11-03-03 PCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT - addendum
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
RE: Otsego —Waterfront East; PUD Development Stage Plan
REPORT DATE: 29 October 2003 120 -Day DATE: 25 December 2003
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 03.33 CITY FILE: 2003 -
BACKGROUND
Landcor Construction, Inc. has made application for a Zoning Map amendment rezoning
approximately 50 acres to PUD District, PUD Development Stage Plan and preliminary
plat approval for a 270,000 square foot retail / 62 dwelling unit development entitled
Waterfront East. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on 6 October 2003
to consider the applications. After a review of the requests, the public hearing was
continued to allow the applicant to present additional information. The Planning
Commission did act on 6 October 2003 to recommend PUD Concept Plan approval of
the proposed development by a 5-1 vote. The City Council considered the Planning
Commission's recommendation at their meeting on 13 October 2003 and approved the
PUD Concept Plan by a 5-0 vote, subject to 23 conditions. The applicant submitted
revised plans and additional information on 23 October 2003 in response to these
conditions. The public hearing on the original application is to be continued by the
Planning. Commission at their meeting on 3 November 2003.
Exhibits:
A. Site Plan
B. Preliminary Plat
C. Landscape Plan
D. Commercial Building Elevations
E. Residential Building Elevations/Floor plans
F. Grading Plan
G. Utilitv Plan
ANALYSIS
The applicant has provided revised plans and additional information for a Zoning Map
amendment rezoning to PUD District, PUD Development Stage Plan and preliminary
plat approval. The only significant changes to the plans not anticipated by the
conditions of Concept Plan approval is an increase in the size of the movie theater by
8,085 square feet. The revised plans are discussed below in relation to the applicable
condition of the PUD Concept Plan approval:
Approval of the preliminary plat does not guarantee sanitary sewer capacity.
Sanitary sewer capacity shall only be allocated to approved final plats with
executed development contracts to assure the City of timely development.
Comment: The City Engineer estimates that there is approximately 60 RECs of
sanitary sewer capacity remaining in the 0.4 million gpd. east waste water
treatment plant (E-WWTP). MPCA approval of a permit to expand the E-WWTP
to 1.5 million gpd. capacity is pending. Upon approval of the MPCA permit, there
will be approximately 0.1 million gpd. additional capacity available immediately
for commercial and industrial projects due to oversized facilities at the existing E-
WWTP. Until construction of the expanded E-WWTP is completed by Fall 2005,
there may be limits on final plat approvals.
2. The submitted EAW is to be processed in accordance with Minnesota Rules and
Section 38 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Comment: Notice for the EAW for the project was published by the
Environmental Quality Board on 29 September. The mandatory 30 -day comment
period for the EAW ended on 29 October 2003. The only comments received
concerning the EAW were from MNDoT Metro Division in a letter dated 23
October 2003. The MNDoT comments focused on plat related issues with traffic
generation, the proposed interchange at CSAH 39, other rights-of-way and
stormwater drainage. City Staff's recommendation is that the project does not
have potential for significant environmental effects not already addressed by the
City's development review process and regulations. We do not recommend
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
3. The applicant shall revise the development plans to utilize Low Impact
Development techniques to minimize the effects of impervious surface equal to
an area not exceeding 25 percent, subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
Comment: The applicant has submitted a Stormwater Drainage Report dated 22
October 2003 prepared by Loucks Associates, Inc. that details use of Low Impact
Development techniques within the project. This report is subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
2
4. The preliminary plat is revised to reflect the design of a standard diamond
interchange at TH 101 and CSAH 39/90th Street and provide for dedication of
necessary right-of-way, subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Comment: The preliminary plat has not been revised to provide for an
interchange design at CSAH 39 and TH 101 preferred by MNDoT District 3 staff
and the City Engineer. The design of a diamond interchange at CSAH 39 and
TH 101 will significantly impact the design of the preliminary plat, particularly the
area generally occupied by Lots 1, 9 and 10, extension of streets from the
interchange, and the alignment of Quantrelle Avenue. The construction of an
interchange at CSAH 39 and TH 101 is required to accommodate existing area
traffic and new traffic generated by the project. Until issues related to the design
and construction of the CSAH 39 and TH 101 interchange are resolved, approval
of the applications may be premature.
5. The preliminary plat is revised to designate the area for residential use as an
outlot.
Comment: The area to be developed with 60 townhouse and condominium
apartments has been revised as an outlot. The outlot is required as the City will
not have sanitary sewer capacity for residential uses until Fall 2005 when the E-
WWTP expansion is complete.
6. The design of the private driveway accessing the residential units shall be 28 feet
wide with concrete curb and gutter with an adjacent 5 foot sidewalk. The
northern access to this roadway is to be redesigned to encourage traffic flow into
the commercial parking and discourage through traffic into the residential
neighborhood. The design of all private roadways and bridges is subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer.
Comment: The private driveway has been revised to a 28 foot section consistent
with City standards. However, no sidewalk has been provided. Access to the
north end of the private drive has been revised with an island and counter
clockwise traffic flow to discourage traffic from entering the residential area.
7. The development plan is revised to eliminate the 59 parking stalls at the west
edge of Lots 4 and 5 to provide a green landscape area with two staggered rows
of ornamental and boulevard trees, subject to City Staff review and approval.
Comment: The applicant has not made this change based on pending
modifications to the site plan to accommodate the CSAH 39 and TH 101
interchange. The applicant's parking calculation indicates a surplus of 200 stalls.
Given that the balance of parking will be changed with modifications to the site
plan, we would concur that this issue be subject to further review.
3
The parking impact of the 8,085 square foot increase in the size of the movie
theater has also not been accounted for and cannot be evaluated as the overall
number of seats is not indicated to estimate parking demand. The overall
parking supply for Lot 3 has been reduced from 753 stalls to 546 stalls based on
the reconfigured parking ramp. Like restaurants, the movie theater generates
significant parking demand that can impact the overall site. The uses of Lot 3
must provide for required parking.
8. A cross parking and access easement shall be recorded against all lots within the
PUD District, subject to approval of the City Attorney.
Comment: The necessary easements will be recorded with the final plat.
9. The total gross floor area of restaurants within the PUD District shall not exceed
25,150 square feet, unless approved as part of a PUD development plan
amendment.
Comment: This condition is intended to control the amount of restaurant floor
area within the project (including sit down restaurants, coffee shops, bakeries,
bars, etc.) to protect the parking supply. Restaurants demand approximately 19
parking stalls per 1, 000 square feet, whereas general retail uses demand 5 stalls
per 1,000 square feet. The potential for several restaurants to locate at the
development or be concentrated in one area of the project could have significant
negative impacts to parking supply. As such, it is necessary to review the
location of restaurants and parking allocation during individual PUD site plan
reviews as the tenant space is leased and the composition of the shopping area
better defined.
10. The building plans for the commercial structures shall be revised to specified
proposed exterior facade materials.
Comment: The applicant will present material samples for the proposed
commercial buildings. The specifications within the PUD design guidelines
indicate that the proposed buildings will meet the material requirements of
Section 20-17-4.8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
11. The applicant shall submit scale elevations depicting the exterior of the proposed
residential structures, including all exterior building materials.
Comment: The submitted elevations were not drawn to scale, but material
samples have been provided. The height of the buildings will be subject to the
next condition.
12. The maximum height of any building shall be 35 feet.
4
Comment: All of the proposed buildings for which elevations have been provided
have a height of less than 35 feet as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
13. The landscape plan is revised to specify the type, size, quantities and location of
all proposed plantings for the commercial and residential elements of the project.
An inventory of existing trees adjacent to the Mississippi River shall be submitted
and additional plantings provided as necessary to supplement existing vegetation
to screen the riverway.
Comment: The proposed landscape plan is generally appropriate and will be
subject to further review with each individual site plan. An inventory of trees
along the Mississippi has not been provided and is still required to determine the
need for additional plantings to buffer the Mississippi River consistent with the
intent of the WS District.
14. The following setbacks shall apply within the PUD District, except for Lots 4 and
5 which shall be allowed a zero setback on their common side lot line:
Arterial/
Local Private Adj. Wetland
&HWM Bluff
Collector
Street Street Bldgs.
Street
Commercial 65ft.
--Y5- —ft Oft. 20ft. 40ft.
75ft. 30ft.
Residential 65ft.
35ft 25ft. % sum 40ft.
75ft. 30ft.
of bldg.
height
1. The OHWM or Bluff setback shall apply, whichever is greater.
Comment: The proposed PUD Development Stage Plan and preliminary plat are
consistent with these setback requirements.
15. The residential portion of the project shall provide 5,000 square feet of lot area
per dwelling unit.
Comment: The area of Outlot A is not specified on the preliminary plat and must
be identified to confirm conformance with the 5, 000 square foot per unit lot area
minimum.
16. The PUD Design Guidelines dated shall apply to the development
plan and are incorporated as part of the PUD District.
Comment., The PUD Design Guidelines submitted for the project are different
than those used for the Waterfront West, but are very similar to those prepared
by the project architect for developments in other communities. The proposed
design guidelines are less detailed than those used for Waterfront West, but
likely will be easier to implement. We have identified a number of instances
where the proposed design guidelines conflict with Zoning Ordinance
requirements, particularly regarding signs.
5
We recommend that the design guidelines be made subject to City Staff review
and approval to be finalized and incorporated as part of the PUD District and the
development contract.
17. The preliminary plat and development plan shall be revised to create an outlot
adjacent to the Mississippi River generally including the 75 foot setback area to
be dedicated to the City. The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide trail within
the outlot at their cost.
Comment: The applicant agrees to construct the proposed trail, but asks
consideration of a public easement for the trail opposed to dedication of land.
City Staff is recommending dedication of land along the Mississippi River for the
trail consistent with other City trails. More importantly given the flexibility being
sought from existing WS District regulations, dedication of land is also consistent
with the DNR's goal of acquiring public lands accessible to the Mississippi River.
18. Construction of a pedestrian bridge over TH 101 shall be subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer and MNDoT. Construction of the pedestrian bridge
shall be at the applicant's cost with potential credits for park and trail dedication
fees, subject to approval of the City Council.
Comment: No plans have been submitted for the proposed pedestrian bridge. In
their comments on the EA W, MNDoT indicated that the location of the pedestrian
bridge will be impacted by the CSAH 39 and TH 101 interchange. This issue
remains subject to further discussion.
19. Any and all park and trail dedication requirements shall be subject to review and
approval of the City Council.
Comment: Park and trail dedication for the proposed development has not been
specifically defined. The revised plans do now include public trails connecting
the pedestrian bridge to the river trail corridor. Park and trail dedication for the
project will likely include a combination of land, improvements, and cash or cash
credits subject to approval at the time of final plat application.
20. A lighting plan shall be submitted indicating the location, type and illumination
pattern of all proposed exterior lighting, subject to consistency with the PUD
District Design Guidelines and City Staff review and approval.
Comment: Lighting plans will be reviewed with each site plan for conformance
with Section 20-16-10 of the Zoning Ordinance. One issue to be revised at this
stage is the recommendation of the design guidelines that parking light elements
be mounted on 40 foot tall posts. Given the proximity of the site to the
Mississippi River, the maximum height for any light fixture should be 25 feet,
which is the maximum height allowed by Section 20-16-10.C.4 of the Zoning
2
Ordinance. The lower height will require more light elements, but will reduce
potential glare cast beyond the parking areas consistent with the intent of the
existing WS District guidelines.
21. All signs must comply with the provisions of the PUD Design Guidelines and
Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance. Only one freestanding sign shall be
allowed per lot and only for Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5. All freestanding signs must be
located on the property on which the business identified is located. A sign
permit is required prior to construction of any signs.
Comment: The PUD design guidelines must be revised to conform to Section 37
of the Zoning Ordinance concerning allowed freestanding sign height and
location of wall signs on more than two building facades. Flexibility from Section
37 of the Zoning Ordinance may be considered with individual site plans through
the PUD District, as was done for Waterfront West.
22. The development plan is subject to the performance standards of Section 20-94-
7.13 and 20-94-7.0 of the Zoning Ordinance unless a Letter of Map Revision from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is submitted removing portions of the subject
site from the 100 -year floodplain.
Comment: Application for a letter of map revision or conformance with Section
94 of the Zoning Ordinance is subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
23. All grading, drainage, utilities and easements are subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer.
Comment: Please refer to the Engineering Review of the revised plans for
comments on these issues.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has used the time available between concept plan approval and the
Planning Commission meeting on 3 November 2003 to respond to a majority of the
issues identified with the present application. However, the issues related to the design
and construction of the CSAH 39 and TH 101 interchange have not been addressed
and will significantly impact the development that has been presented. Until the CSAH
39 and TH 101 interchange is addressed, we would question approval of a preliminary
plat given the scope of potential changes to the project design that are likely to be
necessary. The City certainly cannot approve any final plat for the project until such
time as the CSAH 39 and TH 101 interchange is settled given existing area conditions
and future impacts related to the project and on-going development of the City.
Options for the Planning Commission to consider are outlined below:
7
Decision 1 —Zoning Map/Development Plan/Preliminary Plat
A. Motion to approve a rezoning to PUD District, PUD General Development Stage
Plan and preliminary plat for Waterfront East, subject to the following conditions:
Approval of the preliminary plat does not guarantee sanitary sewer
capacity. Sanitary sewer capacity shall only be allocated to approved final
plats with executed development contracts to assure the City of timely
development.
2. The submitted EAW is to be processed in accordance with Minnesota
Rules and Section 38 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The applicant shall revise the development plans to utilize Low Impact
Development techniques to minimize the effects of impervious surface
equal to an area not exceeding 25 percent, subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer.
4. The preliminary plat is revised to reflect the design of a diamond
interchange at TH 101 and CSAH 39/90th Street and provide for dedication
of necessary right-of-way, subject to approval of the City Engineer.
5. The design of the private driveway accessing the residential units provide
an adjacent 5 foot sidewalk. The design of all private roadways and
bridges is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
6. The development plan is revised to eliminate parking stalls in the area of
the west edge of Lots 4 and 5 to provide a green landscape area with two
staggered rows of ornamental and boulevard trees, subject to City Staff
review and approval.
7. A cross parking and access easement shall be recorded against all lots
within the PUD District, subject to approval of the City Attorney.
8. The total gross floor area of restaurants within the PUD District shall not
exceed 25,150 square feet, unless approved as part of a PUD
development plan amendment. Lot 3 shall provide the minimum number
of parking stalls required by Section 20-21-9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The maximum height of any building shall be 35 feet.
10. Implementation of the landscape plan shall be subject to further review
and approval with individual site plans. An inventory of existing trees
adjacent to the Mississippi River shall be submitted and additional
plantings provided as necessary to supplement existing vegetation.
11. The following setbacks shall apply within the PUD District, except for Lots
4 and 5 which are allowed a zero setback on the common side lot line:
12. The residential portion of the project shall provide 5,000 square feet of lot
area per dwelling unit.
13. The PUD Design Guidelines dated shall apply to the
development plan and are incorporated as part of the PUD District and are
subject to City Staff review and approval.
14. The preliminary plat and development plan shall be revised to create an
outlot adjacent to the Mississippi River to be dedicated to the City
generally including the 75 foot setback area. The developer shall
construct an 8 foot wide trail within this outlot at their cost.
15. Construction of a pedestrian bridge over TH 101 shall be subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer and MNDoT. Construction of the
pedestrian bridge shall be at the applicant's cost with potential credits for
park and trail dedication fees, subject to approval of the City Council.
16. Any and all park and trail dedication requirements shall be subject to
review and approval of the City Council.
17. All lighting shall conform to Section 20-16-10 of the Zoning Ordinance and
no freestanding light source shall be erected to a height greater than 25
feet.
18. All signs must comply with the provisions of the PUD Design Guidelines
and Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance. Only one freestanding sign
shall be allowed per lot and only for Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5. All freestanding
signs must be located on the property on which the business identified is
located. A sign permit is required prior to construction of any signs.
19. The development plan is subject to the performance standards of Section
20-94-7.13 and 20-94-7.0 of the Zoning Ordinance unless a Letter of Map
Revision from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is submitted removing
portions of the subject site from the 100 -year floodplain.
9
Arterial/
Local
Private
Adj.
Wetland
OHWM
Bluff
Collector
Street
Street
Bldgs.
Street
Commer
65ft.
35ft.
Oft.
20ft.
40ft.
75ft.
30ft.
cial
Residenti
65ft.
35ft
25ft.
'/i sum of
40ft.
75ft.
30ft.
al
bldg.
hei ht
1. The OHWM or Bluff setback shall apply, whichever
is greater.
12. The residential portion of the project shall provide 5,000 square feet of lot
area per dwelling unit.
13. The PUD Design Guidelines dated shall apply to the
development plan and are incorporated as part of the PUD District and are
subject to City Staff review and approval.
14. The preliminary plat and development plan shall be revised to create an
outlot adjacent to the Mississippi River to be dedicated to the City
generally including the 75 foot setback area. The developer shall
construct an 8 foot wide trail within this outlot at their cost.
15. Construction of a pedestrian bridge over TH 101 shall be subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer and MNDoT. Construction of the
pedestrian bridge shall be at the applicant's cost with potential credits for
park and trail dedication fees, subject to approval of the City Council.
16. Any and all park and trail dedication requirements shall be subject to
review and approval of the City Council.
17. All lighting shall conform to Section 20-16-10 of the Zoning Ordinance and
no freestanding light source shall be erected to a height greater than 25
feet.
18. All signs must comply with the provisions of the PUD Design Guidelines
and Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance. Only one freestanding sign
shall be allowed per lot and only for Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5. All freestanding
signs must be located on the property on which the business identified is
located. A sign permit is required prior to construction of any signs.
19. The development plan is subject to the performance standards of Section
20-94-7.13 and 20-94-7.0 of the Zoning Ordinance unless a Letter of Map
Revision from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is submitted removing
portions of the subject site from the 100 -year floodplain.
9
20. All grading, drainage, utilities and easements are subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table the request.
Decision 2 - EAW
A. Motion to adopt findings that the proposed Waterfront East does not have
potential for significant environmental effects and that preparation of an EIS is
not to be required based on a review of the submitted EAW and evidence
received, subject to the following condition:
The project shall proceed in conformance with the PUD Development
Stage Plan and preliminary plat and applicable stipulations approved on
by the City Council.
B. Motion to adopt findings that the proposed Waterfront East does have potential
for significant environmental effects and that preparation of an EIS is to be
required based on a review of the submitted EAW and evidence received
(Specific environmental impacts must be cited).
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Patty Fowler
Robert Fields
Audie Tarpley
10
l0I uR
9m
RpM[0 M.
.•f.
••00050 M
I Rslµwwr
1.00 4.
1m sr.us
J.I K
m sly.2
1 Kfrµgwr
s..m Y
Im fiµLi
30• K
Ila Srµli
mart•
l KILL ISOm 4.
Kiµ 110m Y
m s*.us :/] ]S.r .,,.
]] 5rµ52 (S/10x01
n SIµf2 (f/IOm!
1000 K
ISl SiµlS
+nK
• KIK
KIK
amo Y
m..oa 4
1a sl.us nn.•.r
111 s1.LLi (S/t0001
µii l]/1®1
1!7 K
]m SILLS
S L/[..K,[r •1000 4
mOSSt.Sl2 O/t0m1
J. K
21, II.15
6 RILL
KSI./wf
lb 4.
1910 4
u SIµJ1 (5/10001
100 Siµ1f fft
1.p K
.f fIYLf
J InTA
I15.!00 Y.
ft 3iµ13 (2/10001
J.11 K
161 II.ILS
. KStµpwf 1000 4
1y0 21µ1f fif
)16 .0
n, f5µ!5
f RILL
llm 4.
•] Slµ!] (!/10001
1.M K.
n 3(µl5
10 R}LL
RIK
SJm 4
000 4
•) Siµ!! (!/10001
J] ]Iµ15 f5/10001
115 K
X flµ.i
R AJS
..lµµ0 ..V•Il'm }.]Of fi.f15
RIVER
i ..s.
.w•.• �. ^moi o....
1
0 MRS
\ 71
-�
0
I
101
M
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES �+ �.. il: �'"—
aMS.....Sf2.,,f.rtti111,RIRw..,ffl]
1 ..•.rt tout .oma 'li4 1 :Ili!I!Is (i:l
nasJo.°�O- i. n i.fc
.i w�fR�..ii.rc..wowr v ills n�.fctt1 '
•. rwwc� r.als� �. • n.. r.ff re r.fa 1 � S L _.I �� O'. .1! i.`•. ' "', ..
u11la ¢ 11 S G -I
I i N :1 — =
G
vJ
!
V
I�
�
1
1
0 MRS
\ 71
-�
0
I
101
M
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES �+ �.. il: �'"—
aMS.....Sf2.,,f.rtti111,RIRw..,ffl]
1 ..•.rt tout .oma 'li4 1 :Ili!I!Is (i:l
nasJo.°�O- i. n i.fc
.i w�fR�..ii.rc..wowr v ills n�.fctt1 '
•. rwwc� r.als� �. • n.. r.ff re r.fa 1 � S L _.I �� O'. .1! i.`•. ' "', ..
u11la ¢ 11 S G -I
I i N :1 — =
G
vJ
!
V
I�
�
RIVER
'II
2552 ;-------- I
, � I
I I
I
A
.8
�
OurLor
t` 231' 1i o , --__�_ /' , �. t• �.• � r'
II 1
Ig
ryT 11 O //C K iJl-2J L`_ I I I 1 I 78
B I
rl
,e'ys \ 431 ffflll �-t �'-- I 1 1] 1 I I I r• - QUANT
\ 0a. / i� __-'--- II 1 1 1 ;s 1 I I � 1. aw•�.- �)..�- R£LL£AV£NUE-
�'��� g '�� \'' .; r - •^L I 11 'il ._1 I`FDD+�� i I,1 r'� II ly�ay�1°`\� ...\ �� I
10
_ - i- -- - ---- - 7 I---c_7.:... yri•� 1 1--wn u.n ..a �r ,= �4', , ,`\ -- o ----
1 1 _----_.TB-
, ' \ `fir �_, `_``` •b - � J� �
I'0r•a.
Ir 110
452'
101
NNDOT RIGHT 0£ NAY PGT N0. _ _ - -
I I
r�
ill i m
I
I W
TYPICAL POND X -SECTION
N.T.S.
OTSEGO
WATERFRONT
EAST
k. I T Y O F
M I N N E S O T A
L. LandC.r
t CDMUUMn, enc
Waterfront East LLC
5
s
l
IL
ASSOCIATES
i
m
-
f
R�
+R
i
PRfIJYINARY
amrc. ox,i..cc
•^ooYow roNnot nus
1
r
TYPICAL POND X -SECTION
N.T.S.
OTSEGO
WATERFRONT
EAST
k. I T Y O F
M I N N E S O T A
L. LandC.r
t CDMUUMn, enc
Waterfront East LLC
5
s
IL
ASSOCIATES
i
m
-
f
R�
+R
i
PRfIJYINARY
amrc. ox,i..cc
•^ooYow roNnot nus
1
r
emELEVATION
...::- �1 _ .xmt,tn,rl,n r—awtlnunlnur ;
a17��s1��Ig�=111R1-11�1�1=moi e � din
�Inlp! Cp i. l.. i
/'NORTH ELEVAn-
KKM"'
architects
mrnneapolis
newport beach
KKE Architects, Inc.
300 first avenue north
minneapolis, mn 55.101
phone: 613/ 339-4200
fav: 612/ 342-9167
W�Q
OTSEGO
WATERFRONT EAST
OTSEGO, MK
EXTEkIOR ELEVATIONS
EXHIBIT D
... . . ......
I Momal 7 "T" 7 1�15111iiiijill IWO
oil,
777�
7777777�
1011
Entry Floor Unit A & Unit B
3,264 sq ft
Main Floor Unit B 2,244 sq ft
TOR FaEVELOPER
LandCor WaterFront East. L.L.C.
pp Construction, Inc.
101 &Dalt SI Wal
O w. AIN 5'..1891539
Tm.3ls.oele
HIBIT E-2
CONDOMINIUM UNIT PLANS
PROJECT
ARCHITECT
WaterFront East
MINNESOTA
COM ff
R(i HIT ECTS RS2N3.OTSEGO,
Charles J.E.4
VOICE Y56,AX 185,0
AU%'
EXHIBIT E-4
J
WaterFront Fa -,t `--I. „_x�mr
d
BE
tom ■..
!1111 I!IIII 111111:, : LI
uu I!, I�Illilllll� •me.meu ICEal u■....■. hillllil:, nrl�: iiia
...... 1.. ..■ memo....
milli. I lil 11
II!U memo■ ..■ .■/ u. u. I 4
-- Ime■■ •■■ memo... 7// me
nou u. ur. _=
p� lu o■o /■, /■-
--Ipt��u I w 111 u1 I■■I I m■ ul��''��
•■■ ...
me.. meme■
Mason*
iililyl!!!!! 1i.!!If,llillflllj
no
sid an sea I
n■ u■1 �rsr
Illlflllllillil�ll ! ! !�!!!'! f _
_ ii• meinlogo
r
Ilii �ii�l �
I
ii1(11111i II l l i � i li' k,
P'Sea`X..�,^:� v !1 •....fie � ,: �iw.n... `t 7i4.£�!>s Y,:� ,: r. :.� ,�, � u_.�.x _ t ..
EaUX �
1
QiLh
Main Level Floor Plan
---------------
Sawn goom Sown Room
6cn�n Room I Scrwn Roum
@9Il4lQpY➢1 Bonuc Room
Bpnucfloom
SIM" I St.—
_____ -____
QUA" -
EOtoc c"try LADiCA f"K I f"K G....
�. .. _ _ ____________
faux
Entr Level Floor Plan I -�
Town
Home
Plans
\DLDFF• ARCHITECTS
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
) R
LandCor
DEVELOPER
WaterFront East. L.L.C.
PROJECT
ISSUE DATE 10A16.20w
ARCHITECT
;� construction,
Inc.
WaterFront East
cu ff Charles J. Radlo
AXG HIT EC Te PL
IpLODWNGTGN,
ft�
°"° `"6W'�°
M 31S0515
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
N6
ANNE101
Y ESATA 165]44
VOICE p52 p�1-t661
FAi Ip531 pc153 t0
rp
IBIT E-6
RIVER
101
OTSECO
WATERFRONT
EAST
C I T Y 0 F
Eftc
I N N E S 0 T A
L.
LandCor
1,13crisImclion. inc.
Waterfront East LLC
S
M
0
EDM
AssociATEs
q
IRILIMINIRY
.—I
x
F—=7—F—�