Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-2017- DRAFT - PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 19, 2017 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for July 19 , 2017. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners French, Klander, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Schiltgen (excused) Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page MU2017-001 MWF Properties-Preliminary Plat and Development Review 1 Approval of Minutes 8 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business None. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. MU2017-001: MWF Properties LLC: Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ • Resolution 1075-17, Recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of “Boulevard”, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road • Resolution 1076-17, Recommending approval of a Development Review of “Boulevard”, a 60-unit apartment building, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road Planner Sevald stated MWF Properties, requests approval of (1) a Preliminary Plat of a Major Subdivision combing four lots into one lot, and (2) a Development Review of a 60-unit apartment, to be located at the northwest corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road. Planner Sevald explained a Major Subdivision is the division of land into more than one lot, or includes two acres of land or larger. In this case, four lots will be combined into one lot, 3.5 acres in size. The proposed Preliminary Plat was reviewed in detail with the Commission. Planner Sevald indicated MWF Properties held a neighborhood meeting on February 16, 2017 at Lakes Run Apartments in New Brighton, an MWF project. Eleven residents attended. Additional discussions were held at City Council Work Sessions on January 3rd, March 6th, and April 3rd, 2017, in addition to discussions by the Mounds View EDA on May 8th and May 22nd, 2017, concerning Tax Increment Financing. Planner Sevald stated during the City Council’s May 8th Public Hearing(s), several residents expressed concern about (1) additional traffic onto Groveland Road to be generated by the project, and (2) if additional apartments and affordable housing in Mounds View is in the City’s best interest. The project proposes a driveway access onto Groveland Road. It was noted driveway access onto Mounds View Boulevard (CSAH 10) has been denied by Ramsey County. Planner Sevald reported MWF Properties commissioned a Traffic Impact Study. In summary, the apartments are forecasted to add 31 trips during the morning peak hour and 37 trips during the afternoon peak hour. The study assumes that traffic generated by the apartments will go to Mounds View Boulevard (80%), north on Groveland Road (15% or 5-6 vehicles per AM/PM peak period), and south on Groveland Road (south of MV Blvd) (5%). The study states that the project will have minimal impact to the Mounds View Boulevard & Groveland Road intersection. The study indicates that a right turn lane from south-bound Groveland Rd onto west-bound Mounds View Boulevard would reduce delays, but have minimal impact. A right- turn lane is not proposed as part of the project. Commissioner Klebsch asked if any type of buffer was proposed between the playground structure and the parking lot. Planner Sevald stated no buffer was proposed. He described the trees that were proposed along the retention pond and along Mounds View Boulevard. Commissioner Love questioned how deep the retention basin was. Planner Sevald stated he was uncertain. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Klebsch recommended that the playground be enclosed for safety purposes or be moved to another location. Chris Stokka, MWF Properties, thanked the Commission for the input and stated he would support the playground being fenced. Chair Stevenson asked what type of fence would be placed around the playground. Mr. Stokka stated that the fence would be see through and would be four feet in height. Commissioner Love commented on the BioLife retention pond and suggested this site also have an open water retention pond. Mr. Stokka stated he was not a stormwater pond expert and anticipated this would require additional space. He explained he could investigate this matter further. Chair Stevenson indicated his biggest concern was the safety of this project and the movement of traffic from Groveland Road onto Mounds View Boulevard. He commented further on the number of accidents that have occurred at this intersection. Commissioner Klander requested further information from the applicant on the Traffic Study. Mr. Stokka reviewed the Traffic Study and vehicle counts in detail with the Commission. He apologized for not having his traffic engineer in attendance. Commissioner Klander stated he lived in this neighborhood and used the Groveland Road/Mounds View Boulevard intersection on a daily basis. He believed the challenge at this intersection was people not following basic traffic regulations and the fact that cars stacked up in the median. Commissioner Love inquired if there was discussion of putting a light at this intersection. Mr. Stokka stated this was not considered. Commissioner Klebsch commented on the poor visibility for left hand turns at Groveland Road and Mound View Boulevard. She questioned if the median on Mounds View Boulevard could be removed so that left hand turns at Groveland Road were no longer allowed. Planner Sevald stated if this were to happen, a large number of residents would be upset. Commissioner Klebsch asked if the large trees on the site plan near the intersection of Groveland Road and Mounds View Boulevard should be removed for improved visibility. Planner Sevald anticipated this could be done. Commissioner Klander questioned if the County offered any comments as to why they denied access to Mounds View Boulevard. Mr. Stokka stated their initial feedback was brought to the City and no formal written opinion was provided. It was his understanding the County did not support a right-in/right-out onto Mounds View Boulevard and therefore recommended the development utilize Groveland Road. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Councilmember Klander inquired if the semi-trucks visiting Steve’s appliance have been considered by the developer. Planner Sevald stated this was an enforcement issue on the City’s part and explained parking was not allowed on Groveland Road. Commissioner Love asked if this was the proper location for concentrated affordable housing. Planner Sevald commented on the number of affordable units available in Mounds View and throughout the metro area. He explained there is a concentration of affordable housing units along the US Highway 10 corridor, outside of Mounds View. He reviewed a concentration of poverty map provided by Met Council with the Commission and noted Mounds View was not at risk. Mr. Stokka stated he understood that too much affordable housing in one area can become a concern. He explained the State had this same understanding and provided funding for projects based on proper economic integration. He reported the projects he has completed in the past that were similar in size had no negative impacts on the community. He reiterated that this development was at 60% AMI threshold. He provided further comment on the housing market and strong need for affordable housing in Mounds View. Commissioner Klebsch questioned why MWF was not pursuing a mixed income housing project. Mr. Stokka stated MWF specializes in affordable housing. He explained it was his experience that it was difficult for him to find renters that wanted to pay a premium for rent on some units while others were receiving the same unit at a subsidized price. Commissioner Klebsch commented she was a big proponent of affordable housing. She stated she worked in economic development and had only seen mixed income developments. She reported she had not seen an issue filling the market rate or affordable units. She anticipated that this development could receive more than market rate for some of the units. She explained she did have a concern with locating the development on this corner due to traffic/safety concerns. Commissioner Love asked if the proposed trail could meander. Planner Sevald stated he would have to speak with the County to see if they would allow the trail to go closer to the roadway and ditch. Chair Stevenson understood the developer would be installing a 10-foot bituminous trail. Mr. Stokka reported this was the case and noted he would be installing the trail as a part of the development. Planner Sevald commented the trail would end at the west property line. Chair Stevenson recommended the trail be extended to Spring Lake Park Road and that the expense be paid for with the park dedication fees. Planner Sevald encouraged the Commission to make this a recommendation to the City Council and noted this portion of trail would cost more than the proposed Park Dedication fees of $39,000. The Commission was in agreement to recommend the City Council use the Park Dedication fees to complete the trail to Spring Lake Park Road. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Klander requested a five-minute recess. Chair Stevenson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 8:06 p.m. Chair Stevenson reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Klander asked if Park Dedication fees would be recalculated if the project was not completed until 2018. Planner Sevald reported the Park Dedication fees were based on 10% of the current land market value. He indicated if the Final Plat was not brought before the Council until 2018, the numbers would be updated, otherwise 2017 numbers would be used. Chair Stevenson did not anticipate the City Attorney or the City Council would have a problem with changing this language to 10% of the current land market value. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Klander. To approve Resolution 1075-17, a Resolution Recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of “Boulevard”, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road, recommending the playground be fenced; Planning Case No. MU2017-001, as amended. Planner Sevald read the six conditions within Resolution 1075-17 aloud and in full for the record. Commissioner Klebsch noted under Condition #2 that the playground was to be fully fenced. Planner Sevald recommended this item be addressed under the Development Review. Commissioner Klander stated he remained unsatisfied based on the traffic concerns. He explained he wanted to hear from Ramsey County on this matter in order to problem solve this issue. He supported tabling this motion and the next motion until further information was available from the County. Chair Stevenson believed the Preliminary Plat and the Development Review were two separate items. Commissioner Love asked if either the Preliminary Plat or the Development Review required a Public Hearing. Planner Sevald reported the Preliminary Plat would require a Public Hearing by the City Council and this was scheduled to be held on Monday, July 24th. Commissioner Klebsch supported the Commission moving forward with the plat and asked if both Resolution’s had to move forward at the same time. Planner Sevald believed this would be the easiest course of action for the request. He commented further on the 60-day timeline for this Planning Case and reported a 60 day extension would be required if the matter were tabled. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klander/Commissioner French. To table action on the Preliminary Plat to the August 2, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 2 (French, Klander) Nays – 3 (Love, Rundle & Stevenson) Abstain – 1 (Klebsch) Motion failed. Chair Stevenson called the question on the original motion. Ayes – 4 Nays – 2 (French, Klander) Motion carried. Planner Sevald reported a Development Review is required for construction activity in which a principal building is increased in size by more than 10%, or more than 10,000 square feet (excludes single-family and two-family dwellings). In this case, the proposed 60-unit apartment building will be 25,000 square feet in size. The building rendering and landscape plan was reviewed in detail with the Commission. Planner Sevald explained the proposed apartments will include 60-units of affordable workforce housing. Residents will have an income restriction of 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI), based on household size. During a previous Planning Commission meeting, there were questions about how many rental units there are in the City, and how many are affordable. Staff noted there are 5,280 housing units in Mounds View (2016). According to the City’s rental licensing records, there are 1,511 multi-family rental units and 240 single-family rental units (2017) (33% of total housing stock is rental). It was noted balconies were being recommended in order to enhance the pedestrian-like feel of the development. Staff provided further comment on the request, recommended the Planning Commission approve the Development Review. Commissioner Klander asked if the applicant supported City staff’s recommendations. Mr. Stokka stated it was his goal to keep the proposed building as far away from the adjacent residents as possible, which he has been able to do. He explained that if balconies were required, this would have to change. He requested the balconies not be required, but rather that bay windows be added, so as to eliminate the eyesore of items being stored on the balconies. He stated he supported the proposed play area. Commissioner Klander agreed that balconies could become an eyesore and for this reason, he could support the removal of the balconies so long as bay windows were added. Commissioner Love explained she was a fan of trees and stated she preferred the play area to be park-like that was planted with trees. She asked if the applicant supported the median at the entrance. Mr. Stokka stated he supported this recommendation. Commissioner Klebsch commented on the lighting plan and noted the applicant was proposing more lighting than required by the City. Planner Sevald reported adjustments could be made with different light fixtures, but noted more light would be required at the entrance points for safety purposes. Commissioner Klebsch stated she did not want the lighting from this site to impact the adjacent neighborhood or passing traffic. Planner Sevald recommended the light fixtures be changed in Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ order to stay within the City’s requirements. He noted he did support brighter lighting along the trail and at the entrance to the property. Commissioner Love asked if the trail lighting would match the existing lights along the trail. Planner Sevald stated this could be written into the Development Agreement. Commissioner Klebsch inquired if the developer was requesting TIF for this project. Planner Sevald reported the developer would be requesting TIF. Mr. Stokka stated he was requesting a 15 year pay as you go TIF note for $550,000. Commissioner Klebsch stated she supported the Preliminary Plat and understood that at some point this corner would develop and the properties would have to be combined. However, she had questions regarding traffic at this corner and she did not want to be responsible for increased accidents at this corner. She supported the City speaking further with Ramsey County regarding a potential right-in right-out. She asked if the Planning Commission could hold a special meeting in order to address this concern with the County. Planner Sevald reported the Planning Commission could hold a special meeting. Council Member Bill Bergeron, 7729 Woodlawn Drive, indicated the City Council would be holding a public hearing only for the Preliminary Plat on Monday, July 24th and noted the Planning Commission already recommended approval for this item. It was noted the City did not require a Public Hearing for the Development Review. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klebsch/Commissioner Klander. To Table Action on the Development Review of “Boulevard”, a 60-unit apartment building, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Boulevard and Groveland Road to the August 2, 2017 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to gather more information from Ramsey County regarding the Traffic Study and a potential right-in right-out on Mounds View Boulevard. Ayes – 5 Nays – 1 (Rundle opposed) Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases. He anticipated the Commission would be addressing a City Code amendment that would allow for small cell towers in Mounds View. B. Staff Updates Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council and commented on the developers that had made presentations for the Crossroad Pointe redevelopment. He noted the Council approved the hire of a Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector at their last meeting. He explained Don Peterson has been appointed as the City’s Interim Public Works Director. He noted the City Council would be holding a Public Hearing on July 24th to discuss the language for a ballot question that would add one additional Police Officer to the Mounds View Police Department. He indicated the Charter Commission met with the Council and would be reviewing the City’s special election language. Further discussion ensued regarding the City’s proposed 2018 budget. Lastly, he reported City Administrator Jim Ericson would be resigning his position with the City after 21 years of service. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 8. Approval of Minutes July 5 , 2017. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Klebsch/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of the July 5, 2017 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, August 2, 2017 B. Wednesday, August 16, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Mounds View Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Jon Sevald Planner Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 19, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business A. (none) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. MU2017-001: MWF Properties. LLC: Resolution 1075-17, Recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of “Boulevard”, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Blvd. and Groveland Rd. Resolution 1076-17, Recommending approval of a Development Review of “Boulevard”, a 60-unit apartment building, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Blvd. and Groveland Rd 6. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 7. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 8. Approval of Minutes: July 5, 2017 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, August 2, 2017 B. Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10. Meeting Conclusion Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 April 28, 2017 Mr. Chris Stokka MWF Properties 7645 Lyndale Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55423 Sent via email: ChrisStokka@MWFProperties.com Re: Preliminary Tax Credit Support – The Boulevard (Mounds View, MN) Dear Mr. Stokka, The purpose of this letter is to address the preliminary market support for The Boulevard, a proposed affordable general-occupancy rental community to be located at 2901 Mounds View Boulevard in Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota. It is our understanding that the project will contain a total of 60 units and will operate under the guidelines and restrictions of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. To determine support for the 60 proposed units at the subject site, we have established a preliminary Primary Market Area (PMA), surveyed existing Tax Credit and market-rate properties to establish occupancies and rent levels and analyzed the demographic trends that impact the preliminary PMA. We conclude our analysis by providing preliminary demand estimates for your project and comment on the market’s ability to support additional Tax Credit units. In addition to analyzing the depth of support for the subject project within the Mounds View market, this letter also serves as a guide to help establish certain features and/or amenities that should be included at the subject project to ensure its competitive position within the Site PMA. The key findings of this report are summarized as follows:  Demographic trends are projected to be positive within the Mounds View Site PMA between 2016 and 2021, in terms of both total population and households. A good base of potential renter support exists in the market, as it was estimated that 7,191 renter households existed in the market in 2016. The number of renter households is projected to increase by 221 (3.1%) between 2016 and 2021.  The subject project has an overall capture rate of 2.7%, which is considered achievable and demonstrates a good base of income-appropriate renter support within the market for the subject project. 2 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300  The subject project is expected to help fill a void in the Mounds View rental housing market, as only one (1) general-occupancy LIHTC property containing 16 units exists within the Site PMA. The three remaining LIHTC properties identified within the Site PMA are all age-restricted properties.  The three comparable general-occupancy LIHTC properties surveyed outside the Site PMA, but within the nearby region, are 99.3% occupied, which is reflective of just two (2) vacant units among these three properties. This is a clear indication of strong demand for family-oriented LIHTC product within the region.  The subject project is considered very competitive in terms of unit design (square feet and number of bathrooms offered), amenities offered, and price point (gross rent). In fact, the subject’s proposed gross Tax Credit rents will be the lowest in the region, relative to those reported among similar unit types at the comparable properties. The subject’s proposed rents also represent market rent advantages ranging from 27.5% to 28.4%, depending upon unit type. This further indicates that the subject rents will represent significant values within the market. Subject Development It is our understanding that the subject project (The Boulevard) will contain a total of 60 units which will target family (general-occupancy) households earning up to 60% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI) under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. The subject project is expected to offer one- through three-bedroom garden style units. Construction of the subject project is expected to be complete in February of 2019. The following table details the unit configuration for the subject project, based on information provided at the time of this analysis. Total Units Bedroom Type Baths Style Square Feet % AMHI Proposed Rents Max. Allowable LIHTC Gross Rent Collected Rent Utility Allowance Gross Rent 15 One-Br. 1.0 Garden 690 60% $740 $44 $784 $1,017 30 Two-Br. 2.0 Garden 929 60% $885 $57 $942 $1,221 15 Three-Br. 2.0 Garden 1,045 60% $1,045 $70 $1,115 $1,410 60 Total Source: MWF Properties AMHI - Area Median Household Income (Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD Metro FMR Area; 2017) The following are unit and project amenities expected to be offered at the subject project: Unit Amenities  Electric Range  Wall-Unit Air Conditioning  Refrigerator  Window Blinds  Dishwasher  Washer/Dryer Appliances  Carpet 3 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 Project Amenities  On-Site Management  Fitness Center  Community Room  Playground  Elevator Access  Key Fob Access  Additional Storage Units  Underground Parking Garage Utility Responsibility We assume that the cost of gas heat, gas hot water heat, cold water, sewer and trash collection will be included in the rent. The following summarizes the utility expenses expected to be the responsibility of the tenant at the subject property:  General Electricity  Electric Cooking Preliminary Primary Market Area (PMA) For the purposes of this Snapshot Analysis, we have defined a preliminary Primary Market Area (PMA), the smallest geographic region from which we believe the majority of support for the proposed project will originate. Given that an in-person evaluation of the Mounds View market was not conducted at the time of this analysis, the Mounds View PMA was primarily determined through a demographic analysis of the surrounding area. The Mounds View Site PMA utilized in this analysis includes the majority of Mounds View, as well as the municipalities, or portions of, New Brighton, Fridley, Coon Rapids, Blaine, and Spring Lake. The boundaries of the Site PMA consist of U.S. Highway 10 to the north; Interstate 35W to the east; Interstate 694 to the south; and the Mississippi River to the west. While some additional support for the proposed subject project will undoubtedly come from outside of this area, we do not anticipate this additional support component will be significant. This is particularly true of areas located north, east, and west of the Site PMA, as the areas to the north and east are primarily comprised of owner-occupied households which would not likely respond to affordable rental product at the subject site, while the Mississippi River serves as a good natural boundary which limits access to the PMA from the west. It is important to reiterate that this PMA is in fact preliminary, and should be considered as such. A full market feasibility analysis with on-site evaluation would enable us to better determine/confirm the specific Site PMA boundaries. A map delineating the boundaries of the preliminary Site PMA is illustrated on the following page of this letter. !H Blaine Fridley Brooklyn Park Arden Hills Coon Rapids New BrightonBrooklyn Center Mounds View ShoreviewSpring Lake Park Lexington Columbia Heights Circle Pines Hilltop Champlin Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity 0 0.55 1.1 1.650.275 Miles1:75,000 N SITE Mounds View, MNPrimary Market Area !H Site Primary Market Area 5 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 Area Demographics Population and household trends for the Mounds View PMA are as follows. All Ages Population Households 2010 Census 56,945 23,398 2016 Estimated 58,104 23,942 Change 2010-2016 1,159 544 Percent Change 2010-2016 2.0% 2.3% 2021 Projected 59,870 24,704 Change 2016-2021 1,766 762 Percent Change 2016-2021 3.0% 3.2% Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research As illustrated in the preceding table, the Mounds View Site PMA experienced a decline in population but an increase in households between 2000 and 2010. However, between 2010 and 2016, the population increased by 1,159, or 2.0%. During the same period, households increased by 544, or 2.3%. Projections through 2021 indicate there will be 59,870 people in 24,704 households within the Site PMA. This represents a population increase of 1,766 (3.0%) and a household increase of 762 (3.2%). The distribution of households by income within the Mounds View Site PMA is summarized as follows: Household Income 2010 (Census) 2016 (Estimated) 2021 (Projected) Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Less Than $15,000 2,059 8.8% 1,922 8.0% 2,140 8.7% $15,000 to $24,999 1,906 8.1% 2,044 8.5% 2,141 8.7% $25,000 to $34,999 2,460 10.5% 2,404 10.0% 2,392 9.7% $35,000 to $49,999 3,490 14.9% 3,270 13.7% 3,529 14.3% $50,000 to $74,999 5,041 21.5% 5,075 21.2% 4,382 17.7% $75,000 to $99,999 3,479 14.9% 3,719 15.5% 4,042 16.4% $100,000 to $149,999 3,377 14.4% 3,584 15.0% 3,943 16.0% $150,000 to $199,999 961 4.1% 1,170 4.9% 1,324 5.4% $200,000 & Over 627 2.7% 755 3.2% 811 3.3% Total 23,400 100.0% 23,943 100.0% 24,704 100.0% Median Income $58,852 $61,485 $62,266 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research In 2010, the median household income was $58,852. This increased by 4.5% to $61,485 in 2016. By 2021, it is projected that the median household income will be $62,266, an increase of 1.3% over 2016. 6 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 The following tables illustrate renter household income by household size for 2010, 2016, 2019 (projected, year open) and 2021 for the Mounds View Site PMA: Renter Households 2010 (Census) 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $15,000 676 283 124 86 137 1,306 $15,000 to $24,999 534 208 91 64 99 996 $25,000 to $34,999 474 262 113 79 127 1,055 $35,000 to $49,999 515 336 147 102 161 1,261 $50,000 to $74,999 403 320 140 97 153 1,113 $75,000 to $99,999 171 142 62 42 68 485 $100,000 to $149,999 144 122 53 36 59 414 $150,000 to $199,999 21 18 8 4 8 59 $200,000 & Over 11 11 6 2 4 34 Total 2,949 1,702 744 512 816 6,723 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group Renter Households 2016 (Estimated) 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $15,000 582 292 138 98 116 1,226 $15,000 to $24,999 564 266 125 88 107 1,150 $25,000 to $34,999 428 281 132 92 108 1,041 $35,000 to $49,999 472 366 170 120 144 1,272 $50,000 to $74,999 395 398 187 132 155 1,267 $75,000 to $99,999 173 185 86 63 71 578 $100,000 to $149,999 143 156 74 52 62 487 $150,000 to $199,999 31 34 16 11 13 105 $200,000 & Over 22 21 9 7 6 65 Total 2,810 1,999 937 663 782 7,191 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group Renter Households 2019 (Projected) 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $15,000 630 313 147 105 122 1,317 $15,000 to $24,999 572 271 127 90 108 1,168 $25,000 to $34,999 376 261 122 86 101 947 $35,000 to $49,999 455 356 165 118 139 1,233 $50,000 to $74,999 332 329 154 109 128 1,052 $75,000 to $99,999 190 196 91 65 75 618 $100,000 to $149,999 217 218 103 73 86 698 $150,000 to $199,999 57 57 27 19 22 182 $200,000 & Over 39 34 15 11 11 110 Total 2,868 2,035 953 676 792 7,324 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group 7 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 Renter Households 2021 (Projected) 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $15,000 662 327 153 109 126 1,377 $15,000 to $24,999 577 274 129 91 109 1,180 $25,000 to $34,999 341 248 116 82 97 884 $35,000 to $49,999 444 349 162 116 136 1,207 $50,000 to $74,999 290 283 132 94 110 909 $75,000 to $99,999 202 203 95 67 77 644 $100,000 to $149,999 267 260 122 87 102 838 $150,000 to $199,999 74 72 35 24 28 233 $200,000 & Over 50 43 19 14 14 140 Total 2,907 2,059 963 684 799 7,412 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group As illustrated by the preceding tables, the total number of renter households is projected to increase by 221, or 3.1%, between 2016 and 2021. This demonstrates an expanding base of renter households which will likely increase demand for rental product within the Site PMA. The following table further details renter growth by income between 2016 and 2019, the projection period utilized in our demand calculations later in this letter, for the Site PMA: Annual Income Renter Households 2016 2019 Change % Change Less Than $15,000 1,226 1,317 91 7.4% $15,000 to $24,999 1,150 1,168 18 1.6% $25,000 to $34,999 1,041 947 -94 -9.0% $35,000 to $49,999 1,272 1,233 -39 -3.1% $50,000 to $74,999 1,267 1,052 -215 -17.0% $75,000 to $99,999 578 618 40 6.9% $100,000 to $149,999 487 698 211 43.3% $150,000 to $199,999 105 182 77 73.3% $200,000 & Over 65 110 45 69.2% Total 7,191 7,324 133 1.8% Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research As the preceding table illustrates, renter households are projected to increase by 133 (1.8%) within the Site PMA between 2016 and 2019. More specific to low-income housing, renter households earning less than $35,000 are projected to increase by 15, or 0.4%, during this same time period. This is considered modest renter growth among lower-income households. However, it is also important to note that nearly 47.0% of all renter households are projected to earn below $35,000 in 2019. This is a good indication that demand exists for affordable rental product within the Mounds View market. 8 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 Conventional Apartments Overview For the purpose of this report, our survey focused on non-subsidized market-rate and Tax Credit rental product within the Mounds View Site PMA. We identified and telephone surveyed 12 conventional rental housing projects containing a total of 2,064 units within the Site PMA. This survey was conducted to establish the overall strength of the rental market and to identify those properties most comparable to the subject site. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate of 98.8%, a strong rate for rental housing. All 12 of the properties surveyed offer unrestricted market-rate units, while only one (Silver Lake Pointe Apartments) offers units which operate under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. It should also be noted that the one LIHTC property surveyed in the Site PMA is age-restricted to seniors age 62 and older. Thus, this property will not be competitive with the proposed general-occupancy subject project and therefore has not been included in our comparable/competitive analysis later in this report. It is of note that in addition to the one property surveyed, we are aware of three additional properties within the Site PMA which operate and/or were awarded a Tax Credit allocation under the LIHTC program. Despite numerous attempts, we were unable to survey these properties via telephone at the time of this analysis. The known details of these projects based on our research are summarized in the following table: Name Location Year Allocated Total Units Target Population Additional Notes Cottages of Spring Lake Park 8263 Fillmore St. NE, Spring Lake Park, MN N/A 86 Seniors (55+) - Brandes Place 6160 5th St. NE, Fridley, MN 2005 16 Family Offers two- and three- bedroom units. Silver Lake Commons (fka Mounds View Family) 2665 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 1997 50 Seniors (62+) - N/A – Not Available As the preceding illustrates, two of the three LIHTC properties unable to be surveyed are age-restricted properties which will not be directly competitive with the subject project. The one remaining property, Brandes Place, offers general-occupancy LIHTC units similar to those being considered at the subject site. Thus, this property will likely have some competitive overlap with the subject project. Note, however, that this property is comprised of only 16 two- and three-bedroom units and therefore will likely only have minimal competitive overlap. Regardless, since we were unable to survey this property, it has been excluded from our survey and comparable LIHTC analysis. 9 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 Comparable Tax Credit Analysis Due to the lack of family (general-occupancy) LIHTC product surveyed in the Site PMA, it was necessary to identify and survey such product located outside the Site PMA, but within the nearby region, in order to establish a base of comparison for the subject project. Thus, we surveyed three general-occupancy LIHTC properties which offer one-, two-, and/or three-bedroom units targeting households earning up to 60% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI) and are located within the region in the Anoka and St. Paul areas. Note, however, that since these properties are located outside the Site PMA they will not be directly competitive with the proposed subject project. Thus, they have been included only for comparability purposes. These three properties and the proposed subject development are summarized in the following table: Map I.D. Project Name Year Built/ Renovated Total Units Occ. Rate Distance to Site Waiting List Target Market Site The Boulevard 2019 60 - - - Families; 60% AMHI 901 Woodland Park Apts. 1993 / 2012 90 98.9% 12.7 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI 902 Centennial Commons 1966 / 2007 144* 99.3% 7.8 Miles 2 & 3-Br TAX: 3-5 Years Families; 60% AMHI 904 Lakes Run Apts. 2004 52 100.0% 5.9 Miles 35 H.H. Families; 60% AMHI 900 Series Map IDs are located outside the Site PMA OCC. – Occupancy H.H. - Households *Tax Credit units only The three LIHTC projects have a combined occupancy rate of 99.3%, which is reflective of just two (2) vacant units among these three properties. This is a clear indication of strong demand for family-oriented LIHTC product within the region. It is also important to reiterate that all three of the comparable properties are located outside the Site PMA and only one general-occupancy LIHTC property containing 16 units was identified within the Site PMA. Thus, the proposed subject project will help fill a void in the Mounds View rental market. The gross rents for the comparable projects and the proposed rents at the subject site, as well as their unit mixes and vacancies by bedroom are listed in the following table: Gross Rent/Percent of AMHI (Number of Units/Vacancies) Map I.D. Project Name Studio One- Br. Two- Br. Three- Br. Rent Special Site The Boulevard - $784/60% (15) $942/60% (30)$1,115/60% (15)- 901 Woodland Park Apts. - $975/60% (10/0) $1,086/60% (56/1) $1,351/60% (24/0) None 902 Centennial Commons $729/60% (1/0) $945/60% (61/1) $1,157/60% (77/0) $1,270/60% (5/0) None 904 Lakes Run Apts. - - $1,096/60% (39/0) $1,272/60% (13/0) None 900 Series Map IDs are located outside the Site PMA 10 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 As the preceding illustrates, the subject rents will be the lowest in the region, relative to similar unit types offered among the comparable properties surveyed. It is also important to note that the subject project will be significantly newer than each of the comparable properties, which were originally built between 1966 and 2004. In addition, the subject project will offer some of the largest units in terms of square footage and generally a greater number of bathrooms within its two- and three-bedroom units, as compared to similar unit types offered among the comparable properties. The amenity package to be offered at the subject project is also considered superior to those offered among most of the comparable properties surveyed. Most notably, in-unit washer/dryer appliances will be offered, a feature which is not offered among most of the comparable properties. Based on the preceding factors and considering our demand estimates included later in this letter, the subject rents are considered marketable and will likely represent a significant value within the Mounds View Site PMA. The unit sizes (square footage) and number of bathrooms included in each of the different LIHTC unit types offered in the region are compared with the subject development in the following table: Square Footage Map I.D. Project Name Studio One- Br. Two- Br. Three- Br. Site The Boulevard - 690 929 1,045 901 Woodland Park Apts. - 600 - 624 810 - 884 1,000 - 1,248 902 Centennial Commons 338 650 - 700 836 - 890 974 - 1,672 904 Lakes Run Apts. - - 914 1,205 900 Series Map IDs are located outside the Site PMA Number of Baths Map I.D. Project Name Studio One- Br. Two- Br. Three- Br. Site The Boulevard - 1.0 2.0 2.0 901 Woodland Park Apts. - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 902 Centennial Commons 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 904 Lakes Run Apts. - - 2.0 2.0 900 Series Map IDs are located outside the Site PMA As the preceding illustrates, the subject project will be competitively positioned in terms of unit size (square feet), as the proposed unit sizes fall within range of, or are larger than, those offered among the comparable properties. The number of bathrooms offered is also considered competitive and will contribute to the subject’s marketability within the Mounds View market. The following tables compare the amenities of the proposed project to the comparable Tax Credit projects in the region. COMPARABLE PROPERTIES AMENITIES - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA MAP IDCENTRAL ACWINDOW ACFLOOR COVERINGWASHER AND DRYERW/D HOOKUPPATIO/DECK/BALCONYCEILING FANPARKINGBASEMENTINTERCOMSECURITYWINDOW TREATMENTSE-CALL BUTTONSOTHER UNIT AMENITIES REFRIGERATORICEMAKERDISHWASHERDISPOSALMICROWAVERANGEAPPLIANCES SITE X C X X BXXX G 902 X C S X X BXXXX O,S,G 901 X C X X X BXXX D(o),S 904 X C X X X BXXX S MAP IDPOOLON-SITE MGMTLAUNDRYCLUB HOUSECOMMUNITY SPACEFITNESS CENTERJACUZZI / SAUNAPLAYGROUNDTENNIS COURTSPORTS COURTSTORAGEELEVATORCOMPUTER LABLIBRARYPICNIC AREASOCIAL SERVICESSECURITY GATEOTHER PROJECT AMENITIES BUSINESS CENTERSITE X X X X X X Key Fob Access 902 XXX AX X X X 901 XXXXX X V X 904 XXXXXXXXX X S All Units Some Units - - OOptional- C H Carpet Hardwood - - VVinyl- B C Blinds Curtains - - DDrapes- Floor Covering Window Treatments Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Senior Restricted W Wood- T Tile- A L Activity Room Lounge/Gathering Room - - T Training Room- Community Space A C Attached Carport - - D Detached- O On Street- S Surface- G Parking Garage- Parking (o) Optional- B D Basketball Baseball Diamonds - - P Putting Green- Sports Courts T Tennis- V Volleyball- X Multiple- (s) Some- 11Survey Date: April 2017 12 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 The amenity package expected to be offered at the subject project will be very competitive, relative to those offered among the comparable properties. In fact, the subject project will include washer/dryer appliances within each unit, a feature which is not offered among most of the comparable properties and will likely create a competitive advantage for the property. Comparable LIHTC Summary The subject project is expected to help fill a void within the Mounds View Site PMA, as currently only one (1) general-occupancy LIHTC property containing 16 units exists within the Site PMA. This property was, however, unable to be surveyed at the time of this analysis and thus has been excluded from our analysis. The three comparable LIHTC properties surveyed outside the Site PMA have a combined occupancy rate of 99.3%, which is reflective of just two vacant units and strong demand for family-oriented LIHTC product within the region. The subject’s proposed gross rents will be the lowest among the comparable properties and thus will represent a significant value within the Mounds View market. This is especially true when considering the newness and competitive position of the subject project in terms of unit design (square feet) and number of bathrooms, as well as amenities offered. The map on the following page depicts the location of the surveyed comparable LIHTC projects in relation to the subject site location. !H !( !( !( 902 904 901 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity 0 1 2 30.5 Miles1:170,000 N SITE Mounds View, MNComparable LIHTC Property Locations !H Site ApartmentsType !(Mkt rate/Tax Credit !(Tax Credit 14 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 Market-Rate In order to further assess the proposed project’s overall market position and the perceived value of its rents, we identified the most comparable market-rate properties within the Site PMA, based on the proposed project concept as detailed within this report, which are summarized as follows: Map I.D. Project Name Year Built Units Occupancy Rate Distance to Site Rent Special Site The Boulevard 2019 60 - - - 1 Woodlawn Terrace 1978 113 100.0% 1.3 Miles None 4 Cielo Apts. 2016 101 100.0% 4.5 Miles None 5 Spring Brook Apts. 1986 361 99.2% 2.7 Miles None 9 Landmark Estates 1985 132 100.0% 1.9 Miles None 11 River Pointe Apts. 1972 300 97.7% 3.7 Miles None The five selected market-rate projects have a combined total of 1,007 units with an overall occupancy rate of 99.0%. None of the selected properties reports an occupancy rate below 97.7%, demonstrating that each of the selected properties has been well- received within the Mounds View market and will therefore serve as accurate benchmarks with which to compare the subject project. The gross rents for the comparable market-rate projects and the proposed rents at the subject site, as well as their unit mixes and vacancies by bedroom are listed in the following table: Gross Rent (Number of Units/Vacancies) Map I.D. Project Name Studio One- Br. Two- Br. Three- Br. Four- Br. Site The Boulevard - $784 (15) $942 (30)$1,115 (15) - 1 Woodlawn Terrace - $779 (30/0) $892 (83/0) - - 4 Cielo Apts. $1,138 (5/0) $1,255-$1,495 (36/0) $1,498-$1,918 (49/0) $1,973-$2,223 (11/0) - 5 Spring Brook Apts. - $1,069-$1,199 (109/1) $1,270-$1,400 (210/2) $1,591-$1,681 (40/0) $1,835 (2/0) 9 Landmark Estates - $1,011-$1,101 (66/0) $1,291-$1,401 (66/0) - - 11 River Pointe Apts. $788 (5/0) $911-$990 (130/3) $1,041-$1,121 (130/3) $1,341-$1,481 (35/1) - As the preceding illustrates, the proposed gross rents at the subject project are lower than those reported among most of the selected market-rate properties. While this suggests that the proposed rents will represent a value as compared to market-rate product within the Site PMA, this is based solely on price point alone and does not consider factors such as the age of the property, unit design (square feet and number of baths), or amenities offered. 15 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 Therefore, in order to more accurately assess the value that the proposed rents will represent, achievable market rents have been derived utilizing HUD Rent Comparability Grids, which are illustrated in Addendum B. It was determined that the present-day achievable market rent for units similar to the proposed development are $1,020 for a one-bedroom unit, $1,225 for a two-bedroom unit and $1,460 for a three-bedroom unit, which are illustrated as follows: Bedroom Type Proposed Collected Rent (%AMHI) Achievable Market Rent Market-Rent Advantage One-Bedroom $740 (60%) $1,020 27.5% Two-Bedroom $885 (60%) $1,225 27.8% Three-Bedroom $1,045 (60%) $1,460 28.4% As the preceding illustrates, the subject’s proposed rents represent market rent advantages ranging from 27.5% to 28.4%, depending upon unit type. Typically, Tax Credit product should represent a market rent advantage of at least 10.0% to be perceived a value and ensure a sufficient flow of qualified applicants within a given market. This suggests that the subject rents will represent significant values within the market as compared to similar market-rate product. Pipeline Development Based on our interviews with local planning and building representatives, it was determined that there is one rental property currently in the development pipeline within the Mounds View Site PMA. This planned development is summarized as follows:  A 194-unit property is being developed by Dominium Development at 1066 County Highway 10 in Spring Lake Park. This property is anticipated to target seniors age 50 and older and is expected to operate with an affordable component. Note, however, that this property is not listed on the state Tax Credit allocation list. This project has been approved, but has not yet begun construction. Construction is anticipated to begin sometime in summer of 2017. Additional details pertaining to this property were unavailable at the time of this analysis. Regardless, as this property is anticipated to be age-restricted, and will not operate under the LIHTC program, it is not expected to be directly competitive with the proposed general-occupancy LIHTC property. MHFA-Formatted Demographic Demand Analysis Based on the proposed gross Tax Credit rents previously illustrated in this letter and assuming the subject project will generally house up to five-person households and that management of the subject project qualify residents utilizing a 35% rent-to-income ratio, the income-appropriate range required to live at the proposed project is $26,880 to $55,620. 16 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 For the purposes of this analysis we assume an opening date of sometime in 2019 for the subject project. Based on the preceding analysis and MHFA methodology, the following is a summary of our demand calculations for the proposed subject project, based on the household projections for the Mounds View Site PMA. Capture Rate Number of Proposed Units 60 Income-Eligible Renter Households – 2019 / 2,239 Capture Rate = 2.7% Generally, capture rates up to 10.0% are considered achievable for general-occupancy properties located in urban/suburban markets such as the Mounds View Site PMA. Therefore, the subject’s 2.7% capture rate is considered low and easily achievable, particularly when considering the general lack of family-oriented LIHTC product within the Mounds View Site PMA. Conclusions Based on the findings of this preliminary analysis, it is our opinion that a development opportunity exists for a new family-oriented LIHTC property within the Mounds View Site PMA. Notably, while a total of four LIHTC properties were identified (one surveyed) within the Site PMA, three are age-restricted. The fourth property, although general-occupancy, only offers a total of 16 units. Thus, the subject project is expected to help fill a void within the Mounds View rental market. The three comparable LIHTC projects surveyed outside the Site PMA, but within the nearby region, are 99.3% occupied, demonstrating strong demand for family-oriented LIHTC product within the region. The subject’s proposed gross rents will be the lowest in the market, relative to those reported among similar unit types at the comparable LIHTC properties surveyed outside the Site PMA. These low proposed gross rents will contribute to the subject’s marketability within the market, particularly when considering the newness and thus superior anticipated quality of the subject project as compared to the existing comparable properties which were originally built between 1966 and 2004. Demographic trends within the Mounds View Site PMA have been, and are projected to continue to be, positive in terms of both total population and households. It is projected that 7,412 (30.0%) of all households within the Site PMA will be renters in 2021, which is an increase of 221, or 3.1%, renter households over 2016 levels. More specific to the subject project, it is estimated that there will be 2,239 income-qualified renter households in the market for the subject project in 2019. This results in a low overall capture rate of 2.7% for the 60 proposed units at the subject site, which is considered easily achievable within the Mounds View market. 17 Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (614) 833-9300 It is important to reiterate, however, that the information contained within this preliminary report as it relates to existing conventional Tax Credit product in and near the Mounds View Site PMA is based on a telephone survey of area apartments. Additionally, an on-site visit was not conducted to evaluate the proposed subject site’s location. An in-person evaluation of the subject site location and Mounds View rental market could potentially reveal site attributes that could positively or negatively impact marketability of the subject development, while also potentially revealing additional comparable properties which could impact the findings of this report. Nonetheless, we believe sufficient evidence exists to conclude that a market exists for a new family- oriented (general-occupancy) LIHTC property within the Mounds View market. We hope you find this information useful. Please call us if you have questions or need additional information regarding this matter. Sincerely, Craig Rupert Bowen National Research MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA properties were identified through a variety of sources including area apartment · Collected rent by unit type and bedrooms.· Unit size by unit type and bedrooms.· guides, yellow page listings, government agencies, the Chamber of Commerce, and previous field inspection conducted by our firm. The intent of this phone survey is to evaluate the overall strength of the existing rental market, identify trends that impact future development, and identify those properties that would be considered most comparable to the subject site. None of these properties were visited in person. Because this information is collected by phone, we cannot verify the accuracy of this data. The phone survey has been organized by the type of project surveyed. Properties have been color coded to reflect the project type. Projects have been designated as A color-coded map indicating each property surveyed and the project type followed by a list of properties surveyed. ·Properties surveyed by name, address, telephone number, project type, year built project type. or renovated (if applicable), number of floors, total units, occupancy rate, quality rating, rent incentives, and Tax Credit designation. Housing Choice Vouchers and Rental Assistance are also noted here. Note that projects are organized by ·Distribution of non-subsidized and subsidized units and vacancies in properties surveyed. ·Listings for unit and project amenities, parking options, optional charges, utilities (including responsibility), and appliances. ·Calculations of rent per square foot (all utilities are adjusted to reflect similar utility responsibility). Data is summarized by unit type. ·An analysis of units, vacancies, and median rent. Where applicable, non- subsidized units are distributed separately. ·An analysis of units added to the area by project construction date and, when applicable, by year of renovation. ·Aggregate data and distributions for all non-subsidized properties are provided for appliances, unit amenities and project amenities. market-rate, Tax Credit, government-subsidized, or a combination of the three project types. The field survey is organized as follows: The following section is a phone survey of conventional rental properties. These ADDENDUM A: PHONE SURVEY OF CONVENTIONAL RENTALS A-1Survey Date: April 2017 A utility allowance worksheet.· ·A rent distribution is provided for all market-rate and non-subsidized Tax Credit units by unit type. Note that rents are adjusted to reflect common utility ·Aggregation of projects by utility responsibility (market-rate and non-subsidized Tax Credit only). responsibility. Note that other than the property listing following the map, data is organized by project types. Market-rate properties (blue designation) are first followed by variations of market-rate and Tax Credit properties. Non-government subsidized Tax Credit properties are red and government-subsidized properties are yellow. See the color codes at the bottom of each page for specific project types. Finally, it should be noted that this is not likely a complete inventory of all rental properties. An in-person visit would allow verification of data collected by telephone, as well as an opportunity to identify other potential competitive properties. A-2Survey Date: April 2017 !H !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( 98 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1211 10 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity 0 0.35 0.7 1.050.175 Miles1:45,000 N SITE Mounds View, MNApartment Locations !H Site ApartmentsType !(Mkt rate !(Mkt rate/Tax C re dit MAP IDENTIFICATION LIST - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA MAP ID PROJECT NAME PROJ. TYPE TOTAL UNITS VACANT YEAR BUILT OCC. RATE DISTANCE TO SITE* QUALITY RATING 1.3100.0%1 Woodlawn Terrace MRR 113 01978N 2.797.3%2 Banfill Crossing MRR 110 31999N 2.3100.0%3 Twin Homes MRR 20 01977N 4.5100.0%4 Cielo Apts.MRR 101 02016N 2.799.2%5 Spring Brook Apts.MRR 361 31986N 2.7100.0%6 Silver Oaks Court Apts.MRR 96 01972N 5.498.1%7 Georgetown on the River MRR 462 91975N 1.6100.0%8 Greenfield Estates MRR 125 01969N 1.9100.0%9 Landmark Estates MRR 132 01985N 1.0100.0%10 Silver Lake Pointe Apts.MRT 83 01995N 3.797.7%11 River Pointe Apts.MRR 300 71972N 2.898.1%12 Northtown Village Apts.MRR 161 31972N PROJECT TYPE PROJECTS SURVEYED TOTAL UNITS OCCUPANCY RATEVACANT U/C MRR 11 1,981 25 98.7% 0 MRT 1830100.0% 0 * - Drive Distance (Miles) Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Senior Restricted A-4Survey Date: April 2017 DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA BEDROOMS BATHS UNITS VACANT MARKET-RATE DISTRIBUTION %VACANT MEDIAN GROSS RENT 0 1 10 00.5%0.0%$788 1 1 877 1544.0%1.7%$992 2 1 756 637.9%0.8%$1,228 2 1.5 65 23.3%3.1%$1,121 2 2 197 19.9%0.5%$1,400 3 2 86 14.3%1.2%$1,591 4 2 2 00.1%0.0%$1,835 1,993 25100.0%1.3%TOTAL BEDROOMS BATHS UNITS VACANT TAX CREDIT, NON-SUBSIDIZED DISTRIBUTION %VACANT MEDIAN GROSS RENT 1 1 59 083.1%0.0%$828 2 1 12 016.9%0.0%$966 71 0100.0%0.0%TOTAL 2,064 25-1.2%GRAND TOTAL NON-SUBSIDIZED 10 0% 936 45% 1030 51% 86 4% 2 0%0 BEDROOMS 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOMS 3 BEDROOMS 4 BEDROOMS DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS BY BEDROOM A-5Survey Date: April 2017 SURVEY OF PROPERTIES - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA 1 Woodlawn Terrace 100.0% Floors 3 Contact Sue Waiting List None Total Units 113 Vacancies 0 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 7639 Woodlawn Dr.Phone (763) 784-2511 Year Built 1978Mounds View, MN 55112 Comments Does not accept HCV; Select units have dishwasher (Contact by phone) 2 Banfill Crossing 97.3% Floors 4 Contact Anne Waiting List None Total Units 110 Vacancies 3 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 8310 Univeristy Ave. NE Phone (763) 785-2278 Year Built 1999Fridley, MN 55432 Comments HCV (2 units); Larger 2-br units include washer/dryer; Random units have tenant installed ceiling fan (Contact by phone) Senior Restricted (55+) 3 Twin Homes 100.0% Floors 1,2 Contact Wendy Waiting List None Total Units 20 Vacancies 0 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 5312 Raymond Ave.Phone (703) 784-1666 Year Built 1977Mounds View, MN 55112 Comments Accepts HCV (0 currently); Approx 10 units have dishwasher; Rent range based on updated units; Duplexes (Contact by phone) 4 Cielo Apts. 100.0% Floors 4 Contact Todd Waiting List 8 households Total Units 101 Vacancies 0 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 6051 Univeristy Ave.Phone (612) 500-7299 Year Built 2016Fridley, MN 55432 Comments Does not accept HCV; Opened 2/2016, 100% occupied 9/2016 (Contact by phone) 5 Spring Brook Apts. 99.2% Floors 3 Contact Maddie Waiting List None Total Units 361 Vacancies 3 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 111 83rd Ave. NE Phone (763) 785-2500 Year Built 1986Fridley, MN 55432 Comments Does not accept HCV; Rent range based on floor level, unit location & view; Only one 3-br unit has fireplace (Contact by phone) Rent Special Storage unit, 12 months no charge Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Project Type A-6Survey Date: April 2017 SURVEY OF PROPERTIES - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA 6 Silver Oaks Court Apts. 100.0% Floors 3 Contact Cindy Waiting List None Total Units 96 Vacancies 0 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 2657 Rice Creek Rd.Phone (651) 968-8795 Year Built 1972New Brighton, MN 55112 Comments Does not accept HCV; Removing disposal as they break (Contact by phone) 7 Georgetown on the River 98.1% Floors 3 Contact Jennifer Waiting List None Total Units 462 Vacancies 9 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 5750 E. River Rd.Phone (763) 571-3055 Year Built 1975Fridley, MN 55432 Comments Does not accept HCV; Select units have patio/balcony (Contact by phone) 8 Greenfield Estates 100.0% Floors 2.5 Contact Michelle Waiting List None Total Units 125 Vacancies 0 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 7635 Greenfield Ave.Phone (763) 273-8142 Year Built 1969Mounds View, MN 55112 Comments Does not accept HCV; 2nd & 3rd floor units have balcony (Contact by phone) 9 Landmark Estates 100.0% Floors 3 Contact Steve Waiting List None Total Units 132 Vacancies 0 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 5400 Landmark Cir.Phone (888) 636-1446 Year Built 1985Mounds View, MN 55112 Comments Does not accept HCV; One 3-br maintenance not included in total (Contact by phone) 10 Silver Lake Pointe Apts. 100.0% Floors 3 Contact Name not given Waiting List 50 households Total Units 83 Vacancies 0 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 2701 Country Rd. I Phone (763) 785-4771 Year Built 1995Mounds View, MN 55112 Comments Market-rate (12 units); 60% AMHI (71 units); HCV (9 units) (Contact by phone) Senior Restricted (62+) Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Project Type A-7Survey Date: April 2017 SURVEY OF PROPERTIES - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA 11 River Pointe Apts. 97.7% Floors 2.5 Contact Missy Waiting List None Total Units 300 Vacancies 7 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 7855 E. River Rd.Phone (763) 571-8161 Year Built 1972Fridley, MN 55432 Comments Does not accept HCV; Rent range based on unit location; Unit mix estimated (Contact by phone) 12 Northtown Village Apts. 98.1% Floors 3 Contact Alexis Waiting List None Total Units 161 Vacancies 3 Occupied Quality Rating N Address 7779 University Ave. NE Phone (763) 273-8746 Year Built 1972Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 Comments Accepts HCV; Rent range based on dishwasher, unit location & balcony; Rents change daily; Unit mix estimated (Contact in person) Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Project Type A-8Survey Date: April 2017 STUDIO 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4+ BR 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4+ BR GARDEN UNITS TOWNHOUSE UNITSMAP ID COLLECTED RENTS - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA 1 $735 $835 2 $878 to $1013 $1187 to $1509  3 $830 to $865 $970 to $1050 4 $1050 $1155 to $1395 $1375 to $1795 $1825 to $2075 5 $929 to $1059 $1099 to $1229 $1389 to $1479 $1600 6 $885 $1015 to $1200 7 $860 to $925 $1100 to $1160 8 $795 $895 9 $925 to $1015 $1185 to $1295 10 $784 $909 to $1097  11 $709 $820 to $899 $929 to $1009 $1209 to $1349 12 $935 to $985 $1010 to $1085 Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Senior Restricted A-9Survey Date: April 2017 PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT.BATHS STUDIO UNITS 4 Cielo Apts.$1.68 to $1.86613 to 676 $11381 11 River Pointe Apts.$1.58500$7881 MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT.BATHS ONE-BEDROOM UNITS 1 Woodlawn Terrace $1.07725$7791 2 Banfill Crossing $1.32 to $1.34697 to 790 $922 to $10571 3 Twin Homes $1.15 to $1.19800$916 to $9511 4 Cielo Apts.$1.34 to $1.59790 to 1114 $1255 to $14951 5 Spring Brook Apts.$1.49 to $1.52718 to 789 $1069 to $11991 6 Silver Oaks Court Apts.$1.10842$9291 7 Georgetown on the River $1.28 to $1.60600 to 800 $958 to $10231 8 Greenfield Estates $1.12750$8391 9 Landmark Estates $1.14 to $1.19850 to 970 $1011 to $11011 11 River Pointe Apts.$1.17 to $1.27780$911 to $9901 12 Northtown Village Apts.$1.32 to $1.39750$992 to $10421 10 Silver Lake Pointe Apts.$1.13731$8281 MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT.BATHS TWO-BEDROOM UNITS 1 Woodlawn Terrace $0.91975$8921 2 Banfill Crossing $1.30 to $1.31947 to 1148 $1244 to $14951 $1.301205$15662 3 Twin Homes $1.09 to $1.17990$1076 to $11561 4 Cielo Apts.$1.36 to $1.421104 to 1180 $1498 to $16781 $1.24 to $1.421104 to 1553 $1573 to $19182 5 Spring Brook Apts.$1.28 to $1.30980 to 1094 $1270 to $14001 to 2 6 Silver Oaks Court Apts.$1.10 to $1.11967 to 1147 $1072 to $12571 7 Georgetown on the River $1.16 to $1.54800 to 1110 $1228 to $12881 8 Greenfield Estates $0.951000$9521 9 Landmark Estates $1.151120$12911 $1.101270$14012 11 River Pointe Apts.$1.08 to $1.17962$1041 to $11211 to 1.5 12 Northtown Village Apts.$1.14 to $1.22950$1083 to $11581 10 Silver Lake Pointe Apts.$1.03 to $1.03934 to 1119 $966 to $11541 MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT.BATHS THREE-BEDROOM UNITS Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Senior Restricted A-10Survey Date: April 2017 PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT.BATHS THREE-BEDROOM UNITS 4 Cielo Apts.$1.43 to $1.531286 to 1553 $1973 to $22232 5 Spring Brook Apts.$1.39 to $1.461148$1591 to $16812 11 River Pointe Apts.$1.17 to $1.291150$1341 to $14812 MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT.BATHS FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS 5 Spring Brook Apts.$1.411300$18352 Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Senior Restricted A-11Survey Date: April 2017 AVERAGE GROSS RENT PER SQUARE FOOT - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA $1.33 $1.19 $1.35 UNIT TYPE ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR GARDEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00TOWNHOUSE MARKET-RATE $1.13 $0.97 $0.00 UNIT TYPE ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR GARDEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00TOWNHOUSE TAX CREDIT (NON-SUBSIDIZED) $1.32 $1.19 $1.35 UNIT TYPE ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR GARDEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00TOWNHOUSE COMBINED A-12Survey Date: April 2017 TAX CREDIT UNITS - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA ONE-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNITS # OF BATHSSQUARE FEET % AMHI COLLECTED RENT 10 Silver Lake Pointe Apts.59 731 1 60%$784 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNITS # OF BATHSSQUARE FEET % AMHI COLLECTED RENT 10 Silver Lake Pointe Apts.12 934 - 1119 1 60% $909 - $947  - Senior Restricted A-13Survey Date: April 2017 QUALITY RATING - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA MARKET-RATE PROJECTS AND UNITS RATING PROJECTS MEDIAN GROSS RENT ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR QUALITY UNITS TOTAL RATE VACANCY STUDIOS FOUR-BR 12 1,993 1.3%$992 $1,228 $1,591N.A.$788 $1,835 MARKET-RATE UNITS N 100% TAX CREDIT UNITS N 100% DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS BY QUALITY RATING TAX CREDIT (NON-SUBSIDIZED) PROJECTS AND UNITS RATING PROJECTS MEDIAN GROSS RENT ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR QUALITY UNITS TOTAL RATE VACANCY STUDIOS FOUR-BR $828 $9661710.0%N.A. A-14Survey Date: April 2017 YEAR RANGE UNITS % VACANT TOTAL UNITSPROJECTSVACANT DISTRIBUTION YEAR BUILT - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA * 0.0%Before 1970 1 125 1250 6.1% 1970 to 1979 6 1152 1277191.6%55.8% 1980 to 1989 2 493 177030.6%23.9% 1990 to 1999 2 193 196331.6%9.4% 0.0%2000 to 2005 0 0 19630 0.0% 0.0%2006 to 2010 0 0 19630 0.0% 0.0%2011 0 0 19630 0.0% 0.0%2012 0 0 19630 0.0% 0.0%2013 0 0 19630 0.0% 0.0%2014 0 0 19630 0.0% 0.0%2015 0 0 19630 0.0% 0.0%2016 1 101 20640 4.9% 0.0%2017**0 0 20640 0.0% TOTAL 2064 25 100.0 %12 1.2%2064 * Only Market-Rate and Tax Credit projects. Does not include government-subsidized projects. ** As of April 2017 A-15Survey Date: April 2017 APPLIANCES AND UNIT AMENITIES - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA RANGE 12 APPLIANCES APPLIANCE PROJECTS PERCENT 100.0% REFRIGERATOR 12 100.0% ICEMAKER 0 0.0% DISHWASHER 11 91.7% DISPOSAL 8 66.7% MICROWAVE 4 33.3% UNIT AMENITIES AMENITY PROJECTS PERCENT AC - CENTRAL 3 25.0% AC - WINDOW 9 75.0% FLOOR COVERING 12 100.0% WASHER/DRYER 4 33.3% WASHER/DRYER HOOK-UP 4 33.3% PATIO/DECK/BALCONY 9 75.0% CEILING FAN 8 66.7% FIREPLACE 2 16.7% BASEMENT 1 8.3% INTERCOM SYSTEM 6 50.0% SECURITY SYSTEM 0 0.0% WINDOW TREATMENTS 11 91.7% FURNISHED UNITS 0 0.0% E-CALL BUTTON 0 0.0% UNITS* 2,064 2,064 1,939 1,349 685 533 UNITS* 1,531 2,064 363 363 1,851 1,511 462 20 1,213 1,968 * - Does not include units where appliances/amenities are optional; Only includes market-rate or non-government subsidized Tax Credit. A-16Survey Date: April 2017 PROJECT AMENITIES - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA PROJECT AMENITIES AMENITY PROJECTS PERCENT POOL 7 58.3% ON-SITE MANAGEMENT 11 91.7% LAUNDRY 7 58.3% CLUB HOUSE 4 33.3% MEETING ROOM 2 16.7% FITNESS CENTER 6 50.0% JACUZZI/SAUNA 2 16.7% PLAYGROUND 5 41.7% COMPUTER LAB 1 8.3% SPORTS COURT 1 8.3% STORAGE 2 16.7% LAKE 1 8.3% ELEVATOR 4 33.3% SECURITY GATE 1 8.3% BUSINESS CENTER 1 8.3% CAR WASH AREA 0 0.0% PICNIC AREA 9 75.0% CONCIERGE SERVICE 0 0.0% SOCIAL SERVICE PACKAGE 2 16.7% UNITS 1,639 2,044 1,239 1,233 184 1,439 493 1,031 83 457 257 361 756 161 361 1,799 193 A-17Survey Date: April 2017 DISTRIBUTION OF UTILITIES - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA WATER LLANDLORD 9 1,242 60.2% TTENANT 3 822 39.8% 100.0% HEAT NUMBER OF PROJECTS NUMBER OF UNITS DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS UTILITY (RESPONSIBILITY) LANDLORD GGAS 7 988 47.9% TENANT EELECTRIC 1 462 22.4% GGAS 4 614 29.7% 100.0% COOKING FUEL LANDLORD GGAS 1 300 14.5% TENANT EELECTRIC 11 1,764 85.5% 100.0% HOT WATER LANDLORD GGAS 7 988 47.9% TENANT EELECTRIC 2 563 27.3% GGAS 3 513 24.9% 100.0% ELECTRIC TTENANT 12 2,064 100.0% 100.0% SEWER LLANDLORD 10 1,403 68.0% TTENANT 2 661 32.0% 100.0%TRASH PICK-UP LLANDLORD 10 1,403 68.0% TTENANT 2 661 32.0% 100.0% A-18Survey Date: April 2017 UTILITY ALLOWANCE - MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA HOT WATER UNIT TYPEBR GAS ELEC STEAM OTHER GAS ELEC GAS ELEC ELEC SEWER TRASH CABLE HEATING COOKING WATER 0 $30 $27 $44 $7 $19 $3 $5 $34 $9 $24 $20GARDEN$12 1 $34 $32 $51 $8 $22 $4 $7 $37 $13 $24 $20GARDEN$17 1 $40 $46 $64 $8 $22 $4 $7 $45 $13 $24 $20TOWNHOUSE$17 2 $38 $43 $60 $11 $28 $5 $10 $47 $16 $27 $20GARDEN$22 2 $51 $60 $75 $11 $28 $5 $10 $57 $16 $27 $20TOWNHOUSE$22 3 $43 $55 $69 $14 $35 $6 $13 $57 $20 $28 $20GARDEN$27 3 $62 $75 $86 $14 $35 $6 $13 $70 $20 $28 $20TOWNHOUSE$27 4 $47 $67 $78 $17 $41 $7 $16 $67 $25 $28 $20GARDEN$35 4 $74 $89 $97 $17 $41 $7 $16 $81 $25 $28 $20TOWNHOUSE$35 MN-Metro HRA (12/2016) A-19Survey Date: April 2017 B-1 Addendum B: HUD Rent Comparability Grids Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type ONE BEDROOM Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 The Boulevard Data Woodlawn Terrace Cielo Apts. Spring Brook Apts. Landmark Estates River Pointe Apts. 2901 Mounds View Boulevard on 7639 Woodlawn Dr. 6051 Univeristy Ave. 111 83rd Ave. NE 5400 Landmark Cir. 7855 E. River Rd. Mounds View, MN Subject Mounds View, MN Fridley, MN Fridley, MN Mounds View, MN Fridley, MN A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted?$735 $1,155 $929 $925 $860 2 Date Surveyed Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 3 Rent Concessions None None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 100% 100% 99% 100% 98% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $735 1.01 $1,155 1.46 $929 1.29 $925 1.09 $860 1.10 B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories EE/3 WU/3 EE/4 WU/3 WU/3 WU/2.5 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 1978 $41 2016 $3 1986 $33 1985 $34 1972 $47 8 Condition /Street Appeal E G $15 E G $15 G $15 G $15 9 Neighborhood G GGGGG 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 1 11111 12 # Baths 1 11111 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft.690 725 ($10)790 ($30)718 ($8)850 ($48)780 ($27) 14 Balcony/ Patio N NY($5)Y ($5)Y ($5)N 15 AC: Central/ Wall W WC($5)WC($5)C ($5) 16 Range/ Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/ Dishwasher N/Y N/Y Y/Y ($5)Y/Y ($5)N/Y N/Y 18 Washer/Dryer W/D L $35 W/D L $35 W/D L $35 19 Floor Coverings C CCCCC 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Intercom/Security System N/N N/N Y/N ($3)Y/N ($3)N/N N/N 22 Garbage Disposal N Y ($5)NY($5)NY($5) 23 Ceiling Fans N Y ($5)NY($5)NN D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee)P-GAR LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 25 On-Site Management Y YYYYY 26 Security Gate N NNNNN 27 Clubhouse/ Meeting Space Y N$5YYN$5Y 28 Pool/ Recreation Areas F P ($5)F P/F/J/S ($16)P/F/J ($13)P/F ($10) 29 Computer/Business Center N NNNNN 30 Picnic Area/Storage N/Y N/N $5 Y/N Y/N N/N $5 Y/N 31 Playground Y YN$3YN$3Y 32 Social Services N NNNNN E.Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type)Y/G Y/G N/G $34 N/G $34 N/G $34 Y/G 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type)N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type)N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E Y/G ($4) 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type)Y/G Y/G N/E $22 N/G $8 N/G $8 Y/G 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/ Sewer Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y N/N $30 Y/Y N/N $30 39 Trash /Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $24 Y/N N/N $24 F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 6 4 3 5 4 7 6 4 4 4 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $131 ($25)$36 ($48)$113 ($47)$92 ($71)$127 ($47) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments $56 $96 $42 $54 ($4)Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E $106 $156 $44 $140 $162 $256 $63 $205 $130 $232 G.Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43)$841 $1,199 $1,091 $988 $990 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 114% 104% 117% 107% 115% 46 Estimated Market Rent $1,020 $1.48 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type TWO BEDROOM Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 The Boulevard Data Woodlawn Terrace Cielo Apts. Spring Brook Apts. Landmark Estates River Pointe Apts. 2901 Mounds View Boulevard on 7639 Woodlawn Dr. 6051 Univeristy Ave. 111 83rd Ave. NE 5400 Landmark Cir. 7855 E. River Rd. Mounds View, MN Subject Mounds View, MN Fridley, MN Fridley, MN Mounds View, MN Fridley, MN A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted?$835 $1,375 $1,099 $1,185 $929 2 Date Surveyed Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 3 Rent Concessions None None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 100% 100% 99% 100% 98% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $835 0.86 $1,375 1.25 $1,099 1.12 $1,185 1.06 $929 0.97 B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories EE/3 WU/3 EE/4 WU/3 WU/3 WU/2.5 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 1978 $41 2016 $3 1986 $33 1985 $34 1972 $47 8 Condition /Street Appeal E G $15 E G $15 G $15 G $15 9 Neighborhood G GGGGG 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 2 22222 12 # Baths 2 1 $30 1 $30 1 $30 1 $30 1 $30 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft.929 975 ($12)1104 ($46)980 ($13)1120 ($50)962 ($9) 14 Balcony/ Patio N NY($5)Y ($5)Y ($5)N 15 AC: Central/ Wall W WC($5)WC($5)C ($5) 16 Range/ Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/ Dishwasher N/Y N/Y Y/Y ($5)Y/Y ($5)N/Y N/Y 18 Washer/Dryer W/D L $35 W/D L $35 W/D L $35 19 Floor Coverings C CCCCC 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Intercom/Security System N/N N/N Y/N ($3)Y/N ($3)N/N N/N 22 Garbage Disposal N Y ($5)NY($5)NY($5) 23 Ceiling Fans N Y ($5)NY($5)NN D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee)P-GAR LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 25 On-Site Management Y YYYYY 26 Security Gate N NNNNN 27 Clubhouse/ Meeting Space Y N$5YYN$5Y 28 Pool/ Recreation Areas F P ($5)F P/F/J/S ($16)P/F/J ($13)P/F ($10) 29 Computer/Business Center N NNNNN 30 Picnic Area/Storage N/Y N/N $5 Y/N Y/N N/N $5 Y/N 31 Playground Y YN$3YN$3Y 32 Social Services N NNNNN E.Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type)Y/G Y/G N/G $38 N/G $38 N/G $38 Y/G 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type)N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type)N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E Y/G ($5) 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type)Y/G Y/G N/E $28 N/G $11 N/G $11 Y/G 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/ Sewer Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y N/N $38 Y/Y N/N $38 39 Trash /Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $27 Y/N N/N $27 F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 7 4 4 5 5 7 7 4 5 4 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $161 ($27)$66 ($64)$143 ($52)$122 ($73)$157 ($29) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments $66 $114 $49 $65 ($5)Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E $134 $188 $68 $196 $205 $309 $98 $244 $188 $256 G.Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43)$969 $1,443 $1,304 $1,283 $1,117 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 116% 105% 119% 108% 120% 46 Estimated Market Rent $1,225 $1.32 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type THREE BEDROOM Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 The Boulevard Data Woodlawn Terrace Cielo Apts. Spring Brook Apts. Landmark Estates River Pointe Apts. 2901 Mounds View Boulevard on 7639 Woodlawn Dr. 6051 Univeristy Ave. 111 83rd Ave. NE 5400 Landmark Cir. 7855 E. River Rd. Mounds View, MN Subject Mounds View, MN Fridley, MN Fridley, MN Mounds View, MN Fridley, MN A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted?$835 $1,825 $1,434 $1,185 $1,279 2 Date Surveyed Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 Apr-17 3 Rent Concessions None None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $835 0.86 $1,825 1.42 $1,434 1.25 $1,185 1.06 $1,279 1.11 B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories EE/3 WU/3 EE/4 WU/3 WU/3 WU/2.5 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 1978 $41 2016 $3 1986 $33 1985 $34 1972 $47 8 Condition /Street Appeal E G $15 E G $15 G $15 G $15 9 Neighborhood G GGGGG 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 3 2 $50 3 3 2 $50 3 12 # Baths 2 1 $30 2 2 1 $30 2 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft.1045 975 $20 1286 ($70)1148 ($30)1120 ($22)1150 ($30) 14 Balcony/ Patio N NY($5)Y ($5)Y ($5)N 15 AC: Central/ Wall W WC($5)WC($5)C ($5) 16 Range/ Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/ Dishwasher N/Y N/Y Y/Y ($5)Y/Y ($5)N/Y N/Y 18 Washer/Dryer W/D L $35 W/D L $35 W/D L $35 19 Floor Coverings C CCCCC 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Intercom/Security System N/N N/N Y/N ($3)Y/N ($3)N/N N/N 22 Garbage Disposal N Y ($5)NY($5)NY($5) 23 Ceiling Fans N Y ($5)NY($5)NN D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee)P-GAR LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 LOT/$0 $30 25 On-Site Management Y YYYYY 26 Security Gate N NNNNN 27 Clubhouse/ Meeting Space Y N$5YYN$5Y 28 Pool/ Recreation Areas F P ($5)F P/F/J/S ($16)P/F/J ($13)P/F ($10) 29 Computer/Business Center N NNNNN 30 Picnic Area/Storage N/Y N/N $5 Y/N Y/N N/N $5 Y/N 31 Playground Y YN$3YN$3Y 32 Social Services N NNNNN E.Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type)Y/G Y/G N/G $43 N/G $43 N/G $43 Y/G 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type)N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type)N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E Y/G ($6) 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type)Y/G Y/G N/E $35 N/G $14 N/G $14 Y/G 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/ Sewer Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y N/N $47 Y/Y N/N $47 39 Trash /Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $28 Y/N N/N $28 F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 9 3 3 5 4 7 8 4 4 4 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $231 ($15)$36 ($88)$113 ($69)$172 ($45)$127 ($50) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments $78 $132 $57 $75 ($6)Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E $216 $246 $26 $202 $176 $314 $184 $274 $146 $258 G.Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43)$1,051 $1,851 $1,610 $1,369 $1,425 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 126% 101% 112% 116% 111% 46 Estimated Market Rent $1,460 $1.40 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft Item No: ___5A Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 Type of Business: Planning Case MU2017-001 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Planner Item Title/Subject: MU2017-001: MWF Properties. LLC: Resolution 1075-17, Recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of “Boulevard”, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Blvd. and Groveland Rd. Resolution 1076-17, Recommending approval of a Development Review of “Boulevard”, a 60-unit apartment building, generally located at the NW corner of Mounds View Blvd. and Groveland Rd Introduction MWF Properties, requests approval of; (1) a Preliminary Plat of a Major Subdivision combing four lots into one lot, and (2) a Development Review of a 60-unit apartment, to be located at the northwest corner of Mounds View Blvd. and Groveland Rd. Discussion The project includes the following properties: PID Address Existing Use Zoning Comp Plan 06-30-23-31-0029 7980 Groveland Rd Vacant R-4 High Density Residential MU-PUD 06-30-23-31-0030 2865 Mounds View Blvd Single-Family R-4 High Density Residential MU-PUD 06-30-23-31-0031 2901 Mounds View Blvd Vacant R-4 High Density Residential MU-PUD 06-30-23-31-0241 80XX Groveland Rd (unaddressed parcel) Vacant R-4 High Density Residential MU-PUD A Major Subdivision is the division of land into more than one lot, or includes two acres of land or larger 1. In this case, four lots will be combined into one lot, 3.5 acres in size. 1 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1201.03, Subd 8 (Major Subdivision) Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 2 A Development Review is required for construction activity in which a principal building is increased in size by more than 10%, or more than 10,000 sq ft (excludes single-family and two-family dwellings).2 In this case, the proposed 60-unit apartment building will be 25,000 sq ft in size. This project includes multiple applications. Meeting dates include: Application Planning Commission Resolution City Council Resolution Zoning Map Amendment Apr 5, 2017 1067-17 Apr 19, 2017 Ord 934 May 8, 2017 CUP – Multiple Family Dwelling Apr 5, 2017 1068-17 May 8, 2017 8751 Preliminary Plat Jul 19, 2017 Jul 24, 2017 Development Review Jul 19, 2017 Jul 24, 2017 Tax Increment Financing N/A N/A TBD MWF Properties held a neighborhood meeting on February 16, 2017 at Lakes Run Apartments in New Brighton, an MWF project. Eleven residents attended. Additional discussions were held at City Council Work Sessions on January 3rd, March 6th, and April 3rd, 2017, in addition to discussions by the Mounds View EDA on May 8th and May 22nd, 2017, concerning Tax Increment Financing. During the City Council’s May 8th Public Hearing(s), several residents expressed concern about (1) additional traffic onto Groveland Rd to be generated by the project, and (2) if additional apartments and affordable housing in Mounds View is in the City’s best interest. Traffic The project proposes a driveway access onto Groveland Rd. Driveway access onto Mounds View Blvd. (CSAH 10) has been denied by Ramsey County. MWF Properties commissioned a Traffic Impact Study (attached). In summary, the apartments are forecasted to add 31 trips during the morning peak hour and 37 trips during the afternoon peak hour. The study assumes that traffic generated by the apartments will go to Mounds View Blvd (80%), north on Groveland Rd (15% or 5-6 vehicles per AM/PM peak period), and south on Groveland Rd (south of MV Blvd) (5%). The study states that the project will have minimal impact to the Mounds View Blvd & Groveland Rd intersection. The study indicates that a right turn lane from south-bound Groveland Rd onto west-bound Mounds View Blvd would reduce delays, but have minimal impact. A right-turn lane is not proposed as part of the project. 2 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1006.06, Subd 2 (Application of Development Controls) Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 3 Affordable Housing The proposed apartments will include 60-units of affordable workforce housing. Residents will have an income restriction of 60% of the Area Median Income3 (AMI), based on household size. Household size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Max HH Income $36,060 $41,220 $46,380 $51,480 $56,620 $59,760 $63,840 $67,980 # of Apt Bedrooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 Max HH Rent $966 $1,159 $1,338 $1,494 $1,647 $1,801 Avg. MV Rent 4 $1,036 $1,282 $1,795 $1,835 Avg. MV-SLP Rent 5 $777 $894 $1,304 During a previous Planning Commission meeting, there were questions about how many rental units there are in the City, and how many are affordable. There are 5,280 housing units in Mounds View (2016). According to the City’s rental licensing records, there are 1,511 multi-family rental units and 240 single-family rental units (2017) (33% of total housing stock is rental). MWF Properties commissioned a rental housing study in 2017 (see Figure 1 for areas included). In summary, within this market area, the number of rental households is projected to grow by 221 units (3.1%) between 2016 and 2021.6 The proposed project is 60-units. According to HUD 7, subsidized housing facilities within Mounds View include; (1) Silver Lake Commons (50 units), constructed in 1999; (2) Wildwood Manor (40 units), limited to elderly tenants, and constructed in 1983; and (3) Mounds View 3 Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Housing Tax Credits & Tax Exempt Bond Income and Rent Limits, Table I, p. 31 [Ramsey County, effective 03-28-2016]. 4 Rupert, Craig, Bowen National Research, (2017). Price per sq ft – Mounds View, Minnesota. Re: Preliminary Tax Credit Support – The Boulevard (Mounds View, MN). 5 Bujold, M., Wilder, R. (2016). Table 7 Average Rents/Vacancies Trends Primary Market Area Third Quarter 2015. Initial Market Assessment for General Occupancy Market Rate rental housing in Mounds View, MN. 6 Rupert, Craig, Bowen National Research, (2017). Price per sq ft – Mounds View, Minnesota. Re: Preliminary Tax Credit Support – The Boulevard (Mounds View, MN). 7 US Housing and Urban Development (HUD), HUD Electronic Geospatial Information Systems, accessed June 21, 2017. Figure 1: Primary Market Area of Housing Study (Bowen National Research) Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 4 Gables, (20 units), limited to disabled tenants, and constructed in 2003. The HUD data does not include individual units rented within a complex using housing vouchers (e.g. Section 8). Thus, this information is limited to complexes in which all units are subsidized. Analysis Plans were submitted on June 15th by the Community Development Dept. to: Public Works Dept., City Attorney, SBM Fire Dept., Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), Ramsey County Highway Dept., and Ramsey County Surveyor’s office. Comments were received from Public Works, and RCWD. An analysis comparing the proposed project to requirements of the Municipal Code is summarized as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION Lot dimensions Minimum Req. Proposed Lot Area 2,500 sq ft p/unit 2,596 sq ft p/unit Lot Width 100’ (varies) Front Setback 5’* 7’ Side Setback 20’ 21’ Rear Setback 50’ 150’ Max Height 3 stories 3 stories (46’) * Within the County Road 10 Overlay District, the setback is suggested to be not more than 5’ from the Mounds View Blvd ROW. Within the R-4 district, the minimum front yard setback is 30’. For a visual comparison of what a 5’ setback looks like, within the City of Fridley, Cielo Apartments on University Ave & 61st Ave., has a building setback of 5’ from the property line, 8’ from a sidewalk, and 33’ from the edge of the street. Access & Traffic Access to the site is proposed onto Groveland Rd. A previous sketch plan proposed a right-in/right-out access onto Mounds View Blvd (CSAH 10) at the southwest corner of the property, but was denied by Ramsey County. Figure 2: Cielo Apartments, Fridley (www.apartments.com) Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 5 A traffic study was completed by Wenck Associates. The study forecasts that the project will generate 31 trips during the AM peak hour and 37 trips during PM peak hour (see Table 4-1, attached). Park Dedication The City may require the applicant to dedicate up to 10% of buildable land (0.35 acres), or up to 10% of pre-development land value ($39,720), to the City for park dedication.8 Staff is recommending fees in lieu of land dedication. PID 2017 EMV (land) 10% 06-30-23-31-0029 $71,900 $7,190 06-30-23-31-0030 $120,100 $12,010 06-30-23-31-0031 $171,700 $17,170 06-30-23-31-0241 $33,500 $3,350 TOTAL $397,200 $39,720 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A Development Review includes the following items:9 Minimum Floor Area 10 Minimum Req. Proposed 1 bedroom units 630 sq ft 676 – 786 sq ft 2 bedroom units 750 sq ft 963 – 1,134 sq ft 3 bedroom units 870 sq ft 1,231 – 1,258 sq ft There will be: 15 one-bedroom units 28 two-bedroom units 17 three-bedroom units 60 Total units Public Utilities Public utilities (sewer/water) will be provided from Groveland Rd. Surface Water Drainage Storm water will drain into an infiltration basin in the southeast corner of the lot. The dry basin will be 6’ below grade. 8 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1204.02, Subd 4 (Dedication Amount) 9 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1006.06, Subd 3 (Development Plan) 10 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1104.02, Subd 4(c) (Minimum Floor Area Per Dwelling Unit) Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 6 The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans. Erosion Control A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) is included in the submitted plans. Driveways A 24’ wide driveway is proposed, accessing Groveland Rd (maximum permitted is 32’ in the R-4 district). Please refer to the driveway location discussion, under “Preliminary Plat of Major Subdivision”. Trails The City maintains a trail system along Mounds View Blvd. between Groveland Rd and Co Rd H. The applicant proposes to extend this trail at their expense, along the south property line. The 10’ wide trail will be within the county’s right-of-way (ROW), and setback 33’ from the edge of the road pavement, and 13’ – 16’ from the edge of the apartment building. Parking Required* parking is 1½ uncovered stalls per dwelling unit, and one covered stall per dwelling unit.11 Required* Proposed Uncovered Stalls 90 63 Covered Stalls 60 63 * Within the County Road 10 Overlay zoning district, parking requirements are intended as a “guideline”.12 Landscaping Usable open space is intended to be accessible for active and passive recreation by the apartment’s residents.13 Required Proposed Usable Open Space 625 sq ft p/unit 60 units = 37,500 sq ft 105 sq ft p/unit 60 units = 62,896 sq ft Within the County Road 10 Overlay zoning district, a minimum of 15% of the lot shall be devoted to landscaped open space (57.8% proposed). 11 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1121.13 (Schedule of Off-Street Parking Requirements) 12 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1129.05, Subd 4 (Off-Street Parking) 13 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1102.02, Subd 127 (Usable Open Space), Section 1104.02, Subd 2(b)(4) Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 7 A playground is proposed, to be located near the NE corner of the building. Parking lots with more than five stalls must be screened.14 Minimum screening shall consist of a solid fence with a minimum height of 6’, or coniferous trees, with a minimum height of 8’. A 6’ privacy fence is proposed as a buffer for homes along Groveland Rd, not otherwise screened by existing trees. Landscape plant materials 15:* Required Proposed Deciduous shade trees 13 32 Coniferous trees 13 20 Understory shrubs 83 140 Ornamental trees 13 13 * Proposed landscaping listed is from plans, dated June 13, 2017. Revised plans, dated July 13, 2017 will be evaluated prior to the July 24th City Council Public Hearing. Lighting Exterior lighting is required to have shielded fixtures to reduce glare, with a maximum 1 foot-candle (fc) measured from the center line of a public street, and 0.4 fc measured from residential property lines.16 The photometric plan includes foot-candle (fc) measurements at the property line (not centerline of street), with a maximum of 4.6 and 5.6 fc near the two exterior doors onto the trail (Mounds View Blvd). Foot-candle measurements adjacent to residential properties are 0.5 fc on the east side, and 0.6 fc on the west side. It is Staff’s opinion that proposed lighting is appropriate along Mounds View Blvd, and must be adjusted to reduce glare along adjacent residential properties. Setbacks Within the County Road 10 Overlay zoning district, buildings and parking lots “should be” setback 5’ from the Mounds View Blvd. property line.17 14 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1120., Subd 12 (Required Screening), Section 1103.08(6) 15 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1127.05, Subd 3 (Number of plant materials required) 16 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1103.09 (Glare) 17 Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1129.05, Subd 3 (Building and Parking Setback Requirements) Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 8 The building has a varying setback of 7’ – 9’ from the front property line, about 13’ – 16’ from the trail, and about 56’ – 59’ from the road pavement. Exterior Materials Within the County Road 10 Overlay zoning district, exterior building finishes shall consist of a minimum of 50% brick, natural stone or cultured stone, glass, masonry stucco, or other materials approved by the City. Proposed*: Exterior Material Percentage North South East West Overall Brick 0% 05% 0% 0% 0% Natural stone or cultured stone 26% 29% 26% 31% 28% Glass 11% 22% 25% 26% 23% Masonry Stucco 22% 5% 3% 4% 7% Other comparable material 6% 1% 1% 0% 0.4% All mechanical equipment shall be screened. Air conditioner units will be integrated into the exterior walls, and flush with the walls. Trash Disposal Dumpsters are required to be screened from view from Mounds View Blvd. The dumpsters will be kept within the parking garage and rolled out to a collection area outside the garage entrance on collection days. Construction Timetable Pending financial assistance from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (fall, 2017), construction will be completed in spring, 2019. Summary MWF Properties is requesting approval of (1) a Major Subdivision, and (2) a Development Review for a 60-unit apartment building to be located at the northwest corner of Mounds View Blvd. and Groveland Rd. MWF Properties has applied for financial assistance (Low Income Housing Tax Credits) from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). This is a competitive program. MHFA awards will be announced in October, 2017. If an award is not received, it is anticipated that MWF Properties will request an extension to the approvals (CUP, Preliminary Plat, and Development Review), and then reapply to MHFA in 2018. Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 9 A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on Monday, July 24, 2017 at 6:00 PM to consider approval of the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will consider approval of the Development Review at this same meeting (no Public Hearing). A Public Hearing notice of the July 24th meeting has been published in the July 14th Sun Focus, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the project, and to property owners along Groveland Rd, between Mounds View Blvd and Arden Ave that are outside of the 350’ notice area. (about 110 properties total). Recommendation Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission consider requesting a number of improvements, not required by the Municipal Code, including: A. The addition of a landscaped median within the driveway entrance. The reasoning is to soften the transition between the single-family neighborhood and the proposed apartment building, and add curb-appeal to the entrance. B. The addition of a graded play field in the northeast corner of the property, approximately 50’ X 70’ if oriented north-south, or 120’ X 160’ if oriented east-west. The reasoning is that the majority of this area does not include mature trees. A flat play field would provide an additional amenity to the apartment’s residents. C. The addition of balconies. The reasoning is that the Municipal Code’s intent of suggesting a maximum 5’ setback from the property line within the County Road 10 Overlay zoning district, is to provide a more pedestrian oriented character to Mounds View Blvd. It is Staff’s opinion that the use of balconies by residents would contribute to this appearance. The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options: 1. Resolution 1075-17, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of “Boulevard”. Resolution 1076-17, recommending approval of a Development Review of “Boulevard”, a 60-unit apartment building. 2. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend denial of the Resolution(s). If the Commission chooses these options, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial(s). 3. Table the request(s). If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of the 60-day requirements, (August 13, 2017) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 10 Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Jon Sevald, AICP Planner Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Site Photos 4. Elevation Rendering 5. Resolution 1075-17 (Preliminary Plat) 6. Resolution 1076-17 (Development Review) 7. Preliminary Plat and related drawings, dated, July 13, 2017 8. Traffic Impact Study, dated June 29, 2017 9. Housing Study, dated April 28, 2017 Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 11 Zoning Map Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 12 Aerial Map Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 13 Site Photos Figure 3: View looking north toward Groveland Rd. Figure 4: View looking southeast along Mounds View Blvd, from the western edge of the project. Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 14 Figure 5: View looking south toward Groveland Rd & Mounds View Blvd intersection. Figure 6: Sept 12, 2017 storm damage, looking north from NW corner of Groveland Rd & Mounds View Blvd. Planning Case MU2017-001 July 19, 2017 Page 15 Elevation Rendering RESOLUTION 1075-17 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF “BOULEVARD”, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MOUNDS VIEW BOULEVARD AND GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE MU2017-001 WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1200 provides requirements and procedures for the subdivision of plats, requiring a Major Subdivision of a parcel or parcels of property in which more than one additional parcel or lot is created or which is two (2) acres or larger in size; and, WHEREAS, MWF Properties, LLC representing Cynthia Johnson, owner of PID: 06-30- 23-31-0029 and PID: 06-30-23-31-0030; and representing the State of Minnesota, owner of PID: 06-30-23-31-0031 and PID: 06-30-23-31-0241, has applied for Preliminary Plat approval of a Major Subdivision of “Boulevard”, consisting of 3.5 acres in size, located on land legally described as: Certificate of Title No. 582367 (PID No. 06-30-23-31-0031): Parcel 1: Lot 50, except that part which lies southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet Northeasterly of the Southwesterly boundary of said Lot 50, also except that part described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 50; thence East 7 feet along the North line of said Lot 50; thence Southerly 100 feet to a point of intersection on the West line of said Lot 50; thence North along said West line of said Lot 50 to the point of commencement; Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey Co., Minn. the said excepted part of the above described property, the Southwesterly 100 feet has been taken by the State of Minnesota for public Highway purposes. Resolution 1075-17 Page 2 Parcel 2: All that part of Lot 32, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey Co., Minn., described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the West line of Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, which point is 100 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot 50; thence South to a line 100 feet Northeasterly from and parallel with the Southerly line of Lot 32; thence Northwesterly on said parallel line 32 feet; thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning. Certificate of Title No. 582368 (P.I.D No. 06-30-23-31-0241): The South 135.00 feet, front and rear, of Lot 47, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, lying westerly of the East 187.00 feet. Certificate of Title No. 616319 (P.I.D No. 06-30-23-31-0030): Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Certificate of Title No. 593365 (P.I.D No. 063023310029): That part of Lot 48, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89 lying South of the North 300 feet front and rear thereof, except that portion taken for the Highway right of way purposes. WHEREAS, the properties are zoned R-4 High Density Residential, and are within the County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District, and are guided for Mixed Use PUD within the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat and related documents, dated June 13, 2017 has been reviewed by Community Development and Public Works staff, finding it consistent with the City of Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat and related documents, dated June 13, 2017, and Traffic Impact Study, dated June 8, 2017 were submitted by the City of Mounds View to the City Attorney, Ramsey County Public Works, Rice Creek Watershed District, and SBM Fire Department for review and comments on June 15, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received comments from; Resolution 1075-17 Page 3 Brian Erickson, City of Mounds View Public Works, June 20, 2017 Samantha Berger, Rice Creek Watershed District, June 23, 2017 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request on July 19, 2017, including the following documents: Staff Report, dated July 19, 2017 Preliminary Plat and related drawings, dated June 13, 2017 Traffic Impact Study, dated June 8, 2017 Housing Study, dated April 28, 2017 WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1204.02, Subd 4 (Dedication Amount), allows for the dedication by the subdivider to the City, up to ten percent (10%) of the buildable land, or cash equivalent (2017 estimated market value of land). This dedication equals up to 0.35 acres, or up to $39,720 (2017 EMV); and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1000 (Building and Development Regulations), Section 1100 (Zoning Code), and Section 1200 (Land Subdivision), and the Comprehensive Plan; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents regarding the proposed Preliminary Plat, the Staff Report, and testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of public testimony, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of “Boulevard”, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant, MWF Properties, LLC, shall comply with requirements and BMP’s, as stipulated by the Public Works Department (June 20, 2017 letter), and Rice Creek Watershed District (June 23, 2017 email), including obtaining applicable ROW permits from the City and County, and RCWD permits. 2. The applicant shall execute a Developers Agreement with the City, to be completed as part of the Final Plat approval. The Developers Agreement will be inclusive of developer installed improvements, including a publicly owned pedestrian trail, privately owned playground, landscaping and site improvements. 3. The applicant shall pay a Park Dedication Fee of $39,720 to the City of Mounds View prior to the City signing the Final Plat mylars. 4. The applicant shall satisfy all requirements made by the City Attorney as stated in the plat opinion. Resolution 1075-17 Page 4 5. The applicant shall pay all of the City’s costs in reviewing the application, including those of the City Attorney, and consultants. 6. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than six months after the date of approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of July, 2017 Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: Jon Sevald, Planner (SEAL) RESOLUTION 1076-17 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF “BOULEVARD”, A 60-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MOUNDS VIEW BOULEVARD AND GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE MU2017-001 WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1006.06, Subd 2 (Application of Development Controls) requires a Development Review for construction of a principal building consisting of 10,000 sq ft or greater, or an addition onto a principal building increasing its size by 10% or greater (excludes single-family and two-family dwellings); and, WHEREAS, MWF Properties, LLC, representing Cynthia Johnson, owner of PID: 06- 30-23-31-0029 and PID: 06-30-23-31-0030; and representing the State of Minnesota, owner of PID: 06-30-23-31-0031 and PID: 06-30-23-31-0241, has requested approval of a Development Review for a 60-unit apartment building (principal building), consisting of 25,000 sq ft., and located on land legally described as: Certificate of Title No. 582367 (PID No. 06-30-23-31-0031): Parcel 1: Lot 50, except that part which lies southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet Northeasterly of the Southwesterly boundary of said Lot 50, also except that part described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 50; thence East 7 feet along the North line of said Lot 50; thence Southerly 100 feet to a point of intersection on the West line of said Lot 50; thence North along said West line of said Lot 50 to the point of commencement; Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey Co., Minn. the said excepted part of the above described property, the Southwesterly 100 feet has been taken by the State of Minnesota for public Highway purposes. Resolution 1076-17 Page 2 Parcel 2: All that part of Lot 32, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey Co., Minn., described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the West line of Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, which point is 100 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot 50; thence South to a line 100 feet Northeasterly from and parallel with the Southerly line of Lot 32; thence Northwesterly on said parallel line 32 feet; thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning. Certificate of Title No. 582368 (P.I.D No. 06-30-23-31-0241): The South 135.00 feet, front and rear, of Lot 47, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, lying westerly of the East 187.00 feet. Certificate of Title No. 616319 (P.I.D No. 06-30-23-31-0030): Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Certificate of Title No. 593365 (P.I.D No. 063023310029): That part of Lot 48, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89 lying South of the North 300 feet front and rear thereof, except that portion taken for the Highway right of way purposes. WHEREAS, the properties are zoned R-4 High Density Residential, and are within the County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District, and are guided for Mixed Use PUD within the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, MWF Properties, LLC, received a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Multiple-Family Dwelling within an R-4 zoning district, on the subject properties on May 8, 2017 (Resolution 8751); and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1006.06 (Development Controls) provides for a Development Review of plans for utility service, surface water drainage, erosion and sediment control, streets, driveways, trails, parking, landscaping, screening and buffering, lighting, setbacks, exterior construction design and materials, trash disposal, construction timetable, and other items; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request on July 19, 2017, including the following documents: Resolution 1076-17 Page 3 Staff Report, dated July 19, 2017 Preliminary Plat and related drawings, dated July 13, 2017 Traffic Impact Study, dated June 8, 2017 Housing Study, dated April 28, 2017 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the City of Mounds View Municipal Code, Section 1000 (Building and Development Regulations), Section 1100 (Zoning Code), and Section 1200 (Land Subdivision), and the Comprehensive Plan; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents regarding the proposed plans within the Preliminary Plat package of “Boulevard”, the Staff Report, and testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of public testimony, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Development Review of Boulevard, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant, MWF Properties, LLC, shall construct the project consistent with plans, dated July 13, 2017, and consistent with the Preliminary Plat, dated July 13, 2017 (Resolution 1075-17). 2. The applicant, MWF Properties, LLC, shall obtain all applicable permits from the City of Mounds View (Building, Right-of-Way, Zoning), Ramsey County (Right-of-way), Rice Creek Watershed District, and other applicable agencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of July, 2017 Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: Jon Sevald, Planner (SEAL) WENCK File #2306-12 June 29, 2017 Prepared by: WENCK Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 7963-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Prepared for: MWF Properties 7645 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55423 Traffic Impact Study for Apartment Building in Mounds View, MN June 2017 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................ 4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 6-1 7.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................................ 7-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................. 2-2 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN ................................................................................ 2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................. 3-2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES ..... 4-3 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. __________________________________ DATE: June 29, 2017 Edward F. Terhaar License No. 24441 June 2017 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of a proposed new apartment building located in the northwest quadrant of the CSAH 10/Groveland Road intersection in Mounds View, MN. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • CSAH 10/Groveland Road • Groveland Road/proposed access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve the construction of a 60-unit apartment building. One vehicle access point to the site will be located on Groveland Road on the east side of the building. The project includes 63 underground parking stalls for residents and 60 above ground parking stalls for residents and visitors. The project is expected to be completed and fully occupied in March 2019. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed project is expected to add 31 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 37 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 399 weekday trips. • One vehicle access point to the site is provided on Groveland Road on the east side of the building. • The CSAH 10/Groveland Road intersection is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during all existing and future scenarios. Trips generated by the proposed development have minimal impact on the operations at the CSAH 10/Groveland Road intersection. • The addition of a southbound right turn lane on Groveland Road would separate the southbound right turns from the through/left turns, which would reduce delay for the right turn movement. However, the volume of southbound right turn traffic is small compared to the total volume on CSAH 10, resulting in minimal improvements to the overall intersection operations. June 2017 2-1 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of a proposed new apartment building located in the northwest quadrant of the CSAH 10/Groveland Road intersection in Mounds View, MN. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • CSAH 10/Groveland Road • Groveland Road/proposed access Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve the construction of a 60-unit apartment building. The site plan is shown in Figure 2. One vehicle access point to the site will be located on Groveland Road on the east side of the building. The project includes 63 underground parking stalls for residents and 60 above ground parking stalls for residents and visitors. The project is expected to be completed and fully occupied in March 2019. June 2017 2-2 June 2017 2-3 June 2017 3-1 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site currently contains one single family house. The site is bounded by CSAH 10 on the south, Groveland Road on the east, and residential uses on the north and west. Near the site location, CSAH 10 is a four-lane divided roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. Groveland Road is a two-lane north/south roadway. Existing conditions at intersections near the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. CSAH 10/Groveland Road (minor street stop control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound CSAH 10 approaches provide one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one lane shared by left turn, through, and right turn movements. The median on CSAH 10 is approximately 30 feet wide, which creates space between the eastbound and westbound lanes for a vehicle to wait before completing a turn onto CSAH 10. This allows for a two-stage crossing maneuver of CSAH 10 for northbound and southbound traffic. Traffic Volume Data Data at the intersection was recorded in May 2017. June 2017 3-2 June 2017 4-1 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2020. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2017 Existing. Turn movement volumes collected in May 2017 were used for existing conditions. The existing volume information includes trips generated by uses near the project site. • 2020 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2020 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was based on recent historic traffic volume growth in the project area. • 2020 Build. Trips generated by the proposed use were then added to the 2020 No- Build volumes to determine 2020 Build volumes. Trip Generation-Proposed Project The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Apartment Building Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Proposed Apartments 60 DU 6 25 31 24 13 37 399 Net Total 6 25 31 24 13 37 399 Notes: DU=dwelling units As shown in Table 4-1, the proposed development will add a net total of 31 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 37 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 399 trips on a daily basis. June 2017 4-2 Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for new trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 40 percent to/from the west on CSAH 10 • 40 percent to/from the east on CSAH 10 • 15 percent to/from the north on Groveland Road • 5 percent to/from the south on Groveland Road Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4. June 2017 4-3 June 2017 5-1 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle usi ng the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. June 2017 5-2 The LOS results for the study intersections are described below. All LOS worksheets are included in the Appendix for further detail. CSAH 10/Groveland Road (minor street stop control) During the weekday a.m. peak hour, all movements operate at LOS D or better under all existing and future scenarios. The overall intersection operates at LOS A under all scenarios. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, all movements operate at LOS E or better under all existing and future scenarios. The overall intersection operates at LOS A under all scenarios. Groveland Road/proposed access (minor street stop control) During the weekday a.m. peak hour, all movements operate at LOS A under the future scenario. The overall intersection operates at LOS A under all scenarios. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, all movements operate at LOS A under the future scenario. The overall intersection operates at LOS A under all scenarios. Overall Intersection Impacts The CSAH 10/Groveland Road intersection is expected to operate at acceptab le levels of service in the year 2020 both without and with the proposed project. Trips generated by the proposed development will have minimal impact on the operations at the intersection. The CSAH 10/Groveland Road intersection has a wide median on CSAH 10, which allows northbound and southbound drivers to complete a two-stage crossing. In addition, the traffic signals located at Silver Lake Road and at Pleasant View Drive create gaps in the CSAH 10 through traffic, allowing vehicles to enter from Groveland Road at times with minimal cross traffic. These operational items were confirmed through field observations completed during the data collection. The combination of these items results in acceptable levels of service for the intersection. The addition of a southbound right turn lane on Groveland Road was also considered. The addition of a right turn lane would separate the southbound right turns from the through/left turns, which would reduce delay for the right turn movement. However, the volume of southbound right turn traffic is small compared to the total volume on CSAH 10, resulting in minimal improvements to the overall intersection operations. Groveland Road Impacts The most recent traffic volume avail able indicates a daily volume of 1,250 vehicle per day on Groveland Road between CSAH 10 and Ardan Avenue. North of Arden Avenue the daily volume drops to 710 vehicles per day. The proposed project is expected to add 60 vehicles per day to Groveland Road north of the development access. This level of increase will have minimal impacts traffic operations. Two-lane local streets can accommodate the traffic volume levels expected on Groveland Road. June 2017 6-1 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed project is expected to add 31 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 37 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 399 weekday trips. • One vehicle access point to the site is provided on Groveland Road on the east side of the building. • The CSAH 10/Groveland Road intersection is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during all existing and future scenarios. Trips generated by the proposed development have minimal impact on the operations at the CSAH 10/Groveland Road intersection. • The addition of a southbound right turn lane on Groveland Road would separate the southbound right turns from the through/left turns, which would reduce delay for th e right turn movement. However, the volume of southbound right turn traffic is small compared to the total volume on CSAH 10, resulting in minimal improvements to the overall intersection operations. June 2017 7-1 7.0 Appendix 3: Groveland & CR 10 06/07/2017 T:\2306\12\synchro\with signals\2017 am.syn Synchro 9 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 <1> 0 0 <1> 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 1299 6 2 687 6 4 5 3 38 24 65 Future Vol, veh/h 14 1299 6 2 687 6 4 5 3 38 24 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 200 - 200 200 - 200 - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 1412 7 2 747 7 4 5 3 41 26 71 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 747 0 0 1412 0 0 1833 2193 706 1490 2193 373 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1442 1442 - 751 751 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 391 751 - 739 1442 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *1189 - - *826 - - *249 *218 *552 *249 *218 *795 Stage 1 - - - - - - *520 *456 - *750 *657 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *750 *657 - *520 *456 - Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *1189 - - *826 - - *203 *215 *552 *240 *215 *795 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *203 *215 - *240 *215 - Stage 1 - - - - - - *514 *450 - *740 *655 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *654 *655 - *505 *450 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 20.3 21 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 248 * 1189 - - * 826 - - 361 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 0.013 - - 0.003 - - 0.382 HCM Control Delay (s) 20.3 8.1 - - 9.4 - - 21 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 1.7 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 3: Groveland & CR 10 06/07/2017 T:\2306\12\synchro\with signals\2020 am nb.syn Synchro 9 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 <1> 0 0 <1> 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 1338 6 2 708 6 4 5 3 39 25 67 Future Vol, veh/h 14 1338 6 2 708 6 4 5 3 39 25 67 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 200 - 200 200 - 200 - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 1454 7 2 770 7 4 5 3 42 27 73 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 770 0 0 1454 0 0 1888 2259 727 1534 2259 385 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1485 1485 - 774 774 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 403 774 - 760 1485 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *1189 - - *774 - - *216 *189 *517 *216 *189 *795 Stage 1 - - - - - - *488 *427 - *750 *657 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *750 *657 - *488 *427 - Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *1189 - - *774 - - *172 *186 *517 *208 *186 *795 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *172 *186 - *208 *186 - Stage 1 - - - - - - *481 *422 - *740 *655 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *651 *655 - *472 *422 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 22.8 24.6 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 215 * 1189 - - * 774 - - 323 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.013 - - 0.003 - - 0.441 HCM Control Delay (s) 22.8 8.1 - - 9.7 - - 24.6 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 2.2 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 3: Groveland & CR 10 06/07/2017 T:\2306\12\synchro\with signals\2020 am b.syn Synchro 9 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 <1> 0 0 <1> 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 1338 6 2 708 8 4 6 3 49 26 77 Future Vol, veh/h 16 1338 6 2 708 8 4 6 3 49 26 77 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 200 - 200 200 - 200 - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 17 1454 7 2 770 9 4 7 3 53 28 84 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 770 0 0 1454 0 0 1892 2263 727 1539 2263 385 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1489 1489 - 774 774 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 403 774 - 765 1489 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *1189 - - *774 - - *216 *189 *517 *216 *189 *795 Stage 1 - - - - - - *488 *427 - *750 *657 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *750 *657 - *488 *427 - Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *1189 - - *774 - - *169 *186 *517 *206 *186 *795 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *169 *186 - *206 *186 - Stage 1 - - - - - - *481 *421 - *739 *655 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *640 *655 - *470 *421 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 23.3 27.7 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 211 * 1189 - - * 774 - - 320 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.067 0.015 - - 0.003 - - 0.516 HCM Control Delay (s) 23.3 8.1 - - 9.7 - - 27.7 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 2.8 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 3: Groveland & CR 10 06/07/2017 T:\2306\12\synchro\with signals\2017 pm.syn Synchro 9 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 <1> 0 0 <1> 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 828 16 9 1501 20 13 6 3 11 11 34 Future Vol, veh/h 50 828 16 9 1501 20 13 6 3 11 11 34 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 200 - 200 200 - 200 - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 51 845 16 9 1532 20 13 6 3 11 11 35 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1532 0 0 845 0 0 1737 2497 422 2078 2497 766 Stage 1 - - - - - - 947 947 - 1550 1550 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 790 1550 - 528 947 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *668 - - *1135 - - *174 *143 *759 *174 *143 *446 Stage 1 - - - - - - *653 *585 - *421 *369 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *421 *369 - *716 *585 - Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *668 - - *1135 - - *141 *131 *759 *157 *131 *446 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *141 *131 - *157 *131 - Stage 1 - - - - - - *603 *541 - *389 *366 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *373 *366 - *651 *541 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 32.1 24.3 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 155 * 668 - - * 1135 - - 243 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.145 0.076 - - 0.008 - - 0.235 HCM Control Delay (s) 32.1 10.8 - - 8.2 - - 24.3 HCM Lane LOS D B - - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.9 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 3: Groveland & CR 10 06/07/2017 T:\2306\12\synchro\with signals\2020 pm nb.syn Synchro 9 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 <1> 0 0 <1> 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 853 16 9 1546 21 13 6 3 11 11 35 Future Vol, veh/h 52 853 16 9 1546 21 13 6 3 11 11 35 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 200 - 200 200 - 200 - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 53 870 16 9 1578 21 13 6 3 11 11 36 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1578 0 0 870 0 0 1790 2573 435 2140 2573 789 Stage 1 - - - - - - 977 977 - 1596 1596 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 813 1596 - 544 977 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *668 - - *1135 - - *123 *108 *759 *123 *108 *446 Stage 1 - - - - - - *616 *561 - *421 *369 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *421 *369 - *716 *561 - Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *668 - - *1135 - - *97 *98 *759 *109 *98 *446 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *97 *98 - *109 *98 - Stage 1 - - - - - - *567 *516 - *388 *366 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *372 *366 - *648 *516 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 45.9 31.1 HCM LOS E D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 110 * 668 - - * 1135 - - 195 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.204 0.079 - - 0.008 - - 0.298 HCM Control Delay (s) 45.9 10.9 - - 8.2 - - 31.1 HCM Lane LOS E B - - A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0.3 - - 0 - - 1.2 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 3: Groveland & CR 10 06/07/2017 T:\2306\12\synchro\with signals\2020 pm b.syn Synchro 9 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 <1> 0 0 <1> 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 62 853 16 9 1546 31 13 7 3 16 12 40 Future Vol, veh/h 62 853 16 9 1546 31 13 7 3 16 12 40 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 200 - 200 200 - 200 - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 63 870 16 9 1578 32 13 7 3 16 12 41 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1578 0 0 870 0 0 1810 2593 435 2161 2593 789 Stage 1 - - - - - - 997 997 - 1596 1596 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 813 1596 - 565 997 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *668 - - *1135 - - *174 *69 *759 *174 *69 *446 Stage 1 - - - - - - *593 *545 - *421 *369 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *421 *369 - *716 *545 - Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *668 - - *1135 - - *124 *62 *759 *146 *62 *446 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *124 *62 - *146 *62 - Stage 1 - - - - - - *537 *494 - *381 *366 - Stage 2 - - - - - - *367 *366 - *636 *494 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 49.4 39.1 HCM LOS E E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 104 * 668 - - * 1135 - - 173 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.226 0.095 - - 0.008 - - 0.401 HCM Control Delay (s) 49.4 11 - - 8.2 - - 39.1 HCM Lane LOS E B - - A - - E HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0.3 - - 0 - - 1.8 Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 12: Groveland & access 06/07/2017 T:\2306\12\synchro\with signals\2020 am b.syn Synchro 9 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1> 0 0 <1 1> 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 21 5 26 131 1 Future Vol, veh/h 4 21 5 26 131 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 23 5 28 142 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 182 143 143 0 - 0 Stage 1 143 - - - - - Stage 2 39 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 779 905 1440 - - - Stage 1 860 - - - - - Stage 2 976 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 777 905 1440 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 777 - - - - - Stage 1 857 - - - - - Stage 2 972 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 1.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1440 - 882 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - 0.031 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 12: Groveland & access 06/29/2017 T:\2306\12\synchro\with signals\2020 pm b.syn Synchro 9 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1> 0 0 <1 1> 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 11 21 78 58 3 Future Vol, veh/h 2 11 21 78 58 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 11 21 80 59 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 183 61 62 0 - 0 Stage 1 61 - - - - - Stage 2 122 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 806 1004 1541 - - - Stage 1 962 - - - - - Stage 2 903 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 795 1004 1541 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 795 - - - - - Stage 1 962 - - - - - Stage 2 890 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.8 1.6 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1541 - 965 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - 0.014 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -