The analysis will also include an evictions analysis including trends and evictions by landlord and a review of code violations from absentee and corporate landlords. Ms. Beekman reviewed background information in the staff report related to Brooklyn Center’s rental housing stock, 37% of which is rental, and nearly all of it is considered naturally occurring affordable housing. All multi-family properties were constructed in the 1960s and are homogeneous; 3.7% are legally binding affordable, which will increase to 6% when Sonder House is completed. There has been an increase in Section 8 voucher holders in 2020, which is not consistent with other communities. A 2016 CURA study showed that communities like Brooklyn Center are vulnerable to gentrification, which tends to occur where higher income, less diverse populations move into communities with cheaper housing, and leads to displacement of the existing population. Gentrification can be a loaded term, but it is important to keep track of new housing that could lead to displacement of existing residents. Mr. Matson stated it is unclear what the effects of Covid-19 will be on rents, home prices and vacancies, but evictions and foreclosures could spike in 2021, particularly among lower income people of color. Ms. Beekman stated the City Council reviewed this information and discussed issues around affordable housing, as well as examining other issues the City is facing, including economic resiliency, attracting investment, while delivering new development and encouraging naturally occurring affordable housing. PC Minutes 02-11-21 -3- DRAFT Ms. Beekman stated City Staff would like to have another meeting in March to review financing issues and tax base. She requested feedback and comments from the Commissioners and meeting attendees. Chair Koenig thanked Ms. Beekman and Mr. Matson for their presentation, which contained a lot of complex information but was succinct and painted a very realistic picture of Brooklyn Center’s current situation. He added he appreciates the clarity of the presentation itself. Commissioner Omari stated he has previously discussed with Ms. Beekman how the Planning Commission and its new members can get up to speed quickly, as decisions need to be made that will be of consequence for many years to come. He stressed the importance of this type of presentation on homeownership, renters, housing stock and gentrification. He added the Planning Commission needs to meet again to prove even further. He noted he too appreciated the presentation. Housing Commission Chair Mark Goodell stated he appreciates the time and effort that has gone into the study, and he looks forward to hearing more results and analysis that will result from this process. He added he is interested in research that has been done in other communities that are in similar situations, in terms of housing, educational opportunities, systemic racism, incentives and requirements, and other issues that have impacted housing over the years. Ms. Beekman agreed these are interesting questions, and the City Council has grappled with them as well, including what policy and regulatory options can be employed to address displacement that is a result of gentrification. Community groups like Acer have done extensive research and engagement to understand these issues and their root causes and have provided recommendations for how they can be addressed. Ms. Beekman stated all these issues are driven by the market and are relatively new in the broad scheme of housing. The intention of the housing study is to create awareness and understanding that Brooklyn Center is at risk of unintended consequences of development and look at trends from other communities to create a path forward. This would include encouraging new development in the community and creating a housing policy that addresses and mitigates unintended consequences of development. Jeff Matson stated the housing study plan includes a “literature review”, which studies policies and practices in communities with similar challenges. He added the communities of Richfield, Hopkins and Brooklyn Park have been identified, as well as other communities around the country. This research is being completed by law school students as part of the housing study and will be included in the final report. Chair Koenig requested clarification regarding 80% employment. Ms. Beekman stated that is the percentage of residents who leave the community to work elsewhere. Chair Koenig asked whether that data is comparable to other communities. Ms. Beekman stated Brooklyn Center residents have a longer commute than residents in other communities. She added she is not sure where Brooklyn Center ranks among other communities, as it depends upon the PC Minutes 02-11-21 -4- DRAFT number of jobs and specific types of jobs within the community, and whether residents have to leave the community to find work. Chair Koenig requested clarification regarding the cost burden of 30%. Mr. Matson stated 24% of Brooklyn Center renters spend 30% of their household income or more on rent; and over 30% spend 50% of their household income on rent. Chair Goodell asked whether impacts of national or state policy on Brooklyn Center incomes and housing has been considered. Mr. Matson stated that is something to consider as it falls under the idea of tax burden. Chair Omari asked whether there are other studies to help prepare the Commissioners for this study. Ms. Beekman stated Dr. Lewis has completed many studies in this area. She added the purpose of the study is to understand the City’s existing housing stock and existing gaps; guide land use decisions moving forward; and look at policies that recognize gentrification as a market force. She noted gentrification is an act of investment that occurs in places that have experienced disinvestment. She noted the study will help guide and develop a policy plan to address the negative impacts of development. Commissioner Omari stressed the importance of recognizing and mitigating the negative effects of gentrification, to ensure that the City’s residents can stay in the community. Chair Koenig asked whether school and student data plays a role in whether residents choose to leave the community. Mr. Matson stated that is a factor in housing decisions, and whether people move into a community. He added that particular issue is not being considered in this study. Commissioner Jones asked which community has the highest home ownership gap. She added Brooklyn Center was noted as the second highest community. Commissioner Jones asked whether there is data available related to residents who purchase a home in a city where they have been renting. Mr. Matson stated he is unsure which community has the highest home ownership gap. He added Brooklyn Center has the 2nd lowest median income for renter households, and the only City that has a lower median income is Robbinsdale. Mr. Matson stated he is not aware of any research that has looked at people purchasing homes in the community where they have been renting. He added that would fall in the qualitative portion of the study, during which residents will be asked those types of questions. Chair Goodell asked whether there is criteria or methodology to determine who will be interviewed. Mr. Matson stated the researchers have assembled an advisory panel made up of PC Minutes 02-11-21 -5- DRAFT current tenants, property owners, landlords, some city staff. He added the group just had their first meeting, and they plan to provide parameters for who to study and how many people to study. He noted he is not aware of what the targets are. Ms. Beekman stated the advisory council met yesterday for the first time. She added the advisory council is a very diverse group of residents, homeowners, renters and City Staff, as well as representation from local community groups like Acer and the Lao Association. She added the group’s next meeting is in two weeks. Commissioner Oman stated a study of 40 residents, as noted in the materials, does not seem like it will provide much of a cross-section. Commissioner Oman asked whether the information would need to be updated when 2020 Census data becomes available. Commissioner Oman stated a land trust could be considered as a pool for affordability. Mr. Matson stated a land trust is a fantastic idea. He added they exist in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and they do great work. He noted, with regard to the Census, the data released at the City level will not be available until the study has ended. He noted census data is taken from the American Communities Survey, which was last updated in December 2020. Mr. Matson administrative data provided by the City and Hennepin County provides data related to housing costs, rents, non-census data items, and administrative records that are regularly updated. Commissioner Oman requested clarification regarding the survey of 40 people, that indicates 20 people will be surveyed in each of two different time frames. Mr. Matson stated he is unsure but he would get additional information from Dr. Lewis regarding survey plans. Ms. Beekman stated she does not believe the number of people to be surveyed has been determined. She added Dr. Lewis uses a methodology that focuses on specific communities, and she is very intentional about who is selected and the purpose and reasons for the selections. She noted it will not be a statistically valid community survey, but probably conversations regarding research questions focusing on a couple different areas, and that information will be shared back to the Commissions. Commissioner Omari asked whether the next work session can be scheduled at tonight’s meeting. Ms. Beekman stated the Planning Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for March 11, 2021. Ms. McIntosh stated there are no planning cases coming in and that would be a good date for another joint meeting. Ms. Beekman agreed, adding a consultant would need to be engaged to come in and help with the work of the Commissions at a workshop, and she would need to confirm availability. PC Minutes 02-11-21 -6- DRAFT Commissioner Goyah stated he will be very busy over the next few weeks preparing for students to come back to school. He added the only time he can do is 7:00 p.m. Ms. Beekman stated confirmed the next joint workshop will be held at 7:00 p.m. on March 11, 2021. Commissioner Omari thanked the new Planning Commission Chair, Chair Koenig. He added he brings a lot of experience. He noted he looks forward to meeting the other commissioners. Chair Koenig asked whether there will be additional joint Work Sessions with the Planning and Housing Commissions. Ms. Beekman confirmed City Staff are developing an engagement strategy for moving forward with the Opportunity Site development and other development issues. She added it might be convenient to meet as a collective to go over these topics. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Housing Commission Chair Goodell, seconded by Planning Commissioner Omari, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. _______________________________ _______________________________ Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Alexander Koenig, Chair PC Minutes 03-11-21 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT WORK SESSION WITH HOUSING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2021 Associate City Planner Olivia Boerschinger requested that the Joint Work Session precede the Planning Commission meeting due to lack of a quorum. CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chair Alexander Koenig called to order the Planning Commission/ Housing Commission Joint Work Session at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Zoom. There was a motion by Planning Commissioner Daniels, seconded by Housing Commission Chair Goodell, to open the Planning Commission/Housing Commission Joint Work Session. The motion passed unanimously. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Chair Alexander Koenig and Commissioners Sizi Goyah and Alfreda Daniels. Commissioner Peter Omari was absent and excused. Commissioners Stephanie Jones and Kellie Hmong were absent. Housing Commission: Chair Mark Goodell and Commissioners Kathie Amdahl and Paul Oman. Deputy Community Development Director Jesse Anderson introduced two new Housing Commissioners: Michael Donelly and De’Ja’ Carter. He added Commissioner Cremona resigned from the Housing Commission as she no longer resides in the City. City Staff: Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Deputy Community Development Director Jesse Anderson, and Associate Planner Olivia Boerschinger. BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION – CONT’D Community Development Director Meg Beekman introduced Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers Public Finance. She added tonight’s presentation follows last month’s Joint Session of the Planning and Housing Commissions, discussing topics related to housing and housing policy. This evening’s discussion will be a review of housing finance topics, including how multi-family housing developments are financed; what are some challenges related to affordable housing; and a review of tax increment financing (TIF). Ms. Beekman requested that the Commissioners consider whether additional information would be useful to better understand the topic of housing policy. She asked whether there are additional PC Minutes 03-11-21 -2- DRAFT issues they would like to review, and whether outside subject matter experts would be helpful to support the discussion. Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers, Inc., gave a presentation on the financial implications of housing policy, local tools for affordable housing, basic information on tax increment financing, and policy considerations. He stated rent restrictions often lead to financial feasibility challenges for housing projects, and insufficient cash flow results in a financial gap. He reviewed an example of a market rate apartment proposal with a community affordability requirement that created a financing gap. The developer was not originally aware of the requirement but determined that they could cover the costs with revenue from the project. A $1.25 million gap was created as a result of including affordable units. Developers want to ensure that there will be a way for them to fill the gap. Mr. Aarsvold stated most communities use federal low-income housing tax credits, which give investors who invest in affordable housing a credit against income tax liability. Tax credits are a competitive process with limited availability administered through Minnesota Housing. Other funding comes from State and County grant sources; State loan and mortgage programs; local Tax Increment Financing (TIF); local tax abatement; local fee waivers; and land use/zoning concessions. Mr. Aarsvold reviewed tax increment basics, or the ability to capture and use increased local property taxes from new development, within a defined geographic area, for a defined period of time. Cities use TIF for development that would not normally be able to occur without assistance using the “but for” test. TIF financing promotes economic development, brings new development that does not currently exist, and strengthens the existing economy. TIF districts must meet certain requirements, including redevelopment; renewal and renovation; affordable housing; and job and tax base creation. Ms. Beekman stated, with regard to redevelopment districts, the State legislature created redevelopment districts in communities that were fully developed and finding themselves at a disadvantage against communities with developable space. She added redevelopment TIF is used in cities like Brooklyn Center where there are extra costs associated with redevelopment, with certain eligible expenditures. Mr. Aarsvold stated one TIF financing option is the “pay as you go” note, in which the developer initially pays for everything, and the authority repays the developer with interest over time from available tax increment. He added another option is the inter-fund loan, through which cash from the City is used to pay for redevelopment expenses and repay itself from future TIF. Mr. Aarsvold reviewed the Elevate Apartments development in Eden Prairie, which used TIF financing to accomplish the City’s development goals, including mixed use development, higher density, affordability, mixed income, and high-quality design standards. The project had a funding gap of $5.7 million, and the developers were able to meet all the City’s goals through several efforts, including creation of a new TIF district. Mr. Aarsvold stated housing policy considerations include housing needs; potential cost implications of policy; and long-term tax base availability. He added there are no right or wrong answers in City policy decisions, which ultimately determine the tax base outcome in the long PC Minutes 03-11-21 -3- DRAFT term. He stressed the importance of understanding that the more a development costs, the greater the subsidy. Mr. Aarsvold reviewed a comparison between the Real Estate Equities project in Brooklyn Center with tax credit assistance, and Elevate Apartments project in Eden Prairie, with no low-income housing tax credits. He stressed the importance of understanding the implications and strategies of promoting affordable housing, and how the City will function in the future. He noted less tax capacity means a higher tax rate, and the goal is to balance assistance with tax base growth. Chair Goodell thanked Mr. Aarsvold for his presentation. He asked whether it makes more sense for Brooklyn Center to pursue projects that meet requirements for low-income tax credits. He stated Brooklyn Center has 5-6 TIF districts. He asked how many TIF districts Brooklyn Center can afford, and whether the City can do anything to make projects for attractive for getting credits. Mr. Aarsvold stated the City can provide local financing. He added development projects do not happen by themselves in Brooklyn Center, so TIF districts are a necessary tool. He noted local support is important, in terms of getting developers and identifying development sites, providing a Resolution of support and committing to local assistance. Meg Beekman stated another way to show local support for development projects is through land use entitlements. Chair Goodell asked whether there are projects in Brooklyn Center that are comparable to successful developments in other communities with similar housing stock or tax capacity. Mr. Aarsvold stated there is a huge amount of vacant acreage in Brooklyn Center, close to downtown Minneapolis and freeways. He added the development community does not see any reason why this development should not be as successful to St. Louis Park’s West End or Columbia Height’s City Hall project. He noted what is unique about Brooklyn Center is the scale of the community, but development projects have been successful. Commissioner Daniels requested clarification regarding AMI calculations. Ms. Beekman stated Area Median Income (AMI) is calculated based on the metropolitan area, and is a consistent number used to calculate federal tax credits. She added she included information regarding local rents and incomes in the meeting packet. Commissioner Daniels asked whether it is a little early to be talking about TIF financing. Mr. Aarsvold stated tonight’s presentation is not related to a specific project, but rather a general education session. He added the Commissioners should be prepared with background information in case an official request comes forward. He noted the TIF district creation process begins when a developer’s formal request is determined to be feasible and should be moved forward. Mayor Elliott stated the City Council will have a Town Hall Meeting on Monday, March 15, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom, to discuss housing. The Town Hall Meeting will feature Sarah Harris, Executive Vice President of Strategy, Partnerships and Production at Aeon, who will review affordable housing and housing trends in the region and related financial topics. He invited all the PC Minutes 03-11-21 -4- DRAFT Commissioners to join the discussion. He added the Zoom link is in the City meeting calendar, and he will forward the information to Chair Goodell. Mr. Aarsvold stated Mr. Willson asked a question in the chat function related to the concern that TIF districts take away much needed tax dollars from the School District and County. Mr. Aarsvold stated this is a common question. He added taxes from a development project would never have materialized if the project had not received the necessary tax increment assistance to be built in the first place. Mr. Aarsvold stated Mr. Willson stated in the chat function that School Districts also need support. Mr. Aarsvold stated he does not disagree that schools need money, but the best thing a community can do is to grow the tax base. Chair Goodell thanked Mr. Aarsvold for his presentation. He welcomed the two new Housing Commissioners again, adding he looks forward to sharing more information with them about the Housing Commission. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Planning Commission Chair Koenig, seconded by Housing Commissioner Amdahl, to adjourn the Planning Commission/Housing Commission Joint Work Session. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. _______________________________ _______________________________ Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Alexander Koenig, Chair App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: June 10, 2021 Application No. 2021-002 Applicant: Aeon | The Crest Apartments LLC Location: 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway (The Crest Apartments) Requests: Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow construction of a second 48-unit multi-family residential building and related site improvements, an amendment to Zoning Map to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District, and an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for increased densities within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation Requested Action Aeon/The Crest Apartments LLC (“Applicant”) is requesting review and consideration of a proposal to construct a new five story, 48-unit apartment building at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway (“Subject Property”). The proposed new building would focus on providing housing for families in 1, 2, and 3- bedroom units and be physically connected to the existing 13-story, 122-unit Crest Apartment building, which would be renovated as part of the overall project. A single studio unit would be added to the existing Crest Apartment building in an office space for a combined total of 171 units between both buildings. Due to the nature of the request, approval of a site and building plan and establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is required. A zoning code text amendment is also required to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District, in addition to a comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate additional density needs within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation. Refer to attached Exhibit A for the provided project narrative and plans. As part of the application process, a public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on May 27, 2021 (Exhibit B), and notices were mailed to property owners within vicinity of the Subject Property, including those single family homes located along Brooklyn Drive, just west of the Subject Property. To date, the City has not received any comments regarding the proposal. The City also installed a sign on the Subject Property, indicating a development proposal was under review and to contact the City with any questions. Background Aeon purchased what is now known as the Crest Apartments in July 2012 through a HUD foreclosure process to ensure the long-term affordability of residents. In 2014, some initial renovations were completed, including work on the building systems. It was during this time that initial discussions were held regarding a future build out on the 4.37-acre Subject Property. In November 2017, these discussions were revisited and some initial meetings and concept proposals were provided to City staff to weigh in on. • Application Filed: 05/11/2021 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/10/2021 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 2 In 2020, these discussions were reignited and a concept proposal was presented to the City Council on April 26, 2021. Based on the feedback provided by City Council, the Applicant subsequently submitted Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 for consideration. The 122-unit apartment building currently on the Subject Property was originally approved under Planning Commission Application No. 72083 in 1972, which had been authorized under the Federal Housing Administration’s “236” housing program. The Section 236 program was originally established by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and combined Federal mortgage insurance with interest reduction payments to the mortgagee for the production of low-cost rental housing, and was one of the methods used at that time to boost the nation’s existing housing supply. As proposed, the new five-story addition would provide a unit mix of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two- bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units. The existing Crest Apartment building is currently comprised of 78 one-bedroom units and 44 two-bedroom units, with plans to convert an existing office space into a studio apartment for a combined total of 171 units. Site Data: 2040 Land Use Plan: Commercial Mixed-Use (10.01-25 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood: Centennial Current Zoning: R7 (Multiple Family Residence) | Central Commerce Overlay District Site Area: 4.37 Acres Surrounding Area: Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North CM-U R1 (One Family Residence) District and Central Commerce Overlay Institutional South PSP/Institutional C1A (Service/Office) District and Central Commerce Overlay Institutional East CM-U C2 (Commerce) District and Central Commerce Overlay Office West Parks, Recreation, Open Space R1 (One Family Residence) District and Central Commerce Overlay Park, Recreational, or Preserve App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 3 Map 1. Subject Property Location (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway) REQUESTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A comprehensive plan amendment is required anytime a community changes any part of a municipality’s adopted comprehensive plan, including, but not limited to: • Changes resulting from neighborhood or small area planning activities • Land use changes to allow a proposed development • Proposed forecast changes to proposed MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) changes in service or staging • Text changes to revise a policy or land use category • Routine updates to incorporate new information or update a public facilities agreement These requests are ultimately submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and final approval; however, they require a recommendation from the local planning body, and local governing body authorization for the amendment. In certain cases, an adjacent jurisdictional review is also required to allow for other affected municipalities and districts to weigh in on any potential impacts. The Subject Property currently has a future land use designation of Commercial Mixed-Use (10.01-25 Dwelling Units per Acre) under the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Assuming a total of 171 units, the 4.37-acre Subject Property would have a proposed density of 39.1 dwelling units per acre. This would be an increase in density of 11.2 dwelling units per acre, as the 122-unit Crest Apartment building has a current density of 27.9 dwelling units per acre. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 4 Map 2. 2040 Future Land Use Plan and Subject Property (highlighted in black). In reviewing properties affected by the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation, City staff determined there was an oversight during completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process, as there are existing residential properties with densities above the outlined 25 dwelling units per acre threshold. The City recognizes that in addition to the potential conversion of existing office uses to residential, which might result in higher densities, the Commercial-Mixed Use designation, more than any other designation outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, allows for a vast range of potential uses, including office, hotel, multi-family residential, single-story commercial, and event center uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan notes that much of the forecasted growth within the City of Brooklyn Center is anticipated to occur within the major redevelopment areas guided primarily as Transit Orientated Development (TOD), and Commercial Mixed-Use, which the Subject Property is designated as. “Commercial Mixed-Use” is a new land use designation and guides for a mix of commercial, office, retail, service, and residential uses. This designation is guided for areas adjacent to the TOD and is planned to have a more significant proportion of the land use designated for the aforementioned uses, including supporting residential uses. An anticipated 50-percent of the land use is planned for residential development at densities slightly lower than the adjacent TOD land use designation, which allows for a density range of 31.01-130 dwelling units per acre. It should be further noted that the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation as outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan accounts for only 1.64 percent (88.06 acres) of the total land area within the City of Brooklyn Center (5,360.75 acres). The Commercial Mixed-Use designation has a focus on providing both walkable and bikeable connections to adjacent TOD land uses and the Brooklyn Center Transit Center, located off Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). City staff feels the essence of the Commercial Mixed-Use land use designation is captured in the Subject Property due to its relationship to the adjacent park, and its proximity to the Three Rivers Park District Shingle Creek Regional Trail, which winds around the Subject Property. The Subject Property is serviced by a Route 722 bus stop just off the property, and the Brooklyn Center Transit Center, which is less than one mile away and accessible via sidewalk, trail, and bus, if necessary. Given the location of the Subject Property and its adjacency to the City’s Centennial Park, the Applicant App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 5 notes in their narrative (Exhibit A) that construction of the new 48-unit, 5-story building on the western end of the Subject Property and the increased density would have minimal impacts on the neighboring properties and ample open space and outdoor amenities for existing and new residents. Following a review of existing residential properties falling within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation and with respect to potential future redevelopment in the adjacent lands, City staff requests that the City of Brooklyn Center’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” to allow for a density range of 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, which would capture existing multi-family residential uses that fall within this designation, as well as any potential future redevelopment within this designation. Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for a density range increase of the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” from 10.01 to 25 dwelling units per acre to 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, approval of the related site and building plan, Planned Unit Development, and Zoning Code amendment requests, and contingent upon final approval from the Metropolitan Council. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Overlay districts generally apply an extra level of regulations or development criteria above the standard underlying zoning district. The Central Commerce Overlay District is an area roughly bounded by I-694 on the north, Highway 100 on the south and east, Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, and Shingle Creek on the north, and includes a specific list of permitted uses. Residential uses are not listed, which means they are not permitted within the overlay district. It should be noted, however, that there are multi- family residential properties in the Overlay District today that pre-date the establishment of this District. As part of the ongoing Zoning Code update, the Central Commerce Overlay District will be revised or removed; however, since that work is not yet complete, the proposal includes the removal of this property from the overlay district. In 2019, a similar request was made and approved by City Council as part of the redevelopment of the former Jerry’s Foods site (5801 Xerxes Avenue North) into a combined 270-units of housing across two multi-family residential buildings, now known as Sonder House and Sonder Pointe. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Code and associated map to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District in order to allow for additional dwelling units to be constructed on the Subject Property. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for Commercial Mixed-Use, with approximately 50-percent of this designation anticipated for residential use. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 6 Map 3. Central Commerce Overlay District and Subject Property (highlighted in black). Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested amendment to the City’s Zoning Code to allow for the removal of the Subject Property, located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, from the Central Commerce Overlay District, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related site and building plan, Planned Unit Development, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City’s Zoning Code notes that upon the rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters “PUD” followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district, which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. Given that the major update to the City Zoning Code is currently underway and changes to districts are anticipated in order to align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the request would be to re-zone following guidance from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan future land use designations for the Subject Property. This allows for flexibility within the Zoning Code for developments which would not be allowed under the existing regulations. PUDs are often used to achieve a higher quality development, or achieve other City goals, in exchange for zoning flexibility from the City Code. PUDs may only contain uses consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities, and the approval of a land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City ordinances generally governing them— essentially the City Council may approve plans that are not in compliance with the usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of residents or the City, although plans shall comply with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. As proposed, the request would be to re-zone from R-7 (Multiple Family Residence) District, which is the City’s highest density residential district (maximum of 31 dwelling units per acre), to Planned Unit App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 7 Development-Commercial Mixed Use. As approval of any development plan for the Subject Property shall constitute a re-zoning to PUD, approvals to establish a PUD require the City Council to base its actions on the re-zoning under the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes, and intent of this section (Section 35- 355); 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested establishment of a Planned Unit Development to allow for the re- zoning of the Subject Property, located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, to Planned Unit Development- Commercial Mixed-Use District, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related site and building plan, Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN Site Design The proposed development would result in the construction of a 48-unit, five story addition intended to serve families (family focused units). The proposed addition would be located just west of the existing 13-story Crest Apartment building and be oriented north to south. The new addition and existing apartment building would share a lobby, amenities (e.g. community room, fitness room, learning center, laundry rooms), and be physically connected via a pedestrian walkway. The lobby would serve as the new primary entrance and leasing center for all 171 units. The proposal also contemplates the installation of a children’s play structure, garden boxes for residents, and an outdoor patio off the proposed community room. Images 1 and 2. Existing Site and Proposed New 5-Story Addition and Site Improvements (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 8 Setbacks The proposed five-story addition identifies a front yard setback of approximately 300 feet from the property line abutting Shingle Creek Parkway, approximately 93 feet to the rear (or west) of the Subject Property, which abuts Centennial Park, and approximately 65 feet at its closest interior setback along the north end of the Subject Property, which abuts City Hall. No new construction is anticipated for the existing 13-story Crest Apartment building. Architectural Materials The City’s Architectural Design Guidelines require at least 50-percent of each elevation (face) of a building to be constructed of Class I materials, with the remainder constructed of Class II materials. The proposed five-story addition anticipates installation of Hardie Board siding in a vertical orientation, and metal paneling in both vertical and horizontal orientations. An elevation by elevation breakdown of Class I and Class II building materials was not provided. City staff requests that the Applicant forward an exhibit to determine conformance pending approval of the application requests. Image 3. Rendering of New Five-Story Addition (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Access and Parking Image 4. Proposed Parking Layout of Subject Property (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 9 The Subject Property is currently served by two access points: a right-in/right-out driveway off the southbound lane of Shingle Creek Parkway, and a private drive access located to the south of the Subject Property that provides shared access to the Subject Property and Hennepin County Service Center (6125 Shingle Creek Parkway). This access is controlled by a traffic light at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and the terminus of Summit Drive. The Applicant proposes to maintain these access points; however, the Applicant will need to determine if any amendments to a previously recorded ingress and egress easement (Document No. 1429165), or Maintenance Easement (Document No. 1723923) are required. Per Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg in his memorandum dated June 4, 2021 (Exhibit C), detailed vehicle turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, buses, etc. are to be provided demonstrating proposed and actual routing throughout the Subject Property. A narrative and plans would also be required outlining any temporary parking or access constraints during the course of construction. As proposed, the updated parking lot would provide 24-foot wide drive lanes, which is the minimum width required to allow for two-way traffic. Two areas appear to be set back near the existing entrance to the Crest Apartment building and the proposed new entrance, which would offer a space for drop- offs, pick-ups, and deliveries. There are a total of 171 dwelling units proposed between the two buildings. Section 35-704 (Minimum Parking Spaces Required) of the Zoning Ordinance requires two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit, or 342 total on-site parking spaces. As part of the original site and building plan approvals for the 122-unit Crest Apartment building in 1972, the project was approved with the understanding that less parking would be required due to evidence provided at the time indicating that subsidized housing relied less heavily on on-site parking. Pursuant to City records, it appears the Subject Property was approved with allocations for a total of 244 on-site parking spaces, and based on a completed parking lot of 123 parking spaces and a “proof of parking” for 121 additional spaces located westerly of the existing parking area and in the location of the proposed new five-story addition. While the majority of the parking lot is proposed for surface lot parking (164 spaces and 14 “proof of parking”), an additional 31 parking spaces would be available at the ground floor level of the proposed new addition. Assuming the existence of 130 stalls for 122 units in the existing parking lot, on-site parking is currently provided at 1.06 spaces per unit. The Applicant indicates in their narrative (Exhibit A) that the current parking lot is underutilized, and the proposal is to rebuild the parking lot with a storm management system below. A total of 195 on-site parking spaces would be constructed for the proposed 171 dwelling units for 1.14 spaces per unit, with an option to increase parking by 14 spaces for a total of 209 spaces or 1.22 spaces per unit if a need is determined in the future. The Applicant should note any considerations with regard to controlled access via the proposed garage structure. It is understood that the Applicant held some initial discussions with other City staff regarding safety and security considerations with regard to their building plan, but a CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) was not completed. Pending approval of the requests, City staff requests that the Applicant follow up with City staff for a more formal review of the proposed site and building improvements. As proposed, the new five-story addition would be constructed on top of the existing 121-space “proof of parking.” Per City staff request, a Parking Study (Exhibit D) was completed by Alliant Engineering to App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 10 determine whether sufficient on-site parking would be provided with the proposed improvements. Their study was conducted on Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021 between the hours of 5 a.m. and 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. and midnight. At peak, the provided Parking Study indicated that a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles was observed in both of the early morning and late evening hours of Thursday, May 6th, with a slightly lower peak demand observed on Saturday, May 8th. A peak parking rate of 98 vehicles on-site for the 117-units currently occupied at the Crest Apartment building, which equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit. The above rate was then used to calculate a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles that could be expected to utilize the existing parking lot under a scenario in which all 122-units in the existing Crest Apartment building were occupied. Under this scenario, and assuming a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit, it is assumed there would be a surplus of 30 parking stalls utilizing the existing surface parking lot. Assuming construction of an additional 48-units of housing within the proposed five-story addition and the conversion of an existing office space in the existing Crest Apartment building to a studio apartment, Alliant Engineering estimated a peak parking demand of 145 vehicles assuming full occupancy of both buildings (171 total units). Assuming construction of 195 parking stalls, it is anticipated there would be a 50-stall surplus (34.5 percent) of on-site parking, and that the proposed 14-space “proof of parking” to the east of the existing Crest Apartment building would not be required. It should be noted that the above calculations assume a 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit peak parking rate, and that the existing Crest Apartment building is comprised of 78 one-bedroom and 44 two- bedroom units. The proposed 48-unit addition proposes a mix of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units. As the intent is for the proposed addition to offer family-focused units, there is also the reality that there may be more cars per unit given the increased unit size. A 2018 survey of available parking spaces at other multi-family rental properties by City staff revealed few properties in the City meet the current requirement of two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. The lack of parking citations issued at apartment complexes with fewer than two parking spaces per unit in the City comparable to this proposed development seems to indicate a lack of parking may be minimal. It is anticipated that both existing and future residents of the Subject Property will utilize the adjacent bus stop off Shingle Creek Parkway, as well as the nearby Brooklyn Center Transit Center. The Subject Property is currently serviced by sidewalks and trails to the east and west of the property, but proposes the addition of new sidewalks and connections to the adjacent Centennial Park and trails, as well as exterior bike parking near the main building entrances. Lighting The Zoning Code notes, “all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate illumination of the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices.” The submitted photometric plan proposes an average of 2.75 foot-candles across the site with a maximum concentration of 7.4 foot-candles towards the center of the site and parking lot. As proposed, 11 luminaires would be distributed throughout the surface parking lot, along with 11 bollard-style pedestrian lights placed around the perimeters of the new and existing apartment buildings, and pendant style down-lighting and wall-packs. Per the City Zoning Code, lighting shall not exceed three (3) foot candles measured at property lines App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 11 abutting residentially zoned property, or 10 foot candles measured at the property lines abutting the street right-of-way or non-residentially zoned properties. As is specified, no glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. The photometric plan indicates the fixtures are generally consistent with the Zoning Code requirements. The Applicant should ensure sufficient lighting is provided and distributed over all entrances and exits, walkways, and near site amenities (e.g. playground, trash enclosure). The Applicant should also ensure sufficient lighting is provided near pedestrian access points off Shingle Creek Parkway and with consideration to potential travel routes to the new five-story addition (i.e. path of least resistance). Trash As proposed, the new five-story addition would have access to a trash enclosure on the southeast corner of the new building, to the east of the proposed garage doors. Per a review of the existing building and submitted plans, it appears the plan is to retain the existing trash enclosure located just west of the existing entrance to the Crest Apartment building for those residents. Assuming this, City staff requests that the existing trash enclosure be updated to comply with City requirements, including but not limited to a full screening of the trash enclosure with opaque doors, and walls high enough to completely contain any dumpsters. Given the current location of the trash enclosure, City staff is also requesting that the Applicant entertain options for screening trash from top view (i.e. the apartments above). The Applicant should provide a proposal for frequency of trash pick-up and determine the need for garbage and recycling containers to be placed throughout the site (e.g. near building entrances, near proposed community amenities). Images 5 and 6. Proposed New and Existing Trash Enclosure Locations (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Screening All ground mounted equipment (e.g., transformers, mechanical) shall be effectively screened from adjacent public rights-of-way and properties by a solid wall or fence constructed of wood, masonry, or other durable materials that are complementary to the materials used on the primary building. Per Chapter 12 (Building Maintenance and Occupancy) of the City Code, roof-mounted equipment shall also be screened from view through use of parapets, wall/ fencing materials, or paint to match surrounding colors when visible from the public right-of-way. In reviewing the Subject Property, City staff noted there is current ground-mounted equipment at the northeast corner of the existing Crest Apartment building and visible from Shingle Creek Parkway that is not in compliance with the aforementioned code requirements, as the enclosure is too short to provide any screening. As part of any approval, City staff is requesting this enclosure be updated to comply. See Image 7 below. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 12 Image 7. Non-Compliant Ground Mounted Equipment (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Landscaping The project submittal includes a landscape plan and planting schedule, Although City Code does not have any specific requirements on the species of landscaping, and the City has operated under and held new and redeveloped areas to complying with the City’s adopted Landscape Point System policy, which assigns points to a given site based on the acreage and type of development. The point system requires multi-family residential sites to provide a specific amount or number of landscaping units, and is based on the maximum percentage of certain materials (i.e., 50% shade trees; 40% coniferous trees; 35% decorative trees; and 25% shrubs). Given a “Multi-Family Residential” use and assuming an approximately 4.37 acre site, the Subject Property would have to accrue 358 points. (2 acres * 90 + 2.37 acres * 75 = 357.75 points). Planting Type Minimum Size Points Per Planting Maximum Points (%) Points Accrued Shade (Deciduous) Trees 2 ½” diameter 10 50% or 179 points 179 points (67 trees * 10 points) Coniferous (Evergreen) Trees 5’ height 6 40% or 143 points 0 points (0 trees * 6 points) Decorative (Ornamental) Trees 1” diameter 1.5 35% or 125 points 9 points (6 trees * 1.5 points) Shrubs 12” diameter 0.5 25% or 90 points 172.5 points (345 shrubs * .5 points) Total 360.5 points Based on a review of the submitted Landscape Plan, dated May 11, 2021, the plan meets and exceeds the minimum requirements under the Landscape Point System Policy at 360.5 points achieved. The Applicant may want to identify potential coniferous trees for planting as none were identified on the submitted plan. As proposed, the Applicant desires to plant native plantings where possible to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. City staff is supportive of this particularly given the Subject Property’s location next to Centennial Park and Shingle Creek. Signs No specific signage requests were made regarding new or revised signage for the Subject Property, although a sign is indicated in the submitted architectural plans on top of the proposed new main App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 13 entrance. The City is currently underway with an update to multiple City codes, including the Sign Code. Any signage will need to comply with the allowances as outlined in the adopted City signage regulations, and the Applicant will need to apply for and receive issuance of a sign permit prior to any installation. Engineering Review Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed plans and provided a memorandum, dated June 4, 2021 (Exhibit C). Most of the comments pertain to the need for plan corrections and additional details. Many of the provided comments relate to the proposed stormwater details and systems and the ability to capture and route surface run-off from parking areas through soil medium prior to discharge in the proposed underground stormwater system. Assistant City Engineer Hogg also requests that detailed turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, etc. be provided. In addition an NPDES permit is required as the total disturbed area would exceed one acre, and a Construction Management Plan and Agreement, and Utility Facilities Easement Agreement shall be submitted to the City in advance of any permit release. The Applicant will also require a watershed plan review and conform to watershed rules. A stormwater report dated May 11, 2021 and attached as Exhibit E was also completed by Pierce Pini & Associates per City staff request as the Subject Property abuts Shingle Creek and is located at least partially in the 100-year floodplain. The City has record of an approved Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) on file that indicates the existing Crest Apartment building is outside the 100-year floodplain and located in Flood Zone B (also known as Zone X), which is considered to be a moderate flood hazard area located between the limits of the base flood and 0.2 percent annual change (or 500-year) flood. Per the report provided, the identified peak elevation for a 100-year storm event was 842.37 feet. This would provide more than two feet of separation between the 100-year peak elevation and the low floor opening of the existing and proposed buildings. Fire Inspection/Building Review Pending approval of the requests, the Applicant will need to submit full construction plans, including but not limited to: architectural, structural, mechanical, civil, landscaping, and photometric plans to the City for review. A fire sprinkler and monitoring system is required for installation and is to be maintained at all times in the new five-story addition and enclosed garage. The Applicant will also need to meet any minimum ADA requirements with regard to the building and site improvements. All building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. CPTED Review City staff is requesting the Applicant forward any final site and building plans to City staff for CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) review and commentary. City staff is to the understanding that initial discussions were held regarding the building plans, but no formal recommendations were provided by City staff. Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested site and building plans for the proposed new five-story addition, building and site improvements for the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related Planned Unit Development, Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 14 APPROVAL CONDITIONS Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 for the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway: 1. Site and Building Plan Review: All requested alterations will need to be approved by City staff with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits, and fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. a. Any significant changes or modifications made to this request can only be made by an amendment to the approved plans and documents as approved by the City Council. b. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. c. The Applicant shall provide any final site and building plans to City staff for a CPTED review and make alterations as necessary prior to permit release. d. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any site plan approval. e. A fire sprinkler system is required to be installed and shall be maintained on a consistent basis in the proposed five-story addition and enclosed garage. f. The Applicant shall install irrigation systems where necessary to facilitate site maintenance, and irrigation shop drawings for review and approval prior to installation. g. The Applicant shall provide a lighting plan that identifies all existing and proposed lighting for the parking lots and building. The lighting plan shall include a site wide photometric plan that is in conformance with the lighting provisions as noted under the City Zoning Ordinance and in consideration of the City’ s Architectural Design Guidelines. Fixture specifications shall be provided prior to issuance of any building permits. h. The Applicant shall submit a Sign Permit Application for any proposed signage (e.g., wall, freestanding) and receive issuance of a permit prior to any installation. All signage shall conform to City requirements. 2. Agreements: a. The Applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center. This agreement is to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. b. A Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City shall be executed upon any approval of the to-be submitted building permit for site improvements, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards. c. The Developer shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of any Performance Agreement financial guarantee. d. A Utility Facilities Easement Agreement is required for submittal to the City prior to issuance of any permits. e. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement and associated escrow are required for submittal prior to the City prior to issuance of any permits. 3. Engineering Review: a. The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Assistant App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 15 City Engineer’s review memorandum, dated June 4, 2021. b. Final grading, drainage, utility, and erosion control plans and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer for City site and building plan approval and prior to the issuance of permits. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above-noted findings, staff recommends the following motion: Motion to approve a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve (1) the submitted site and building plan, (2) establishment of a Planned Unit Development, (3) an amendment to the Zoning Code and associated Map to remove the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway from the Central Commerce Overlay District, and (4) an amendment to the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for a density range increase of the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” from 10.01 to 25 dwelling units per acre to 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, as amended by the Conditions of Approval in the June 10, 2021 Planning Commission Report, and subject to final approval by the Metropolitan Council for the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A – Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 Plans and Documents, submitted May 11, 2021. Exhibit B – Public Hearing Notice, as published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, and dated May 27, 2021. Exhibit C – Review Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, and dated June 4, 2021. Exhibit D – The Crest Apartments Parking Study, prepared by Alliant Engineering, and dated May 18, 2021. Exhibit E – Stormwater Calculations for Aeon Crest II Apartments, prepared by Pierce Pini & Associates, Inc. and dated May 11, 2021. Applicant Information: Name: Address: Office Phone: Cell: Email: FAX: Property Owner Information* (if different from Applicant): Name: Property Owner Address: Office Phone: Cell: Email: FAX: 2021 Planning Commission Application Project Information: Provide a general description of your project and request(s): Address/Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Application Type (Mark all that Apply) Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,050 Appeal $200 Rezoning $1,050 Zoning Code Text Amendment $500 Special/Interim Use Permit $250 Special/Interim Use Permit Amendment $150 Site and Building Plan Review $750 Variance $200 Planned Unit Development $1,800 Planned Unit Development Amendment $700 Preliminary Plat $400 Final Plat $200 IMPORTANT: All applications may be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of costs incurred by the City for filing, reviewing, and processing applications in the form of an escrow to the City. Application Fee: $ Escrow Amount: $ Receipt No: For Office Use Only Date Received: Date Application Complete: Letter of Completeness: PC App No. For Office Use Only Exhibit A Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned acknowledges that they understand that before a Planning Commission application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. By signing and submitting this application, the Applicant agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center the actual costs incurred for expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the review, filing, and processing of the application. Such costs will be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application will not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Any administrative fees paid as part of the submission of this application are nonrefundable. ___________________________________________________ ______________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date ___________________________________________________ ______________________ Applicant Signature (If different than Property Owner) Date Memorandum TO: City of Brooklyn Park City Council, Planning Commission & Planning Staff COPY: Leslie Roering, Beth Shogren, Jen Small -Aeon & Joe Brown, Ellie Ziaie – BKV Group FROM: Chris Palkowitsch, AIA – BKV Group DATE: 05/11/2021 RE: Crest Apartments – Site and Building Plan Review & PUD Aeon with BKV Group is proposing to add additional development and renovations to the Crest Apartments at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway. This site is 4.37 acres (190,483 SF) and houses the 13 story Crest Apartments with 122 existing affordable units, constructed in 1972. The new proposal adds 48 housing units in a five-story building and 1 unit to the existing building for a new site total of 171 units. The new building addition is connected to the existing building with a shared first level lobby, amenities, and enclosed link. The new units will focus on providing affordable units for families. The proposed addition unit mix consists of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom units. The existing building will be renovated, primarily focusing on maintaining the current use of the building for years to come, additionally one studio unit will be added to the existing building replacing an existing office space. The remainder of the existing building unit mix consists of 78 one-bedroom units and 44 two-bedroom units. Aeon Aeon’s mission is to create and sustain quality affordable homes that strengthen lives and communities. Over the past 35 years, we have successfully developed, redeveloped, or preserved more than 5,650 apartment homes in 59 properties, providing homes to more than 15,000 people in Minnesota. Aeon is a non-profit owner and manager. The name ‘Aeon’ is from the Latin word ‘eon’ meaning ‘forever’, demonstrating our focus on providing long-term, quality, homes. Aeon purchased The Crest Apartments in 2012 through a HUD foreclosure process to ensure the long-term affordability for existing and future residents. In 2014, initial renovations were completed on many of the building systems. The proposed project will complete renovations to the main building systems and enhance the feeling of home for our residents with interior upgrades. The Crest Apartments is a mix of one- and two-bedroom units. The proposed project will preserve and expand on those units and add much needed three bedrooms units to the mix. The Twin Cities has a severe need for more affordable homes. There are currently only 37 affordable homes available for every 100 extremely low- income families in need (MN Housing). And without stable housing, people cannot properly address their health, education, employment, and social needs. Given the unusual time we face with the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an even greater need for affordable housing. Renters have lost income, childcare, and social supports. Significant disruptions to the pipeline of new affordable housing could mean fewer new units coming online in the upcoming months or years. Aeon is confident we can navigate this uncertainty. Together, we can ensure our community’s most vulnerable families have access to stability during this national crisis. Site & Zoning The site is located on Shingle Creek Parkway. The buildings to the east, across Shingle Creek Parkway are two office buildings and Shingle Creek Center. The northern border of the site is Shingle Creek and Brooklyn Center City Hall. The west site boundary is immediately adjacent to Centennial Park, the park amenities, and a vast trail system. Additionally, the Hennepin County Service Center and Library are located to the south. The site is on bus line 722 with bus stops in close proximity. The site is zoned R7 Multiple Family Residence. This project is being submitted as a Planned Unit Development, (PUD). With the addition of the new 48 units and the 1 unit added to the existing building, the project will total 171 units. The site will have 39.1units per acre, the existing building is at 27.9 units per acre. Base zoning allows for a density of 31 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, we are proposing a reduction in the base zoning site parking requirement of 2 stalls per unit, to 1.14 stalls per unit. Additional Units per Acre - The additional 48-unit building uses underutilized land on the site to add additional affordable units to the city. With the addition, the site still provides ample open space and new outdoor amenities to the residents. The site also has immediate access to Centennial Park and its trails. The positioning of the 5-story building has minor impacts to the neighboring properties, with almost no impact in the spring, summer, and autumns months. Parking Reduction - The existing parking lot has 130 stalls for 122 units, 1.06 Stalls per Unit. The current parking lot has been underutilized for a number of years. We are proposing to rebuild the parking lot with a robust storm management system below it. The new parking layout for the site will include 31 enclosed stalls within the new building and 164 surface stalls for a total of 195 stall for the 171 units, 1.14 Stalls per unit. Additionally, the site has 14 proof of parking sites in the north east corner. Aeon has completed a parking study that shows the peak vehicle demand to be .84 stalls per unit of need for the completed development. Project Design The current site and building underutilize the land by preserving a large amount of space on the west side of the site as proof of parking. The newly proposed 5 story addition seeks to better utilize the site while providing family focused units. The addition is I-shaped and runs north to south, connecting to the existing building with a new shared lobby, amenities, and enclosed building link (Pedestrian Walkway in MN Building Code terms). The new lobby will become the primary entry and leasing center for all the units. Additionally, the amenities shared by all residents will include a community room, fitness room, learning center, and laundry rooms. The site amenities will feature updated landscaping including a children’s play structure, garden boxes for residents, and an outdoor patio off the community room. Furthermore, the landscaping will include new trees and drought resistant plantings that change seasonally providing a mix of colors. The existing site parking lot is aged and needs to be reconstructed. We are proposing a more efficient parking layout, and the first floor of the new building will include 31 structured parking stalls. Parking cannot go below grade on this site due to the high ground water level and proximity to Shingle Creek. Vehicles access into parking garage is on the south side of the new building. The new surface parking lot will have 164 surface stalls with 14 additional proof of parking stalls. Storm water management will be handled by a below grade pipe system, located in the parking lot. Sustainability is integrated into the design and the project will meet Enterprise Green Community Standards. These standards focus on making sustainable design choices and positive impacts on the health of the residents. Some of the sustainability features include: · Solar ready - Roof top photovoltaic array for onsite energy production. · Improved site storm water management through treatment and rate control, current site is uncontrolled. · Native plantings and cultivars of native plantings to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. · Limited extents of irrigated turf grass to reduce the need for irrigation and maintenance. · On site garden beds for residents. · New sidewalks and enhanced landscaping, improving and promoting the walking experience around the site and connections to the park. · Exterior bike parking near the housing entries. · LED light fixtures. · Energy Star appliances. · High efficiency water heaters. · Recycling collection and chute in the new addition. · Durable exterior materials on the addition. · Efficient doors and windows, with Low -E coating on the addition. · Construction waste recycling. · Smoke free building. The exterior design of the apartment building has been influenced by the existing building and incorporates the concepts of the original building into an updated and refined design look with a retro feel. The existing tower is formed by two tall masses connected by the center blue recessed space. The primary window banding also creates a strong horizontal rhythm on the main elevations. The new 5 story addition has strong corner masses and a recessed center of the building, responding to the existing massing but creating something unique. The corner masses have a vertically stacked window look, in order to give the corners a taller appearance. The windows and banding in the center of the building are positioned horizontally, responding to the existing window banding. The building materials feature a dark brown burnished block at the first level, entry and at the link. The burnished block was selected to complement brick on the existing building. Informed by the existing building buff color, champagne metallic metal panels are utilized on the building corner masses creating a contemporary interpretation. The center recessed area is a blue painted cement panel from levels 2-5. Stormwater Management - PPA Project #20-046 The City of Brooklyn Center and the Shingle Creek Watershed District stormwater management rules and requirements apply to any site that disturbs more than one acre during development or redevelopment. Projects are required to meet the following standards: a. Rate Control – proposed runoff shall not exceed pre-development runoff rates for the 2-year, 10- year and 100-year, 24-hour design storm events. b. Water Quality – 80% total suspended solids and 60% total phosphorus shall be removed. c. Water Quality Volume – 1.0” over the new impervious area shall be abstracted from the impervious surfaces on the site Because the site is located within a floodplain, infiltration is not viable for this site because the 3’ separation from the bottom of a treatment system to the high-water level is not feasible. The site stormwater system needs to be a filtration system rather than an infiltration system. The site area is 4.38 acres. The new and redeveloped areas will be collected via catch basins and storm sewer and routed to the underground filtration system. This drainage area includes the new apartment building, reconstructed and new parking lot and sidewalks throughout the site. The approximate drainage area treated by the underground system is 3.35 acres. To meet city and watershed requirements the new filtration system consists of 2,540 lineal feet 48” diameter HDPE pipe beneath the reconstructed parking lot to control the runoff rates. The pipe system connects to a 5’x10.5’ Bioclean Water Polisher Filtration vault to meet water quality and volume control. Since the site stormwater cannot infiltrate, approximately 8,000 cubic feet of stormwater needs to filter through the filtration vault to meet volume requirements. The system will discharge to a 21” RCP pipe that connects to the existing 72” RCP city storm sewer in Shingle Creek Parkway. Specific Design Items that Meet the Intent of the City’s Goals a) Creating a walkable community – This project is walkable to Centennial Park and the County Library b) The project supports the City's goal for additional affordable housing. c) Incorporate increased diversity of units within new redevelopment areas from micro-apartments to three- and four-bedroom units. – This project will add family focused units to diversify the mix at the Crest, creating more housing options. d) Stabilizing the existing owner/ renter occupied units – The renovation of this project will improve the longevity of the existing 122 units. e) Residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with more than two (2) children. This new project unit mix directly address the resident comments. f) Sustainability and Green Energy - The project will be designed to meet Enterprise Green Community standards. Additionally, the roof will be designed to be solar ready. g) The City will explore polices and ordinances, including incentives and standards, that encourage the construction of new affordable housing Affordability and Financing The Crest currently has an existing HUD Risk Share mortgage on it, with additional funds from Hennepin County and Minnesota Housing. The total existing funding equates to about $2,440,000 – some of which will remain with the project in a new limited partnership and some of which will be replaced with new financing. HDPE Pipe Gallery (picture from ADS website) Bioclean Water Polisher Filtration Vault (picture from Bioclean website) Property Lender Program Principal Maturity Crest, The Hennepin Co NSP $995,645 10/01/44 Assumed Crest, The MN Housing FFCC $575,000 09/01/44 Repaid Crest, The MN Housing First Mortgage, HRS $872,245 02/01/45 Repaid Total $2,442,890 In partnership with the City of Brooklyn Center, the project aims to request approximately $18,200,000 in tax exempt bonds in Summer 2021. The project will secure a first mortgage and retain the NSP funds from Hennepin County. The general partner is expected to make a contribution to round out the capital stack for the project. The anticipated total development cost for this project is roughly $35,500,000. ** Sources and Uses are subject to change during underwriting. Construction Financing: Construction Sources Tax Exempt Bond Loan $18,245,275 Taxable Loan $6,943,806 $25,189,081 As Underwritten**: Uses Sources Acquisition/Existing Debt $10,297,000 First Mortgage $7,960,000 Construction $17,434,161 Low Income Housing Tax Credit $15,649,675 Professional Fee $1,861,070 Hennepin County (assumed) $995,645 Developer Fee/Consultants $3,000,000 Interim Income $300,000 Financing Costs $1,909,304 Return of Forward Commitment $121,680 Reserves $1,081,639 General Partner Contribution $1,377,064 Seller Loan $7,779,110 TIF Request $1,400,000 Total $35,583,174 Total $35,583,174 Aeon is committed to providing quality affordable homes for individuals and families with the greatest barriers to housing. The proposed Crest will provide affordable homes to 171 households. The Crest Apartments is proposed to be a mix of affordability from 30% area median income (AMI) to 60% AMI. The mix of affordability is spread throughout all unit types. This mix allows households of a variety of sizes and incomes an opportunity to call The Crest Apartments home. As Underwritten: Rent Range 30% AMI 11 Section 811 Project Based Rental Assistance for households with disabilities 40% AMI 36 1bd: $668; 2bd: $832 50% AMI 98 0bd: $735 $1bd: $830; 2bd: $1048-1056; 3bd: $1250 60% AMI 26 1bd: $1103; 2bd: $1322; 3bd: $1523 TIF REQUEST $1,400,000 Average Affordability 48.12% By providing an average affordability of 48.12%, the project ends up with a financial gap of $1,400,000. The Crest Apartments would not be feasible without the assistance of TIF due to the impact that deep affordability has on the income generated for the project. The Crest Apartments will be seeking TIF assistance from the City of Brooklyn Center as part of this request. Schedule To date, the development team has had preliminary meetings with City staff and a Concept Review with the City Council. This submission is for site and building plan review and PUD, for the project to complete the entitlement process. If this project is selected to receive funding in July from the Minnesota Management and Budget office, we anticipate construction to begin in October of 2021. Construction would last approximately 13 months, with the project completed in October of 2022. Contact Info Leslie Roering Aeon Senior Real Estate Developer Mobile: 612-708-0915 Chris Palkowitsch BKV Group Architect, Partner Mobile: 612-598-8808 [End of Memo] The Crest Apartments Plan and Building Plan Review 5.11.21 2 Site 3 Site context 6200 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SUITE LIBRARY & SERVICE CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTERSHINGLE CREEK & CREST APARTMENTS EMBASSY SUITES BY HILTON FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES BY MARRIOTTBROOKDALE CORPORATE CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTER CENTENNIAL PARK 4 Existing 5 Project Information 4.37 acres (190,483 SF) Site 13-Story Crest Apartments Renovation 122 Existing Affordable Housing Units Unit mix -44 one-bedroom units and 78 two-bedroom units + One new studio unit. Constructed in 1972 The existing building will be renovated, primarily focusing on maintaining the current use of the building for years to come. Addition –New Lobby, Link Amenities & Units: New main entry to both buildings & shared amenities 48 housing units in a five-story building Unit Mix –4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom units. Zoning The site is zoned R7 Multiple Family Residence, with allowance of 31 dwelling units per acre. The site will have 171 Total Units at 39.1 units per acre, the existing building is at 27.9 units per acre. Parking A parking study was completed recommending .84 stalls per unit. Project proposes 195 stall at 1.14 stalls per unit, + 14 proof of parking stalls. 6 Site Plan PARKING TOTALS SURFACE 164 STRUCTURED 31 TOTAL 195 PROOF OF PARKING +14 ALTERNATE TOTAL 209 Existing Addition (For reference see plans for updates) 7 Site Vision and Sustainability Sustainability Features 1.Project will meet Enterprise Green Communities requirements. 2.Solar ready -Roof top photovoltaic array for onsite energy production. 3.Improved site storm water management through treatment and rate control, current site is uncontrolled. 4.We will plant native and cultivars of native plantings to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. 5.We will limit the extents of irrigated turf grass to reduce the need for irrigation and maintenance. 6.On site garden beds for residents. 7.New sidewalks and enhanced landscaping, improving and promoting the walking experience around the site and connections to the park.. 8.Exterior bike parking near the housing entries. 9.LED light fixtures. 10.Energy Star appliances. 11.High efficiency water heaters. 12.Recycling collection and chute in the new addition. 13.Durable exterior materials on the addition. 14.Efficient doors and windows, with Low-E coating on the addition. 15.Construction waste recycling. 16.Smoke free building. 8 Renderings –Existing & Addition 9 MP-1 Una Clad Firestone –UC-600 (Corrugated Metal Panel -Vertical) Finish:Champagne Metallic MP-2 Una Clad Firestone –Delta CFP-12 (Horizontal Panel -Flat) Finish:Champagne Metallic MP-3 Una Clad Firestone –Flat Finish:Dark Grey Materials FCP-1 Fiber Cement Panel James Hardie Vertical Siding Panels Field Paint –Softer Tan FCP-2 Fiber Cement Panel James Hardie Vertical Siding Panels Field Paint –Blue Decorative CMU-1 Amcon Concrete Products -Burnished Size: Half High, 3 5/8" x 3 5/8" x 16" Finish:Color Series, 310 Walnut Pella Impervia -Fiberglass Function Style –Awning Finish: Brown 0'6" 1'2'3' N SHADOW STUDY 2283-04 AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 A3.0 1 9 AM SS A3.0 2 11AM SS A3.0 3 1 PM SS A3.0 4 3 PM SS SU M M E R S O L S T I C E WI N T E R S O L S T I C E A3.0 5 11 AM WS A3.0 6 9 AM WS A3.0 7 1 PM WS A3.0 8 3 PM WS CHICAGO 209 South LaSalle Street The Rookery, Suite 920 Chicago, IL 60604 P 312.279.0470 DALLAS 1412 Main Street Adolphus Tower, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75202 P 469.405.1196 HANOI, VIETNAM No 1 Dao Duy Anh Street Ocean Park Building, Suite 15, Room 1508 Phuong Mai Ward, Dong Da District Hanoi, Vietnam P 469.405.1240 MINNEAPOLIS 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Building, Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 P 612.339.3752 WASHINGTON, DC 1054 31st Street NW Canal Square, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20007 P 202.595.3173 WWW.BKVGROUP.COM ENRICHING LIVESANDSTRENGTHENINGCOMMUNITIES G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2021 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _A I _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :3 5 :4 6 P M Author Checker 2283-04 G100 COVER SHEET AEON - CREST APARTMENTS AEON -CREST APARTMENTS 6221 Shingle Creek Crossing, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 AEON PROJECT LOCATION RENDERING PROJECT TEAMPROJECT SUMMARY (UNIT MATRIX) Architect: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Chris Palkowitsch OWNER / APPLICANT: Aeon,TBD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 901 North 3rd Street, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612 -746 -4853 Contact: Leslie Roering Civil: Pierce Pini + Associates 9298 Central Avenue NE, Suite 312, Blaine, MN 55434 Phone: 763.537.1311 Contact: Rhonda S. Pierce Landscape: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Brady K. Halverson Structural Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Structural Engineer's Name Mechanical Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Alex Sawka Electrical Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Chad Kurdi SITE SHEET LIST - SITE PLAN REV NUMBER SHEET NAME 20 2 1 / 0 2 / 1 7 S D S E T 20 2 1 / 0 5 / 1 1 S I T E R E V I E W GENERAL G100 COVER SHEET X X G120 CODE SUMMARY & OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION PLANS X X CIVIL 000 SURVEY X X C100 GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND X C200 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN X X C300 SWPPP NARRATIVE X X C301 SWPPP SITE LAYOUT X X C302 SWPPP DETAILS X C400 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN X X C500 UTILITY PLAN X X C550 STORMWATER DETAILS X C600 SITE LAYOUT PAVING PLAN X X C700 CIVIL DETAILS X LANDSCAPE L100. OVERALL SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN X L101. SITE PLANTING PLAN X ARCHITECTURE A1.01 1ST 2ND FLOOR PLAN X A1.02 3-6 & 7-12TH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN X A1.03 ROOF X A2.01 NORTH & EAST ELEVATION X A2.02 SOUTH & WEST ELEVATION X ARCHITECTURE A010 SITE PLAN X X A101 LEVEL 1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A102 LEVEL 2 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A103 LEVEL 3 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A104 LEVEL 4 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A105 LEVEL 5 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A140 ROOF PLAN X X A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X X A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X X A501 BUILDING SECTIONS X X ELECTRICAL E015 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS X SITE PLAN REVIEW ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW -EXISTING UP DN B 3678.19 SF OCCUPANCY CLASSIFCATION A-3 B S-2 S-2 12375.12 SF A-3 1095.23 SF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO EXISTING BUILDING R-2 14955.84 SF OCCUPANCY CLASSIFCATION R-2 R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF LIFE SAFETY AREA TAG: INDICATES AREA NAME INDICATES AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE INDICATES AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE PER OCCUPANT INDICATES OCCUPANT LOAD CODE PLAN NOTES: 1. CODE PLANS ARE INTENDED TO BE PRINTED IN COLOR FOR CLARITY. 2. HIGHEST REQUIRED HOURLY RATING FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WALL WILL BE SHOWN WHERE MULTIPLE REQUIRED RATINGS OCCUR. 3. EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE PER IBC 1016.1 IS 250 FEET AT R -2, 400 FEET AT S -2. 4. MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE TO FIRE EXTINGUSHER PER IFC 906.3 IS 75 FEET. 5. SEE SHEET G120 FOR COMPLETE CODE SUMMARY 6. PROVIDE 2 -WAY COMMUNICATION AT ELEVATOR LANDINGS PER IBC 1007.8. 7. ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE MN STATE ACCESSIBILITY TYPE B PER CODE, CHAPTER 1341 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION TO RATING INDICATED ON CODE PLANS FOR STEEL COLUMNS, BEAMS & BEARING ANGLES SUPPORTING BUILDING ELEMENTS PER IBC 704 (SEE STRUCTURAL) 9. ASSEMBLY OCCUPANT LOADS SHALL BE POSTED BY SIGNAGE AT TIME OF FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION 10. PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS ON ALL WALLS REQUIRED TO HAVE PROTECTED OPENINGS OR PENETRATIONS PER MBC 703.7. SF/OCC OCC Name 150 SF 20 20 CODE LEGEND 30 MIN FIRE PARTITION 1 HR FIRE PARTITION 1 HR FIRE BARRIER 3 HR FIRE WALL 2 HR FIRE BARRIER 2 HR FIRE WALL ## OCCUPANT LOAD 30 MIN CORRIDOR, 20 MIN DOORS, 45 MIN WINDOWS FIRE EXTINGUISHER: SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR FIRE EXTINGUISHER TYPES AND LOCATIONS FE FEC EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCE ## NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING STANDPIPE SP SEPARATED OCCUPANCY SMOKE PARTITION 1 HR SMOKE BARRIER G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _A I _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 1 :2 0 :5 2 P M Author Checker 2283-04 G120 CODE SUMMARY & OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION PLANS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS G120 1" = 30'-0" 3 LEVEL 1 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 4 LEVEL 2 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 5 LEVEL 3 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 6 LEVEL 4 -OCCUPANCY PLAN *GSF AREA BY BUILDING BY... Occupancy Classification Area B 3678.19 SF A-3 1095.23 SF S-2 12375.12 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET G120 1" = 30'-0" 2 LEVEL 5 1 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" 2345678 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 " P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT P2 BLUE PAINT FB FACE BRICK FB FACE BRICK FB FACE BRICK 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" A 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" B C D 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 2' - 0 " A3.05 6 A3.05 8 A3.05 7 FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT P2 BLUE PAINT TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _E X I S T _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 1 :0 3 :0 8 P M Author Checker 2283-04 A2.01 NORTH & EAST ELEVATION Aeon - Crest I ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION A2.01 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION A2.01 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" A 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" BCD 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 " FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT 1 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " A3.05 3 A3.05 1 A3.05 4 A3.05 2 A3.05 5 FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT P2 BLUE PAINT TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _E X I S T _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 1 :0 3 :2 2 P M Author Checker 2283-04 A2.02 SOUTH & WEST ELEVATION Aeon - Crest I ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION A2.02 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 WEST ELEVATION A2.02 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW UP G ro u p # 2 8 9 G ro u p # 2 9 1 G ro u p # 2 9 5 G ro u p # 2 9 6 G ro u p # 2 9 7 G ro u p # 2 9 8 G ro u p # 2 9 9 G ro u p # 3 0 0 G ro u p # 3 0 1 G ro u p # 3 0 2 G ro u p # 3 0 3 G ro u p # 3 0 4 G ro u p # 3 0 5 G ro u p # 3 0 6 G ro u p # 3 0 7 G ro u p # 3 0 8 G ro u p # 3 0 9 G ro u p # 3 1 1 G ro u p # 3 1 2 G ro u p # 3 1 3 G ro u p # 3 1 4 G ro u p # 3 1 7 G ro u p # 3 1 8 G ro u p # 3 2 0 G ro u p # 3 2 1 G ro u p # 3 2 2 G ro u p # 3 2 3 G ro u p # 3 2 4 G ro u p # 3 2 5 G ro u p # 3 2 6 G ro u p # 3 2 7 G ro u p # 3 2 8 G ro u p # 3 2 9 G ro u p # 3 3 0 G ro u p # 3 3 1 G ro u p # 3 1 9 G ro u p # 3 1 6 G ro u p # 2 9 3 G ro u p # 3 1 5 G ro u p # 2 9 0 G ro u p # 2 9 2 G ro u p # 2 9 4 G ro u p # 3 1 0 G ro u p # 2 8 6 G ro u p # 2 8 7 G ro u p # 2 8 8 G ro u p # 2 8 9 G ro u p # 2 9 1 G ro u p # 2 9 5 G ro u p # 2 9 6 G ro u p # 2 9 7 G ro u p # 2 9 8 G ro u p # 2 9 9 G ro u p # 3 0 0 G ro u p # 3 0 1 G ro u p # 3 0 2 G ro u p # 3 0 3 G ro u p # 3 0 4 G ro u p # 3 0 5 G ro u p # 3 0 6 G ro u p # 3 0 7 G ro u p # 3 0 8 G ro u p # 3 0 9 G ro u p # 3 1 1 G ro u p # 3 1 2 G ro u p # 3 1 3 G ro u p # 3 1 4 G ro u p # 3 1 7 G ro u p # 3 1 8 G ro u p # 3 2 0 G ro u p # 3 2 1 G ro u p # 3 2 2 G ro u p # 3 2 3 G ro u p # 3 2 4 G ro u p # 3 2 5 G ro u p # 3 2 6 G ro u p # 3 2 7 G ro u p # 3 2 8 G ro u p # 3 2 9 G ro u p # 3 3 0 G ro u p # 3 3 1 G ro u p # 3 1 9 G ro u p # 3 1 6 G ro u p # 2 9 3 G ro u p # 3 1 5 G ro u p # 2 9 0 G ro u p # 2 9 2 G ro u p # 2 9 4 G ro u p # 3 1 0 G ro u p # 2 8 6 G ro u p # 2 8 7 G ro u p # 2 8 8 EXISTING MAIN ENTRY 164 TOTAL PARKING SPACES + 14 PROOF OF PARKING = 178 NEW MAIN ENTRY LOADING AREA TRASH PICK UP 17 17 14 17 15 14 12 13 8 17 31 PARKING SPACES CREST APARTMENT I (EXISTING) S H I N G L E S C R E E K P A R K W A Y CREST I -AREA SCOPE CREST II -AREA SCOPE CREST I -AREA SCOPE CREST II -AREA SCOPE GENERATOR PLEASE SEE LANDSCAPE FOR OUTDOOR AMENITY FEATURES SIGNAGE SIGNAGE 20 7 7 3 5 ' - 1 " 24' - 0" 20' - 4 1/2" LOBBY 100B TRASH 113 ELEC 112 WATER ROOM 114 TRANSFROMER SCREENING SET BACKS BUILDING SET BACKS BUILDING SET BACK 40' - 0" 2 0 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 0 " PARKING SET BACK 15' - 0" BUILDING SET BACK 50' - 0" PROOF OF PARKING 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 2 4 ' - 0 " G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _A I _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 1 :1 9 :3 2 P M Author Checker 2283-04 A010 SITE PLAN AEON - CREST APARTMENTS SITE PLAN KEYNOTES ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. SITE ELEVATION 100' -0" CORRESPONDS TO CIVIL ELEVATION 849' 2. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR SITE DEMOLITION & EROSION CONTROL, SITE GRADING, UTILITIES, EASEMENTS & SETBACKS, SITE PAVING, & PARKING DETAILS 3. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTINGS & STREETSCAPE 4. SEE CODE PLANS FOR BUILDING EXITING 5. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SITE LIGHTING & POWER 5. SEE MECHANICAL FOR DRAIN & HOSE BIB LOCATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FCP1 FIBER CEMENT SOFT TAN FCP2 FIBER CEMENT BLUE MP-1 CORRUGATED CHAMPAGNE METALIC MP-3 DARK BRONZE MP-2 FLAT CHAMPAGNE METALIC ? ? LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" W2 W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2 W2 W2 W4 W4 W4 W4 MP -1 FCP1 VTAC LOUNVER DECORATIVE LIGHTING CMU -1 FCP -2 MP -3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING MP -2FCP1 CMU -1 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 21 ' - 4 " 2' - 0 " CREST I 7' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2 W3 W3 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W2 W3 W4 W4 W4 W4 W4 LINK TO CREST I 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " PREFINISHED METAL COPING, DARK BRONZE FINISH FCP1 FCP -2 MP -2 MP -1 VTAC LOUNVER, PAINT TO MATCH VTAC LOUNVER MP -1 FCP1 FCP1 DECORATIVE LIGHTING EXIT LIGHTING W4 W4 W4 W3 7' - 8 " G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _A I _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 1 :2 0 :2 7 P M Author Checker 2283-04 A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1 2 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET A401 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION A401 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW THE CRESTTHE CREST CMU-1 BURNISHED BLOCK EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FCP1 FIBER CEMENT SOFT TAN FCP2 FIBER CEMENT BLUE MP-1 CORRUGATED CHAMPAGNE METALIC MP-3 DARK BRONZE MP-2 FLAT CHAMPAGNE METALIC ? ? LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 0 " W4 W4 W4 W4 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 MP -1 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 57 ' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 12 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 3' - 0 " W4 W4 W4 W4 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W2 W3 W3 W2 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W2 W3 W3 W2 W2 W3 2' - 0 " FCP1 FCP -2 MP -1 MP -2 W2 W3 W2 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 CMU -1 W5 7' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" FCP -2 MP -2 CMU -1 MP -1 G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _A I _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 1 :2 0 :4 4 P M Author Checker 2283-04 A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1 12 1 A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 2 B A C D ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW CMU-1 BURNISHED BLOCK LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" PLANTERS, SEE LANDSCAPE ENL C 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " UNIT - B1 208 UNIT - B1 207 UNIT - B1 307 UNIT - B1 308 UNIT - B1 407 UNIT - B1 408 UNIT - B1 507 UNIT - B1 508 CORRDIOR 200 CORRIDOR 300 CORRIDOR 400 CORRIDOR 500 DF LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 1 - G2 102' - 0" LEVEL 1 - G2 102' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 1 4 9 14 6 UNIT - B2 204 UNIT - A1 206 UNIT - B1 208 UNIT - B3 210 UNIT - C1 212 FITNESS 105 UNIT - C1 312 UNIT - B3 310 UNIT - B1 308 UNIT - A1 306 UNIT - B5 (TYPE A) 304 UNIT - C1 412 UNIT - B3 410 UNIT - B1 408 UNIT - A1 406 UNIT - B2 404 UNIT - C1 512 UNIT - B3 510 UNIT - A1 506 UNIT - B2 504 UNIT - B1 508 G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _A I _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 1 :2 0 :4 6 P M Author Checker 2283-04 A501 BUILDING SECTIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS A501 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BUILDING SECTION 1 A501 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 BUILDING SECTION 2 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW T R A C T A SH I N G L E C R E E K P A R K W A Y FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE AE FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE X(OTHER FLOOD AREAS) Project Location Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issued: Client AEON THE CREST APARTMENTS 6221 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA LCC CEJ 12/22/2020 22447 To The Crest Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company and Commercial Partners Title, a division of Chicago Title Insurance Company This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(a), 7(a), 8, 9, 10a, 11, 18 and 19 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 12/22/2020. Dated this 21st day of December, 2020. Sambatek, Inc. Craig E. Johnson, LS Minnesota License No. 44530 1. The bearing system is based on Registered Land Survey No. 1359. 2. Subject property's address is 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, its property identification number is 35-119-21-34-0004. 3.This survey was prepared utilizing the Commercial Partners Title, a division of Chicago Title Insurance Company Title Commitment No. 57529, bearing an effective date of October 12, 2020. 3.The vertical datum is based on NAVD88. BENCHMARK #1 TNH @ northwest corner of survey. Elev.= 847.33 BENCHMARK #2 Rim of water manhole @ northeast corner of survey. Elev.= 843.00 4.Field work was completed on 12/17/20. FOUND MONUMENT SET MONUMENT MARKED LS 47481 ELECTRIC METER LIGHT POLE SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FLARED END SECTION ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER AIR CONDITIONER GUY ANCHOR HANDICAP STALL UTILITY POLE BOLLARD SIGN TELEPHONE PEDESTAL GAS METER OVERHEAD WIRE WOOD FENCE EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE RESTRICTED ACCESS BUILDING LINE BUILDING CANOPY CONCRETE CURB BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE LANDSCAPE SURFACE DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE 0 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 30 60 VICINITY MAP LEGENDSURVEY NOTES Description from title commitment: Parcel 1: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1359, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Parcel 2: Common driveway and pedestrian use easement contained in Quit Claim Deed dated March 19, 1981, filed June 19, 1981, as Document No. 1429165. Parcel 3 Common driveway and pedestrian use easement contained in Agreement Between Adjoining Owners Creating Common Easement for Driveway Purposes and Pedestrian Use dated November 30, 1973, filed February 11,1974, as Document No. 1098796. The following notes correspond to the reference numbers listed in Schedule B, Section 2 of the title commitment. 20.Private reservation of mineral and mineral rights, as set forth in prior deeds by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. (Shown as a recital on the Certificate of Title). Affects property and is blanket in nature. 21.Easement for storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, contained in Easement Grant dated June 7, 1971, filed June 23, 1973, as Document No. 1000599. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 22.Easement for water main purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, as contained in Easement Grant dated April 3, 1973, filed May 28, 1973, as Document No. 1071235. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 23.Terms and conditions of and easement for ingress and egress driveway and pedestrian purposes contained in Agreement Between Adjoining Owners Creating Common Easement for Driveway Purposes And Pedestrian Use dated November 30, 1973, filed February 11, 1974, as Document No. 1098796. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 24.Terms and conditions of and easement for sidewalk and related purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, contained in Easement Grant and Maintenance Agreement dated May 1, 1986, filed May 15, 1986, as Document No. 1723923. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 25.Easement for electrical and related purposes in favor of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, contained in Underground Easement dated September 28, 1971, filed October 1, 1971, as Document No. 1011148. Affects property and is blanket in nature. 26.Terms conditions, covenants and restrictions contained in Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated September 7, 2012, filed September 11, 2012, as Document No. T4991564, by Aeon and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 27.Terms and conditions of and easement for ingress and egress and driveway purposes contained in Quit Claim Deed dated March 19, 1981, filed June 19, 1981, as Document No. 1429165. Affects property and is depicted hereon. SUBJECT PROPERTY 1.The surveyor has depicted the property corner monuments, or the witness to the corner that were found during the field work, and set property corner monuments, or witnesses to the corner, at the locations where there did not appear to be any evidence of an existing monument. 2.The property address is shown on the graphical portion of the survey. 3. The subject property lies within Flood Plain Zones X, X(other flood areas) and AE, per FEMA, FIRM Map No. 27053C0208F dated 11/04/16. Per Letter of Map Amendment Determination Document (Removal), dated October 15, 2002, the structure on the subject property has been removed from the Special Flood Hazard Area. 4. The gross area of the subject property is 4.376 Acres or 190,629 Square Feet. 5.The vertical relief is shown on the graphical portion of the survey. 6a. Per Zoning Letter dated May 31, 2013, prepared by the City of Brooklyn Center, the subject property is currently zoned R-7 (Multiple Family Residence), and is subject to the following setbacks: Building:Parking: Front yard: 50 feet From street right of way:15 feet Rear yard: 40 feet Side yard: 20 feet 7a. The building and exterior dimensions of the outside wall at ground level are shown on the survey. It may not be the foundation wall. 8.Visible substantial features observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork are shown hereon. 9. The parking areas and striping on the subject property are shown. There are 6 handicapped parking stalls, and there are 127 regular parking stalls for a total of 133 parking stalls. 10a.There were no division or party walls designated by the client to be shown on the survey. 11.The names of adjoining land owners according to the current county tax records are shown on the survey. 18.Wetlands were delineated by MFRA, Inc., on July 10, 2012, and are shown hereon. 19.Plottable off site easements and servitudes disclosed in the provided title documents and/or observed during the field work that appear to benefit and/or affect the subject property are shown hereon. "TABLE A" NOTES CERTIFICATION Dec 22, 2020 - 10:19am - User:LCAPISTRANT L:\PROJECTS\22447\CAD\Survey\Sheets\22447-ALTA.dwg 1/1 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY SUMMIT DR N SH I N G L E C R E E K PA R K W A Y 94 N.T.S. BUILDING DETAIL GROUND LIGHT FIRE HOOKUP WATERVALVE MH ELECTRIC OUTLET TRAFFIC LIGHT SITE N.T.S. SUMMIT DR N SH I N G L E C R E E K PA R K W A Y 94 UP G ro u p # 2 8 9 G ro u p # 2 9 1 G ro u p # 2 9 5 G ro u p # 2 9 6 G ro u p # 2 9 7 G ro u p # 2 9 8 G ro u p # 2 9 9 G ro u p # 3 0 0 G ro u p # 3 0 1 G ro u p # 3 0 2 G ro u p # 3 0 3 G ro u p # 3 0 4 G ro u p # 3 0 5 G ro u p # 3 0 6 G ro u p # 3 0 7 G ro u p # 3 0 8 G ro u p # 3 0 9 G ro u p # 3 1 1 G ro u p # 3 1 2 G ro u p # 3 1 3 G ro u p # 3 1 4 G ro u p # 3 1 7 G ro u p # 3 1 8 G ro u p # 3 2 0 G ro u p # 3 2 1 G ro u p # 3 2 2 G ro u p # 3 2 3 G ro u p # 3 2 4 G ro u p # 3 2 5 G ro u p # 3 2 6 G ro u p # 3 2 7 G ro u p # 3 2 8 G ro u p # 3 2 9 G ro u p # 3 3 0 G ro u p # 3 3 1 G ro u p # 3 1 9 G ro u p # 3 1 6 G ro u p # 2 9 3 G ro u p # 3 1 5 G ro u p # 2 9 0 G ro u p # 2 9 2 G ro u p # 2 9 4 G ro u p # 3 1 0 G ro u p # 2 8 6 G ro u p # 2 8 7 G ro u p # 2 8 8 G ro u p # 2 8 9 G ro u p # 2 9 1 G ro u p # 2 9 5 G ro u p # 2 9 6 G ro u p # 2 9 7 G ro u p # 2 9 8 G ro u p # 2 9 9 G ro u p # 3 0 0 G ro u p # 3 0 1 G ro u p # 3 0 2 G ro u p # 3 0 3 G ro u p # 3 0 4 G ro u p # 3 0 5 G ro u p # 3 0 6 G ro u p # 3 0 7 G ro u p # 3 0 8 G ro u p # 3 0 9 G ro u p # 3 1 1 G ro u p # 3 1 2 G ro u p # 3 1 3 G ro u p # 3 1 4 G ro u p # 3 1 7 G ro u p # 3 1 8 G ro u p # 3 2 0 G ro u p # 3 2 1 G ro u p # 3 2 2 G ro u p # 3 2 3 G ro u p # 3 2 4 G ro u p # 3 2 5 G ro u p # 3 2 6 G ro u p # 3 2 7 G ro u p # 3 2 8 G ro u p # 3 2 9 G ro u p # 3 3 0 G ro u p # 3 3 1 G ro u p # 3 1 9 G ro u p # 3 1 6 G ro u p # 2 9 3 G ro u p # 3 1 5 G ro u p # 2 9 0 G ro u p # 2 9 2 G ro u p # 2 9 4 G ro u p # 3 1 0 G ro u p # 2 8 6 G ro u p # 2 8 7 G ro u p # 2 8 8 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L1 L1 L3 L1 L11 L13 L12 L11 L13 L14 L21 L4 L6 L15 L22 L2 L1 L3 L19 L9 L10 L5 L5 L2 L5 L5 L5 L7 L8 L8 L8 L23 L23 L7 L8 L14 L16 L20 L17 L18 L18 L18 L18 L16 L18 L18 L18 L18 L1 L1 KEY NOTES: GRAPHIC LEGEND: SURFACE TREATMENT 1; PLAIN BROOM FINISH CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE TURFGRASS: SOD, IRRIGATED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 4; DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACE TREATMENT 2; INTEGRALLY COLORED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE HARDWOOD MULCH, SHREDDED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 6; ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX; "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _L A N D _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :2 9 :1 2 P M Author Checker 2283-04 L100 OVERALL SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN Aeon - Crest II ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05-11-2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1" = 20'-0" L100 1 OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN L0 BUILDING ENTRY L1 SURFACE TREATMENT 1: CAST IN PLACE PLAIN BROOM FINISH CONCRETE PAVING L2 SURFACE TREATMENT 2: CAST IN PLACE INEGRALLY COLORED CONCRETE PAVING; COLOR TBD L3 SURFACE TREATMENT 3: BITUMINOUS PAVING; SEE CIVIL L4 SURFACE TREATMENT 4: DECOMPOSED GRANITE L5 SURFACE TREATMENT 5: EXISTING WALK OR PATIO TO REMAIN L6 SURFACE TREATMENT 6: ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA; BY PLAY EQUIPMENT PROVIDER L7 NATURAL TURF LAWN, IRRIGATED SOD ON 3" MIN. DEPTH OF TOPSOIL L8 NATIVE SEED MIX 1, BASIS OF DESIGN "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES; PLANT AT MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED RATE WITH 2" PLUGS AT A RATE OF 1 PER SF; SEE CIVIL FOR SOIL PROFILE L9 RETAINING WALL; BASIS OF DESIGN "STANDARD" BY VERSALOK, SIZE 6"H X 16"W X 12" DEEP, FULL RANGE OF ENDS AND CAPS INCLUDED; COLOR TBD.; SEE CIVIL FOR TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATIONS; SEE 5/L300 L10 DECORATIVE WOOD SCREEN FENCE; 8' TALL WITH STEEL POSTS, FASTENERS AND CAPS L11 BENCH; "HARPO" BY LANDSCAPE FORMS, 69" LENGTH; MATERIAL: POWDER COATED ALUMINUM FRAME, THERMALLY MODIFIED ASH SEAT AND BACK SLATS L12 BIKE RACK; "ICON HITCH" BY DERO L13 TRASH AND RECYCLING RECEPTACLE; "SELECT" DOUBLE BY LANDSCAPE FORMS; "STORM CLOUD" POWDER COAT FINISH L14 DOGIPOT DOG WASTE BAG DISPENSER L15 PLAY EQUIPMENT; FINAL DEISIGN BY PLAY EQUIPMENT VENDOR L16 CUSTOM WOOD AND STEEL PERGOLA; 16' SQUARE X 10' TALL L17 MOVEABLE FURNISHINGS; BY OWNER L18 MASS PLANTING BED; 12" MIN. PLANTING SOIL, 3" MIN. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH; STEEL EDGER WHEREVER MASS PLANTING BEDS MEET SOD OR SEEDED AREAS L19 IRRIGATION WATER SOURCE; COORDINATE WITH MECH. L20 SQAURE FIRE PIT; "CABO" BY WOODLAND DIRECT, SIZE 48" SQUARE, NATURAL GAS, ELECTRONIC IGNITION, COLOR NATURAL GRAY, WITH TIMER SWITCH AND EMERGENCY SHUTOFF L21 RAISED GARDEN BEDS; 3'X 5' X 18"H GALVANIZED STEEL TROUGH WITH 4 WEEP HOLES DRILLED IN BOTTOM OF EACH L22 6" WIDE X 18" TALL CONCRETE RIBBON CURB L23 MONUMENT SIGN UP G r o u p # 2 8 9 G r o u p # 2 9 1 G r o u p # 2 9 5 G r o u p # 2 9 6 G r o u p # 2 9 7 G r o u p # 2 9 8 G r o u p # 2 9 9 G r o u p # 3 0 0 G r o u p # 3 0 1 G r o u p # 3 0 2 G r o u p # 3 0 3 G r o u p # 3 0 4 G r o u p # 3 0 5 G r o u p # 3 0 6 G r o u p # 3 0 7 G r o u p # 3 0 8 G r o u p # 3 0 9 G r o u p # 3 1 1 G r o u p # 3 1 2 G r o u p # 3 1 3 G r o u p # 3 1 4 G r o u p # 3 1 7 G r o u p # 3 1 8 G r o u p # 3 2 0 G r o u p # 3 2 1 G r o u p # 3 2 2 G r o u p # 3 2 3 G r o u p # 3 2 4 G r o u p # 3 2 5 G r o u p # 3 2 6 G r o u p # 3 2 7 G r o u p # 3 2 8 G r o u p # 3 2 9 G r o u p # 3 3 0 G r o u p # 3 3 1 G r o u p # 3 1 9 G r o u p # 3 1 6 G r o u p # 2 9 3 G r o u p # 3 1 5 G r o u p # 2 9 0 G r o u p # 2 9 2 G r o u p # 2 9 4 G r o u p # 3 1 0 G r o u p # 2 8 6 G r o u p # 2 8 7 G r o u p # 2 8 8 G r o u p # 2 8 9 G r o u p # 2 9 1 G r o u p # 2 9 5 G r o u p # 2 9 6 G r o u p # 2 9 7 G r o u p # 2 9 8 G r o u p # 2 9 9 G r o u p # 3 0 0 G r o u p # 3 0 1 G r o u p # 3 0 2 G r o u p # 3 0 3 G r o u p # 3 0 4 G r o u p # 3 0 5 G r o u p # 3 0 6 G r o u p # 3 0 7 G r o u p # 3 0 8 G r o u p # 3 0 9 G r o u p # 3 1 1 G r o u p # 3 1 2 G r o u p # 3 1 3 G r o u p # 3 1 4 G r o u p # 3 1 7 G r o u p # 3 1 8 G r o u p # 3 2 0 G r o u p # 3 2 1 G r o u p # 3 2 2 G r o u p # 3 2 3 G r o u p # 3 2 4 G r o u p # 3 2 5 G r o u p # 3 2 6 G r o u p # 3 2 7 G r o u p # 3 2 8 G r o u p # 3 2 9 G r o u p # 3 3 0 G r o u p # 3 3 1 G r o u p # 3 1 9 G r o u p # 3 1 6 G r o u p # 2 9 3 G r o u p # 3 1 5 G r o u p # 2 9 0 G r o u p # 2 9 2 G r o u p # 2 9 4 G r o u p # 3 1 0 G r o u p # 2 8 6 G r o u p # 2 8 7 G r o u p # 2 8 8 PROPOSED PLANT SCHEDULE: GRAPHIC LEGEND: SURFACE TREATMENT 1; PLAIN BROOM FINISH CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE TURFGRASS: SOD, IRRIGATED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 4; DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACE TREATMENT 2; INTEGRALLY COLORED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE HARDWOOD MULCH, SHREDDED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 6; ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX; "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES 50 Dl 7 QW 16 Dl 12 ha 1 AG 3 Dl 4 ha 3 Dl 3 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 3 Dl 2 ha 4 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 1 Dl 4 ha 2 Dl 6 nf 4 lb 6 nf 4 lb 1 PS 1 AS 8 Am 10 Am 9 nf 16 Sm 12 Jc 50 Dl 2 QB 1 QB 2 QB 2 QB 6 Ss 9 Dl 16 Am 1 QB 8 Jcs 7 Jcs 1 QB 1 AS 1 AS 1 PS 1 PT 1 CO 9 Cs 7 Cs 1 BN 1 BN 1 QB 6 ed 7 Ss 9 Am 1 PS 4 Dl 6 lb 8 Ss 31 nf 5 Am 5 Ss 1 PT 5 ed 5 ed 1 BN 13 ed 9 ed 7 ed 9 ed 15 ed 5 Ss 13 Jcs 1 Jcs 6 Dl 5 Dl 1 AS 1 AS 9 lb 7 Cs 1 QB 1 AS 1 QB 1 BN 1 BN 1 AS 1 AS 5 Dl 6 Dl 1 Jcs 6 Dl 0 Jcs 1 AS 2 CO 5 CO 4 QB 2 CO 7 AS 1 CO 1 CO 1 AS 1 AS 1 AS 1 CO 1 QB 1 QB 1 CO 1 QB 1 CO 1 CO 37 lb 14 nf 15 lb 6 lb 16 lb 1 QB 6 Ss 3 Jc TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _L A N D _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 4 :2 9 :2 0 P M Author Checker 2283-04 L101 SITE PLANTING PLAN Aeon - Crest II QTY SYM COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANTING SIZE COMMENTS PERENNIALS/GROUNDCOVERS/GRASSES 69 ed BABY JOE PYEWEED Eupatorium dubium 'Baby Joe' #1 CONT. 38 ha AUGUST MOON HOSTA Hosta 'August Moon' #1 CONT. 95 lb STANDING OVATION LITTLE BLUESTEM Schizachyrium scoparium 'Standing Ovation' #1 CONT. 66 nf WALKERS LOW CATMINT Nepeta faassenii 'Walkers Low' #1 CONT. DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES 1 AG AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchir x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' 3 PS PINK FLAIR CHERRY Prunus sargentii 'JFS-KW58' 1.5" CAL. 2 PT PRAIRIE GOLD ASPEN Populus tremuloides 'NEArb' 1.5" CAL. DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES 19 AS FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE Acer saccharum 'Bailsta' 2.5" CAL. 5 BN RIVER CLUMP BIRCH Betula nigra 8' CLUMP 16 CO COMMON HACKBERRY Celtis occidentalis 2.5" CAL. 20 QB SWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolor 2.5" CAL. 7 QW REGAL PRINCE OAK Quercus warei 'Long' DECIDOUS SHRUBS 48 Am IRIQUOIS BEAUTY BLACK CHOKEBERRY Aronia melanocarpa 'Morton' #5 CONT. 175 Dl DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE Diervilla lonicera #5 CONT. 16 Sm DWARF KOREAN LILAC Syringa meyeri 'Palibin' #5 CONT. CONIFEROUS EVERGREEN SHRUBS 15 Jc MANEY JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis 'Maney' #5 CONT. 31 Jcs SPARTAN JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis 'Spartan' 6' B&B 23 Cs CARDINAL DOGWOOD Cornus sericea 'Cardinal' #5 CONT. 37 Ss SEM FALSE SPIREA Sorbaria sorbifolia 'Sem'(PP16,336) #2 CONT. ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05-11-2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1" = 20'-0" L101 1 OVERALL SITE PLANTING PLAN PARKING LOT Illuminance (Fc) Average = 2.75 Maximum = 7.4 Minimum = 0.1 Avg/Min Ratio = 27.50 Max/Min Ratio = 74.00 PARKING LOT Illuminance (Fc) Average = 2.75 Maximum = 7.4 Minimum = 0.1 Avg/Min Ratio = 27.50 Max/Min Ratio = 74.00 Luminaire Schedule Tag Symbol Qty Description Lum. Watts LLF XB 11 LUMIERE EON 303-B1-LEDB1-3000-120-T2-X-BK-42-EDGE-LAB 24 0.900 XW1 10 HINKLEY LIGHTING HIN221094 15 0.900 XP1 3 LUMARK PREVAIL PRV-C40-D-UNV-T3-SA-BK 131 0.900 XP2 8 LUMARK PREVIAL PRV-C40-D-UNV-T3-SA-BK 131 0.900 XW2 6 SYRIOS SY300-L1L10-13W-924-80-3500 13 0.900 XW 7 LUMARK XTOR-2A 18 1.000 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2 XP1 XP1 XB XB XB XB XB XB XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XB XB XB XB XB XW2 XW2 XW2 XW2 XW2 XW2 XP1 XW XW XW XW XW XW XW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.7 4.1 3.1 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.5 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.5 2.5 1.6 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.9 4.1 3.3 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 2.8 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.4 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.5 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.1 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.9 2.7 3.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 3.6 2.7 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.5 3.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.4 3.2 2.2 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.3 3.8 5.9 7.3 6.3 6.5 7.4 5.5 3.6 2.4 1.9 2.2 3.0 4.7 6.9 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.8 4.7 2.8 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 2.0 3.3 4.9 5.9 5.4 5.4 5.9 4.7 3.1 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.7 3.8 5.5 5.9 5.5 5.7 5.4 3.9 2.5 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.0 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.5 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.4 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.6 4.5 1.1 3.7 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.5 4.4 4.0 3.2 2.7 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.7 4.4 4.5 4.4 3.5 2.7 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.2 5.0 6.0 5.7 5.9 5.9 4.9 3.4 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.9 4.2 6.0 6.2 5.7 6.1 5.8 3.9 2.6 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.1 3.5 5.6 6.9 6.5 6.5 7.2 5.7 3.8 2.6 2.0 2.2 3.0 4.7 6.6 7.0 5.6 6.3 6.6 4.7 2.8 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.5 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.7 2.9 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.9 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.1 3.1 2.2 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.5 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.0 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.6 3.9 3.7 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.8 3.9 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.5 3.8 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.2 3.1 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.3 3.9 6.1 7.2 6.2 6.7 7.2 5.6 3.8 2.7 2.6 3.3 4.7 6.5 7.1 6.4 7.0 7.0 4.5 2.9 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.0 3.3 5.1 5.8 5.5 5.8 6.0 4.7 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.8 5.3 6.2 5.5 5.8 5.5 4.1 2.4 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.9 4.4 4.5 3.9 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.6 4.3 4.4 4.2 3.5 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.5 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.6 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.5 4.2 3.6 3.4 4.2 5.4 5.6 5.2 5.5 5.0 3.7 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.7 2.8 4.6 6.8 6.8 6.5 7.1 7.4 5.6 4.2 4.2 5.3 7.4 7.2 6.3 6.9 7.2 4.6 2.9 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.4 4.5 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.7 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.4 3.2 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.6 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.3 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.0 3.2 3.0 0.8 1.4 0.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 3.7 4.6 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 2.5 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.8 4.2 3.4 2.7 2.0 1.5 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 5.7 3.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.2 2.7 3.4 3.6 4.1 4.9 4.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.8 5.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 2.7 3.2 4.5 7.7 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.1 3.5 4.7 2.6 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.2 3.3 5.9 2.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.2 3.8 1.7 4.1 0.8 2.1 8.7 11.0 4.6 2.4 2.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.9 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.2 4.7 5.7 3.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 8.1 8.3 9.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.5 5.5 7.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture TRUE NORTH 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2021 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION B I M 3 6 0 ://2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I /2 2 8 3 -0 4 A e o n - C r e s t I & I I _M E P _2 0 1 9 .r v t 5 /1 1 /2 0 2 1 1 0 :2 0 :3 2 A M ALR CSK 2283-04 E015 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS 2283-04 Aeon Crest II NOT TO SCALE E015 1 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05/11/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit B M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 4, 2021 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Site Plan – Crest Phase II Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review for the proposed Crest Phase II: Preliminary Plans dated May 11, 2021 Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit. C200 – Removals Plan 1.Protect existing sidewalk and utilities along Shingle Creek Blvd. C300, 301, 302 – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans 2. Clean up text/Turn off conflicting layers C400 – Grading Plan 3. Provide calculations for flood plain mitigation. 4. Clean up text/Turn off conflicting layers C500, C550 – Utility Plan & Stormwater Details 5. Explain the purpose of leaving the existing storm sewer as shown on plan. It appears that it is not tied in to any proposed structure. 6.At the underground storm sewer tie-in to storm in Shingle Creek Bvld show pavement and sidewalk removals. Remove pavement to nearest lane line. Protect existing utilities within Right- of-Way. 7. Engineer should attempt to capture and route surface run-off from parking areas through soil medium prior to discharge in to underground storm water system. Watershed rules require the abstraction of run-off in accordance to Watershed Rule D.3 (h). 8.Utility Facilities Easement Agreement is required. Developer must submit O&M Plan for the underground treatment system and filter system as a part of the Utility Facilities Easement Agreement. C600 – Site Plan 9. Show location of trash enclosure. 10. Provide bike Racks. Exhibit C Crest Phase II Site Plan Review Memo, June 4, 2021 C700 – Detail Sheets 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of public utilities must conform to the City standard specifications and details. The City’s standard details must be included in the plan. 12. Update to use current City plates. Miscellaneous 13. See redlines for additional Site Plan comments. 14. Provide narrative and plans laying out staging and phasing of site throughout construction. Highlight temporary parking and access for residents during course of construction. 15. Provide irrigation plan. 16. Provide detailed vehicle turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, bus, etc. demonstrating specific and actual routes. 17. Applicant should address the recommendations of the parking study, conducted by Alliant Consulting dated May 18, 2021. 18. Upon project completion the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 19. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the State of Minnesota and must certify all required as-built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey). 20. The total disturbed area exceeds one acre, an NPDES permit is required. The total disturbed area is less than five acres; the City of Brooklyn Center will review the plans per the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission rules. Applicant must meet requirements from the watershed’s rules review. 21. Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit. Prior to Issuance of a Land Alteration 22. Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended, as required by the City Engineer. 23. A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 100 percent of the estimated cost as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 24. During construction of the site improvements and until the permanent turf and plantings are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. Please submit a deposit of $2,500 that the City can draw upon on a monthly basis. Crest Phase II Site Plan Review Memo, June 4, 2021 25. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility p rovisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non-compliance provisions. A separate $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. Anticipated Permitting 26. A City Land Disturbance permit is required. 27. Watershed plan review is required. 28. A MPCA NPDES permit is required. 29. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 30. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 31. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined b y the City. *Protect existing sidewalk *Provide flood plain mitagation cacluations *Clean up points/text conflicts * Obtain temporary constructioneasement for wet tap on adjacent pro p e r t y R e m o v e P i p e ? W h a t i s p i p e t y i n g i n t o ? S h o w e x t e n t s o f r o a d p a v e m e n t r e m o v a l a n d s i d e w a l k R e m o v e a n d r e p l a c e t o l a n e l i n e P r o t e c t e x i s t i n g u t i l i t e s *Provide O&M Manual for stormwater system, Preserver & BioClean filter *Utilities Facilities agreement required *Provide turning templates and traffic movements for delivery trucks, bus and garbage trucks Trash Enclosure? Provide Bike Racks MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2021 TO: Leslie Roering, Aeon FROM: Jordan Schwarze, PE, Alliant Engineering SUBJECT: The Crest Apartments Parking Study Introduction Alliant Engineering, Inc. has completed a parking study for the proposed The Crest Apartments expansion project located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center, MN (see Figure 1: Project Location). The Crest Apartments site is currently comprised of a 122-unit affordable housing apartment building and an accompanying surface parking lot providing approximately 134 stalls. The proposed expansion will include additional affordable housing apartment units and parking stalls, though concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of the proposed parking supply. Therefore, the following evaluation was prepared to estimate the maximum daily parking demand under future conditions and compare it to the proposed parking supply to determine an anticipated parking surplus or deficit. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to show that the proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the parking demand of The Crest Apartments expansion proposal. The following goals have been established for this parking study: •Document parking characteristics at The Crest Apartments site under existing conditions. o Determine a peak parking rate (vehicle/occupied unit) based on observed existing parking characteristics. o Compare the observed existing parking demand against parking demand estimates developed from rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition. •From the comparison of observed and estimated parking demand, determine an appropriate maximum daily parking demand estimate for the proposed expanded development site. o Compare the estimated maximum daily parking demand against the proposed parking supply to determine a parking surplus or deficit. Exhibit D ALLIANT Project Location Figure 1The Crest Apartments Parking Study 964 94 100 Shingle Creek Parkway 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway The Crest Apartments & Community Center Brooklyn Center City Hall Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 3 Existing Conditions As of May 2021, The Crest Apartments site exhibits the characteristics documented in Table 1. Table 1. The Crest Apartments – Existing Site Characteristics Land Use 1 Capacity Occupancy Apartment Building 122 Units 117 Units 2 Surface Parking Lot Approximately 134 Stalls Variable 1. The Crest Apartments property is located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center, MN 2. Apartment occupancy as of May 2021 Parking Observations To document typical current parking demand at The Crest Apartments development site, parking occupancy data was collected on Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021. Considering that residential parking demand peaks during the late evening/overnight/early morning hours, parking data was collected during the following timeframes: • 5:00 AM – 8:00 AM • 9:00 PM – 12:00 AM The Crest Apartments existing parking counts, documented in Table 2, indicate that a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles was observed in both the early morning and late evening hours of Thursday, May 6, 2021. However, a slightly lower peak parking demand was observed on Saturday, May 8, 2021. Given an apartment occupancy of 117 units at the time of parking data collection, the observed peak parking demand of 98 vehicles equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicle/occupied unit. At this observed peak parking rate, a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles could be expected to utilize the existing surface parking lot under a scenario in which all 122 apartment units are occupied. Under this hypothetical full occupancy scenario, a parking surplus of approximately 30 stalls would be anticipated within the existing surface parking lot. ITE Estimates The observed peak parking demand at The Crest Apartments was also compared to peak parking demand estimates based on applicable rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition (ITE PGM). The ITE PGM is an industry standard resource for estimating parking demand based on studies of numerous land uses. Table 3 documents the ITE PGM based estimated peak parking demand for apartment occupancies of both 117 units and 122 units. Results of the ITE PGM based parking demand estimates indicate that The Crest Apartments would be expected to generate a peak parking demand of 91 vehicles at an apartment occupancy of 117 units or a hypothetical peak parking demand of 95 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 122 units. The ITE PGM based peak parking demand estimates equate to a peak parking rate of 0.78 vehicle/occupied unit. This rate is lower than the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit). Therefore, parking demand estimates for the proposed conditions will be based on the observed peak parking rate. Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 4 Table 2. The Crest Apartments – Existing Parking Observations Table 3. The Crest Apartments – ITE Existing Parking Demand Estimates Weekday Saturday 5:00 - 5:15 AM 98 89 5:15 - 5:30 AM 97 89 5:30 - 5:45 AM 96 89 5:45 - 6:00 AM 95 91 6:00 - 6:15 AM 94 91 6:15 - 6:30 AM 93 90 6:30 - 6:45 AM 88 88 6:45 - 7:00 AM 86 87 7:00 - 7:15 AM 86 87 7:15 - 7:30 AM 83 87 7:30 - 7:45 AM 78 92 7:45 - 8:00 AM 77 90 9:00 - 9:15 PM 86 82 9:15 - 9:30 PM 86 83 9:30 - 9:45 PM 86 78 9:45 - 10:00 PM 89 78 10:00 - 10:15 PM 90 84 10:15 - 10:30 PM 90 87 10:30 - 10:45 PM 90 87 10:45 - 11:00 PM 92 90 11:00 - 11:15 PM 94 93 11:15 - 11:30 PM 96 92 11:30 - 11:45 PM 98 93 11:45 PM - 12:00 AM 97 94 Peak observed parking rate: 98 vehicles / 117 occupied units = 0.84 vehicle / occupied unit 1. Parking observations completed Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021 Observation Period 1 Parked Vehicles Early Morning Late Evening Land Use (ITE Code)Size (Occupied Dwelling Units) Weekday Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) Saturday Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) 117 2 91 77 122 3 95 81Affordable Housing (223) 1 3. Apartment capacity Peak ITE parking rate: 91 vehicles / 117 occupied units = 0.78 vehicle / occupied unit 2. Apartment occupancy as of May 2021 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition 1. Parking Generation Assumptions: Income limits affordable housing in a general urban/suburban setting Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 5 Proposed Conditions The currently proposed The Crest Apartments expansion project, shown in Figure 2, is expected to consist of the following: • Modified existing affordable housing apartment building o Office space within the existing apartment building will be repurposed to include one additional apartment unit for a total of 123 units • New 48-unit affordable housing apartment building o New 31-stall parking garage beneath the new apartment building • Expanded 164-stall surface parking lot o New 14-stall surface “proof of parking” lot (if necessary) Hypothetical Peak Parking Demand Utilizing the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit), hypothetical peak parking demand estimates were made for the proposed expanded development site. The parking demand estimates shown in Table 4 indicate The Crest Apartments site could be expected to exhibit a hypothetical peak parking demand of 145 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 171 units under proposed conditions. With a total proposed parking supply of 195 stalls, a 50-stall (34.5 percent) parking surplus would be expected under the estimated hypothetical peak parking demand. Therefore, the proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate in accommodating parking demand generated by both the modified existing and new apartment buildings onsite. Consequently, no impacts to surrounding properties and/or roadways are anticipated. Furthermore, the 14-stall “proof of parking” lot is not expected to be necessary. Table 4. The Crest Apartments – Proposed Conditions Parking Demand Estimates Land Use Size (Occupied Dwelling Units) Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) 123 2 104 48 3 41 145 195 50 34.5% 4. Proposed total parking stalls = 164 surface parking stalls + 31 garage parking stalls 1. Peak parking rate based on existing parking observations = 0.84 vehicle / occupied unit Affordable Housing 1 2. Modiefied existing apartment building capacity 3. New apartment building capacity Total Peak Parking Demand Proposed Total Parking Stalls 4 Parking Surplus/Deficit Percent Parking Surplus/Deficit ALLIANT Proposed Site Plan Figure 2 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway The Crest Apartments The Crest Apartments Parking Study S h i n g l e C r e e k P a r k w a y 164 surface lot stalls surface stalls 14 proof of parking 31 garage stalls 48 units 123 units Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 7 Summary and Conclusions The following summary and conclusions are offered for consideration: • Existing parking observations at The Crest Apartments documented a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles. Given an apartment occupancy of 117 units at the time of parking data collection, the observed peak parking demand of 98 vehicles equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicle/occupied unit. o At this observed peak parking rate, a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles could be expected to utilize the existing surface parking lot under a scenario in which all 122 apartment units are occupied. Under this hypothetical full occupancy scenario, a parking surplus of approximately 30 stalls would be anticipated within the existing surface parking lot. • Parking demand estimates were also completed based on applicable rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition (ITE PGM). The ITE PGM based parking demand estimates indicate that The Crest Apartments would be expected to generate a peak parking demand of 95 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 122 units. The ITE PGM based peak parking demand estimates equate to a peak parking rate of 0.78 vehicle/occupied unit. This rate is lower than the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit). Therefore, parking demand estimates for the proposed conditions were based on the observed peak parking rate. • Upon completion of The Crest Apartments expansion project, the property is expected to consist of a total of 171 apartment units (123 in modified existing building + 48 new) and 195 parking stalls (164 surface + 31 garage). • Utilizing the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit), hypothetical peak parking demand estimates were made for the proposed expanded development. At a full apartment occupancy of 171 units, The Crest Apartments development site could be expected to exhibit a hypothetical peak parking demand of 145 vehicles under proposed conditions. With a total proposed parking supply of 195 stalls, a 50-stall (34.5 percent) parking surplus would be expected under the estimated hypothetical peak parking demand. o Therefore, the proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate in accommodating parking demand generated by both the modified existing and new apartment buildings onsite. Consequently, no impacts to surrounding properties and/or roadways are anticipated. Furthermore, a 14-stall “proof of parking” lot is not expected to be necessary. P I E R C E P I N I & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • F A X : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 5 4 • E M A I L : P P A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M STORMWATER CALCULATIONS FOR AEON CREST II APARTMENTS Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 May 11, 2021 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. 41333 05/11/2021 Name: Rhonda S. Pierce Reg. No. Date Exhibit E – 2 – 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • F A X : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 5 4 • E M A I L : P P A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M INDEX 1. DRAINAGE NARRATIVE 2. STORMWATER CALCULATIONS a. DRAINAGE AREA SUMMARY b. STORMWATER RATE SUMMARY 3. DRAINAGE MAPS a. EXISTING CONDITIONS b. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 4. HYDROCAD REPORTS a. EXISTING CONDITIONS b. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 5. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Aeon Crest II Apartment Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #20-046 Page 1 of 2 STORMWATER MANGEMENT NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The existing site is located along Shingle Creek. It has an apartment building, surface parking lot and trails currently on-site. A portion of the site is located in the flood plain. Currently no stormwater management exists on-site with all drainage going into the City storm sewer that flows into Shingle Creek. The approximate disturbed area (including future parking) is 146,051 SF with 60,473 SF of impervious area. The existing soils on-site consist of sands, silty clays and organics. Groundwater was found in the borings between 833.50 and 839.50. Infiltration will not be used as the project does not meet the minimum 3’ of separation between the bottom of the stormwater system and the groundwater elevation requirement. Proposed Conditions The proposed project consists of constructing a second apartment building to the West and reconstructing the parking lot. This will require a flood plain analysis to determine the extent that the floodplain will be modified. The floodplain calculations will be finalized going forward. The proposed impervious area for the entire site is approximately 96,755 SF which is an increase of 36,282 SF. This number includes the area for future parking of 4,604 SF that is counted as impervious in the stormwater calculations. Stormwater Management The Local Governing Unit for stormwater is the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the City of Brooklyn Center. The city requirements match those of the watershed. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Requirements: 1. Rate Control – Runoff rates for the project site area shall not exceed existing rates for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events using Atlas 14 precipitation events. 2. Water Quality – 85% Total Suspended Solids Control (TSS) Removal and 60% Total Phosphorus (TP) Removal. 3. Water Quality Volume – 1.0” rain event runoff generated from impervious surface area. 4. The 100 High Water Elevation of the BMP must have at least two vertical feet of separation between low openings of structures Aeon Crest II Apartment Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #20-046 Page 2 of 2 5. Drawdown Time – When using infiltration for volume reduction, runoff must be infiltrated within 48 hours using accepted BMPs for infiltration. The proposed building and the reconstructed parking lot will be collected and sent to an underground stormwater storage system consisting of 48” Duromaxx pipe. This system then connects to a media filter vault that treats the water to remove 85% TSS and 70% P. The volume treated is equal to 1.3” over all disturbed impervious surfaces including the future parking area. An external bypass is used to allow storms larger than the water quality volume to flow downstream without impacting the media filter vault. The outlet then connects to the 72” City storm sewer in Shingle Creek Parkway. This system will reduce the existing rates from the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events. See the following page for existing and proposed rates and water quality volume calculations. The peak elevation for the 100-year storm event is 842.37’. This provides more than two feet of separation between the 100-year peak elevation and the low floor opening of the existing and proposed buildings. See the following pages for the stormwater calculations. Sediment and Erosion Control Silt fence, catch basin inserts and bio-logs will be placed within the site and along the perimeter of the disturbed construction area prior to construction to prevent sediment displacement from the site into the city street and storm sewer. A rock construction entrance will be established and site street sweeping performed throughout construction to address tracking from the site. Soils stockpiles will be covered when not used for more than 48 hours or temporarily seeded to prevent windblown sediment from transporting off-site. Permanent erosion control will consist of sod and pavement. Slopes and swales will be stabilized with a heavy-duty erosion control mat designed for the intended area. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared and will be implemented for the project. EX1 21750 80 56500 98 78250 93 EX2 59580 80 3617 98 63197 81 EX3 4248 80 356 98 4604 81 Total 85578 80 60473 98 146051 87 EX1 5.91 9.48 17.39 EX2 3.02 5.92 12.82 EX2 0.22 0.43 0.93 P1 16647 80 67559 98 84206 94 P2 32649 80 6852 98 39501 83 P3 0 80 17740 98 17740 98 P4 0 80 4604 98 4604 98 Total 49296 80 96755 98 146051 92 1P (P1,P3,P4)0.60 1.47 8.69 P2 2.09 3.95 8.28 CN ValueDrainage Area Impervious Area [SF]CN Value 100-Year Event (cfs) Proposed Conditions Rates CN Value Total Area [SF] 10-Year Event (cfs) Proposed Conditions 100-Year Event (cfs) Existing Conditions Rates CN Value Drainage Area 2-Year Event (cfs) Drainage Area 2-Year Event (cfs)10-Year Event (cfs) Pervious Area [SF] Aeon Crest II Stormwater Calculations PN: 20-046 Date: 05/11/21 Drainage Area Pervious Area [SF] Existing Conditions Impervious Area [SF]CN Value Total Area [SF]CN Value 2-Year Event 9.15 2.69 10-Year Event 15.83 5.42 100-Year Event 31.14 16.97 1P 85,299 9,241 UG 48" CMP 11923 2,682 11923 10482 1441 Excess Volume Total Site Provided Volume (CF)= Total Site Required Volume (CF)= Total Site Excess Volume (CF)= Treatment System Impervious Area (SF) to System Required Volume* (CF)Stormwater Management BMP Treatment Volume (CF) Water Quality Volume Treatement Amount Total Site Impervious Area (SF)Total Site Required Volume (Imp. Area * (1.3"/12)96755 10482 Total Runoff Rate Summary Table Stormwater Event Existing Conditons (cfs) Proposed Conditons (cfs) Existing Conditions EX1 Parking Lot EX2 Green Space EX3 Future Parking 1R Total Runoff Routing Diagram for Stormwater Model Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 5/10/2021 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.965 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (EX1, EX2, EX3) 1.388 98 Paved parking, HSG D (EX1, EX2, EX3) 3.353 87 TOTAL AREA Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 3.353 HSG D EX1, EX2, EX3 0.000 Other 3.353 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.10"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=5.91 cfs 0.315 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=3.02 cfs 0.144 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.22 cfs 0.010 af Inflow=9.13 cfs 0.469 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=9.13 cfs 0.469 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.469 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.68" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 5.91 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.315 af, Depth= 2.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 3.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.144 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.68" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 9.13 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.469 af Outflow = 9.13 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.469 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.47"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=9.48 cfs 0.520 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.34"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=5.92 cfs 0.283 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.34"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.43 cfs 0.021 af Inflow=15.78 cfs 0.824 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=15.78 cfs 0.824 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.824 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.95" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 9.48 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.520 af, Depth= 3.47" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 5.92 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.283 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.43 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.021 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.95" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 15.78 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.824 af Outflow = 15.78 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.824 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.63"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=17.39 cfs 0.992 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.23"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=12.82 cfs 0.633 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.23"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.93 cfs 0.046 af Inflow=31.02 cfs 1.671 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=31.02 cfs 1.671 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 1.671 af Average Runoff Depth = 5.98" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 17.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.992 af, Depth= 6.63" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 12.82 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.633 af, Depth= 5.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.93 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af, Depth= 5.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.98" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 31.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.671 af Outflow = 31.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.671 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Proposed Conditions P1 Parking Lot P2 West Site P3 Building P4 Future Parking 2R Total Runoff 1P 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Routing Diagram for Stormwater Model Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 5/10/2021 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.132 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (P1, P2) 2.221 98 Paved parking, HSG D (P1, P2, P3, P4) 3.353 92 TOTAL AREA Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 3.353 HSG D P1, P2, P3, P4 0.000 Other 3.353 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.20"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=6.57 cfs 0.354 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.32"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=2.09 cfs 0.100 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.61"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=1.52 cfs 0.089 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.61"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=0.39 cfs 0.023 af Inflow=2.69 cfs 0.565 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=2.69 cfs 0.565 af Peak Elev=840.85' Storage=9,498 cf Inflow=8.48 cfs 0.465 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=0.60 cfs 0.465 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.565 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.02" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 6.57 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.354 af, Depth= 2.20" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 2.09 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.100 af, Depth= 1.32" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 1.52 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Depth= 2.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 0.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.023 af, Depth= 2.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.565 af Outflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.565 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault [87] Warning: Oscillations may require smaller dt or Finer Routing (severity=11) Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.28" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 8.48 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af Outflow = 0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 840.85' @ 13.17 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 9,498 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 124.4 min ( 899.1 - 774.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs HW=839.51' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.60 cfs of 1.54 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.58"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=10.39 cfs 0.577 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.51"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=3.95 cfs 0.190 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.02"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=2.30 cfs 0.137 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.02"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=0.60 cfs 0.035 af Inflow=4.55 cfs 0.939 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=4.55 cfs 0.939 af Peak Elev=841.48' Storage=15,741 cf Inflow=13.29 cfs 0.749 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=1.47 cfs 0.749 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.939 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.36" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 10.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.577 af, Depth= 3.58" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 3.95 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.190 af, Depth= 2.51" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 2.30 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.137 af, Depth= 4.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 0.60 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth= 4.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.36" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 4.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.939 af Outflow = 4.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.939 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault [87] Warning: Oscillations may require smaller dt or Finer Routing (severity=14) Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.67" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 13.29 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af Outflow = 1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 30.5 min Primary = 1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 841.48' @ 12.67 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 15,741 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 170.7 min ( 937.0 - 766.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs HW=841.48' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.47 cfs of 18.39 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.87 cfs @ 2.09 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.75"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=18.85 cfs 1.087 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.46"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=8.28 cfs 0.413 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.22"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=4.05 cfs 0.245 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.22"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=1.05 cfs 0.064 af Inflow=11.87 cfs 1.808 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=11.87 cfs 1.808 af Peak Elev=842.37' Storage=24,527 cf Inflow=23.96 cfs 1.395 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=8.69 cfs 1.395 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 1.808 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.47" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 18.85 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.087 af, Depth= 6.75" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 8.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.413 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 4.05 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.245 af, Depth= 7.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 1.05 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.064 af, Depth= 7.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.47" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 11.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.808 af Outflow = 11.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.808 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.84" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 23.96 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af Outflow = 8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af, Atten= 64%, Lag= 10.7 min Primary = 8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 842.37' @ 12.34 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 24,527 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 128.3 min calculated for 1.395 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 128.3 min ( 884.3 - 756.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs HW=842.37' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 8.69 cfs of 23.29 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.09 cfs @ 3.84 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 4.00 0.05 0 839.50 0.05 6.00 0.14 0 839.50 0.14 8.00 0.24 0 839.50 0.24 10.00 0.56 2 839.51 0.56 12.00 10.46 9,683 840.87 0.60 14.00 0.68 15,426 841.45 1.33 16.00 0.34 12,733 841.18 0.64 18.00 0.27 10,567 840.96 0.60 20.00 0.20 7,921 840.69 0.60 22.00 0.12 4,755 840.33 0.60 24.00 0.05 1,071 839.80 0.60 26.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 28.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 32.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 34.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 36.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 38.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 42.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 44.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 46.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 48.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 52.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 54.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 56.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 58.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 62.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 64.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 66.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 68.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 72.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 839.50 0 839.55 75 839.60 212 839.65 389 839.70 597 839.75 831 839.80 1,088 839.85 1,365 839.90 1,661 839.95 1,974 840.00 2,303 840.05 2,646 840.10 3,002 840.15 3,371 840.20 3,752 840.25 4,143 840.30 4,544 840.35 4,956 840.40 5,376 840.45 5,804 840.50 6,240 840.55 6,684 840.60 7,134 840.65 7,591 840.70 8,054 840.75 8,522 840.80 8,995 840.85 9,473 840.90 9,956 840.95 10,443 841.00 10,933 841.05 11,426 841.10 11,923 841.15 12,422 841.20 12,923 841.25 13,426 841.30 13,931 841.35 14,437 841.40 14,944 841.45 15,451 841.50 15,959 841.55 16,467 841.60 16,975 841.65 17,482 841.70 17,988 841.75 18,493 841.80 18,996 841.85 19,497 841.90 19,996 841.95 20,492 842.00 20,986 842.05 21,476 842.10 21,963 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 842.15 22,445 842.20 22,923 842.25 23,397 842.30 23,865 842.35 24,328 842.40 24,785 842.45 25,235 842.50 25,678 842.55 26,115 842.60 26,543 842.65 26,963 842.70 27,374 842.75 27,776 842.80 28,167 842.85 28,547 842.90 28,916 842.95 29,273 843.00 29,616 843.05 29,944 843.10 30,257 843.15 30,553 843.20 30,831 843.25 31,088 843.30 31,322 843.35 31,530 843.40 31,706 843.45 31,842 843.50 31,919 843.55 31,919 843.60 31,919 843.65 31,919 843.70 31,919 843.75 31,919 843.80 31,919 843.85 31,919 843.90 31,919 843.95 31,919 844.00 31,919 IOWA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation: Proposed Crest Apartments 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota CVT# 18020.21.MNT Prepared for: Ms. Leslie Roering Senior Real Estate Developer Aeon Certification: I hereby certify that this 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. Matthew J. Reisdorfer, PE Geotechnical Engineer License Number 52032 Date: April 7, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Testing • 245 Roselawn Ave. E., Suite #29, St. Paul, MN 55117 • Telephone (651) 756-7384 • stpaul@cvtesting.com Ms. Leslie Roering April 7, 2021 Senior Real Estate Developer Aeon 901 North 3 rd Street, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55401 lroering@aeon.org Re: Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN CVT Project Number: 18020.21.MNT Dear Ms. Roering: We have completed the design phase geotechnical evaluation authorized for the proposed Crest Apartments in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. This letter briefly summarizes the findings and analysis detailed in the attached geotechnical report. Summary of Boring Results Borings: At the surface, the borings encountered about ½ to 1 foot of topsoil. The topsoil consisted mostly of slightly organic sand with silt. Sand fill was met below the topsoil in the northeast, east-central and southern building borings, while silt fill and clay fill were met within the west-central and center building borings. The fill materials were encountered to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet. Buried topsoil was met below the sand fill in the east- central boring to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill sand was met below the topsoil in the northwest building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. The material was judged to be possible fill as they varied in color and characteristics to that of the native soils encountered at the site, but lacked any obvious indicators, such as debris and organics. Below the topsoil layer in the north-central building boring and stormwater borings as well as below the fill, possible fill and buried topsoil layers, the borings were dominated by clean sand and sand with silt, to depths of about 9 to 24.9 feet below the surface. Silty sand and silty clayey sand was met below the clean sand and sand with silt layers in the southeast building boring and the stormwater borings. These borings terminated in silty sand and silty clayey sand at depths of about 11 to 24.9 feet below the surface. The remaining borings terminated in clean sand and sand with silt at depths of about 24.9 feet below the surface. Crest Apartments April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Groundwater: Water was observed in all of the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The water levels observed corresponds to elevations of about 833 ½ to 839 ½ feet on the datum used to locate the borings. Water levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal weather patterns, along with water levels in nearby streams and rivers. Summary of Analysis and Recommendations The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. Frost-depth footings are expected to bear upon native sands or engineered fill overlying native sands. With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. Based on this design bearing pressure, total post-construction settlements are expected to be 1 inch or less, and differential settlement is expected to be ½ inch or less between footings that are similarly loaded. Crest Apartments April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Remarks For more details of our analysis and recommendations, please see the attached report. We appreciate the opportunity to help you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us at (651) 756-7384. Sincerely, Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Hannah Fischer Graduate Geological Engineer Matt Reisdorfer, PE General Manager/Geotechnical Engineer _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 2 A.1. Purpose ______________________________________________________________________ 2 A.2. Scope ________________________________________________________________________ 2 A.3. Boring Locations _______________________________________________________________ 2 A.4. Geologic Background ___________________________________________________________ 2 B. Exploration Results _________________________________________________________ 3 B.1. Stratification __________________________________________________________________ 3 B.2. Penetration and Laboratory Test Data _____________________________________________ 4 B.3. Ground Water Data ____________________________________________________________ 4 C. Design Information _________________________________________________________ 5 D. Analysis __________________________________________________________________ 5 E. Building Recommendations __________________________________________________ 6 E.1. General Grading Recommendations _______________________________________________ 6 E.1.a. Over-Excavations _____________________________________________________________________ 6 E.1.b. Geotechnical Review of Bearing Materials _________________________________________________ 6 E.1.c. Oversizing ___________________________________________________________________________ 6 E.1.d. Filling and Compaction ________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2. Building Design ________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.a. Foundation Design ____________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.b. Bearing Capacity and Settlement ________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.c. Vapor Barrier and Drainage _____________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.d. Slab Design __________________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.e. Seismic Design _______________________________________________________________________ 7 F. Paved Area Recommendations ________________________________________________ 8 F.1. Stripping and Grading ___________________________________________________________ 8 F.2. Pavement Design ______________________________________________________________ 8 F.3. Pavement Maintenance _________________________________________________________ 8 G. Stormwater Infiltration Recommendations ______________________________________ 9 H. Construction Recommendations ______________________________________________ 9 H.1. Excavation ___________________________________________________________________ 9 H.2. Groundwater/De-watering ______________________________________________________ 9 H.3. Filling and Compacting __________________________________________________________ 9 H.4. Construction Testing and Documentation _________________________________________ 10 I. Level of Care ______________________________________________________________ 10 Appendix ___________________________________________________________________ 11 Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN CVT Project Number: 18020.21.MNT April 7, 2021 A. Introduction The intent of this report is to present our findings and describe the means used to collect the data. The data was collected for a specific purpose and may not be suitable for other purposes. We should be consulted before attempting to use the data for other uses. A complete and thorough review of the entire document, including its assumptions and its appendices, should be undertaken immediately upon receipt . A.1. Purpose This geotechnical report was prepared to aid design and construction of the proposed Crest Apartment in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Our services were authorized by Ms. Leslie Roering, Senior Real Estate Developer for Aeon. A.2. Scope To provide data for analysis, a total of 10 penetration test borings were authorized. The borings were drilled to depths of about 14 ½ to 24 ½ feet. Our scope included geotechnical recommendations for design of foundations, slabs, and pavements as well as recommendations for earthwork corrections and stormwater design. A.3. Boring Locations The boring locations were indicated to Chosen Valley Testing based on a site plan provided to us by the client. The boring location sketch in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the soil borings as drilled, and was based on plotting GPS coordinates for the borings onto a satellite view of the site using Google Earth software. Ground surface elevations at the borings were measured using a laser level. The finished floor of the existing building was used as a benchmark and had an understood finished floor elevation of 846.16 feet based on the ALTANSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated December 22, 2020. A.4. Geologic Background A geotechnical report is based on subsurface data collected for the specific structure or problem. Available geologic data from the region can help interpretation of the data and is briefly summarized in this section. Geologic maps of the area indicate that the dominant soils in the area are terraced deposited sands overlying glacial till deposits of clays, silts and sands. The uppermost bedrock is commonly Jordan Sandstone and Prairie du Chien dolomite and is expected to be on the order of 100 to 150 feet below the surface. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N B. Exploration Results The borings were performed using penetration test procedures (Method of Test D1586 of the American Society for Testing and Materials). This procedure allows for the extraction of intact soil specimen from deep in the ground. With this method, a hollow-stem auger is drilled to the desired sampling depth. A 2-inch OD sampling tube is then screwed onto the end of a sampling rod, inserted through the hole in the auger's tip, and then driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped repeatedly from a height of 30 inches above the sampling rod. The sampler is driven 18 inches into the soil, unless the material is too hard. The samples are generally taken at 2½ to 5-foot intervals. The core of soil obtained is classified and logged by the driller and a representative portion is then sealed and delivered to the soils engineer for review. B.1. Stratification At the surface, the borings encountered about ½ to 1 foot of topsoil. The topsoil consisted mostly of slightly organic sand with silt. Sand fill was met below the topsoil in the northeast, east-central and southern building borings (Boring B- 3, B-6 through B-9), while silt fill and clay fill were met within the west-central and center building borings (Borings B-4 and B-5). The fill materials were encountered to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet. Buried topsoil was met below the sand fill in the east-central boring (Boring B-6) to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill sand was met below the topsoil in the northwest building boring (Boring B-1) to a depth of about 4 feet. The material was judged to be possible fill as they varied in color and characteristics to that of the native soils encountered at the site, but lacked any obvious indicators, such as debris and organics. Below the topsoil layer in the north-central building boring (Boring B-2) and stormwater borings (Borings B-10 and B-11) as well as below the fill, possible fill and buried topsoil layers, the borings were dominated by clean sand and sand with silt, to depths of about 9 to 24.9 feet below the surface. Silty sand and silty clayey sand were met below the clean sand and sand with silt layers in the southeast building boring (Boring B-9) and the stormwater borings (Borings B-10 and B-11). These borings terminated in silty sand and silty clayey sand at depths of about 11 to 24.9 feet below the surface. The remaining borings terminated in clean sand and sand with silt at depths of about 24.9 feet below the surface. The soil boring data has been summarized in the following cross-section. Please refer to the individual log of boring sheets for more detailed information. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N 815 820 825 830 835 840 845 850 855 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 Ap p r o x i m a t e E l e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Boring Number Topsoil Silt/Clay Fill Sand Fill Poss. Sand Fill Buried Topsoil Terrace Sand Silty/Clayey Sand Below Boring Apartment Building Borings North to South Desgin FFE = 849.0 feet Stormwater Borings B.2. Penetration and Laboratory Test Data The number of blows needed for the hammer to advance the penetration test sampler is an indicator of soil characteristics. The number of blows to advance the sampler 1 foot is called the penetration resistance or “N”-value. The results tend to be more meaningful for natural mineral soils, than for fill soils. In fill soils, compaction tests are more meaningful. Penetration resistance values ("N" Values) of 3 to 15 blows per foot (BPF) were recorded in the possible fill sand, terrace sand and glacial sand, indicating they were very loose to medium dense. A key to the descriptors used to qualify the relative density of soil (such as soft, stiff, loose, and dense, ) can be found on the Legend to Soil Description in the Appendix. B.3. Ground Water Data Methods: During drilling, the drillers may note the presence of moisture on the sampler, in the cuttings, or in the borehole itself. These findings are reported on the boring logs. Because water levels vary with weather, time of year, and other factors, the presence or lack of water during exploration is subject to interpretation and is not always conclusive. Water was observed in all of the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The water levels observed corresponds to elevations of about 833 ½ to 839 ½ feet on the datum used to locate the borings. Water levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal weather patterns, along with water levels in nearby streams and rivers. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 5 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N C. Design Information Each structure has a different loading configuration and intensity, different grades, and different structural and performance tolerances. Therefore, the geotechnical exploration will be construed differently from one structure to another. If the initial structure should change design, we should be engaged to review these conditions with respect to the prevailing soil conditions. Without the opportunity to review any such changes, the recommendations may no longer be valid or appropriate. The project consists of constructing a 5-story, slab-on-grade apartment building. The apartment building is assumed to consist of frost-depth, cast-in-place concrete foundations with the superstructure consisting of wood framed walls, joists and trusses. Loading information was not available to us at the time of this report. The maximum wall loads are assumed to be on the order of 6 kips per linear foot or less. The maximum column loads are assumed to be on the order of 250 kips or less. Grading information was provided to us by Aeon. The finished floor elevation of the apartment building is understood to be near elevation 849.0 feet. Based on the design finished floor elevation, new fill on the order of 5 to 8 feet above existing elevations is expected to be required D. Analysis The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. Frost-depth footings are expected to bear upon native sands or engineered fill overlying native sands. With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. Based on this design bearing pressure, total post-construction settlements are expected to be 1 inch or less, and differential settlement is expected to be ½ inch or less between footings that are similarly loaded. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 6 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N E. Building Recommendations E.1. General Grading Recommendations E.1.a. Over-Excavations: The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. The following table provides further detail regarding the anticipated depths of over-excavations below the structure. Boring # Approx. Ground Surface Elev. (Feet) Approx. Depth of Over-Excavation below Ground Surface (Feet) Approx. Elev. at Bottom of Over-Excavation (Feet) B-1 841 ½ 1( 4*) 840 ½ (837 ½*) B-2 840 ½ 1 839 ½ B-3 844 ½ 4 840 ½ B-4 841 ½ 6 835 ½ B-5 84 3 6 ½ 836 ½ B-6 843 ½ 1 ½ 842 B-7 843 4 839 B-8 843 ½ 4 839 ½ B-9 843 ½ 1 ½ 842  (x*) indicates depth of over-excavation if possible fill soils are judged to be uncontrolled fill. E.1.b. Geotechnical Review of Bearing Materials: After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. E.1.c. Oversizing: Any corrective excavations should be oversized at least 1 foot beyond the foundations for each foot of fill needed below footing grade. This over-sizing can be reduced by up to 50% if rather precise staking is present during grading, and the excavation limits can be rather precisely confirmed relative to the foundations. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 7 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N E.1.d. Filling and Compaction: For ease in compaction, we recommend using clean sand or gravel having less than 15% particles passing a number 200 sieve, as engineered structural fill below all foundations and basement slabs. The on-site native terrace sands encountered in the borings would be suitable for use as engineered fill. Furthermore, the on-site sand fill would likely meet this requirement, provided they are free of debris and organics. We recommend the upper 6 inches of engineered fill placed below slabs consist of clean sand or gravel having less than 5% particles passing a number 200 sieve. The clean sand will act as a moisture barrier to prevent moisture from coming in contact with the slab. All fill below building and oversizing areas should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of its maximum standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). E.2. Building Design E.2.a. Foundation Design: For frost protection, we recommend that exterior foundations for heated structures bear on soils at least 42 inches below the exposed ground surface. Interior footings for heated structures can be placed directly below slabs. Footings for unheated structures should be placed 60 inches below the surface. E.2.b. Bearing Capacity and Settlement: With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. This capacity includes a safety factor of at least 3 against shear failure. Based on the loading information provided and implementation of our recommendations, total settlement of footings is expected be 1 inch or less. Differential settlement is expected to be on the order of ½ inch or less between similarly loaded footings. E.2.c. Vapor Barrier and Drainage: If the slab will receive coverings that are less permeable than concrete, a vapor barrier should be placed below the slab. Some contractors prefer to place this barrier below sand, to limit the potential for curling. E.2.d. Slab Design: The completed slab subgrade is expected to consist primarily of engineered granular fill overlying native sands. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction of up to 250 pounds per cubic inch for these conditions. E.2.e. Seismic Design: In accordance to the 2020 International Building Code (IBC), the site profile is considered to rate as Site Classification D. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 8 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N F. Paved Area Recommendations F.1. Stripping and Grading We recommend completely stripping the topsoil and pavement materials from areas to receive pavements. The topsoil was about ½ foot thick at the locations explored. After surface removals, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of fairly clean sand. These soils are judged to be suitable for supporting pavements. We recommend scarifying, moisture conditioning and re- compacting the subgrade with a vibratory smooth drum compactor prior to placement of new fills. If granular fill is needed, the surface receiving the granular materials should be sloped to provide positive drainage out from under the paved areas. This is intended to prevent water from ponding below the pavements and causing localized weak areas, frost boils or “bird baths.” All subgrade and subbase materials encountered within 3 feet of the bottom of pavements should be compacted to at least 98% of the soil’s standard Proctor density and should be able to pass a test roll using a fully-loaded, tandem-axle dump truck. Any fill placed below this zone should be compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s standard Proctor density. F.2. Pavement Design As mentioned, sands are expected to be the dominant materials present at subgrade elevations. These soils would be expected to have a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci). The proposed parking areas are assumed to receive light duty traffic. We recommend a pavement section consisting of 3 inches of bituminous (PCC) underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base for light duty traffic. These pavement sections should be considered preliminary and subject to review by the project civil engineering consultant, based on more specific traffic loading information. The above pavement sections also assumes that the subgrade has been sufficiently scarified and compacted to pass a test roll. Observation of the test roll should be documented by qualified geotechnical personnel. The necessity of scarifying and recompaction of the subgrade would be determined by the test roll. F.3. Pavement Maintenance Routine maintenance is recommended for improved pavement performance and to increase pavement life. Some thermal shrinkage cracks may develop over time; therefore, pavements should be sealed with a liquid bitumen sealer to mitigate water intrusion into the base course and subgrade sections. Localized patch failures may also develop, which should be cut out and repaired. Periodic seal coating would also help preserve and assure a longer pavement life. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 9 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N G. Stormwater Infiltration Recommendations Infiltration rates were estimated for the various materials encountered at the site. The infiltration pond borings dominantly encountered clean sand followed by silty sand and silty clayey sand. The following table presents the recommended infiltration rate per soil type from the MPCA Minnesota Storm Water Manual (updated from Version 2X). Please see the individual Log of Boring sheet in the Appendix for soil classification details at each location and depth. Unified Soil Classification System, USCS Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) Clean Sand (SP) 0. 8 Silty Sand ( SM) 0.45 Silty Clayey Sand ( SC -SM) 0.06 Double-ring infiltrometer testing could be performed to provide site specific infiltration values but was not part of our initial work scope and would need to be performed at the bottom of the infiltration structure. H. Construction Recommendations H.1. Excavation Tracked equipment is expected to be needed to complete the site stripping and corrective excavations. The backhoe with a smooth lip shovel should be used for deeper excavations, to limit disturbance to those materials left in place. H.2. Groundwater/De-watering Water was encountered in the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The majority of the corrections are expected to occur above the water levels observed in the borings. We would expect that sump pits would likely be adequate to control any moisture in the excavations. Well points will likely be required for excavations extending below the water levels observed. H.3. Filling and Compacting Fill should be placed in lifts adjusted to the compactor being used and the material being compacted. We recommend limiting lifts to no more than 12 inches for the recommended fill materials – assuming large, self-propelled or tow behind compactors are used. Compaction of the silty clays may require use of static rollers or vibratory rollers operating in static mode, due to vibration effects on soil stability. If site grading is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend that good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on soils that have frozen or contain frozen material. Frozen soils should not be used as fill. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 10 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N H.4. Construction Testing and Documentation The bottom of all excavations should be evaluated and documented by geotechnical personnel, after the unsuitable soils are removed from the building site, and before filling. Fill placed below building and paved areas should be evaluated for conformance to the project gradation recommendations and should be tested for compaction. If the filling proceeds during periods of freezing weather, full-time testing should be considered to help confirm that imported fill is thawed prior to and during compaction, and that all snow has been removed before placement of the fill. Although our firm offers testing services relating to civil and structural components of the building (such as concrete testing, reinforcement observations, etc.) specification of such services is beyond our work scope and the designer should be consulted as to such requirements. I. Level of Care The services provided for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area, under similar budget and time constraints. This is our professional responsibility. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 11 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Appendix Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring # 1-11 Legend to Soil Description N Soil Boring Location Sketch Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 18020.21.MNT Legend Boring Locations Benchmark B1 B2 B3 B6 B5 B4 BM B8 B7 B10 B9 B11 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SP SM SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 4.0 24.9 840.3 837.3 832.3 816.4 9.0 OL 1.0 11 10 10 4 6 7 11 5 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF POSSIBLE FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, fine-to-medium grained, brown, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, grayish brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-01 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-01 841.3 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 839.8 OL SP CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 0.9 24.9 7 9 815.8 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 5 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) Below 7 feet, fine grained, no Gravel, gray. Below 12 feet, fine-to-course grained, trace Gravel. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 7 8 6 7 6 7 See attached sketch. Tests and NotesElev.USCS SymbolDepth DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL BORING:B-02 18020.21.MNT 0.0 PROJECT: 840.7 L O G O F B O R I N G CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota B-02 page 1 of 1 End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. OL SP SM SP SM CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 0.5 4.0 843.8 840.3 819.4 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine grained, brown and dark brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) 24.9 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 6 9 8 9 10 10 9 8 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesElev. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL 18020.21.MNT B-03 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: Depth B-03 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING PROJECT: 844.3 L O G O F B O R I N G SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF OL OL SP SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 6.0 24.9 Below 10 feet, grayish brown. 840.7 835.7 816.8 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Slightly Organic Silt, trace Wood debris, black, wet. At 5 feet, layer of Poorly Graded Sand. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) 5 6 6 7 9 8 6 5 1.0 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 8 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-04 B-04 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 841.7 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING OL OL SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 6.5 24.9 Below 10 feet, gray. 842.0 836.4 818.0 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Slightly Organic Lean Clay, black, wet. At 5 feet, Slightly Organic Silty Sand, fine-to-medium grained, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) 9 9 8 6 7 6 8 7 0.9 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-05 B-05 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 842.9 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.3 0.4 24.9 SP SP SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 842.8 818.6 829.5 14.0 842.2 SP 843.1 834.5 SP 5 6 9.0 OL 7 7 7 15 11 10 OL 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota PROJECT: 0.7 Tests and NotesElev.USCS Symbol BPF SCALE: 1" = 3' CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING L O G O F B O R I N G 843.5 See attached sketch. LOCATION:LOCATION: Depth WLDescription of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) DATE: 3/26/2021 POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, brown. At 12 feet, no Gravel. BURIED TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt. End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. Below 7 feet, trace Gravel. At 20 feet, layer of Silty Sand. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, grayish brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. B-06 18020.21.MNT BORING: 0.0 B-06 page 1 of 1 Below 7 feet, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel. OL SP SM SP CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.0 4.0 842.1 839.1 818.2 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, dark brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine grained, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) 24.9 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 9 6 15 6 7 8 5 6 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-07 B-07 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 843.1 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SM SP SM SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 4.0 24.9 842.7 839.6 834.6 818.7 9.0 OL0.9 5 7 8 13 8 10 10 8 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown and dark brown mixed, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-08 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-08 843.6 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SP SM SC SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.7 24.9 842.7 842.0 832.2 818.8 11.5 OL 1.0 5 3 13 4 9 11 9 9 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, brown, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-09 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-09 843.7 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 825.7 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 0.4 9.0 14.9 CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 SM TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 5 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) SILTY SAND to SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. 840.2 4 7 831.6 5 9 9 11 OL SP Tests and NotesDepthElev.Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WL LOCATION:LOCATION: See attached sketch. BORING:B-10 DATE: 3/26/2021 USCS Symbol B-10 page 1 of 1 0.0 18020.21.MNT 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota BPF PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING L O G O F B O R I N G 840.6 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 0.5 9.0 14.9 CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) At 7 feet, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel. SILTY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. 833.3 5 7 827.4 7 9 10 OL SP SM Tests and NotesDepthElev.Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WL LOCATION:LOCATION: See attached sketch. 841.8 BORING:B-11 DATE: 3/26/2021 USCS Symbol B-11 page 1 of 1 0.0 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 842.3 L O G O F B O R I N G CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING PROJECT: 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota BPF GROUP SYMBOL SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR BLOWS/FOOT* CONSISTENCY SAMPLE TYPES Job No. 18020.21.MNT GRAVELS WITH FINES >12% FINES 2.0 - 4.0 OVER 4.0 TERM Trace With Modifier 0.50 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC CL ML OL CH MH OH PT CLEAN GRAVELS <5% FINES WATER LEVEL (WITH TIME OF) MEASUREMENT 0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50 OVER 50 LIQUID LIMIT (%) CH 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X ( % ) SIZE < 12 in. 3 in. - 12 in. #4 sieve to 3 in. #200 sieve to #4 sieve Passing #200 sieve TERM Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Silt or Clay SAND & GRAVEL CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES - - - MC OC CN DD PP RV SA P200 >50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES ON NO 4. SIEVE RELATIVE DENSITY (RECORDED AS BLOWS / 0.5 FT) CL SILT & CLAY NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D. (1-3/8 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE (ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST). * BLOWS/FOOT* WELL-GRADED GRAVEL POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL SILTY GRAVEL CLAYEY GRAVEL WELL-GRADED SAND POORLY-GRADED SAND SILTY SAND CLAYEY SAND LEAN CLAY SILT ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT FAT CLAY ELASTIC SILT ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT PENETRATION RESISTANCE Hollow Stem LEGEND TO SOIL DESCRIPTIONS FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH PI>7 AND PLOTS>"A" LINE PI>4 AND PLOTS<"A" LINE LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75 PI PLOTS >"A" LINE PI PLOTS <"A" LINE LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TSF) Chosen Valley Testing - CLEAN SANDS <5% FINES SANDS AND FINES >12% FINES INORGANIC MOISTURE CONTENT ORGANIC CONTENT CONSOLIDATION DRY DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R-VALUE SIEVE ANALYSIS % PASSING #200 SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT PLASTISITY INDEX SWELL TEST Unconsolidated Undrained triaxial LL PI SW UU PERCENT < 5 5 - 12 > 12 Relative Proportions of Fines Standard Penetration Test VERY SOFT SOFT RATHER SOFT MEDIUM RATHER STIFF STIFF VERY STIFF HARD UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487/2488) ML MH - - - - - - - - TEST SYMBOLS PERCENT < 15 15 - 29 > 30 ORGANIC Relative Proportions of Sand and Gravel 0 - 1 2 - 3 4 - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 13 - 16 17 - 30 OVER 30 INORGANIC TERM Trace With Modifier Grain Size Terminology Cu>4 AND 1<Cc<3 Cu>4 AND 1>Cc>3 FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH ORGANIC VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE GRAVELS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 MATERIAL TYPES Cu>6 AND 1<Cc<3 Cu>6 AND 1>Cc>3 CV T 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J 4 / 6 / 2 1 PEAT SANDS SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT>50 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT<50 >50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO 4. SIEVE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS CO A R S E - G R A I N E D S O I L S >5 0 % R E T A I N E D O N NO . 2 0 0 S I E V E FI N E - G R A I N E D S O I L S >5 0 % P A S S E S NO . 2 0 0 S I E V E PLASTICITY CHART "A " L I N E CL-ML ABOUT THE PROJECT Brooklyn Center staff members are working to update the city’s current zoning code, which is ready for public review and comment. Zoning codes are the rules that determine what can be built, where it can be built and how it should be situated on a piece of land. Every city has zoning codes and they are the primary tools a city has to guide the use of its land toward the greatest public good. The draft zoning code is intended to be more easily understood, brings the city in alignment with state regulatory standards, and allows for a greater diversity of land uses, such as neighborhood-serving destinations to visit, work, dine, and relax. In preparation for presenting the updated code to the City Council, city staff will be facilitating a series of virtual public town hall meetings. Each town hall will Upcoming Events Brooklyn Center invites the public to attend upcoming Town Hall Meetings! All meetings begin at 6 p.m. Scan the QR Code or visit the project website for more information and to register. Tuesday, July 6:Town Hall Meeting Residential Overview and Standards Tuesday, July 13: Town Hall Meeting Commercial Overview and Standards Tuesday, July 20: Town Hall Meeting Waterbody and Natural Resources Protections* *This meeting is recommended for Brooklyn Center residents who own property on or near a lake or river* May 2021 Contact Meg Beekman Community Development Director City of Brooklyn Center 763-569-3305 mbeekman@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us Brooklyn Center Draft Zoning Code Public Town Hall Meetings Project Website Visit the project website for the most up- to-date information on project status and opportunities for engagement. BecomingBrooklynCenter.com be published to BecomingBrooklynCenter.com Item 8.c